Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Trusting Users Too Much

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the web-two-point-doh dept.

100

An anonymous reader writes to alert us to an article at Forever Geek on sites that trust users too much and the users who game them. From the article: "Trusting users is a good thing. But implicitly trusting users is no good. If Digg has moderators who approve a story before it goes live on the front page, shouldn't they have moderators checking spam reports? Social sites give so much power and emphasis on users yet a handful still have the power to wreck these sites. Until these issues are properly addressed, social sites will continue to be gamed."

cancel ×

100 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is Slashdot having a down day or something? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092040)

It seems like it's questioning it's existence.

Re:Is Slashdot having a down day or something? (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092539)

Slashdot WAS down earlier, or at least I got a 500 error page, which begs the questions:

If a website goes down, but no hears it, does it make a whimper? ;)

questioning its existance? (1)

SP33doh (930735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092609)

or DOUBTING IT'S GHOST???

post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092046)

You can trust this user to post early.

Learn the lessons of 9/11 by funding Afghan militias and by alternately arming and killing Arabs. You have clearly learned from 9/11 you fucking retard. Shame on you all for voting for this prick.

Blood is on your hands.

parent is not a troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092133)

mods on crack again. put down the crackpipe and go run your ass on a treadmill.

Re:parent is not a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092781)

mods on crack again. put down the crackpipe and go run your ass on a treadmill.

I noticed that a lot of posts have been flagged as "Troll" today that most certainly are not. I'm wondering if a group of mods are trying to make some sort of statement.

However, with that being the case, I think I'm going to post this one as Anonymous.

Re:parent is not a troll (1)

iced_773 (857608) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094086)

Indeed. I tried to post a comment a minute ago and Slashdot told me my IP had been banned, and I hadn't been downmodded in days. So I reconnected myself to the campus network in the hopes that the DHCP server would give me a new address. Fortunately it did (different subnet too).

It happens. (4, Interesting)

nametaken (610866) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092049)

Digg exists so that people can easily tell each other what they want to hear. Sometimes it's cool, sometimes it's bogus. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Re:It happens. (5, Funny)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092085)

Digg exists so that people can easily tell each other what they want to hear.

Unlike Slashdot, which exists so that people can easily tell each other off. Moron.

OT: Your sig (-1, Offtopic)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092154)

Holy fuck... I thought it was a parody, then I realized.. THESE PEOPLE ARE SERIOUS! They even sell DVDs of kent hovind creationism seminars. That guy's so totally fucking batshit insane, EVEN OTHER CREATIONISTS don't want anything to do with him.

Re:OT: Your sig (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#16095087)

Yup. I figure that any sufficiently advanced religion is indistinguishable from satire.

Re:It happens. (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092971)

Why is that modded flamebait? It's FUNNY.

Re:It happens. (3, Insightful)

telbij (465356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093270)

Because the moderator is a moron.

Re:It happens. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093772)

Why can't it be both?

Re:It happens. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092581)

I disagree. Digg exists so that users can tell each other what they want to SAY, not necessarily what the other users want to HEAR. Reading the comment threads makes it pretty clear that nobody wants to hear about your blog's lame post that summarizes a real news article, or digg up your link to a Family Guy clip which while may be funny isn't news that needs to make it to the front page.

I agree with this article. Moderators need to occupy a middle role to separate what people feel like saying from what's worth hearing.

Re:It happens. (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092667)

Didn't slashdot patent that?

Re:It happens. (5, Interesting)

finiteSet (834891) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093036)

I tried Digg for a while but ultimately gave up - and I think it is because they trust the user too much. Though the average Slashdot discussion is well short of, say, an academic journal, even the worst Slashdot discussion I've read was better than the best Digg one. I'm not trying to troll: I'll explain. Allowing everybody to moderate every post of every discussion, in my experience, results in a discussion that reflects the views of the majority by silencing the views of the minority. You may disagree, but I find that Slashdot moderators put more thought into how they shape the discussion - I know that I will mark a post insightful if it shows insight, regardless of whether I agree. Furthermore, leaving the majority of Slashdot posts remain unmoderated allows more room for both sides of the debate to be heard. I know, I know, proper tweaking of settings on both Digg or Slashdot can reduce some of these problems, but in the balance between trusting the user with too much control over the conversation and too little, I think Slashdot is a lot closer to optimal.

Re:It happens. (3, Interesting)

telbij (465356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093303)

You may disagree, but I find that Slashdot moderators put more thought into how they shape the discussion - I know that I will mark a post insightful if it shows insight, regardless of whether I agree.


I agree with this. I'm always astonished at people who talk about how shitty /. discussions are and then talk about how they've switched to Digg. The /. system is far from perfect--moderators can't always be experts--but by and large there is much more opportunity for modding up of cogent arguments that go against popular opinion. Of course you still have the issues with earlier posts getting more moderated and so forth, but I don't see how anyone can even for a second say that Digg discussion is anywhere near the level of /. Digg's strength is in volume of stories.

That said, I think the best communities are smaller and more focused. Any large and general community is gonna be pretty ignorant about any given issue. If I'm really interested in a topic I don't want moderators to ham-fistedly attempt to pull out the knowledgeable posts. I'd rather go to a focused community where everyone has something relevant to say.

Re:It happens. (3, Interesting)

fredrated (639554) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093605)

I think it ramains an interesting experiment.

Any given topic is going to be of interest to a subset of the Digg community. Within that subset, if the users were eevenly split on a topic, and equally likely to digg, undigg or ignore a given comment, a comments diggs would be a random walk centered at 1 (the submitters digg).

Five or more undiggs and a comment doesn't show, at the default cut off. At that point a comment is less likely to be viewed by the community, only those that expand the comment.

This would seem to give power to the early posters, if a group acted in cencert to undigg posts they didn't like. If the desire is for the exposed posts to reflect the communities position,

On the one hand you probably want to view the 'voice of the community', assuming you respect the communities position generally, but on the other hand, 5 undiggs can be reached perty quickly, and for the post to be cut off from general ispection that soon can result in a small group with inordinant fitering power, or just a generally scewed picture of the communities position by random walk.

Anyway the gist of this rant is that if a post that has been dugg down doesn't repeatedly get dugg down over page views, it should eventually raise back into view, so more people will decide to move it up or down.

online communities will continue to increase in complexity, and I think the digg model can continue to be extended to produce interesting results.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #99 (4, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092051)

Trust is the biggest liability of all.

I remember once Quark had a teacher at Lobeling's (or somewhere) who trusted him to look after a room in his absence (or something). Only this teacher had pictures in his draw. Pictures of said teacher, romping with fully-clothed females! Needless to say, Quark did what any responsible young Ferengi would do in those circumstances: blackmailed his teacher into an A grade.

Trust has to be greater than zero (2, Insightful)

fredrated (639554) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093416)

When I drive down the street I trust that the people on the sidewalk will not suddenly leap in front of my car or I would have to drive everywhere at 5 mph.

With similar examples too numerous to mention we can confidently establish that trust has to be greater than zero for a viable existence.

The question of life then is, how much greater than zero? And when do we cut it off? etc.

Ummm....wikipedia? (4, Interesting)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092062)

Maybe they could add a reputation system!

Re:Ummm....wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092771)

For what it's worth, tagging currently marks that story as "wikipedia, yes, no, maybe".

So that's clear, then.

Re:Ummm....wikipedia? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092810)

Indeed. If they get clever enough, their reputation system will show you the stuff that the people you trust the most have recommended and will dump the stuff recommended by people you consider fuckwits. After all, who wants something that a complete moron has recommended. Incidentally,this is how all reputation systems should work, attempting to game the system will then simply move you out into the middle of nowhere in terms of your own personal reputation.

I'd suggest some form of least squares regression, but it might be better to get a statistician in to come up with something rigorous.

 

Re:Ummm....wikipedia? (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092860)

What you describe is technically known as collaborative filtering. Reputation system are not "relative to the user", but collaborative filtering is.

Re:Ummm....wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094248)

Code a collaborative rating system in which each user rates the diggs of others.

This will automatically divide the userbase into segments with somewhat similar interests.

Now use this information for directed advertisements... :)

Profit

Something I think most of us can say: (5, Insightful)

rwven (663186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092064)

Don't even get me started on Digg.... *grumble grumble grumble* I've got a love/hate relationship with that place. Sometimes it's great...other times you get 4 or 5 of the same stories on the main page at a time or people posting politics related stories under the videos section...things like that.

"A person is smart, people are dumb." "People" are not ready to do their own editing on social sites....IMHO.

Re:Something I think most of us can say: (4, Informative)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092218)

"A person is smart, people are dumb."

That reminded me of one of my favorite Terry Pratchett quotes:
"The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its dumbest member divided by the number of mobsters."

Re:Something I think most of us can say: (1)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092237)

"The masses are asses"

Re:Something I think most of us can say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092525)

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

in Men in Black, as found here. [imdb.com]

Re:Something I think most of us can say: (2, Funny)

Nos. (179609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092585)

Similarily I've heard: "The sum of all the IQs on the planet is fixed, the population is growing"

Re:Something I think most of us can say: (1)

mu22le (766735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094844)

If I was to propose a model I'd say:

The IQ of a mob is the inverse of the sum of the inverses of mobster's IQs:

1 / IQ_mob = Sum(1 / IQ_i)

          _
  1      \    1
------ = /_  ----
IQ_mob    i  IQ_i

This way it takes into account everyone IQ but it's always IQ_mob>imn(IQ_i)

Re:Something I think most of us can say: (1)

Handpaper (566373) | more than 7 years ago | (#16098998)

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

With thanks to imdb.com

digg = apple news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092070)

9 out of 15 topics right now on the front page are apple related.

Sorry, but the world does revolve around the ipod.

Re:digg = apple news (1)

evil_Tak (964978) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092135)

Don't forget about the Ubuntu news!

Re:digg = apple news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092190)

But you have to go to linux/unix section for the ubuntu news. The apple stuff is on the front page:

eDonkey Gets Shut Down
When is The Best Time to Buy Everything
iTunes to sell games for iPods
Curt Schilling (Red Sox ace) Starts New Game Company
Java: Remote Method Invocation (RMI) an applet example
iTunes Movies confirmed!
Steve Jobs - "Bill, thank you. The world's a better place."
Apple Anounces iTV
The Apple Product Cycle
TOR: German police are *not* cracking down on Tor.
iPod price drop confirmed this morning
What News Corp. doesn't want you to know about MySpace (extended cut)
Apple beefs up iPod gaming capabilities - including iTunes Store retail
"Software jedi" to write an new application every day for a month
New iPod Nano Pictures

One just got bumped so now there's 8, and page 2 still looks just as bad.

Re:digg = apple news (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092628)

Apple released a bunch of new products today, so it makes sense their are a lot of posts about it. Ubuntu didn't do anything of note today, so it makes sense it is not filling up the front page.

Who watches the watchmen? (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092076)

Seriously, this is a common and old problem, not just among users, but among all positions public or private. Ultimately you need a self policing policy to evaluate users, fair judgement on violations and termination where deemed necessary.

There's got to be, published somewhere, some guidlines and how scalable they are.

I was in a position to make or break the hiring of a student I knew was writing password spoof programs. I knew he had done it. I also knew he hadn't done any harm in it. I think him knowing I knew was enough and it more or less proved right in the long run, opting to hire him as a student worker anyway. Most of us started out the same way. It takes a bit more psychology to spot those who lie about innocuous activities and could present a greater problem down the road.

Vimes. (2, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092266)

Pessimal: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? your grace."
Vimes: "I know that one. Who watches the watchmen? Me, Mr. Pessimal."
Pessimal: "Ah, but who watches you, your grace?"
Vimes: "I do that, too. All the time."

From Thud! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Vimes? But who watches him? (1)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093107)

In Vime's mind

The Watchman: What are you?

Following Dark: The Following Dark!

The Watchman: You will not make him kill for you.

Following Dark: What are you!

The Watchman: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who watches him? Me I do. I am the Watchman, he created me.

Following Dark: What kind of mind creates its own Watchman?

The Watchman: One that is afraid of the dark.

Following Dark (With satisfaction): And so he should be!

The Watchman: Yes, but I don't think you understand, I'm not here to keep the dark out, Im here to keep it in. Call me the... Guarding Dark. Think how powerfull I must be. Now... *Removes grill on the lamp, letting the light shine and begin to burn the Following Dark* Get put of town.

Thats off top of my head so won't be anything like an exact quote, but it something like that.

you mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092079)

like the slashdot user who just basically approved the same story as the last one?

Re:you mean (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092102)

like the slashdot user who just basically approved the same story as the last one?

Looks like a new guy.

They'll probably watch him/her for a bit to see if they really screw up and if so, promote to the big time.

you're in charge of finding out who leaked or secrets, use any means necessary, only don't bring congress in on our asses.

Re:you mean (1)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092143)

These are not the same story, but they do fall into an obvious general category:
"Problems that Slashdot has solved that other sites haven't."

Perhaps today is "why you should stop going to those other websites and spend all your time on Slashdot" day.

Now if they just get rid of those pesky links to other sites (except in the summaries, of course, as nobody here actually clicks on the links that are in those things), we won't even be tempted to leave!

Re:you mean (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093443)

It balances out all the "Why Digg is Great" and "Interview with the Secretary of Digg" stories that appear on the front page over there. Digg's self-promotion kind of makes me sick sometimes.

"game", "gamed"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092088)

...why isn't this in the "Games" section?

Shitcock is poetry to my soul (5, Funny)

Kesch (943326) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092146)

Here is a simple explanation with pictures [penny-arcade.com] of the observed phenomenon.

that's not +1, Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092871)

it's +5, Insightful

Systems can and will evolve. (3, Informative)

celardore (844933) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092149)

The internet as we know it is still a baby. As new ideas happen and are implemented, the processes will be refined in some way. Here [slashdot.org] 's a page that explains how such a system can evolve. First a small set of mods, then more, then BAD MODS NO, and metamoderation happened. Bad users on /. are unable to post, etc...

It's not gaming and it's not social networking (5, Insightful)

needacoolnickname (716083) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092226)

Social sites give so much power and emphasis on users yet a handful still have the power to wreck these sites. Until these issues are properly addressed, social sites will continue to be gamed.

It's whining. People aren't happy with just contributing to the conversation, because there is no conversation. It's all about oneupmanship (or however it's spelled). It's about a better, more sarcastic comment then the one before. It's about popularity among people we don't even know. It's about bragging rights to who, I don't even know. I don't go bragging about comments I make here, at digg, or any other place I visit.

Social networking is about networking and being social, getting to know people and networking with them. It's right in the name.

Help forums and mailing lists are more social networking than these web 2.0 sites.

Re:It's not gaming and it's not social networking (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092501)

People aren't happy with just contributing to the conversation, because there is no conversation. It's all about oneupmanship (or however it's spelled). It's about a better, more sarcastic comment then the one before. It's about popularity among people we don't even know.
Slashdot recognized this a while ago.

That is why +1 Funny no longer contributes to your Karma.
(I don't recall when this change was made)

Re:It's not gaming and it's not social networking (2, Funny)

treeves (963993) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093229)

But +1 Sarcastic boosts your karma good.

Re:It's not gaming and it's not social networking (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092705)

Social networking is about networking and being social, getting to know people and networking with them. It's right in the name.

Wait - it's not about having the largest friend list? And I was so close to beating Tom!

Re:It's not gaming and it's not social networking (1)

RaNdOm OuTpUt (928053) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092960)

That's "one-upmanship"

Digg Reliability (2, Interesting)

klenwell (960296) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092230)

I ignore the home page and just check out the day's most popular page once or twice a day:

http://digg.com/view/technology/popular/today [digg.com]

It's not the front page of the NY Times and it's no doubt influenced by the much lamented front-page gaming, but I still usually find one or two interesting things that I hadn't heard about yet.

popurls.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094938)

try popurls.com, it really is very good, i'm not involved with the site at all but it has the stories from digg, slashdot, del.icio.us, google news, yahoo news, metafilter, reddit, furl, and more on one page. slashdot for the comments, popurls for the links and latest buzz, no need for digg at all.

This happened to kuro5hin five years ago (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092243)

One of the original sites to promote user created and sponsored content, succumbed to insipid infighting and trolling once a few decided to game the queue voting system. Suddenly who got voted to the front page had more to do with who was friends with whom, and nothing to do with the content and writing of the article in question. And so K5 began its slow slide to oblivion, the endgame of which we see today. Certainly much blame deserves to be placed at the feet of rusty and his admins. But only in so far as they refused to police the site, not out of a direct attempt to control the voting process.

  Perhaps this is a lesson to those of us who had hoped the egalitarian internet we remember from the late '80s and early '90s might somehow scale to the general public. It didn't.

IOW: people suck.

-anonymous for a reason...

Re:This happened to kuro5hin five years ago (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092486)

K5? What is this site? Can anyone give a link?

Re:This happened to kuro5hin five years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092795)

This [kuro5hin.org] should explain all...

Re:This happened to kuro5hin five years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092797)

kuro5hin.org [kuro5hin.org]

Re:This happened to kuro5hin five years ago (1)

legoburner (702695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092826)

The death of Kuro5hin.org is one of the worst things I have seen on the Internet. Back when it was at its prime, K5's content was just brilliant. Every home page story and almost every section story would teach and entertain in some way. Then came the trolls and gamers. As Rusty and the other bigwigs fought back with technology, the trolls increased in number (many were drawn from /. which also had a very big troll problem at the time). Eventually the quality of the site could not be maintained with the signal to noise ratio that now existed, and the original users which made it great starting to migrate around the web (partly to HuSi), killing K5 as it was and leaving K5 as it is. Digg has always been in a weaker position than K5 due to it desire for many stories rather than the once a week/once a month that K5 would sometimes be in the quest for quality, but now digg verges on the edge of the same problems that K5 had but with different 'trolls'. Digg seems to be fragmenting in to a more apple/css/webdesign/politics crowd than the general crowd it once addressed in my opinion. Digg has a company behind it, K5 did not and in the end I think digg will not be destroyed by trolls, but might be beaten in to more of a niche market than it wanted to be in the beginning.

Re:This happened to kuro5hin five years ago (1)

14CharUsername (972311) | more than 7 years ago | (#16095703)

K5 could not last. The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long and all that.

People naturally want to be with like minded people. But the problem with that is that it gets really boring really fast talking about the same things all the time. What made K5 great was that there was a good mix of people. The emo crowd who took the site seriously would write well researched articles. The troll crowd would pick apart these articles if the writer tried to bullshit people in any way. The result was well researched, concise, thought provoking articles.

But it wouldn't last. The emo crowd couldn't live with the troll crowd and vice versa. One group would inevitably leave. Rusty had to decide whether to implement strict anti-trolling measures and get rid of the trolls or just let the trolls drive the emos away. Maybe he thought the trolls were entertaining. Maybe he didn't like the idea of censoring a certain group of people. Maybe he didn't want to spend a huge amount of time in a possibly futile battle against the trolls. Maybe he was just lazy. Whatever his reasons, rusty took a laissez-faire aproach to the trolls as long (as they didn't take things way too far).

The end result was the emo crowd left for husi to write diaries about their cats and talk about how hard it is to talk to women, etc. And the trolls rule K5, mostly throwing obscene jokes back and forth with the occasional brilliant article (like once a year).

Now the Husi crowd blames the trolls for the decline of K5 and the trolls claims the Husi crowd was too wimpy to handle criticism. The truth is probably somewhere in between. The trolls were too vindictive and the emos were wusses.

So now the republicans hang out at freerepublic. the Democrats hang out at dailykos. The trolls hang out at K5. The Emos are at husi. Everyone can safely preach to their respective choirs safely now.

Re:This happened to kuro5hin five years ago (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093085)

The whole point of these social applications relying on user input is so that distributed self-moderation by the community occurs. There is no trust issue as long as the user-base is large enough. If there's 500,000 equally powerful users then it's hard for a handful of users to abuse the system. It would require a large scale conspiracy to really skew the moderation system, thus appointed moderators aren't necessary and the admins have very little policing to do. The community will shape the site to what they want.

Re:This happened to kuro5hin five years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16093459)

That's a great theory. Unfortunately, in the real world any single user can create any arbitrary number of accounts simply by having the same number of email addresses. So, one user one vote might be a fair system - we don't know - but one user, one hundred votes, definitely skews the game. And that doesn't take into account groups with a vested interest using email lists or IRC to organize vote blocks with the intent to kill stories. And that's *exactly* what happens. Unfortunately.

These people have too much time on their hands...

*sigh*

Re:This happened to kuro5hin five years ago (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 7 years ago | (#16111101)

And in the real world, an intelligent developer/admin can easily detect someone signing up for 10,000 accounts in a single day. And even if they manage to create the accounts, it would not be difficult to detect organized scripted attacks on such a large scale. If 1000 users who've signed up in the same day digg the exact same stories in the same time-frame, post no comments, setup no profiles, login from the same IPs, and don't perform any actions distinct from each other, then they are clearly bots. You might be able to get away with 10 or 20 accounts using scripted bots, but any statistically significant number would be easily to detect with a some clever programming.

And--reality check--one person with one hundred votes is a drop in the bucket on a site like digg. With the size the userbase on digg, if a good story gets buried by someone gaming the system, it will just get submitted by others users who've stumbled on the same story and don't see it on the frontpage. In the end, the community gets what it wants and the frontpage will reflect the community's interests. A really good story will have thousands of people voting for it. Someone gaming the system might be able to bury the stories that generate moderate or little interest, but they can't counter the popularity of strong stories.

Also, organizing vote blocs is still expressing the voice of the community in a democratic way. So what if people want to organize? It's still one vote per person. You're just whining and crying about people with shared interests leveraging their collective voting power to vote more effectively. This is a natural occurence in any participatory democratic system. There's no abuse going on here.

Where is the evidence for this article? (4, Insightful)

Snotman (767894) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092341)

Sure, we see a great straw man drawn for us, but I don't see evidence that this is occuring. Does the author maintain there is a conspiracy against users like P9? What evidence is there for a conspiracy? Where are the conspirators meeting? There should be evidence of people meeting in other forums to conspire to bury P9? Is it possible that P9s stories he dugg up suck? I think all these things need to be considered, but I don't see any critical thinking done.

On a similar note, even though the author can dream up a scheme that might possibly bury Digg, is there evidence that an entity has gamed digg as he has explained? Maybe it seems possible that someone could grab 100 C class addresses to create 100 users and they could moderate someone into purgatory, is that all it takes? Has someone ran this experiment to verify that this is true? I don't know why someone could not run this experiment to see if what the author asserts could be true. This article seems more hyperbole and anecdotal in its evidence of gaming the system. For one, if it was possible to game digg, then why not setup a company to do so and make a little money? I imagine there are marketting companies that game all the systems. Just the fact that some people will take this article as true when it doesn't back up its assertions with evidence is an example of gaming. After all, the article is a diss against digg and I am sure some readers use it to back up their own notions that digg sucks. That sounds like gaming to me.

If your readers don't think critically about the content they consume, then you can take your pick of fallacies like generalization and straw man to write up an article that people will take as true. Isn't that gaming the system or the reader? I am not sure if Kevin Mitnick was known for his great technical hacking, but he was definitely known for his great social hacking of people that would willingly give up their passwords.

Re:Where is the evidence for this article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092554)

Jesus Christ man, slow down! Your whole post reads like it was written by a hyperactive ferret who couldn't take a breath between thoughts.

Take a minute, sit back, breathe a little, then try organizing your thoughts into something, you know, cohesive, and try again.

Please.

Evidence is all over the place but hard to prove. (2, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092564)

Snotman wants evidence of social gaming. Evidence of past behavior abounds. First, let's reiterate the potential problem. From the Fine article:

Register them on Digg. Have them randomly digg 5 stories a day. Then scrape the top 100 users on Digg, and add them randomly across the 100 fake users. Simmer for a week or 3, and then *bam* - start reporting any story dugg by the top 100 users as inaccurate.

The ease of creating a botnet of Windoze machines eliminates all evidence. Instances of actually catching a company hired troll like Barkto [essential.org] are rare. Even obvious astroturf, like the M$ PR created Apple Switcher [slashdot.org] are hard to detect. If that's not proof enough for you that some dishonest companies are abusing the net for there advantage, I'm not sure what is. Oh yeah, you can look up the court proven public disinformation campaign against DRDOS by M$.

As for evidence of gaming sites like Slashdot, visit these these losers one day. [anti-slash.org] Use a text browser and a condom or you might walk off with more than you want.

Yes, it's pathetic but people do that kind of thing.

Re:Evidence is all over the place but hard to prov (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093136)

On large popular sites like digg, it would require an inordinate amount of bots to achieve this, and it wouldn't be hard to detect and block bot sign-ups and orchestrated abuses. Someone with malicious intentions would have to possess fake accounts which compose of 5-10% of the user base to really manipulate the social application against the spirit of the community, otherwise their influence would be statistically insignificant. On a site with 1 million+ users that isn't really practical and so far there's been no evidence of such an orchestrated attack being successfully pulled off. Ofcourse, there will always be people who won't like how the community generally votes/moderates and disagrees with the general attitude of the community, and these people will ofcourse try to blame it on social applications being fundamentally flawed or on some malicious conspiracy by a group of users. But the most obvious/likely scenario is just that the way things are is what the community happens to like things, and that complaints are just coming from personal frustration towards the democratic will of the community.

Re:Evidence is all over the place but hard to prov (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16093275)

Untrue - just look at how P9 was modded to oblivion. There is your evidence right there (everything he submitted was reported as spam)

It may take 50+ diggs to get frontpage, but it takes *a lot less* to get removed from the queue.

Re:Evidence is all over the place but hard to prov (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 7 years ago | (#16111022)

That seems like evidence that the system works. You game the system--it may work for a while, but eventually people catch on and--you effectively get banned from the site by the community. The site admins don't have to do anything, the community polices itself. What the masses judge as misconduct will naturally be detected and weeded out. This appears to be more effective than any kind of genius abuse detection script.


As for the burial processes being unbalanced, that simply requires modifications to the weight system. It's not a problem in the social design of the site. If there's a removed stories bin where people can vote to reinstate stories, then the problem is solved. Even without it, if it's really a good story, others will submit the story and it will keep being submitted by people until it actually shows up on the frontpage. That's the beauty of such a site. The collaborative filtering process directly reflects the community's interests.

Re:Evidence is all over the place but hard to prov (1)

Snotman (767894) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094028)

I guess my point is that there didn't seem to be evidence of what he says is happening. We could create any infinite of stories that we assert are true without providing evidence. For instance, if you happen to listen to conservative radio, they maintain there is a liberal conspiracy in big media, but there is never any evidence of this so called conspiracy nor do they ever try to prove there is one that doesn't utilize a fallacy. Those sympathetic to that message embrace it wholeheartedly. I am not saying that what the author says is not true, just that he doesn't back it up. For instance, if it is so easy to setup these botnets and influence story rankings on digg, then why doesn't someone, like the author of the article, setup an experiment that creates a botnet to game digg? Then he could post his results and try to correlate what the experiment did to what was occuring on digg and draw a conclusion.

One other point I did not bring up, is that for the author to criticize web 2.0, he only brings up one example. This is far from creating a convincing article that this behavior occurs all over the place. This is called painting with a broad paintbrush.

I think the links to articles you provide are spot on as to gaming the system(not sure about anti-slash.org). I am not sure if this is abuse though. It is up to the individual to think critically about what is and what is not. Every burger joint advertizes they have the world's greatest burger. Is that gaming the system because it should be obvious this cannot be true? It shouldn't be a wonder that magazines that take advertising dollars from companies cannot be critical for the products for those companies. That is why consumer reports is a better magazine if you are looking for a more critical look at consumer products; they don't take advertising dollars to produce their magazine.

Re:Evidence is all over the place but hard to prov (1)

iced_773 (857608) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094063)

That got me thinking - if there are people who find trolling so important to them that they make a website out of it, then they've probably considered attacking Digg. So I went to their site, and did a forum search for "Digg". Lo and behold, the first item on the results was this [anti-slash.org] . I'll let the rest of you figure out what to make of it.

Yep, there it is. Why it still is is a mystery. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094412)

... there are people who find trolling so important to them that they make a website out of it, then they've probably considered attacking Digg. So I went to their site, and did a forum search for "Digg". Lo and behold, the first item on the results ...

No surprise there. If it's free and cool, the assholes will be on it.

The only thing that surprises me is that the Feds have not busted down the door on those people. Their whole site is devoted to harassing people, they admit to running botnets of the sort that annoy the hell out of big business, telco, hospitals and everyone that runs a Windoze PC. More importantly, they use language that's sure to get some clueless TIA attention. Once that's established, you would think it's only a matter of time before they notice claims of copyright infringement, anti-semitic comments, blatant race baiting, pushing obscene images and a host of other offenses that would draw ire and investigation of actual law breaking.

Re:Yep, there it is. Why it still is is a mystery. (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096900)

Yes. It's a crime to troll forums. And they have big botnets, which they use to troll Slashdot instead of doing other things which would at least be mildly useful to them (for instance, getting credit card numbers and such), because clearly Slashdot is worthy of the effort necessary to build a botnet (and let's face it, even if they did want a botnet they'd probably want to use their own PCs to do it, they probably hate viruses and worms as much as everyone else does).

And you want them done for copyright infringement, oh, so it's OK to prosecute that when it's someone you don't like? How funny. Anti-semetic comments aren't illegal, neither is race-baiting, obscene images hopefully aren't illegal in the USA...

You just don't like them because they think you're an asshole, don't you? That's the crux of it, isn't it twitter?

Re:Yep, there it is. Why it still is is a mystery. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16105814)

twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

  • As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
  • Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
  • A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
  • Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
  • Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
  • Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
  • Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
  • Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
  • Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
  • There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy [ibiblio.org]

Sure (1)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094124)

twitter, you can try and sell your conspiracy theories all you want, but there is a good reason why things like these [slashdot.org] and these [slashdot.org] and these [slashdot.org] follow you around. And they only follow YOU around.

Re:Evidence is all over the place but hard to prov (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16101956)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88413&cid=7656 803 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77588&cid=6896 690 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=73226&cid=6595 921 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71864&cid=6492 229 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69025&cid=6312 196 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49657&cid=5011 656 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180946&thresho ld=1&cid=14972959 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129735&thresho ld=5&cid=10823036 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112229&cid=952 1025&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137420&cid=114 89094&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155076&cid=130 11391&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=113493&thresho ld=5&cid=9614809 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164775&cid=137 51004 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126301&thresho ld=5&cid=10572437 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119108&thresho ld=5&cid=10056927 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=135403&cid=112 99129&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=136181&thresho ld=5&cid=11374447 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134005&thresho ld=5&cid=11203454 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159878&thresho ld=0&cid=13384602 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166661&cid=138 99128&threshold=2 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168164&cid=140 19967 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168163&cid=140 20030&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172399&thresho ld=1&cid=14355804 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172869&cid=143 89115&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175800&cid=146 12128&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153489&thresho ld=-1&cid=12876883 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=118246&cid=999 7235&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100963&cid=863 3073&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182119&cid=150 55046 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112831&thresho ld=5&cid=9567128 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108477&cid=922 6590&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=93270&cid=8010 985&threshold=4 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=94140&cid=8079 321 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88645&cid=7676 279&threshold=5 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=116521&thresho ld=5&cid=9861962 [slashdot.org]

Hey! kdawson!! I'm Off-Topic!! (3, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092356)

But your sub-titles recently, like "Web-Two-Point-Doh," have been really, really clever. Not that you need an idiot like me to tell you that, but I figure I give you eds enough (deserved) grief day-to-day it's only proper that I hand out a compliment on the (rare) occasion it is merited. And since the tags are among the few places here where you guys actually have the opportunity to inject some personality, I am gratified to see that at least one of you has one.

Good on ya, bud.

Re:Hey! kdawson!! I'm Off-Topic!! (1)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092643)

Sadly, this subtitle is taken from the article itself. =(

Obilgatory Paranoia reference (1)

BigWhiteGuy_27 (804307) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092392)

Trust no one. Keep your laser handy. The Computer is your friend. Happiness is mandatory.

Trying to solve an impossible problem (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092409)

"Out of the Crooked Timber of Humanity, no straight thing can ever be made" -- Immanuel Kant

Hmmm.... (1, Troll)

Cherita Chen (936355) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092502)

Uh, is it just me? Did anyone happen to notice that we have a new /. editor kdawson [technologyfront.com] , and that his background is pretty heavily littered with both technical and editorial writing?

Did anyone notice that this story emphasized the greatness of the /. editorial model vs. the "digg.com" model, and was curiously posted by "Anonymous reader"?

It may in fact just be the Ritalin talking, but I think our beloved /. Editors are getting their pokes in here and there...

No big deal, just an paranoid/schizo observation

Digg burial abuse. (1)

serial_crusher (591271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092574)

Digg burial abuse seems to be overhyped. There are a lot of really bad stories on Digg, especially on the politics section.
For example, there's currently a story [digg.com] saying that MSNBC changed the question on a poll. OK, maybe it happened; but what's the source? Some dude posted a few screen shots on his blog. Correct or not, that story is possibly inaccurate because it presents no verifiable supporting evidence.

What do you expect gamers to do? (1)

bitflip (49188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092630)

Does it really matter what set of rules you come up with? I can't think of any system that can't be abused, if you're willing to spend the time to do it. Even /. moderation - there's nothing keeping me and a few friends from creating multiple accounts, and modding each other up. Easy? No, but quite doable.

Even though I pick on gamers in my subject line, it isn't restricted to them. Less savvy users employ similar methods. It usually starts with multiple email accounts. It even happens off-line: people take shortcuts to "fame" all the time.

But much like cheating at video games, those that cheat tend to get bored and move on fairly quickly. If a site (or any other community) can survive this - a normal growing pang - then they do fine in the long run.

Being specialized and stable in that specialization, like /. is, and Digg is quickly losing, helps. The biggest drawback is the echo chamber effect, where the remaining (surviving?) members all tend to have the same opinion.

Create a web of reputation. (2)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092890)

Does it really matter what set of rules you come up with? I can't think of any system that can't be abused


I can. You create a web of reputation.

Every relationship between two individuals has a reputation or weight. As people interact the weights between them get stronger or weaker. Give preference to stories which are recommended by people with a strong reputation with you, get rid of stories recommended by people with a weak reputation. As they decide to like/dislike stories the weights change. As someone attempts to manipulate the system they will simply reduce the weights they have with other individuals and reduce their own influence.

Not easy to do mind you, it's an n^2 problem. Hmm, n^2 problems can often be simplified by cutting them in half, what's needed is a reputation server.

 

Sorry, but it's not that easy (1)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093347)

A reputation system is open to the same class of karma whoring attacks as slasdot, but with less limitation. Pander to the site groupthink for a few weeks to get your relation weight with a few influential members up to near the maximum, and you can post lies, damn lies, and goatse links at +5 until a sufficient number of users figure out what you're doing. Register a new account, lather, rinse, and repeat as necessary.

If you can game real-life interpersonal relations, you can game any mathematical abstraction of the same thing.

Re:Sorry, but it's not that easy (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094897)

Pander to the site groupthink for a few weeks to get your relation weight with a few influential members up to near the maximum


No, in the case of the system I mentioned, what you suggest only works for those who follow the particular subgroup you've been pandering to. You would actually reduce your influence with the rest of the population by pandering to that group in the first place.

Register a new account, lather, rinse, and repeat as necessary.


Only works if you can abandon an identity. Fairly easy but controversial to fix.

 

Heh, digg (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092718)

It's like fark with user-moderators.
K5 but much less advanced.
Slashdot w/o the discussion.

Shit, we're talking about a site that only offers one more level of nesting over freakin' forums. Run and managed by a bunch of tech-TV rejects, and populated with all the "31337" technical people who couldn't stand being modded to oblivion on slashdot.

Re:Heh, digg (1)

Shadyman (939863) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092738)

*mods "31337" technical parent -5 because he can*

What was that about some people not liking moderation?

just wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16092935)

The digg meta-shite articles are overflowing onto slashdot today! Crikey!

Why is trust a bad thing? (1)

subreality (157447) | more than 7 years ago | (#16092987)

It's my opinion that the way to get people to behave responsibly is to trust them MORE.

This article is calling out how terrible it is because of a couple problems with trusting poeple. But sociology's a complicated thing. If these are really the biggest problems that Digg is having due to their trust model, I'd say they're doing pretty good. It certainly pales in comparison to the problems you get with people who are trying by social or technical means to break out of the little prison you put them in.

Re:Why is trust a bad thing? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093156)

Exactly. If you're going to create a social application that relies on input from the user to shape the content of the site, then you should be ready to give the community what it wants. The community knows better what it wants than appointed moderators or paid admins. It may not turn out the way that you want it to turn out, and there will always be discontent users, but ultimately the community has voiced what it wants and there's little you can or should do about it.

It's All Relative to the Community/Site (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093312)

Each amount of freedom and expectations is unique to each site's developed or developing following and culture. Rules, guidelines, or the lack thereof are set forth in the beginning and they're enforced mainly by the site creators. Eventually a culture that shares the original philosophy begins to amass and develop and the community begins to regulate itself based on the now evolving culture.

Slashdot's a great example of a more hardline approach with active moderators. Fark is a more lenient approach with article responses and conversation moderated only by word-filters and image moderators. The majority of crap entries are torn apart by the community.

Social sites, however, lack the general community that fosters the sense of personal responsibility for a site and its functions. To most users, MySpace and Facebook are services, whereas Slashdot is often reffered to, in the real world, as a very descriptive characteristc of a social belonging.

When sites develop enough of a community to have their users develop that sense of belonging, then you will see the need to closely govern the users deteriorate.

Re:It's All Relative to the Community/Site (1)

Halvy (748070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093446)


If I read you correctly you are saying that on a place like /., where there is more of a community approach that it doesn't need to be moderated as much.


If this were true, /. definitely does NOT agree with this.

Just look at how long I have a been a member (almost three years) and the quality of posts and stories I have submited-- but I am tagged with the lowest Karma rating possible-- (Terrible) which is basically reserved for spammers.

/. is a car out of control.

This would not be that important, except sooo may people have come to know /. as THEE place for important tech news and in depth discussion of such.

The only reason I continue to post as a member is to show SlashDot's management, that I have NOTHING to be ashamed of.

I predict that unless /. changes it's 'attitude' that WE need them instead of the other way around.. it will continue to dive into the abyss of the dot com bust.

This article at first I thought ironic.. but actually it is the first substantial article I have seen here.. in quite some time.


-- Soooo maybe this means the /. big wigs are finally realizing big mouth Halvy is right :)

Can't you 'game' the real world too? (1)

Gray (5042) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093784)

Don't sometimes people 'game' things in the real world? Why would the web be any different, it is part of the real world.

Digg is slashdot (1)

pkcs11 (529230) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093868)

Slashdot is a place where everyone who thinks within the same narrow space can converge and give one another resounding praise. All the while, moderating the minority (non Open Source fanatics) into oblivion.

I can't find the posting ... (1)

whitehatlurker (867714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094372)

the one that says "Trust me - I am a USER"

Thowin' Stones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16095189)

If Digg has moderators who approve a story before it goes live on the front page, shouldn't they have moderators checking spam reports?

You DO realize Slashdot has "editors" out there, right? And that it appears they're just too busy to check if the description is of any value (or possibly plagarized), if TFA has any merit, or if the story was posted before, right?

Frankly, I'd prefer a "trust the users" approach where I could vote a whole post "-1 troll" or "-1 offtopic" and get it removed from the bloody page. Relying on experts clearly doesn't seem to do us a heck of a lot of good around here.

AC for the obvious anti-slashdot rant. And, yes, to paraphrase Sideshow Bob, I realize the irony in appearing on television in order to denounce it, so don't bother pointing that out.

Digg v Fark/Total Fark (1)

entrekken (982194) | more than 7 years ago | (#16095896)

Caveat Lector: While I play on both Digg and Fark, I have a greater affinity for Fark/Total Fark. Its just where I went first. I've hoisted a tasty beverage with many of those loveable farkers.
If Digg added moderators and allow users to, oh i don't know vote, on links before they get posted then essentially you have what we have on Fark/Total Fark. Total Farkers get to view all links before they get posted to fark.com. We even get to vote on them now. Not to say that we users have the final say in what gets posted. There is that added overlay of Mods and Admins that add a bit of surprise or control depending on how you look at it. To be honest, this is fine by me. They keep it tidy. I just find it interesting that Digg may morph into Fark.

Stop using the word "gamed" (1)

xoboots (683791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096258)

You mean hack.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>