|
|
Post by realityczech on Jan 6, 2009 21:59:08 GMT -5
OK, I realize that greater injustices exist, but isn't it just slightly insipid that three (or more!) people who share the same internet connection -- and, therefore, the same IP address -- have to SHARE A SINGLE VOTE per category in the Weblog Awards? Because that, apparently, is how you keep people from casting hundreds of votes per second for The Little Blog That Could, or whatever their idiotic paean to narcissism might happen to be called.
This insult to democracy arguably taints the results of your contest just as indelibly as "Governor" Blagojevich's appointment of "Senator" Burris has been tainted by whatever that is on Blago's head. I mean, what's the deal here? You seem to have no problem with felons, war criminals and other persons of dubious character voting without the slightest restriction, just as long as they don't use the same IP -- yet God forbid two people, however saintly, should vote through the same cable modem.
We're voting on blogs here, people. Could you possibly come up with something a little more, um, MODERN?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 6, 2009 22:18:53 GMT -5
Thank you for your complaint, but your assumptions are untrue. As long as you are using different machines, you should have no trouble casting your individual votes. Have you tried?
|
|
hal
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by hal on Jan 7, 2009 4:31:02 GMT -5
This is correct, Sean, and prevents MOST people from gaming the system. However, no matter how secure your system becomes, there is always someone who eventually succeeds in hacking it. Such is the case with the Liberal Blog "Wonkette" and you have a screenshot showing a link they used to game the system and bragged about it. I won't even test to see if that link works in view of your TOS of not cheating, but can assure you, it does. The Wonkette blog targets any PUMA affiliated website or one critical of Barack Obama and "does them in, one'by one." The first to be hit was The Confluence, which had a healthy lead at 5 pm CST was almost 37% over the total votes--the closest challenger was Wonkette with about 13%.
I urge you to try the instructions given in that screenshot that was sent to you and try the link.
In the Best New Blog, Uppity Woman, who captured 54% of the total votes after Day One, was next to be targeted by Wonkette. UW is a terrific new blogger, but in a post Tuesday night, she said the blog was under attack in the awards by Wonkette, using the same tactics used to bring down The Confluence.
Posted on January 6, 2009 by Uppity Woman
Other posts will appear below this one today.And don’t forget to vote! Who knows? Karma might catch up to these people. In the meantime, Visitors can read this post and make of it what they will.
********************
Ironically I never even knew who Wonkette was till two days ago when they did Confluence in. Somebody got a screen shot of how they were going to cheat using a particular site to go in and vote. I guess somebody reported it, but apparently it still works. This is so infantile, I’m laughing I disagree off here.
Thanks Red Dragon, for the copy of this brazen message.
From Wonkette:
Another “major” nominated PUMA blog this year in the category of “Best New Blog” is one called “Uppity Woman” (jesus christ) and it cannot be allowed to win. So we arbitrarily endorse another one called “~ synthesis ~” because it has a fun-lookin’ name. Vote “~ synthesis ~”, the best new blog in America.
--------------------------------------------------
Now here’s the message that’s on Synthesis’ site. The poor guy probably doesn’t even know what hit him.
Posted by: shafeen | Jan 06, 2009 at 17:48
You, by default of Wonkette chance, are the best new blog in America. Check the link. Congratulations.
Posted by: miserable denizen | Jan 06, 2009 at 15:52
Thus, a “Fun Lookin” name got 600 votes in 12 hours....and 1000 votes by midnight
and passed Uppity Woman in just over half a day. One of 144 comments from outraged
rivals and even competitors for "Best New Blog"=
AngelShepherd, on January 7th, 2009 at 4:14 AM Said:
First off, I have some background in web programming and was always skeptical of any so-called ‘fairness’ or ‘integrity’ of a web-based poll carried out in the manner they did with the Weblog Awards. It’s SO easy to rig these things if you know how to go about it.
I did vote for UW and The Confluence and one or two others, but did not cheat. I’m more amused than angry. The Obots are their own worst enemy; I believe many people’s sympathies are now with PUMAs after this show of infantile senselessness by the Won-kette’s. Would any ‘normal’ person (ie., anyone who actually works for a living, pays bills, cares about real problems in their lives) want to be associated with this obnoxious, post-adolescent bunch? Even if they voted for Obama?
A suggestion: If the Weblog people allow this travesty to stand, we simply boycott participation in next year’s competition, even if we are nominated. Let’s see what happens to their reputation as a fair arbiter of which is a good/popular blog, when the public finally realizes that the ‘winners’ are just a couple dozen O-bots voting over and over for themselves and/or their chosen blogs!
Plus, they have made many new enemies. The folly of hubris and arrogance! If I may say so myself, you don’t mess with the Shepherd! I have a feeling they won’t have to wait till next year for karma’s round-trip, if I have anything to do with it… (cloudlets of steam puffing out of ears)
I will vote again and every day for all my favourites. I urge UW, Grace and others who are rightly ticked off by this to take it up with the awards folks. If they value the integrity and reputation of their little competition-cum-project they will listen with a keen ear.
|
|
|
|
Post by realityczech on Jan 7, 2009 11:30:21 GMT -5
Three further comments:
1. Three people. One IP address. Also, one machine. (It's called sharing. Sadly, we have not reached "one laptop per child" status just yet.) So it would appear that two of us are still out of luck. Well, as noted in my original post, it's probably not all that important.
2. I see that this post has been, um, jacked by a couple of people with some venting to do about the case of Wonkette v. PUMA. While I'm usually a fan of random elaboration and obscure tangents, I'm not really enjoying the spectacle of what is, to me, pointless invective grafted onto a question which was more pragmatic than ideological. (For one thing, the primaries are over, and not a moment too soon ... a person can only stand so much stupid.) Perhaps you could start a separate thread. If you like, you can call it "Wonkette v. PUMA". I promise not to sue.
3. Is "post-adolescent" supposed to be an insult? Because I am, in fact, post-adolescent, and it's more or less working for me. If I should be feeling bad about this, do let me know.
I'll leave this thread to the rest of you, with a gentle reminder that between Wall Street, Main Street, Bagdad, Kabul, Mumbai and Gaza, there are other topics that might also merit your attention, and that there are people out there who might benefit from your obviously passionate commitment to whatever it is you're committed to. Godspeed and best of luck to all concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 7, 2009 14:01:48 GMT -5
To realityczech: Yeah, sorry, the single IP address really isn't a problem for us, but we do have to restrict it by machine. (That is our defense against hackers.) My best and only advice at this time is, can you use someone else's machine to vote? Maybe at work, or the library, or a friend's house? In the future, everyone will have RFID microchips implanted in their brains, and we'll avoid troubles like this.
To everyone posting about the Wonkette cheating instructions: naturally, I don't condone posting cheating instructions anywhere, but (as I've said in two or three other threads so far) those particular instructions are bogus. They will not work. No votes result from them. Anyone trying them is wasting his time. Yes, I tried them myself, just to test. They don't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewgurn on Jan 7, 2009 14:48:27 GMT -5
So what does it check? MAC address? That's easy enough to spoof, but probably not for the drooling speds who read Wonkette.
The reason wonkette has pulled ahead it's a blog run by miserable thingys who have wave after wave of idiots with nothing better to do voting every 24 hours, on the hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewgurn on Jan 7, 2009 14:49:19 GMT -5
it's a blog run by miserable thingys This is the worst word filter ever. |
|
|
|
Post by realityczech on Jan 7, 2009 16:56:21 GMT -5
To sean: Thanks for the pragmatic and civilized reply. We'll sort it out, preferably senza RFID. (I hear that RFID and tequila don't mix. Sometimes you just have to choose.)
To andrew: Nice sig, but no, probably not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Aylward on Jan 8, 2009 2:01:34 GMT -5
If you're behind a firewall we posted some tips in the FAQ and the site notes to explain how the security may impact you and how make things work smoothly.
|
|
|
|
Post by clg20171 on Jan 8, 2009 10:12:30 GMT -5
I can vote and view the results from my desktop, but the poll doesn't show up on my husband's laptop. It's a different machine, so what gives?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 8, 2009 11:04:25 GMT -5
I can vote and view the results from my desktop, but the poll doesn't show up on my husband's laptop. It's a different machine, so what gives? It might be that nothing is wrong, but he tried to access the poll during a peak time when the server was slow to respond. If that's the case, he can try again and it will work. But if it still doesn't work, something may be wrong. The polls require the Flash Player plugin. Does he have that enabled? Also, the polls require "Shared Object" support enabled. Possibly he has that turned off? When he gets to the site, does he see anything where the poll is supposed to be, like a "Poll is Loading, please wait" message? Or is it totally blank? |
|
|
|
Post by clg20171 on Jan 8, 2009 11:14:24 GMT -5
It says "Poll is loading, please wait" in the polls I've voted in, but loads polls I haven't voted in. It's been that way since yesterday, the first day he could vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 8, 2009 11:52:14 GMT -5
His laptop won't load the polls which you have voted in, from a different computer? There is absolutely no way that his computer should be affected by anything done on a different machine. I programmed the polls myself, and I am stumped. Has he tried just refreshing the page?
|
|
|
|
Post by clg20171 on Jan 8, 2009 12:05:44 GMT -5
Okay, we tried reloading pages again (he'd tried before) and it worked for about half the polls. Then we restarted the computer and now they work. Not sure what that was about, but thanks for responding so quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by wholesaler123 on Dec 7, 2009 20:10:41 GMT -5
|
|
