Million Dollar Crowdturfing Industry Dupes Social Networks

New submitter bowlinearl writes "Three weeks ago Slashdot featured a story on the Chinese Water Army. A new study from researchers at UCSB delves even deeper into the problem of crowdturfing (full disclosure: I am one of the authors of the study). The study reveals that evil crowdsourcing services in China are a multi-million dollar industry, and that the number of jobs and the amount of money are growing exponentially. Hundreds of thousands of workers are involved, including a small contingent of career crowdturfers who each manage hundreds of accounts on social networks. The researchers observed the behavior of workers and the unwitting users who click on the generated spam by infiltrating the two largest crowdsourcing sites in China. However, crowdturfing isn't confined to China: the researchers discovered crowdsourcing sites in the U.S. that are 95% astroturf, as opposed to Amazon's Mechanical Turk, which actively polices itself, and is only 12% astroturf."

Comments

Evil crowdturfing services?

[niftydude]

Evil seems a strong word - as with everything - when obtaining information, know who you are talking to, and always consider the source.

It's the first lesson everyone should learn.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Likewise, people sometimes have an axe to grind or just doesn't like some company - like here on Slashdot that would be Microsoft - and say anything bad about them even if it isn't true. So some good crowdturfing just adjust that side of things and they both stay in balance.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both sides would be noise, not signal, which turns comments sections into total trash. Yahoo is an obvious example where you have red/blue or racists/anti-racist white nights drowning out any intelligent posts. People trying to "balance" render the section useless and those posting factual information people already know are just as useless as they do nothing to progress anyone's thinking.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[rtfa-troll]

Class man. Vote parent up. One of the first on topic Microsoft astroturfers.

And to answer your serious point; It's absolutely fine for someone to post on here on behalf of Microsoft. There certainly used to be quite a few people who would put "I work for Microsoft" in their posts when giving serious answers. The key thing is that if you are benefiting financially from posting you should declare that and just speak directly on behalf of Microsoft. Because the astroturfers don't do that they are deceptive and illegal in quite a number of jurisdictions where Microsoft markets to Slashdot readers.

The fact that Microsoft is willing to use deceptive, illegal practices quite rightly discredits other people who attempt to support Microsoft in forums. Even if someone isn't benefiting directly, it's quite likely they got their viewpoint from someone who did. This is a general poison to the public debate which makes serious discussion more difficult. There is no possible justification for it.

There is already a tendency on Slashdot that any minor technical error in a criticism of Microsoft gets picked on. If the astroturfers left this alone, this would provide more than sufficieint balance. As it is, I think that the underlying motivation is mostly to misdirect discussion making the astroturfers equivalent to forum trolls.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Torvac]

misleading/unethical. not really evil.
how is spreading lies in this way different from spreading lies in ads on TV ?

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Black Parrot]

The fact that Microsoft is willing to use deceptive, illegal practices quite rightly discredits other people who attempt to support Microsoft in forums.

I wonder if there is *any* company, or politician, who isn't trying to use {xyz}turf on the WWW to convert a displeasing reality into a sweet delusion.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[yotto]

Because you know that ads on TV are going to put the product in the best possible light, and use false imagery to try to trick you into wanting the product. Or, if you don't know this, you could.

Note, both are misleading. Pretending to be a satisfied customer on an Internet posting is simply MORE misleading, and therefore different, from showing a bunch of skinny women drinking beer.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[somersault]

And you're one of the astroturfers that tries to protect MS even when those things are true. People don't need to make up bad things about MS, because they simply have done and still do bad things.

"Insight in 140 bytes" as in "I'm a marketing droid who loves astroturfing on Twitter/social media". Anyone who visits Slashdot regularly will recognise that the vast majority of the newest UIDs are astroturfers. I'm a bit shocked by the scale of it all as mentioned in the summary, but I already knew about the industry thanks to you and your buddies.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[drinkypoo]

All evil acts boil down either to fraud, or some kind of denial of service or possession.

How can you doubt that fraud is an evil act? We are in between good and evil, but acts are one or the other. You do the math and you figure out which they are. Sometimes all the options are evil, of course.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[rtfa-troll]

Most of them. Oh I'm sure that with big corporations the proportion of honesty falls. I doubt more than 50% use such things as a matter of policy. Small and family owned businesses live on their reputation and know that if they get caught doing that kind of thing it will be in tatters. I think the "everybody's doing it" meme is partly self justification but is mostly a lie spread by the few that do it as a kind of self justification. This is why strong regulators (effectively enforcing existing regulations; making sure that they are relevant; not just adding new ones) are better for almost everybody.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS have long been replaced by Apple zealots and paid mouthpieces.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[NicknameOne]

Apparently that doesn't work so well for Slashdot. Look at most tech articles and not only will you see the famed astroturfers from Microsoft bashing other companies but they will be modded very high too. So it's quite easy to game the system.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there is *any* company, or politician, who isn't trying to use {xyz}turf on the WWW to convert a displeasing reality into a sweet delusion.

The children's argument: "He did it first!". Grow up please.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[drinkypoo]

how is spreading lies in this way different from spreading lies in ads on TV ?

That's evil. Legal != ethical or moral. And while we're discussing THAT bombshell, in some countries it's illegal to spread lies in ads on TV.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[GameboyRMH]

Hahaha nice, an astroturfer commenting on an article about astroturfing.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[GameboyRMH]

Oh also do you work for Waggener Edstrom?

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[shentino]

Economic darwinism favors companies that can gain an advantage and not get punished for it.

Honest companies don't survive long, and the so called regulators have more to gain by colluding with the private sector than they do with doing their job.

If you want stronger regulation you have to beef up government enough to stand up against the companies you want them to regulate.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[shentino]

I think the so called child might be rightly pissed that he's the only one that gets punished for it

Especially if his big brother gets off the hook because he bribed daddy to look the other way.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Moryath]

The difference is whether you have a workable, sustainable, working system or a broken, exploitable system.

Yahoo Answers's system is pretty clearly exploitable. Want to get someone banned? 6 dummy accounts will do the trick - their "ban process" automatically bans someone after 6 complaints. Amazon has some funny reviews, some funnier ones, but more importantly, they actually have humans check on complaints if there's an indication that stuff indicated here is going on.

The uglier truth is that for many sites - slashdot included - the real exploit is held by people who can do precisely what TFA's authors describe: running hundreds of accounts, commanding click-up or click-down votes through them or (in the case of Slashdot) farming for mod points. Evolving Slashdot policy has actually made this worse, not better, for three reasons I'll crib from an earlier thread:

#1 - The best posters never moderate. They're involved in discussions, and you can never moderate AND post in the same thread.
#2 - It's too easy for the modpoint-harvesters to attack someone's karma; you can go into people's posting history as far as you want, and downmod weeks-old posts for no reason other than to bury karma.
#3 - The hidden gem: Slashdot implemented something akin to Yahoo's completely retarded "auto ban" function. To wit: "Also, if a single user is moderated down several times in a short time frame, a temporary ban will be imposed on that user... a cooling off period if you will. It lasts for 72 hours, or more for users who have posted a ton." The end result here is that the modpoint harvesters have been given a weapon - they control a "ban button" with which to attack not only the karma of their targets, but the posting rights of their targets.

The worst part? You can't ever see who downmodded. Sometimes you can see the reasons, but the modpoint harvesters get wise to the tricks - currently, you'll see the majority of modpoint harvesters downmodding as "Offtopic" and "Overrated" because those didn't go through the metamod system. Although, come to think of it, I don't think I've seen a metamod nag in 3 months... do they even have that system any more?

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Are you sure I wasn't just making fun of all the stupid "omg shill!" comments? ;-P

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Anonymous Coward]

QQ

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[GameboyRMH]

You should get a new job as a comedian if that's the case.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that this topic is now being managed by a Waggener Edstrom team on behalf of Microsoft.

Moderation and discussion will be directed to ensure a fair and balanced discussion of our client's activities. Thank you for participating.

Monitoring conversations, including those that take place with social media, is part of our daily routine; our products can be used as early warning systems, helping clients with rapid response and crisis management.

http://waggeneredstrom.com/clients

http://waggeneredstrom.com/about/approach

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[0123456]

Do mod points actually exist anymore? I used to get some just about every week until around 2007, and I've had one set of points in the years since then.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Diss Champ]

For some reason I have gotten a lot of mod points these last few weeks, after a very long dry period. The system appears to be modal- either it wants to give you a lot or none. My karma has been excellent for a long time, so it's not a (visible) karma change.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[owlnation]

misleading/unethical. not really evil.

Actually... it's Fraud. Definitely evil, definitely illegal.

By legal definition: "an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual"

It never ceases to amaze me how desensitized and amoral so many geeks (and anyone under 30) are these days. It's definitely evil.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Spiridios]

Do mod points actually exist anymore? I used to get some just about every week until around 2007, and I've had one set of points in the years since then.

I rarely post. I seem to always have mod points. One set expires or gets used up and two days later I get another set..... I haven't even had an account that long.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm totally surprised that the guy who officially admits being employed by a Microsoft PR firm thinks that astroturfing is an awesome idea.

Here's the difference between you and some rabid fanboys: rabid fanboys can in theory be argued with. They at least fit into the format of putting forth an argument that can stand on its own merits, and they in theory could change their mind when presented with counterarguments. In essence, there's the chance of an actual debate taking place. In practice, it's a different story, because fanboys tie their self-worth to how awesome a company is, and will go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend their support for a company.

However, a PR droid like you is incapable of engaging in an honest debate. You are paid to advocate a position, regardless of its truth, value to me or to society. The best you can do is hang some valid arguments onto your advertisement. Which is fine and dandy, if there's a way for me to avoid said advertisement. I use adblock because I find most ads to be content and value-less. Your ads that are masquerading as comments are similarly useless to me, because by definition, they are not based on a rational underpinning.

Likewise, people sometimes have an axe to grind or just doesn't like some company - like here on Slashdot that would be Microsoft - and say anything bad about them even if it isn't true. So some good crowdturfing just adjust that side of things and they both stay in balance.

I love your justification for your job. So because there are some trolls that already bring down the quality of the discussion, the right approach is to bring countertrolls in that further degrade the discussion?

For anyone who is wondering what is wrong with letting paid PR droids post without an "ad" tag, this is it: by their own admission, the best they can do is to add countertrolls to a discussion.They will degrade the signal-to-noise ratio of a site.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[somersault]

If you post a lot or a little you don't get mod points. If you're in the middle range then you get plenty. I either saw someone say that or it's in the FAQ somewhere, but it does match my experience.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Yobgod Ababua]

Nice.
Someone who still gets points please mod parent up for rational and insightful discussion.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[rtfa-troll]

p>Economic darwinism favors companies that can gain an advantage and not get punished for it.

If you take a very wide definition of "punished" then this is almost a tautology so hard to disagree with. However, "not get punished" is the key caveat here. There are many ways a company can get "punished" for dishonesty. Let's put aside the normal legal ones; there is very much evidence that normal simple people like us have a strong tendency to punishment of the dishonest; customers will tend to find something out and then avoid the company. Secondly, companies are extremely vulnerable to theft and even sabotage from their employees. BTW If you are working for a dishonest company then I strongly suggest having a look at this excellent WWII sabotage manual. Companies which are dishonest tend to get dishonest staff and disloyal staff. In the long term this will put them out of business.

Honest companies don't survive long, and the so called regulators have more to gain by colluding with the private sector than they do with doing their job.

I really think that the "honest company" business strategy really works and does keep companies going long term. The problem is not with commercial survival as much as with the tendency for the management to be forced out by shareholders looking for short term gain. Typically they get a short profit boost followed (before people realise the company went bad) followed by a long term failure.

If you want stronger regulation you have to beef up government enough to stand up against the companies you want them to regulate.

This is part of it. Though the most important thing is having democratic control of the government overriding company interests. I think that in places like Switzerland. Norway and evem Iceland where that happens things tend to work better than in places like China and the US where it doesn't.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[InsightIn140Bytes]

To be honest, I was just flamebaiting those idiots who think everyone on slashdot is a shill. That stuff gets old, you know.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Paul1969]

"Likewise, people sometimes have an axe to grind or just doesn't like some company - like here on Slashdot that would be Apple - "

Fixed that for you.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[Kavafy]

I think there are two possible solutions to this:

1. Don't allow downmodding. Or maybe just have a reporting system for spam. The best posts should still rise to the top if you increase the score ceiling, say to +20.

2. Don't allow people to choose which posts they moderate. Have moderation work like metamoderation does now - the system decides which posts you can moderate. That should stop karma raids dead.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[tehcyder]

And to answer your serious point; It's absolutely fine for someone to post on here on behalf of Microsoft. There certainly used to be quite a few people who would put "I work for Microsoft" in their posts when giving serious answers. The key thing is that if you are benefiting financially from posting you should declare that and just speak directly on behalf of Microsoft. Because the astroturfers don't do that they are deceptive and illegal in quite a number of jurisdictions where Microsoft markets to Slashdot readers.

I don't know where you live, but Public Relations/spin/astroturfing or whatever you want to call it is a fact of life inmost of the world, and it is absurd to believe that only Microsoft (or whoever your pet hate this week is) engage in it.

I have no great love for Microsoft, any more than for any other large corporation, but I am not so blinded by hatred that I think their marketing difffers much from Google, Chanel or Toyota.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[tehcyder]

Yeah, Switzerland is a really good example of democratic control over corporate interests.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[tehcyder]

As long as people can post anonymously on the internet, the only way to filter out trolls/astroturfers and so on is by the quality of their posts and generally slashdot's moderation system goes some way to achieving this, however imperfectly.

If someone submits a pro-Microsoft post, it will have to be fairly sensible and coherent to avoid getting immediately down-modded, and it is ridiculous to make a blanket judgement that any post which says anything positive about Microsoft is by definition from a paid shill/astroturfer.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[tehcyder]

misleading/unethical. not really evil.

Actually... it's Fraud. Definitely evil, definitely illegal. By legal definition: "an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual"It never ceases to amaze me how desensitized and amoral so many geeks (and anyone under 30) are these days. It's definitely evil.

The thing is, if you place "making money" as the highest moral good, then fraud, lying and all the rest become justified.

The error is in believing that making money is an inherently good thing to do - it's not. It can be, but that's not the same thing.

It's like bravery. Being an incredibly brave terrorist or serial killer is not morally superior to being a cautious kitten lover and poet.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[rtfa-troll]

I don't know where you live, but Public Relations/spin/astroturfing or whatever you want to call it is a fact of life inmost of the world,

Those are three different things. The fact that you can't see differences is exactly where the problem is. There are several hard barriers here between different types of company promotion; a typical public relations person will identify themselves as coming from their company; they will tell the truth but will talk up good aspects. An astroturfer will (by definition) pretend to be independent of the company that is paying for their work and will lie. Public relations is regulated by law and a mistaken promise may be treated as a contract. Astroturfers hide from responsibility behind assumed identities (e.g. multiple online accounts which claim to have no company affiliation) and avoid the legal regulation they would normally be subject to.

and it is absurd to believe that only Microsoft (or whoever your pet hate this week is) engage in it.

The claim that Google does not do PR is a rediculous strawman; a statement which I never made. I believe that Google does PR. I believe that Microsoft does Astroturfing. Please stop putting words into people's mouths that you wish they had said.

I have no great love for Microsoft, any more than for any other large corporation, but I am not so blinded by hatred that I think their marketing difffers much from Google, Chanel or Toyota.

According to judge Jackson's findings of fact, which were confirmed on appeal, Microsoft's marketing strategy involved committing Felonies repeatedly over long periods of time. I won't claim that the others have never been deceptive, or even broken the law, but this is a completely and qualitatively different from what is normal.

One of the biggest problems in the former Soviet Union in general and Russia in particular is that people have a really hard time recognising the difference between a legitimate business and a criminal one. If you look into other former communist countries you will see that whilst this difference was definitely smaller than elsewhere immediately after the fall of communism (everybody had to pay bribes just to live, for example) the difference became greater and greater over time precisely because the people knew the difference and wanted to work with legitimate business.

If we stop distinguishing legitimate businesses like Google, Samsung and maybe even Oracle (worthy of hate, but probably not much prosecution) from illegitimate businesses like Microsoft, Haliburton and Gazprom that is not just wrong it is also extremely dangerous. Look at Facebook, for example, which seems to be at a choice point. They either develop the facilities to follow the law (as Google has done with it's internal IT systems) or they develop the capabilities to avoid the law (as Microsoft has done with it's legal department, communication policies and data destruction systems). No company can afford to fully develop both since that increases costs. It's very important that people keep pressure on Facebook so that they realise that they are unlikely to get away with Microsoft's strategy.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[rtfa-troll]

BTW. Should I capitalize Astroturf or not? It's based on a real name and so I keep doing that but when I remember I then change it since it's now such a common verb..

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[tehcyder]

All evil acts boil down either to fraud, or some kind of denial of service or possession.

Only if you define morality purely in terms of property.

Torturing a wild animal to death for the fun of it is neither fraud nor the denial to anyone of a service or possession.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[drinkypoo]

Torturing a wild animal to death for the fun of it is neither fraud nor the denial to anyone of a service or possession.

Yes, it is. It's denial of your rights of possession of self. I am my own creature and therefore no one else has a right to deprive me of my self, or to harm me.

I can repeat myself if you like, but you can just go back to my prior comment, re-read the premise, and parse it in English.

Re:Evil crowdturfing services?

[lennier]

no one else has a right to deprive me of my self

Philosophically speaking, I'm not actually sure that it's possible to deprive anything of its selfhood, short of retroactively erasing it from time and space (or total Buddhist enlightenment, perhaps).

But philosophical self-existence is not actually a very useful indicator of whether you've done any harm to a person or animal.

Evil ?

[vikingpower]

Who emits that judgment ? The poster ?

Re:Evil ?

[rtfa-troll]

Gosh; wow; a real human being using his own moral judgement. The horror; the evil. Execute him immediately.

img.slashdot.org

[mark_elf]

WelcomeToTheInternetYouMustBeNewHere.jpg

sorry...

[alienzed]

what?

Got it.

[Trax3001BBS]

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

Re:Got it.

[JustOK]

I have someone else read and believe it for me.

Re:Got it.

[Black Parrot]

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

OK - that means I should believe everything I read on the internet.

Wait! Was that post some kind of paradox to make our heads explode?

Re:Got it.

[DarwinSurvivor]

He said don't believe "everything", not "anything". And even if he did, you could logically conclude that some things can be believe and others can't (his statement would then fall into those that you can't).

Re:Got it.

[schroedingers_hat]

Okay, I'll believe you.

Still not a problem....

[RobinEggs]

I still don't understand where the problem comes in.

I know when I buy a product I don't just say "Oooh, 4.76 stars! Gimme that one!". I read every damn review I can get: I read amazon, newegg, hardocp, etc. I make a point of reading both the stellar and the abysmal reviews; of reading both user and professional reviews. I just don't see myself falling to fakes. How is some harried Chinese shill, paid by the word or by the post, going to poison my impression of the product when there are still people writing the sort of real, detailed reviews that clearly took both time and a genuine user experience to write?

It's not that I think spam reviews will all be obviously vapid or riddled with 'Engrish' straight out of some pseudo-racist 70's action film; I just don't think that even a careful, literate fake can bullshit an authentic experience in a convincing and time-efficient manner.

And I know I'm supposed to be proud of my extraordinary time investment in researching products and my technical acumen versus the typical consumer; I know I'm supposed to think of the 'average' user as some knuckle dragging moron or arthritic grandma who would easily be fooled, Still, outside the deluded minds of preening digerati the average person isn't really too bad. I think they'll spot total bullshit almost as easily as I could.

Re:Still not a problem....

[migla]

The problem comes with the numbers. You say the average person is not so dumb, well, half of the people are dumber than that.

It's like with advertising. It works. If it didn't, the big shoesalespeople wouldn't be putting more than half of their turnover into marketing. You and me may not be dumb enough to fall for it, but on the whole, it works and thus the thought that the system consists of rational individuals making the best decisions for themselves is mathematically laughable. Bah! That's a nice tangent I went off on there... Point being: -turfing probably still works, otherwise they wouldn't invest so heavily in it. Problem? I think so. Solution? Off the top of my head I can't come up with others than education and hard work of those who can spread truth. Or the crushing of capitalism, of course.

Re:Still not a problem....

[mwvdlee]

To most sane people, it isn't worth spending hours reading reviews for a $20 product.

Re:Still not a problem....

[Craefter]

I still think you overestimate the intelligence of the average internet user. I'll give you a couple indicators:

- E-mail spam still exists because people click links and (God forbid) order pills.
- Accounts still get hacked because people "verify" their account when asked to.
- People execute/install any crap they can find without questioning its origin.
- Facebook exists.

Need I say more?

Re:Still not a problem....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I've almost totally given up on most social networks. I meet new people by sending UDP packets to unusual ports at random IP addresses. I read server logs for people doing likewise. You meet some of the most interesting people that way. They're never stupid.

Re:Still not a problem....

[gzipped_tar]

And someone plz think of the "grossly overconfident" IE users!

Re:Still not a problem....

[antifoidulus]

The review sites certainly could make it easier. For instance fake book reviews are becoming a very common thing on amazon, esp. for books in the mid-range of demand. It's amazing to look at a book and see all these 5 star ratings and then note that 99% of the people who gave it 5 stars mysteriously only have 1 review....Amazon helps out a little bit by allowing you to look at only reviews from people who bought the item or are a "top reviewer", but that still doesn't really help that much.

They should be allowing me to customize my settings to block any reviews from "suspicious" reviewers, but they won't out of fear of offending someone and perhaps losing a sale as someone buys garbage then has to go back and get a better product.....

Re:Still not a problem....

[webbiedave]

The problem comes with the numbers. You say the average person is not so dumb, well, half of the people are dumber than that.

Hate that quote... grumble, grumble... MEDIAN... grumble, grumble.

Re:Still not a problem....

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out the important bit. Has doing this gotten you laid?

Re:Still not a problem....

[Alranor]

a) Median is a form of average
b) If you're measuring intelligence over a large population, the results aren't all that far from a normal distribution, in which case the mean, median and mode will all be the same number anyway /but yeah, I know how you feel :)

Re:Still not a problem....

[sFurbo]

You and me may not be dumb enough to fall for [advertising]

Yes, yes you are. We all are (well, I wouldn't call it dumb, but we are all affected by marketing). If you believe you aren't affected by advertising, that only means your filters are down, making it easier to affect you.

Re:Still not a problem....

[delinear]

It depends what that product is, what you're planning to use it for and how easy it is to replace - I probably spent longer than I usually would reading reviews for camera equipment I planned to take abroad because it would have been a pain to try and replace it in a foreign country. Things that you need to take on a trip, or that you might need to rely on at short notice and/or during an emergency it certainly can pay to read the reviews.

Re:Still not a problem....

[delinear]

This is the key factor - Amazon et al only really care about the illusion of community reviews, they won't go too far out of their way to allow you to drill down to the real reviewers because, as you say, it might cost them a sale (it's certainly going to cost them money to implement). For now there is confidence in the system amongst regular users, people who are suspicious can generally get a feel for what the real reviews are by reading around, we might see more useful tools in the future as confidence in the system wanes and they need a new draw. I tend to find the approach that works for me is to use the scores to do some initial filtering, then to ignore the glowing reviews - read the negative reviews (with a pinch of salt) and see if the issues others are encountering are something that would bother me or not. People writing glowing reviews tend to skip over the deficiencies of a product they're enjoying, at the same time you can't just take negative reviews at face value as everyone's needs are different.

Re:Still not a problem....

[Igarden2]

If the amount of forwarded misinformation I receive from some of my otherwise intelligent friends is any indication, I'm inclined to disagree. Too many of these forwards are total fabrication and I can't for the life of me understand why they get passed on, but they do.

Re:Still not a problem....

[DarwinSurvivor]

His success rate with UDP packets is undoubtedly higher than your success rate with Facebook.

Re:Still not a problem....

[gl4ss]

the problem is that if you buy crowdsourced market research, what good is it if all the 10000 answers were from the same fucking guy?

of course the problem is pretty obvious though.

Re:Still not a problem....

[JasterBobaMereel]

The real problem is numbers, say there are 20 reviews on Amazon, and 15 are fake and praise the product, 1 says it's OK, and 4 says it was useless.... that looks to be the normal spread for a good product ...whereas without the fake reviews it would be 1 OK and 4 bad reviews, the sign of a pile of junk .... and so people will assume it is worth buying ... Astroturf wins ...

Re:Still not a problem....

[mapkinase]

I think your Hegelian approach "it exists, therefore it's rational" (couldn't find the quote in German or English, the closest source is Russell's History of W. Phil in Russian) does not work here. Current society is highly redundant: there plenty of services, goods and inevitably, people that providing them and making them that are not necessary at all.

There is a PERCEPTION of increased value on investment on all kinds of marketing and I am sure that there is a lot of pseudoscientifc astroturfing going on that show that astroturfing works. But is there actual science behind it? What would be a repeatable experiment on it?

The phenomenon that is being studied here is huge social network of millions of people. There is no way one can make adequate (experimental physics level) scientific experiments involving such huge system.

Re:Still not a problem....

[wanzeo]

I actually enjoy reading product reviews, it satisfies that urge to consume, while at the same time keeping the products that I buy useful and at the best possible price.

For example, I recently needed a coffee maker, I spent months reading anything I could get my hands on about coffee makers. By the time I actually bought one, many of the earlier reviews I had read were for products not even on the market anymore. But the result is that I now know a lot about coffee makers, and I am very happy about the one I bought.

Now I don't expect everyone to be such an scrupulous shopper, but I wouldn't go so far as to call people like me less than sane just because we refuse to buy the first shiny thing that floats into our vision.

Re:Still not a problem....

[mwvdlee]

The reason I say "sane" is because you could've spend all that time you spent reading reviews simply doing some extra paid work. If you spent months reading reviews, you could have probably also spend those hours working, bought half a dozen coffee makers, threw away all but the one they liked and still have had more spare time and money left.

It's not "sane" in the same way that people will spend quite some time bargaining for a few dollars on, for example. a $100 radio, yet round off the price of a new car or house to $1000. The relatively minor effort to bargain the price of a car down to $10 increments is much more profitable than all the minor bargain hunting, yet few people do.

Ofcourse, if you consider either of these (reading review, bargaining) enjoyable then there is value in doing so, albeit not a monetary value.

Re:Still not a problem....

[shentino]

Which is probably why the phrase "you get what you pay for" applies so well.

Re:Still not a problem....

[shentino]

It's difficult to cater to us smart folks when the idiots outnumber us a hundred to one.

Re:Still not a problem....

[starfishsystems]

I'm inclined to dispute this point, using my own life as an example.

For the past forty years I've been earning a typical income, spending most of it, and saving the rest. That's typical behavior for most people, I hope. When I look at what I've spent it on, almost none of it was ever advertized. For the residue of goods and services that was subject to advertizing, I observe that my buying decisions were not made on the basis of that advertizing but on my own initiative based on need, attributes, and availability.

As a sanity check, I just took fifteen minutes to walk around the house looking at stuff. Hundreds of things. I could find no exception to the above claims.

We can certainly get into splitting hairs on what exactly is marketing. If a product is packaged in such a way that it informatively describes its attributes, that is arguably a form of marketing. Certainly I'm influenced by such information. But I don't think that's what's being discussed here. We're talking about messages whose content essentially reduces to "buy this".

I find no difficulty in identifying those messages and ignoring them. I find advertizing unpleasant, but my activities rarely put me in contact with it. Where they do, I have mitigations. For web browsing, I have ad blocking software. For television, I use this thing called a MUTE button. But I watch it so rarely that it hardly matters.

I don't see what the big deal is. Folks, this is not hard or radical, it's an easy habit. My life is rich and meaningful and totally enjoyable, and my conscience is clear that I'm doing things because I choose to do them, not because some voice has told me to do them.

Re:Still not a problem....

[NJRoadfan]

The reason I say "sane" is because you could've spend all that time you spent reading reviews simply doing some extra paid work. If you spent months reading reviews, you could have probably also spend those hours working, bought half a dozen coffee makers, threw away all but the one they liked and still have had more spare time and money left.

They call those people professional product reviewers, except the companies usually gives them the coffee makers for free in exchange for a generally biased positive review (so they get more freebies from the company in the future). People like to hate on Consumer Reports, but they are one of the rare places that actually buys all their reviewed products at full price from retailers eliminating a source of bias. Product research is important, but generally for expensive durable goods that you will use for a long period of time (like cars and washing machines).

Re:Still not a problem....

[camperdave]

That's why I've almost totally given up on most social networks. I meet new people by sending UDP packets to unusual ports at random IP addresses. I read server logs for people doing likewise. You meet some of the most interesting people that way. They're never stupid.

But if you want a deep, meaningful relationship, shouldn't you be using TCP packets? UDP is fine for a quick hookup, I suppose, but it takes a lot of work to maintain anything more substantial.

Re:Still not a problem....

[Inda]

Same as that, but I'll add one thing: adverts actually put me off buying something. If the product or service is actually that good, why advertise it 100 times a day?

I don't know where you're from, but in the UK we have an insurance broker company called "Go Compare". It has the most annoying soundtrack ever. Don't take my word for it, it was voted as the most irritating advertisement in 2009 and 2010.

I refuse to visit their website, I'll change the radio station if it comes on, I'll pause the DVR and wait 30 seconds if I see that singing waiter. I'll not buy anything from them ever.

Add to that their Google blacklisting, on more than one occasion, and I think my job here is done.

Karma.

Re:Still not a problem....

[ColdWetDog]

There are apparently issues he doesn't want to acknowledge.

Re:Still not a problem....

[CCarrot]

The real problem is numbers

Oblig XKCD reference.

The real problem is averaging reviews based on assumed identical weighting. There has been some attempt to alleviate that with various 'helpfulness' systems (most helpful good review, most helpful bad review, was this review helpful to you? etc.) but like any open system, that can also be be gamed.

The only sure fire method to beat the -turfers is through a healthy dose of skepticism and doing your homework. Don't base buying decisions on the reviews from one or two sites, seek out more detailed reviews that discuss actual features and measurable performance criteria, and pay slightly more attention to the negative reviews than the positive (but again, seek correlation from other, non-associated sites wherever possible to fight the negative -turfers). And try to buy from sites/stores with a healthy return policy, in case you do get suckered even after all your research.

Oh yeah, last but most important of all, POST DETAILED REVIEWS YOURSELF! I know I'm guilty of skipping the reviews after my shiny new widget shows up, (both because they take a while to do if you do them right, and because I'm just too busy playing with my new toy) but I've been trying to be more proactive in this area lately. It's like OSS: if everybody takes and nobody contributes (except the -turfers, of course), pretty soon it's useless to everybody...

Re:Still not a problem....

[Anomalyst]

Excellent poster, A+++++, would read again.

Re:Still not a problem....

[blahplusplus]

" You and me may not be dumb enough to fall for it, but on the whole, it works and thus the thought that the system consists of rational individuals making the best decisions for themselves is mathematically laughable. "

And this is why:

http://bit.ly/dYaWUc

Re:Still not a problem....

[tehcyder]

You are missing the point. The Go Compare is incredibly annoying but it is memorable. I'm sure that an awful lot of people now know subconsciously that Go Compare are an insurance site,so no doubt when it comes up in your google search for car insurance, most people will say "aha, I recognise that name".

It's like chart songs. Katy Perry is almost deliberately irritating, but the worst of it is that her tunes stick in your head.

Re:Still not a problem....

[tehcyder]

For most people buying most goods, it really isn't worth the effort to do all that research. Say I need to buy a new washing machine or vacuum cleaner. I'm really not that interested, so I'll just choose the cheapest one from a manufacturer I've heard of in an acceptable colour. I'm not going to spend hours reading reviews, comparing specifications and so on.

The thing is, I'll end up with a perfectly adequate washing machine or vacuum cleaner anyway, and it will have a guarantee anyway in case it blows up inside a year.

Apart from expensive long term items such as houses and cars, most purchases for most people aren't worth doing any research on at all.

Re:Still not a problem....

[tehcyder]

I've had many coffee makers in my life, from cheap plastic filter machines to basic percolators and semi-professional espresso makers. The thing is, they all make good coffee if you use good coffee to start with, and shitty coffee if you don't.

Apart from the sheer enjoyment of knowledge for its own sake (which I'm not knocking) it really doesn't make a lot of difference how much you know about coffee machines in terms of how good your coffee is.

Re:Still not a problem....

[migla]

I agree. We're all manipulatable.

"[M]ay not" implies that it's opposite "may" also may (or may not) be true. Nothing was claimed. It could have been worded "even if we wouldn't be dumb enough". The point is that it doesn't matter, since enough people must presumably be swayed enough to make it worth while to advertise, assuming the big name brands aren't acting stupid throwing billions on marketing.

They can get to practically anyone. Especially since there's so much marketing that is sneakily trying to manipulate us without letting it be known who they are, how or why they are doing what.

Amazon Mechanical Turk

[93 Escort Wagon]

I had no idea that thing was still around... guess there's no point in gaming a system almost no one is using, eh?

Stop Making up New Words

[Anonymous Coward]

What on earth is a "crowdturfer"?
Did you mistype crowdsurfer? Is it a group of people who install sod?

If you're going to go batshit crazy with the new buzzwords, at least define them as you make them up. (Yes, that's right, TFA is the first and only use of this stupid word according to the google.)

I haven't been this dumbfounded since some genius came up with "nettop".

Re:Stop Making up New Words

[loosescrews]

Here is a definition from the linked article:

"Evil crowdsourcing on a very large scale." Influencing public opinion with fake "grassroots" activity is known as astroturfing, leading Zhao to coin the term "crowdturfing," since it is done via large crowdsourcing sites.

Re:Stop Making up New Words

[Black Parrot]

Here is a definition from the linked article:

"Evil crowdsourcing on a very large scale." Influencing public opinion with fake "grassroots" activity is known as astroturfing, leading Zhao to coin the term "crowdturfing," since it is done via large crowdsourcing sites.

What's wrong with "evil crowd-sourced astroturfing"?

Or the more accurate, "massively parallel astroturfing"?

Or "why-don't-they-join-the-21st-Century-and-write-a-bot-to-do-it astroturfing"?

...

Heh. If the participants in a grassroots movement did this, you'd have "grassroots astroturfing".

Re:Stop Making up New Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone, quick, create a wikipedia entry!

Re:Stop Making up New Words

[TeknoHog]

What's wrong with "evil crowd-sourced astroturfing"?

Or the more accurate, "massively parallel astroturfing"?

I think the technical term you're after is "embarrassingly parallel".

Re:Stop Making up New Words

[camperdave]

Yes, stop making up new words... and start using words we already have. It's not a "water army", it's a "navy".

Re:Stop Making up New Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. If the participants in a grassroots movement did this, you'd have "grassroots astroturfing".

Which would then be known as "grasstroturfing", sigh.

Re:Stop Making up New Words

[tehcyder]

Here is a definition from the linked article:

"Evil crowdsourcing on a very large scale." Influencing public opinion with fake "grassroots" activity is known as astroturfing, leading Zhao to coin the term "crowdturfing," since it is done via large crowdsourcing sites.

That's not the point, we all worked out what it meant, it's just fucking annoying anyway. To be honest, I always found "astroturfing" an annoying expression to begin with, maybe it's because we don't have many artificial grass pitches in the UK so it still seems a bit exotic.

Mandatory Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that from this point on, comment direction and moderation in this topic will be managed by a Waggener Edstrom team on behalf of Microsoft. This is simply to ensure a positive and thoughtful discussion of Microsoft activities, and will not impact your Slashdot reading pleasure.

Note also that any further discussion of Waggener Edstrom's efforts on behalf of Microsoft will be moderated to -1.

"Monitoring conversations, including those that take place with social media, is part of our daily routine; our products can be used as early warning systems, helping clients with rapid response and crisis management.

http://waggeneredstrom.com/about/approach
http://waggeneredstrom.com/clients

Re:Mandatory Notice

[somersault]

Mod parent up.. already he's been modded down by astroturfer accounts. Depressing that people actually get paid to troll the one place that I actually still enjoy reading and posting.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[GameboyRMH]

I've been keeping track of the shills I run across in a journal entry:

http://slashdot.org/~GameboyRMH/journal/273120

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Pope]

*shakes fist*

Waggeneredstrom!

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I read through a few of the posts you indicated were posted by "shills" and it's pretty clear none of them are actually shills. One of your "Microsoft Shills" even posted some anti-Silverlight stuff. You have one guy who seems to be guilty mostly of not hating Microsoft enough, and one guy who doesn't like Chrome. I suggest that if you think these people are shills, that you are not functioning correctly.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Missing.Matter]

So what exactly is your evidence that these people are shills, aside from that they post pro-microsoft or anti-google comments?

Re:Mandatory Notice

[GameboyRMH]

There's no way for me to be 100% sure. Unless I can break into their computers and find the emails between them and their employer there's no hard evidence.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Dripdry]

So you're willing to express that they're "not shills", but not willing to say who you are? That's.... brilliant. Just brilliant. Way to convince us that you're not just trying to cover up because you happen to be on that list.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, any AC who thinks a conspiracy theory is stupid must obviously be part of the conspiracy. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Then post a link to the single post of theirs that most makes you think they're shills.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[GameboyRMH]

Scroll through the post histories of the shill accounts I listed and linked to, there are plenty, do I really need to point them out individually?

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence? Well, shills can't help but reply with probing questions to posts exposing shills. That's the strongest indicator of a shill.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be helpful. I read through their post history and didn't really see anything suspicious at all.

Actually, I read through Npeka's posts, and I find it doubtful that a paid shill would post: "Around 30 women, a few guys and some shemales." I don't really see how posts like that, which got marked troll, would have been made by someone paid to post.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

That's okay; I've added "Dripdry" to my list of wankers. It's much more comprehensive than that list of shills.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[tehcyder]

Mod parent up.. already he's been modded down by astroturfer accounts. Depressing that people actually get paid to troll the one place that I actually still enjoy reading and posting.

I, for one, would like some proof that there are all these astroturfers/paid shills out there. If true, the ones for Microsoft, Oracle and Sony (to name the most obvious) certainly don't do a very good job on slashdot.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[tehcyder]

Evidence? Well, shills can't help but reply with probing questions to posts exposing shills. That's the strongest indicator of a shill.

Yeah, if they float they're a witch. Genius.

Blah blah, obviously I must be a paid Microsoft/Government/Communist shill.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[somersault]

I don't have that mindset actually, but I do post here a lot, and I've seen a few accounts that are very clearly shills. Some of them have even said outright that they work in marketing. This guy was one of them. I'm not sure if he's the same guy as North Korea/CmdrPony (and a few other accounts that I can't remember the name of, but they all use the same manner of speech and keep suggesting that people travel around Asia like he did/does). That guy at first I wasn't sure if he just had limited experience with any non-MS software (he keeps saying how Visual Studio is the best development tool, full stop, and he said in a discussion about servers that Linux sucks because you can't log in remotely, wtf?). Sometimes he doesn't even mention anything pro-MS or anti-Google and just likes to join in the chatting. But often he does his shilling thing. So they're getting better, but next time you see someone defending MS in the face of all logic, chances are that their UID is brand new and they are in fact just a shill account rather than a genuine poster.

I should probably keep a log of all the posts that give them away just to show to guys like you. There's even a post in here somewhere that links to the website of a company that does all this stuff. I can't remember if it's the same name as was in the journal I saw a few months ago where someone had found out the name of a company and several accounts used by that company.. it's all rather sad, but it's true. There are people being paid to try and mislead those who don't actually have any knowledge of the history of MS. You may say it's all ancient history, but Ballmer is still in charge. MS' business tactics are rotten. The only reason they haven't been able to get away with so much in the 00s was the anti-trust oversight, but that's over now.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[somersault]

Yeah, I really should keep a list of the posts that make it obvious. I've just had a look over this guy's posting history, and he is clearly the same guy who owns the "North Korea" and "CmdrPony" accounts that do similar shilling. He's always pro Facebook and MS, and anti-Google. He likes to say "frankly" and "you can't deny" a lot.

Here he says that he works in advertising and talks about the worth of Twitter followers. (InsightIn140Bytes to me sounds like a reference to Twitter's 140 character limit, wouldn't you think?). I should really save a link to this comment for future use.

The highlight for me was from his North Korea account on Sept 14th though:

What Microsoft does get is what actual, real world businesses need. They also get what real world programmers need, and they get what enterprise servers need. Linux is great, but it misses many of those features - for example, how do you connect to a remote PC with bash and run your commands there? Oh, you can't. With PowerShell you can easily do that.

It just shows that the guy has no fucking clue. He tries to sound like he knows what he's talking about, saying he runs Linux servers but MS servers are still good for some things - which is true of course, they are better suited for some things - but he doesn't even know about ssh, so how can he really feel he's qualified to compare the two properly? When he says that kind of stuff it sounds like half truths or all out lies. He's either an idiot or insane because he's so pro MS without knowing his facts, or he's getting paid for it.

I like playing devil's advocate when I think people are just going along with groupthink btw, but what this guy does is far beyond devil's advocate..

Re:Mandatory Notice

[jdgeorge]

This is an informative thread. Some Slashdotters have collected interesting data about posting behaviour. I haven't seen anything that strongly suggests a link to someone being paid for making a specific post on Slashdot, but I'd be surprised if Slashdot "crowdsourcing" wasn't an undocumented part of the expected job of various companies' employees.

In any case, I'm convinced that there's a number of Slashdotters who post from various accounts. It's not really surprising, but neither is the insistence that more evidence is needed to provie it by alleged multiSlashers. (Ah, look, I coined a dorky new term. Yay, me!)

I can understand why someone might be a multiSlasher, even without pay. This seems like a potentially effective means of increasing the mod points on posts you want more highly visible.

It may be this behaviour is inevitable in a large forum of this type. But it does seem a bit pathetic.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[InsightIn140Bytes]

This right here is why it's fun to mess with nerds minds.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[somersault]

It's not exactly messing with our minds, it's just making us wonder what kind of creep enjoys lying for a living. And even worse, do you really think any technically literate person believes the stuf you say? If they actually reviewed your work based on results, you'd get a piss poor performance review.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[InsightIn140Bytes]

They funny thing is, you're linking my personal opinions and posts to some random company that has not connection with me. Yes, that right there makes you really sane and it's why I should listen to any suggestions or your opinions!

Re:Mandatory Notice

[somersault]

If it has no connection with you, why are you a self confessed marketing drone who can't stop creaming his pants over Microsoft? Why do you make retarded claims like you can't connect into other servers from bash and PowerShell is the best thing since sliced bread? If those really are your personal opinions, you're a gullible and/or ignorant fool who needs to do more research into products rather than believing bullshit sales brochures and equally ignorant sales reps. Not even for our sake, but your own if you want to make the most of your computers. Whether you are a shill or an idiot, I hope you're at least learning something from your time here.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Where have I said you cant connect to other servers with ssh? Where I have said I like PowerShell better?

Thing is, I do really like bash/sh environment. But I do understand why PowerShell is, well, powerful. Everything passed as objects is a better approach.

The fact is, I'm not personally promoting either Windows or Linux. Both have it's good sides, but slashdot persons usually decry Windows while they themselves just don't know how to use it.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[InsightIn140Bytes]

That comment was about interactive shell. Yes, you can connect and run list of commands. However, you cannot interact with them.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[somersault]

You said that stuff http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2428030&cid=37401518>here.

Yes, object passing can be useful in a homogenous environment like PowerShell, but Unix commands are designed around text processing rather than binary formats for a reason. Unix pipes can pass objects as binary files. PowerShell does benefit from being designed with hindsight of course, there are probably a few things that would be done different in terms of Unix tools if a complete redesign were being done of the shell environment - for example two way pipes for Inter Process Communication would probably be one of them, and I think PowerShell has that.

You are making a very broad assumption saying that Slashdotters don't know how to use Windows. Maybe not Windows Server of course. I have a decade of experience with Windows Server for a small/medium business myself, with several remote offices. Many Slashdotters have even deeper experience there. Many don't, but they sure as hell will have had some experience with Windows on the desktop at some point. I doubt any negative sentiment toward MS is through lack of proficiency.

Yes Windows and Linux both have strengths and weaknesses, and it's good to play devils advocate when people aren't thinking clearly or sensibly. But MS have shown repeatedly that they are one of the scummiest companies on the planet, with poor technical credentials. Honestly, have a look at the history of computing throughout the 1900s. It's amazing. But MS managed to make people think that for example computers crashing every day was acceptable. It's taken them 15-20 years to build a remotely stable OS despite having more resources than god. They repeatedly try to sabotage competing products by abusing their position in the desktop segment and doing backhand deals. Maybe you respect and admire that. I don't, and neither do 95% of Slashdot. Why should they? Very cool things are happening now that MS are losing their grip on computing.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[somersault]

Auto-type on touch screen messed up that link: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2428030&cid=37401518

Re:Mandatory Notice

[somersault]

You ean you can't do this, or this? Interesting.

I know what you're trying to get at - doing those things in PowerShell is possibly more convenient if it's been designed from the ground up for a networked environment - but you shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that you can't do something in Linux just because you yourself do not know how. That's rather hypocritical after what you just said about Slashdotters not knowing how to use Windows.

Re:Mandatory Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

You're personally promoting anything and everything Microsoft and bashing all competitors. Most people on slashdot know that and will down mod you to oblivion.

I feel sad for you that you have no skills or intelligence to earn a living any other way than being this most pathetic bottom feeder - marketing for a corporation on the Internet.

sigh

[Black Parrot]

Our species has gotten its hands on toys that we're just not grown-up enough to play with.

Re:sigh

[bronney]

that's what it said.

Re:sigh

[ColdWetDog]

Our species has gotten its hands on toys that we're just not grown-up enough to play with.

Yeah, our balls.

Humf

[arcite]

The Chinese make the Nigerians look like a bunch of amateurs.

It's not like tv ads

[jopsen]

TV ads don't pose as reviews or recommendation by other follow consumers.
Also ads elsewhere are not posted without consent, the spam comment that show up on my blog are not ads placed with my consent (Note I have spam filter and personally reviews everything it doesn't kill).
It's equivalent to a people just putting ad-posters on your wall without your consent.

Furthermore it is the biggest threat to the free internet today, to some extent outright destroying the internet as we know it.
Evil is a strong word, but it's capitalization with total disregard for other peoples property and misleading to the degree that it's outright criminal.

Re:It's not like tv ads

[mrchaotica]

It's equivalent to a people just putting ad-posters on your wall without your consent.

There are companies that hire graffiti artists to do that too these days.

It's getting to the point where the marketers ought to be first up against the wall when the revolution comes (yes, even before the lawyers!).

Re:It's not like tv ads

[rust627]

For instance, the entry on the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation describes their marketing division as "a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes", with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent.

Thank you Douglas Adams

The fiery pit of boiling death is reserved for the lawyers .............

Re:It's not like tv ads

[bware]

I see what you're doing there. You're going for the anti-marketing dollar.[1]

[1] RIP Bill Hicks

Re:It's not like tv ads

[Anonymous Coward]

TV ads don't pose as reviews or recommendation by other follow consumers.

I have some unfortunate news for you.

Re:It's not like tv ads

[tehcyder]

Evil is a strong word, but it's capitalization with total disregard for other peoples property and misleading to the degree that it's outright criminal.

I think the word you're after is Capitalism, which most people here are all in favour of until someone like Microsoft, Apple or Google gets too powerful, as though the legendary Invisible Hand should somehow prevent this, because obviously teh evil government shouldn't interfere in the market.

Re:It's not like tv ads

[tehcyder]

If you are anti-marketing and anti-advertising then you are logically against laissez faire free market capitalism. Which is fine by me, but I'm not sure it would agree with most slashdotters.

Under capitalism, the products that make the money are not necessarily the best, but they are certainly the best marketed.

Contrary to the old cliche, you're fantastically unlikely to get rich by building a better mousetrap and waiting for the world to beat a path to your door.

A related fallout

[tanveer1979]

I don't know whether it falls in this category, but the ability to buy crowds for cheap is having interesting results.
A real case I observed recently.

A leading motorcycle manufacturer did a contest in Asia (over 6-7 countries). On their webpage, write some thing about yourself(related to touring). Depending upon the number of "votes" winner will be declared, and then the winner gets a 20,000$ bike or something like that.

The lead guy led till the second or third last day. I followed his posts on FB asking people for votes and all.
And then bam, on the last two days, an unknown came up with largest number of votes.

Most of his friends accused the organizer of rigging votes. After all, how could somebody with almost nil votes come on top.

What they do not realize, for 1000$ you can actually buy tonnes of votes from these crowdturfing sites.

For 1 cent, you can get one guy to vote, so 100,000 votes is quite a bit.

For a random guy, not clued to this, getting 5000-10000 votes can be an achievement, and beating 100,000 votes are next to impossible.

I have seen this happening in many online voting contests where prize money is huge.

Duh

[Mark_in_Brazil]

"Windows Vista was really bad, but Windows 7 is great!"

I wonder how big the fake click industry is ...

[Lazy Jones]

"Crowdturfing" seems to be a new phenomenon that came with the rise of social networks, but the multi-billion pay-per-click ad industry has had to cope with (and benefit from) fake ad clicks for many years. Someone will have to burst that bubble soon...

Re:I wonder how big the fake click industry is ...

[tehcyder]

I read it as crow-turding which makes no sense but sounds suitably unpleasant.

Mods

[TapeCutter]

Agree with somersault, please award the parent post the converted +5 troll.

Self-trepanation by hammer and nail is healthy

[h00manist]

misleading/unethical. not really evil.

how is spreading lies in this way different from spreading lies in ads on TV ?

It depends on how serious one considers the consequences of "lies" are. This "just simple marketing" can lead to switching pointless things like brands of bottled water, but also switching medical treatments, food, voting, investing, and taking life risks. Would be interesting to see a survey on the opinion of injured war veterans is about the legality of using misleading information in military recruitment. And what would "truth in advertising" mean for recruiting for fighting in Iraq? "Lose your limbs to support stupid politicians and dumb ideas!"

Still, spreading lies and false information can be defensible as freedom of expression, if one can say they "honestly believe" in what they are saying. Which almost always can be claimed - true or not.

"Yes your honor I truly believe self-trepanation by hammer and nail may be greatly beneficial to one's mental health in the long term, in spite of a occasional risks to one's physical skull. "

Re:Self-trepanation by hammer and nail is healthy

[shentino]

Being good is a competitive disadvantage in an environment full of crooks.

Getting stabbed in the back or kicked in the nuts is pretty nasty but it's also very effective.

Beowulf

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you had a beowulf cluster of trolls and *turfers
Oh, they already do...

Crowdnullrouting.

[billcopc]

When discussing China and the Internet, calling it "evil" is redundant. They are almost completely immune to legal repercussions, our governments are too pussywhipped to blackball the trade industry, and China knows this. It is the only card they ever play. They have us by our consumerist balls, so they can get away with anything.

It is for these reasons that I drop ALL packets entering my network from China, except for VPN connections from the handful of contractors with whom I actually work. I've done this for the better part of 7 years. There is simply no business incentive for me to deal with that market, while they have all the reasons in the world to fuck with my sites, services and users. They can join the rest of us when they learn to play nice.

Re:Crowdnullrouting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you tell me how you go about dropping all packets from China? I could use some of that.

Re:Crowdnullrouting.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ascent of China is the single biggest threat to our illusion of democracy and free speech. But what the West has, illusion as it may be, it still far better than what China has.

Re:Crowdnullrouting.

[tehcyder]

Could you tell me how you go about dropping all packets from China? I could use some of that.

His 1337 skillz means he controls teh whole intarwebs with the power of mind control, not unlike whatsisname in the Matrix.

Is this moving us to the end of anonymity?

[Marrow]

Is there going to be different values for nyms based on their location or verified identity? Maybe that would be a good thing. Keeping nyms, but guaranteeing that a person can have only one per site. Or one per planet.

Yeah, but...

[quixote9]

Let me tell you the story of me and my $35 toaster. You know the old joke about "they can land someone on the Moon, but they can't make a toaster that doesn't burn the bread"? It's totally true. After many years, I shouted, "Enough!"

I researched toasters. (Yeah, I know. I must not have enough to do.) After a couple of hours crawling all over everywhere, reading negative reviews first, evaluating positive ones for whether there was anything interesting or useful said, etc., etc., etc., I settled on one. Kind of expensive, but you have to remember I was really sick of burned toast.

And, damn if the thing doesn't work! So, if you're crazy enough, you can actually make the system function (sometimes). I agree that most people aren't going to or don't do any of that. But if I'd driven to the mall and picked from the available, normal, bread-burning toasters, that would have taken a couple of hours, too. And cost gas money.

Re:Yeah, but...

[tehcyder]

The simple way not to burn toast is to watch it while it's cooking, i.e. do it under a grill.

The fractional convenience of being able to walk away for a couple of minutes and have the toast pop up when it's ready can surely only make a difference to the most frantically busy people, in which case why not just eat a cereal bar or something?

Re:Yeah, but...

[quixote9]

You know, in the high and far off times, toasters used to be two panels of heating elements and two covers with hinges at the bottom. You kept it on the table. Bread went in, toasted on one side while you ate other things or sipped coffee. You were right there, so very easy to keep an eye on it. Actually, a nose. You could smell the nice toasty aroma when it was time to flip the bread and start the other side. Never any problems. Even better than a grill (unless you're talking about one of those electric, tabletop things). My grandmother had one those toasters, and if I saw one at a garage sale, I'd probably pay whatever they wanted for it.

Re:Stop Making up New Words ... said Ogg

[quixote9]

Back in Stone Age, we had one, two, many! words. Plenty for Ogg. Who need more?

Social is bad for search, and vice versa.

[Animats]

We've been pointing this out for a while. Our latest paper, "Social is bad for search, and search is bad for social", contains a tour of the social spam ecosystem. There's a whole industry out there selling not just "likes", reviews, and "+1s", but the fake accounts, IP proxies, and fake mail accounts needed to support them. Down at the bottom, the "search engine optimization" industry starts to connect to organized crime. There are several layers to separate the "legitimate businesses" looking for SEO services from the people selling IP proxies on botnets.

Social spam isn't primarily aimed at human readers any more. It's aimed at search engines. When Google started using reviews as a ranking factor for Google Places, and then merged Places results into main search results in October 2010, the social spam boom took off. Really fast. The ads for Google Places spam went over the top. For the last two months of 2010, it was so bad that stories hit the New York Times about how Google had jumped the shark.

It's a crime - the article, that is.

[OneSmartFellow]

I had no idea what this topic was about until I read the article. Even then, I had to ponder how this is an issue I need to be worried about.

My condensed summary of all the findings:

Don't trust product reviews on most websites. The good websites, those that you are probably already using for your online purchases, such as Amazon, offer the most reliable reviews.

I guess being a cynic gets me through most difficult to comprehend issues without even noticing.

Re:Hey

[ColdWetDog]

This is just a test but, i will send 5$ to anyone o mod me up until i reach +5 informative.

Nobody is buying it. Try bitcoins instead - a different demographic.

Last thing human intelligence is needed for?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last task that cannot be done by machines is making humans believe you're human? Or would machines be able to pass this particular Turing test, but they're still too expensive?
At least it means we still have a couple of years left.

Re:your sig

[Anomalyst]

I always absolutely refuse to ever use an absolute in perpetuity.

Re:Stop Making up New Words ... said Ogg

[Anomalyst]

640 words should be enough for anyone.

Re:Hey

[tehcyder]

This is just a test but, i will send 5$ to anyone o mod me up until i reach +5 informative.

Nobody is buying it. Try bitcoins instead - a different demographic.

Yeah, genuine criminal fraudsters rather than half-arsed PR people.