Researchers Show How Easy It Is To Manipulate Online Opinions

jcatcw writes "A recent study shows that a single random up-vote, randomly chosen, created a herding behavior in ratings that resulted in a 25% increase in the ratings but the negative manipulation had no effect. An intuitive explanation for this asymmetry is that we tend to go along with the positive opinions of others, but we tend to be skeptical of the negative opinions of others, and so we go in and correct what we think is an injustice. The third major result was that these effects varied by topic. So in business and society, culture, politics, we found substantial susceptibility to positive herding, whereas in general news, economics, IT, we found no such herding effects in the positive or negative direction."

Comments

OK

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with that.

Re:OK

[alphatel]

+1

Re:OK

[QRDeNameland]

+1, begin Stampede.

Listening PS?

[Austrian Anarchy]

There you go Popular Science, a cure for what ails you.

Slashdot members knows this

[themushroom]

Because it's easier to see a +2 comment go to +5 due to people seeing the comment than a 0 comment from an anonymous coward get any altitude at all.

Re:Slashdot members knows this

[girlintraining]

Because it's easier to see a +2 comment go to +5 due to people seeing the comment than a 0 comment from an anonymous coward get any altitude at all.

That's only part of the equation. If you want to karma whore, you do three things; First, post early. Second, attach comments to highly rated ones (or ones you think will be). Third, don't be like me; Always go with the party line. Especially once your karma is 'excellent' because no matter how many upmods you get, it only takes one or two angry moderators to click your page, go into your history, and blow all their points on you to burn your karma out... and several people have multiple accounts here. I've run across them and had my karma croppy-flop from excellent to neutral in just a few minutes because I told an Apple fanboy their god was dead.

Re:Slashdot members knows this

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> Apple fanboy their god was dead

Johnny Appleseed is dead? I didn't even know he was sick!

Re:Slashdot members knows this

[Seumas]

Exactly. Most ranking or voting systems for content exist to help promote said content to the top. Therefore, one vote puts it much higher than all the other content at their default. It's like a lot of other things in life - the more exposure you have, the more opportunity you have. This is the entire reason I turn off that Slashdot feature that lets you post comments at a default of "Score: 2". That seems shitty and cheating, since there are a lot of great comments that deserve a chance to rise and a lot of shit comments are posted at an initial 2 score that don't deserve to be there.

Of course, on Slashdot it *is* a little different. We seem to be such consistent assholes that we eagerly await a chance to mod-down even more than we like to mod-up.

Re:Slashdot members knows this

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry girlintraining,

I have read many of your comments. Sometimes they are great and insightful constructed logically such that even if you disagree you can understand it is genuinely constructive, earning you heaps of karma,

Sometimes you say some pretty heavily debated shit. No doubt burning your karma to the ground.

Basically, the reason you flip-flop on karma, is because you flip-flop in the quality of your comments. Not because you told an apple fanboy that apple didn't invent the tablet.

Re:Slashdot members knows this

[mcgrew]

Funny, I was modbombed just last week and my karma's still excellent. Oh, and we're offtopic here... oh, wait, the subjct is manipulating online opinions. I guess we're not offtopic after all.

But that's how we'll be modded just because I used the word "offtopic." Slashdot may be "news for nerds" but a few with limited reasoning abilities still get mod points. Put the word "insightful" somewhere in your post and expect a +5.

Don't people suck?

Re:Slashdot members knows this

[TheRaven64]

Ah, and here we see the most effective way of getting karma. Post, including the phrase 'I'll probably be modded down for this' or some variant...

Re:Slashdot members knows this

[gl4ss]

6) claim that you're against party line even when you're not. claim that "I'll get downmodded to oblivion for this but *bullshit argument 1* and *bullshit argument 2*.

anyhow, I'm totally unaware of people going into history and modding into oblivion. maybe your comments just suck.

I regularly post messages with shit, fuck etc and admittedly the messages usually have some kind of point. but the point is that no matter if even 10 people decided to go to history and just mod me down just because they don't like my attitude, my karma would still be untouched(managing excellent karma is such a joke - I haven't seen a dent in it for as long as I've had it) - and meta moderation would catch their antics anyhow if the mods were blatantly unjust(if it doesn't then well your comments sucked, tough nutters).

and really, who the fuck has time to go into history to downmod someone? it's much much more worthwhile to just forgo modding and post a flaming reply!

Re:Slashdot members knows this

[girlintraining]

Sometimes you say some pretty heavily debated shit. No doubt burning your karma to the ground.

You don't learn how to make comments that are "great and insightful constructed logically" by avoiding heavily debated positions. I reply to anyone, even anonymous cowards, if I think they have a point. Many a time I have played devil's advocate, arguing with someone whose position I agree with, because I felt their argument was sub-par. Arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons to me is no different than reaching the wrong conclusion -- you should have a solid argument regardless of what side you're on.

I count amongst my friends conservatives and liberals alike, and frequently debate both of them to the point both think I'm on the other team. But it's more important to me that people think critically about their own values and positions and have good reasons for holding to them, than that they agree with me. For example, there's a lot of things Apple does right -- they have spent a LOT of time, money, and effort, on making a simple and intuitive UI for many of their products. This is a solid point in Apple's favor. But they also have used slave labor to produce those products, the work atmosphere even here in the United States has been described as toxic, and they have a very aggressive legal department to protect their overpriced products. Those are all things in the negative. Does that mean that the product might be so good that we can ignore all these things? Quite possibly, if you value that enough. In which case, that's fine -- if that is what you place a premium on, that's a totally valid position. But if you think that all comes at too high of a cost, that's a valid position too. I can see it going both ways -- but saying that Apple has none of those negative qualities, while embracing the good qualities, is a cognitive error, and I will come down on you like a bag of bricks for it.

I find it more important for people to be able to critically reason out why they hold the positions they do, than which position they hold. This means that yeah, I get into heavily debated areas and get modbombed for it... but I'm okay with that too. They may be punitively -1'ing me, but I hope that, despite their anger, I at least made them think about something they hadn't considered... even if they won't admit it.

Mod UP

[themushroom]

Scroll up to: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4292745&cid=45020765

Why I moderate the way I do

[techno-vampire]

When I have mod points, I look for posts that haven't been moderated at all. I figure that once a post's been modded up, there are lots of people who will mod it up further, if appropriate (or just from the herd instinct) so I save my points for posts that haven't been noticed before.

Re:Why I moderate the way I do

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators shouldn't have complete freedom in choosing which comments to moderate. In each discussion, they should be given a random sampling of comments from which to choose, and not just those high enough to pass the browsing threshold. Then every comment would have an equal chance.

Re:Why I moderate the way I do

[techno-vampire]

When I moderate, I browse at -1 so that I can see everything, including posts that may have been unfairly modded down that far. Yes, I realize that most people who moderate don't, but I do see the occasional case where something good has been unfairly moderated because the moderator didn't agree with the post.

Re:Why I moderate the way I do

[liquidsin]

that's how the metamod works.

obvious

[MondoGordo]

People are more easily swayed by opinions in subjective areas, culture, politics, business than in objective ones, news, IT, science. How obvious can a study be?

Re:obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the dawn of time. If it isn't objective, it isn't science.

Re:obvious

[pla]

Since when is science objective? Fat cat climate scientists riding high on the tax payer grants don't do a damn thing objective!

You have confused "idiots who can't grasp the math and instead accept Limbaugh's drivel as gospel" with "scientists". Easy mistake, apparently, since the majority of Americans make the same one.

Re:obvious

[gbjbaanb]

Forgive me if its not the best link (at work, no youtube) but Yes Minister way back when knew about this issue too...

[Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?

Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.

[survey two]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

[does a double-take]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

Brain dump summary

[steelfood]

Is it just me, or has there recently been a rash of poorly-edited summaries that have been nothing more than a brain dump of the submitter? Like dupes, it used to happen occasionally, but now it's at least once or twice a day.

That aside, a story about the psychology of online feedback on Slashdot. What could possibly go wrong...

Re:Brain dump summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of dupes: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/08/09/1326218/why-you-shouldnt-trust-internet-comments

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[CryptDemon]

Well you've commented, so now you're worthless to us all.

Microsoft and SCO are Good!

[Tablizer]

just testing the theory...

Re:Microsoft and SCO are Good!

[phantomfive]

Now that you mentioned it, I do remember when SCO was helping poor orphans and stuff

Re:-1

[flimflammer]

Injustice spotted.

Re:DUPE

[Em Adespoton]

The same MIT study written up by a different mag was posted here a couple months ago.

But it's well worth reading again because this is one of the best-conceived, statistically rigorous, and thoroughly researched studies of the decade, period.

I don't think that worked...

Re:I'll disprove this theory

[mcgrew]

I predict this post will be forgotten quickly and accomplish nothing

This guy has balls of crystal, I tell you!

Re:-1

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Witty retort with a thinly veiled strawman.