Slashdot Mirror
Customer Feedback Surveys Could Be Considered Harmful (easydns.org)
Longtime Slashdot reader Stunt Pope writes: Customer Feedback surveys are now near-ubiquitous, subjecting us all to near-Black Mirror-esque pursuit to "rate your experience" for everything from going to the bank to ordering a pizza. Thanks to The Curse of Goodhart's Law, all of these surveys are beyond useless and even damaging. Mark Jeftovic writes in a blog post: "The shop/hire-rate-reward feedback loop has become baked-in to some systems. Many live marketplaces incorporate these feedback transactions into ratings, which then become a score which then impacts future prospects of whomever is being rated. And that's where the trouble starts. There is a point where this stops being useful and the knock-on effects of a ratings system predicated on feedback results becomes counter-productive. That point is when the ratings become targets. When a company decrees 'All customer feedback ratings must score a minimum of X, or else...' the company has just commenced the process of invalidating and corrupting all useful information to be gleaned from that feedback/survey process. A label which captures this concept is 'Goodhart's Law' -- after economist Charles Goodhart, who posited in essence that 'when a measure becomes a target, it becomes useless.'"
You can get 10 bucks off your next purchase.
How would you rate the quality of this story?
[ ] Ehh, good enough.
[ ] Could have been better, I guess.
this!
i understand the hell that contact centre employees go through, but why should i give you 10/10 if you were barely average?
as a manager i would much prefer to have real feedback rather than synthetic 'brilliance' i could report up the management chain
" A label which captures this concept is 'Goodhart's Law' -- after economist Charles Goodhart, who posited in essence that 'when a measure becomes a target, it becomes useless.'"
I've seen a similar effect in places where I've worked. A poorly defined metric that is used to rate employee performance will suddenly become the primary focus of the job, instead of actually doing the job.
Maybe they dangle the prize in front of your face and meanwhile extract as much data about you and your habits as they can. This way your life may be complicated by too much information. But sometimes they actually DO show you something that you can actually use. On the dark side, they can mistakenly fire people who don't deserve it though ratings. Or they can figure out how to further thin out employees.
Would you rate this story a second time if we gave you a 5% off coupon?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Due to the growing abusiveness or corporations, invasions of privacy, and wide spread deceit, I have decided to follow the principles that many corporations expose and purposefully lie in feedback to companies I dislike. They want quality consulting services, well, the fuckers can bloody well pay for them, nothing is for free according to them, for free, they just get lies. Turnabout is fair play after all, lie to me, well I'll lie to you ;) (only for poorly behaved corporations, which seems to be the majority, especially multi-nationals).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
An experience at a local biz in town with a customer service rep... Was told that anything less than 5 out of 5 on his customer review is considered a bad review, and he all but begged me to give him 5-stars.
He was so overly friendly it was past creepy. I felt conflicted: he did a good job, but I felt I was rating for his sake, not to give an honest assessment of how well I was served by him.
are of extreme importance. I know at my company all of the feedback we've gotten from customers was invalid. The feedback we've received thinks in the short term and within their own bounds. We have a much bigger goal. We're in the education field, and most of our customers only think in terms of getting test scores higher for their dumb students that don't know English since they're from Mexico. Instead, we try to measure differential learning. Teachers are measured on averages so they tend to just want to only teach to the bottom of the students since that is the best way to increase the average.
On first blush, seems like this principle can be applied to teaching kids how to take tests instead of teaching critical thought and problem solving.
... how then do we have targets at all?
Sounds like it would apply admirably to both GDP and CPI, given that the Fed is targeting them.
It's no surprise to know that targets can be gamed, and that performance metrics can be poorly implemented. But this is a false dichotomy: the choice is not between poorly implemented metrics/targets and no metrics/targets. There's also the option of implementing metrics/targets well. Not perfectly: what is, in this life? But certainly possible to implement them well -- and it would be damaging for the organisation not to do so. And if the behaviours and mindsets of the organisation are broken in the first place, then an absence of metrics/targets can be just as disastrous as poorly implemented metrics/targets -- and what's really needed is effort to work on the underlying issues.
I don't generally fill out surveys. When I do, though, I am as honest as they let me be. Sometimes, the pre-provided answers don't conform to my true feelings or are not applicable.
I prefer the freeform surveys where I can state exactly what I like and don't like.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
I follow Joshua's advice and rarely, if ever, fill out the "customer feedback survey".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
It's supposed to demoralize the front-line people. It's supposed to make them hate every second with the customers. This isn't a big revelation. It's applied psychology being used for anti-social ends.
The ends which state that time is money.
For every second you're not selling, you're costing someone money. For every second you're not adding value to that sale, you're costing someone money. For every second you're spending getting to know that other human, you're wasting someone else's money. That's how retail works now. How's it's been working for the past 15 years or so when those got first introduced. It was never about getting someone to better themselves. It was always about manipulation.
I am as honest as they let me be.
You are a horrible person. Do you realize that by rating a good, but not fantastic, interaction as only 4/5, you are jeopardizing someone's career?
Does that mean 5% less ads on the page?
Hummmm... no deal!
Just rate them double-plus good! Then both you and their big brother will be non-sad happy!
Or when a company (Uber) forces a rating on a previous transaction (Uber) before allowing additional transactions (Uber). It's especially
annoying when you're in a bandwidth challenged location and all you want to do is use the service without being forced (Uber).
It's invasive and a waste of bandwidth and time(Uber).
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Will this work for you? ;)
On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate to the nearest ten-thousandth place, EXACTLY how you felt about your service today:
1. Your Service reps handshake: 7.67565
The reps hand placement was not in perfect alignment with mine, and I detected a slight amount of clamminess on the skin...
2. The quality of the tires you received: 3.14159
The tires were very round, but the font face of the sidewall was less than ideal for viewing at high speeds.
*fewer
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I've put some thought into metrics for programmers / software jobs and have come up with damn little that's useful *if the programmers know what the metrics are*. If management looks at different metrics each month or quarter, and nobody knows ahead of time what they'll be looking at, you might get some semi-useful numbers. The metric doesn't become the goal when you don't know what the metrics is.
Whenever the people doing the work know what the metric is, and have motivation to increase it, most focus more increasing the metric than doing the job well, in my experience. Obviously *some* jobs can be measured with a simple number, though even most of those fail to capture quality of work, when you just measure quantity. If you have some ideas that you've seen work long term I'd love to hear about it.
In software programming, my most productive work often involves deleting superfluous and redundant code, and deleting code that's based on assumptions, in order to make it work in more general cases. That makes the code more useful, faster, more maintainable, and most importantly more reliable - it's impossible to have bugs in code that isn't there. Bso anyway that's my *most* productive work, for the time spent. (Deleting is fast.) Some morons have tried to measure programmer productivity by "lines of code added". Well that's exactly wrong. It rates the most productive work as having negative productivity. Other measurements are slightly better in that they don't measure the exact OPPOSITE of what they are supposed to measure, but none I've seen is particularly useful.
Pedantry. 0/5
Precision and clarity. 5/5.
See, the posers around here like to pretend they watch Black Mirror, but if you post the name of the episode referred to in TFA and quote the last line of the episode, and it doesn't get modded +5 Funny, that's how you know the posers around here don't actually watch Black Mirror.
Would you rate this story a second time if we gave you a 5% off coupon?
How do you rate the dupe?
Thank You for your thoughtful response. Please take 5 minutes and complete a free survey regarding your recent Slashdot posting experience!
1. On a scale of 1 to 9.99, 10 being the best, how would rate the grammatical content of that post you replied too?
2. On a scale of noon to midnight how would you rate the timeliness of the post?
3. On a scale from A to Z, how was the speling?
For completing this *FRee survey, you get a sticker!
This comment is neither zen nor about motorcycles.
And if the Ehh, good enough doesn't win, I'm firing Slashdot!!
I dunno. Take a call centre. ASA (average speed of answer) is a common and important metric. Organisations will often have a target or SLA for their ASA, and this is something customers really care about. It's driven by a range of factors: how call centre operatives handle calls, matching of demand and supply, actions to reduce demand such as self-service (eg online) or bots to answer, etc etc. I can't see how a call centre could manage itself effectively without having both an ASA target for the centre as a whole and for individual operators.
Or in another field: mortality rates for surgeons. Distinguishing case-mix and other effects from surgical competence effects is very very hard -- but that doesn't mean we can afford to stop trying, or stop looking at these numbers.
According to Bob Lewis, every measure becomes a target.
Seriously, the mere act of measuring something sends a message: "This Is Important. If you want to Look Good and Get Ahead, make the numbers better. Every quarter."
http://issurvivor.com/
Which led to the Bob Lewis Metric Corollary: Be Careful What You Measure
The numbers will move and get better, as sure as the night follows the day. It won't matter what it takes to move those number either, just know that the numbers will move. To make the people responsible for them look better.
How do I get honest feedback? I mean, I'm actively developing software, and adding new features. I would love to be told "most of your customers want X before Y" (or most of your on-the-fence non-customers). That seems to be a win-win for everyone (except those minority who want Y, but that would be true of any system that accurately measured).
Your ad here. Ask me how!
That is when you bring up the Lyft app or even call a yellow cab. It is not like they are a monopoly.
Now if the rating is a simple "Would you ride with this driver again?" yes/no question you are complaining about nothing. I'll give you the benefit of assuming it is at least a 5 star style rating.
Customer feedback surveys are a chance to give some easy feedback if someone drops the ball or goes above & beyond. Beyond that I don't bother with one exception; I'll provide someone their first feedback so later customers have something to start from (ebay, gunbroker and the like)
> Or in another field: mortality rates for surgeons.
So the most reliable, and most obvious way for a doctor to increase their rating is to try to avoid treating patients the who are in poor health - exactly the opposite of what we want doctors to do. A doctor who aims to reduce their mortality rate should if spend their time with althletes and college students, maybe handing out steroids and stimulants. Again, if the doctor doesn't *know* anyone is looking at the mortality rate of patients, it can be a very crude but marginally useful number. As soon as you tie doctor pay to mortality rates, you're paying them to avoid sick people.
I worked somewhere that metricked lines of code. Our "top coder" put all arguments on their own line, added lots of blank or stupid comments and did everything the hard verbose way. Had to look at that shit for years afterward.
Man, you really need that seminar!
I don't suppose that place managed to become, and remain, a large company, given their idiocy? Of so I'd love to know the name, so I can avoid them. I wouldn't want to bother interviewing there, and it would probably be best to avoid buying their products if their coders are rewarded for creating the biggest pile of garbage.
This is exactly why I quit filling out customer surveys -- because I was using the whole range of 1-10, then later I learned that every one of them expects perfect scores on every line item, so their scale is actually 9-10 with 9 being unacceptable and 10 being acceptable. It's a joke and not a funny one to the poor employees on the receiving end of this corporate BS.
Slashdot was fired long ago but a glitch kept him on payroll. Nobody told him but we fixed the glitch. It should work itself out eventually.
If you want to reward someone for doing a good job, you can tell a manager (look for someone walking around the store who looks like a manager), or go to the store's "Customer Service" department, and tell them. Be specific as to how that person was helpful.
Once in a busy pre-Christmas shopping season, a store employee went out of his way to help me. I told a manager, who was walking around the store, how much that employee had helped me. About 1/2 later, the employee rushed up to me all happy. He thanked me for telling the manager how helpful he had been. He said that because of what I'd said, he'd gotten a star (whatever that is) and a bonus.
I think it's also important to consider that satisfaction surveys tend to suffer from a sort of selection bias. You're only getting feedback from people who feel compelled to give feedback. In my personal experience you'll get:
- Sometimes people who are angry
- Occasional people who are extremely pleased
- Often people who have excessive esteem of their own opinions**
- Rarely people who just want to give helpful feedback
I'm not pointing this out to necessarily disparage these groups or say that their opinions aren't valid, but it's important to understand you're unlikely to get a true random sampling.
**I know someone is going to take issue with my third item, "people who have excessive esteem of their own opinions", so I'll try to explain what I mean by that. Obviously people's opinions are important, or you wouldn't be asking for feedback. And yes, everyone values their opinions more than others'. However, there are some people who... you read their online review, and you can tell that they believe their review will impress everyone and settle all disputes. Like you'll read a negative Yelp review, and the reviewer isn't just saying, "I had an bad experience," or "I didn't like it," but something more like, "This place is simply objectively terrible and though I see other people saying that they like the place, they're all wrong and stupid and not worth listening to." You can almost imagine that they've finished writing the review, leaned back in their chair, and thought, "Well that waiter crossed the wrong person. I expect they'll go out of business any day now."
So my
I also once read that customer satisfaction surveys are, in general, only answered by people who were on the extreme ends of the customer satisfaction ratings; that is, most of the time the only people who bother with a survey are those who had a really awesome or a really bad experience. The experience left them emotionally charged, and they feel the need to share/vent, and the survey gives them that opportunity. The average customer, on the other hand, doesn't have this emotional need and so - when offered an opportunity to rate their experience, gives the whole thing a pass and - if forced into it - tend to give wishy-washy middle-of-the-road answers (e.g., all 5 out of 10s) just so they don't have to think about it.
I imagine it is also easier to be on the receiving end of a "terrible experience" than an awesome one too, which only further biases the reviews. I mean, as a customer I can imagine a dozen ways in which a cashier could piss me off, but have a hard time thinking up a way that cashier could make me EXCITED about paying for my groceries). So the end result is very biased against the person getting reviewed, because most of the people who bother to respond to the reviews are those who had a bad experience. If they forced /all/ customers to take the survey and somehow ensured their honesty, you might get a better overview of how the employee is performing, but by leaving it up to the customer the employer is getting a very unbalanced response.
Not to mention I never know how to answer those because I never know what is considered "average". Is a 5/10 average or do I have to base it on the US grading system, where 7/10 is "average"?
You need to approve my cute kitten videos before I mod your stuff.
Although the party is working on it, the word "sad" is not part of the current edition of newspeak.
I do third to final tier support. My ratings from customers and lower tier support is abysmal because most of the time, I have to say "Nope! Can'tWon't do that." Lost a promotion because of the score as well, so it cost me around $15K.
My favorite rant from someone that said I was "stupid" because I can't configure a F5 to act as a master/master SMB share. Oh, I could get them something like SMB with HA, but not for the incremental price (about $4 a month) they were looking for.
I am actively seeking other employment, for several reasons. The biggest is the 24x7x365 insistence of being on call and less than 5 minutes from being able to spring into action and fixing things. Hell, I can't go to the store and buy skittles without breaking that SLA. If they want a 24 hour support staff, they can damned well hire to staff for 3 shifts.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I don't think these surveys are worth crap. The companies that rely on them to rate employees have HR policies that suck. I usually just ignore the pleas from "anonymous data collectors" about my visit to see my doctor, or the pizza order (really!). When an employee implores me to rate my visit (for which she is being held responsible) highly, in what might be a personalized way, I just rate the "experience" at 10's from start to finish unless they performed some egregious bit of malpractice on me or my car. It's like tossing a fiver into the hat of a street musician. He needs it and it costs nothing to help him out. I'm hoping that after seeing a few of these the companies will stop asking for my meaningless "feedback". Otherwise, I will continue (with little enthusiasm or optimism) to try to improve the quality of life for those who depend on 10's.
Natural adaptive human behavior will always have humans finding ways to game systems. Static simple systems can not compete with a dynamic complex human (not just smart, but fools are also ingenious.)
WellsFargo just had a huge huge problem with their management--- remember? they were nuts about metrics and linked incentives which ended up in a massive fraud that should have people leaving that bank in groves... But if their big part in the housing collapse didn't get their suckers to quit I am not sure what else would.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Its not our responsible to give power to horrible systems and managers. Grow a pair or move to Africa.
A similar effect is schools trying to get rid of poor students in order to boost their average test scores.
So the measure works and we get rid of some plebs
So the most reliable, and most obvious way for a doctor to increase their rating is to try to avoid treating patients the who are in poor health - exactly the opposite of what we want doctors to do.
shilly addressed this point in the parent post. Crudely looking at success rates, and over-incentivising them is bad. Not collecting the data because it is liable to misinterpretation is not the solution, however. There are huge benefits in clinical outcomes available by using these metrics sensibly; even some counterintuitive things like closing some regional units - because they saw the trickier cases too rarely to keep their clinical skills up to date.
You see it a lot of places other than consumer ratings. For instance, whisky is commonly rated on a 0-100 scale, where 70 or below is considered "shit, not worth buying". Same thing with ratings in game magazines, where 70% is "crap" or "only for really dedicated fans".
And Ebay reviews. Every single time I buy something from China, I get a bunch of messages thanking me for shopping with them, and expressing an expectation that I will give them a perfect 5-star review, for nothing more than shipping me the item I bought.
Everything gets skewed to the high end of the range, so effectively you're only using half or even just a third of the actual scale.
If I had my way, we would all move to a simpler system, a 4-point scale at the very most, with a mandatory paragraph to elaborate on your rating:
0 stars for absolute shit
1 star for bad
2 stars for just OK
3 stars for good
4 stars for great
But unfortunately, that's A) far too simple for the numbers-obsessed sadcases who insist on rating everything on strict numbers, so they can go "but this is 3 more better than that other one" without having to think for themselves, and B) takes too much effort for the lazy fucks who inhabit this world and can't be arsed to write even a single cohesive paragraph about why they like/dislike a certain thing.
Eat the rich.
It's hardly a career if 95% performance means losing it. They are better off moving to greener pastures.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Whenever the people doing the work know what the metric is, and have motivation to increase it, most focus more increasing the metric than doing the job well, in my experience.
If increasing the metric does not result in the job being done better, then you have the wrong metric (or, at least, a metric that you should not be using to evaluate the employee. One company I worked for had a phrase they imprinted on certain tools they gave managers, "What does not get measured does not get done."
Customer satisfaction is a terrible metric for which to hold employees accountable because there are too many variables which the customer facing employee cannot control. I have interacted with a company which gives out these surveys. I always give them poor ratings while emphasizing in my comments that the employees I dealt with went above and beyond to help me, but my experience interacting with customer support for that company had been awful because of the tools company management had given those employees to work with.
Companies should seek to have high customer satisfaction, but they need to find ways to measure what results in good customer satisfaction and measure their employees against that.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I think that we all instinctively understand this but this is the first time I have seen it codified in such a way.
I have noticed how some people use what car someone drives or the cost of someone's home as an indicator of their financial status but then there are people who will buy outrageously expensive cars while they live with their parents or people who buy expensive houses but don't have the financial means to buy enough food.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Nope. Whoever is reading the surveys and taking the numbers seriously, is the person who is jeopardizing careers. (Not that anyone should care about the "career" of a salesperson. Where I work, sales is just where many people mere started, to get their foot in the door, before they changed jobs to something completely different. I didn't, but it seems like damn near everyone else did that.)
And that same incompetent manager is also jeopardizing the business, since they are measuring something other than revenue (well, really: profit) as being what's important. Sounds like the same kind of mentality that is happy to tell a hundred paying customers to go away, in order to delay a pirate by 45 seconds.
>I prefer the freeform surveys where I can state exactly what I like and don't like.
Yeah, we don't actually give a fuck what the customer likes, we just want a pile of automated metrics that make it easy to declare underperformance. Easy to raise turnover, easy to deny requests, easy to keep pay down, easy to fire someone.
Read shit? That takes effort. We'll just assume a single number is not merely representative, but gospel.
It would really help if you looked up terms you're unfamiliar with, such as casemix. It would have saved you the bother of typing all that.
Thank you for that. Glad that someone else here knows this stuff.
i went to dave and busters recently with friends. we went to the bar for a drink. the bartender said they where doing an online survey and it if we filled it out with 5 starts he would set our cards to get free games for all games that didn't produce tickets. so we all filled it out. it came time to pay for the drinks and the bar tender gave it to use for free since we helped him out with the survey. the business lost hundreds of dollars just from my small group that night between games and drinks. i'm sure the bar tender gave away a ton of free stuff to others too. but when management looks at his metrics they will see he is doing fantastic, maybe the best performing bar tender in the place.
This problem has already been solved by sports bodies that judge things like diving or gymnastics. The score is adjusted based on the difficulty, so everybody doesn't just go for the easiest routine just to get better scores.
For surgeons, you'd adjust the success rate based on the expected success rate. So if a moribund patient dies, it doesn't negatively affect the success rate nearly as much as if a healthy patient dies.
Of course, maybe you would want to compare life expectancy with and without the surgery to determine whether a surgery is a success.
dom
This phenomenon is a corollary of teaching to the test, where teachers and schools are criticized for only teaching things that will appear on a standardized test. Of course, this is nonsense. If a topic is important enough to be taught, it is also important enough to be (with non-trivial probability) on the test. Or said differently, if it's not important enough to be on the test, why are you teaching it? In reality, if it's important enough to be on the test, it should be taught. Therefore, all teachers should teach to a test that contains questions about all relevant topics. Likewise, customer rating subjects should reflect actual performance criteria. If it's not on the customer satisfaction survey, it is not important on the job, and vice versa. The problem here is actually that the scoring scheme is bizarre and unknown to the test taker/satisfaction survey taker. There is nothing wrong with a well-formed satisfaction survey. The giant fault is with the scoring system and how it is used. Don't throw out the baby and keep the bath water.
"Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015
Prove your quoted words above Coren22: Where'd I say it? Show us. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/windows/25596-how-secure-windows-2000-xp-server-2003-vista-fully-per-cis-tool-scoring-3.html?s=0ae07d5b5389e06fd6bcfd05bc2d2cc0/
See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.
APK
P.S.=> Whose mistake is that Coren22? YOURS, lol (again) along with https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10141067&cid=53725817/ idiot (I've got TONS more too)... apk
See subject raymorris: Big F'ing deal & easy (bigtime) + I'd like to ask you a question & point out some things about it where it backfires too in 2 points (though usually I am all for it, for easier maintenance, but it IS easy shit):
1.) Do you know what loop unrolling is & WHY it's done? Inlined code, though harder to maintain, has speed benefits (it's what compilers do for the most part) plus efficiency (NO FUNCTION CALL OVERHEADS).
+
2.) A time refactoring (taking repetitive code & centralizing it into a called procedure, saving lines & easing maintenance) backfires, is when you have a SECURITY oriented set of code in EACH proc/function you fire.
E.G. - sizechecks (or CRC etc.) on procs so your prog can't be infected by traditional .exe attaching @ tail end of program to alter jump tables.
I.E.-> You centralize it to 1 called function/proc? The interloper only has to TAKE OUT 1 spot (vs. potentially tons of them) which is MUCH easier than step-tracing thru a code dump to find them all.
APK
P.S.=> It works & that's why it can be GOOD to leave it alone (yes, it's breakable, most anything is) but like ASRL? It makes it MUCH harder on the hacker/cracker + yes, inlined code IS faster with NO function call overhead too... apk
Ps, the point you've missed is that the defender has to remove *all* of the vulnerabilities, the attacker only has to find *one*. Duplicate code and other forms of poor maintainability mean that the defender is more likely to overlook something in one copy, peer review can't be as as thorough in the allotted time, etc.
This is a very secure program (except in older versions of PHP):
print 'Hello World';
The defender can readily understand the potential behaviors of the program. Greater complexity means greater risk.
Professionally 1994-2008 & retired doing wares that use the technique ala APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-5 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ 4 fun & doing the right thing for others!
& it's done well by /.ers estimations https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10172213&cid=53775597/ & https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10172213&cid=53775689/ + malwarebytes' (highly esteemed) hpHosts hosting & recommending it.
Hassle in it? Sizecheck changes .exe size each time you add it to a proc/function (must redo check thru 100's of them = not fun but worth it - virus proof).
APK
P.S.=> Bulletproof & bugfree + safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )... apk
See my subject: It works ray, mostly for that & also vs. disassembler hacker/crackers too - Combined w/ exe compression?
To quote TERMINATOR's Reese, Sgt. TechCom DN38416 "Assigned to protect you - you've been targetted for termination"??
It's "It's a HYPER-ALLOW COMBAT CHASSIC - Microprocessor controlled: Fully armored, VERY tough" (per the above & more, below)
WHY?
"That terminator, is out there - it can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with - it doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear & it absolutely WILL NOT STOP, ever (until YOU are DEAD!")
* Why'd you reply to yourself for?
(Only 'bitch' I ever saw was stupid & I overturned it vs. 10 antivirus programs on exe compression - they flag that in many of them automatically as a 'virus'... so much for 'experts')
APK
P.S.=> Does other neat things like keeping exe size & memory occupancy low, offsetting added code for sizechecks built-in antivirus protection in my program (string vs. shortstring (255 char limits on filepath & hostnames = perfect for this) & integer vs. short - BOTH keep it faster on the local stack vs. global heap, register/fastcall procs/functions on workhorses (there's limits, 8 in 32-bit, 16 in 64-bit iirc) - tricks you MIGHT like & use yourself, all of this... apk
No sleep, not good & had to help a crippled tenant move out today (good tenant for 1 yr. & I promised I would) so... there you go & per my subject + my other reply to you here https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10168471&cid=53784671/
* We're fighting the SAME fight I figure so, here goes again:
"They lived only to face a new nightmare: The WAR against the MACHINES..." ... & a little "visual ambiance" to go w/ this one this time (enjoy)-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih_l0vBISOE/
LOL!
APK
P.S.=> You must be thinking about the dorks that impersonate me around here constantly (they do, nigh constantly)... apk