DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Is DPC being hacked?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 144, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/05/2010 02:59:35 AM · #1
Below is a quote from ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/17203.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/17203.gif', '/') + 1) . ' scalvert from this image from the double exposure challenge

Originally posted by scalvert:

Ooh, just missed two Opens in a row. I certainly can't complain though... this one started out as low as 2.52 in the early voting after getting hammered by FIVE votes of 1 right off the bat. Huh?!?!

Odds of getting 5 1's in total and all of those in a row when getting 236 votes is 1 to 732082482176. That is 732 billion. It has happened to me also on more than one occasion on high(er) scoring images that I get almost all the low votes in a row. For example 3 3's in a row and only 3 3's in total after voting is over. Odds for this to happen with for example 150 votes in total is 1:3.3 million.
And this is exactly why I at times have been questioning the voting system.

Something fishy is definitely happening. But if it's hacking, ghost accounts, or other unauthorized admin access I don't know. It is the same for everyone of course except for the person(s) that are doing the 'sabotage'.

' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/1.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/1.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Langdon: Do you have a way to go through all the votes over let's say the past year with the following criteria:
- Entries scoring higher than for example 6.0
- Entries with a TOTAL of 3 or more of the same vote being 1's, 2's or 3's AND where all those votes are consecutive.

The number of occasions meeting these criteria should on average be 1 in every 5.6 million entries with avg. 175 votes per entry. IF there are a few occasions (odds would be astronomical); there is definitely foul play involved. Can you then see who voted? If so, it could be worth our while checking if the same users are repeating offenders. If there aren't any repeating users doing this, then it must be done from the admin side.... or at least this is what I think.

This should be a fairly easy SQL statement and you may have done it already.

I hate to be a skeptic, but when the voting patterns are against all odds - by far - it's hard not to... :)

ETA: typo

Message edited by author 2010-05-05 03:09:39.
05/05/2010 03:04:33 AM · #2
You are not alone Trollman, you are not alone!
05/05/2010 03:07:54 AM · #3
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

You are not alone Trollman, you are not alone!

Not only are there at least 5 trolls here, but they are also coordinating the timing of their votes. Probably a Facebook group! :)
05/05/2010 03:11:36 AM · #4
Originally posted by TrollMan:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

You are not alone Trollman, you are not alone!

Not only are there at least 5 trolls here, but they are also coordinating the timing of their votes. Probably a Facebook group! :)


Damn. I told those guys to only vote down Shannon's free studies. Idiots! :P
05/05/2010 03:13:48 AM · #5
Sometimes I wonder if this site is getting hackneyed. ;-Þ
05/05/2010 03:16:17 AM · #6
Originally posted by TrollMan:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

You are not alone Trollman, you are not alone!

Not only are there at least 5 trolls here, but they are also coordinating the timing of their votes. Probably a Facebook group! :)


Usually that is one or two people voting on different accounts. I could go on for days about how the votes don't add up but there isn't anything that I can do about it. The site needs a better way of monitoring this for sure but who's going to do it?
05/05/2010 03:21:30 AM · #7
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by TrollMan:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

You are not alone Trollman, you are not alone!

Not only are there at least 5 trolls here, but they are also coordinating the timing of their votes. Probably a Facebook group! :)


Usually that is one or two people voting on different accounts. I could go on for days about how the votes don't add up but there isn't anything that I can do about it. The site needs a better way of monitoring this for sure but who's going to do it?

Yup - I know we're all aware of it. What's likely happening is that the 'trolls' create the ghost accounts just a few days prior to voting. That way there aren't any repeats to be found. But I'm sure Langdon is on top of this. But would't these IP's be almost identical?? Of course, monitoring IP's AND taking (automatic) corrective action would be a huge job and shouldn't be neccessary.
05/05/2010 03:35:29 AM · #8
Originally posted by TrollMan:



Yup - I know we're all aware of it. What's likely happening is that the 'trolls' create the ghost accounts just a few days prior to voting. That way there aren't any repeats to be found. But I'm sure Langdon is on top of this. But would't these IP's be almost identical?? Of course, monitoring IP's AND taking (automatic) corrective action would be a huge job and shouldn't be neccessary.


I'm sure that they would be close but you could be talking about thousands of different IP's. I don't know if L can block IP's like admins can on other sites but it would be a good idea. Who knows he might be doing that already. What would be nice though is if we had something like a neighborhood watch were a selected group of people could have some advanced features on the photographers profile page that would allow us to sort the people by votes cast, or other keys and then report suspicious users to the boss man for review. It would make more work up front but in the long run it could make spam, troll voting, and other crap accounts less likely to infect the site.
05/05/2010 03:43:33 AM · #9
Most SC's are usually in bed around the time of the rollovers....so they can't see who is online at that time...but the rest of us can....bring on next rollover!!!!
05/05/2010 03:46:47 AM · #10
Im sure you guys remember Mark1966 well he 'had a hunch' there was something going on and it caused him to leave, his love for photography and a kick from me bought him back then he found some other stuff going on, reported it but was ignored then he left again. I know Mark very very well, he is well up on this internet stuff. He used to always look at the people who have just registered here and claim a lot of them to be suss.

I was guilty of 'friend voting' some 3 years ago and got a 3 month ban (rightly so) but it amazes me that STILL nothing is being done about the low bowlers

DPL season has kept me here for the present moment but I am sad enough about this to throw the towel in after this year if nothing is done.

It has been said that the few low votes do not matter to the final score.. but then that same logic should of been applied to the recent high voters kick in the nuts..

Makes no sense to me at all. I honestly hope that something IS being done under cover and that before too long we will see the SC & Langdon rise up out of the ashes with trolls held aloft for all to see and let they be banished from the kingdom of DPC for eternity ... But I wont hold my breath
05/05/2010 03:47:29 AM · #11
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

I don't know if L can block IP's like admins can on other sites but it would be a good idea.

It should be quite easy to block IP's, but 1 IP is not equal to 1 user. You can find 10 user behind 1 IP. Then, to block 1 you penalize 9 others.
Also, people who wan't to cheat can find as much IP as they want, just use web proxy, the onion router or stuff like that.
I really think blocking IPs is not an option.
05/05/2010 03:58:14 AM · #12
Just a thought...
Can a new user vote on challenges; even if they already are in voting, as soon as they create the account?

If so... what if we made a quarantine only allowing new non-paying users to view and enter but not vote for the first, let's say 4 weeks. I know this wouldn't solve the problem, but it might help in reducing it. Most trolls won't bother if it becomes too much work or planning ahead. I assume some of the trolling might happen when a troll has a nice image with a good score (why else would they bother?) and then quickly create ghost accounts and vote other nice(r) images down to increase their own chances of getting a ribbon.
05/05/2010 04:21:32 AM · #13
Originally posted by TrollMan:

Just a thought...
Can a new user vote on challenges; even if they already are in voting, as soon as they create the account?

If so... what if we made a quarantine only allowing new non-paying users to view and enter but not vote for the first, let's say 4 weeks. I know this wouldn't solve the problem, but it might help in reducing it. Most trolls won't bother if it becomes too much work or planning ahead. I assume some of the trolling might happen when a troll has a nice image with a good score (why else would they bother?) and then quickly create ghost accounts and vote other nice(r) images down to increase their own chances of getting a ribbon.


That sounds reasonable but I would go further and allow voting by paid members only.

05/05/2010 04:26:24 AM · #14
Originally posted by Sevlow:

Originally posted by TrollMan:

Just a thought...
Can a new user vote on challenges; even if they already are in voting, as soon as they create the account?

If so... what if we made a quarantine only allowing new non-paying users to view and enter but not vote for the first, let's say 4 weeks. I know this wouldn't solve the problem, but it might help in reducing it. Most trolls won't bother if it becomes too much work or planning ahead. I assume some of the trolling might happen when a troll has a nice image with a good score (why else would they bother?) and then quickly create ghost accounts and vote other nice(r) images down to increase their own chances of getting a ribbon.


That sounds reasonable but I would go further and allow voting by paid members only.


That is actually a blooming good idea and an excellent place to start...
05/05/2010 05:08:30 AM · #15
Surely it's people voting illegally rather than tactically, I suspect they believed the shot is not possible in the editing constraints and voted a 1, even though that is a direct violation of the voting rules ... it happens a lot!

"You may not: give an entry a lower score because you believe it violates the Challenge Rules."



Message edited by author 2010-05-05 05:09:18.
05/05/2010 05:13:06 AM · #16
Also lots of people go through the images initially and sort the challenge images into sets (low, medium, high) sometimes by scoring 1, 5 and 10 or something like that and then go through later and adjust them.

I don't think limiting voting to paid users only makes sense, the number of votes would probably go down a huge amount.
05/05/2010 05:31:47 AM · #17
Not limiting it to paid users, but you should maybe have to enter a challenge or two before you can vote. Not only would that weed out dupe accounts or whatever, but it would give new voters a better feel for the voting system.

I'm sure all of these scenarios have been thought through.
05/05/2010 05:55:18 AM · #18
Enter 3 challenges, earn the right to vote. An easy end to most of this nonsense.
05/05/2010 06:02:49 AM · #19
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Enter 3 challenges, earn the right to vote. An easy end to most of this nonsense.


Thats a very good idea
05/05/2010 06:52:25 AM · #20
Originally posted by bobonacus:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Enter 3 challenges, earn the right to vote. An easy end to most of this nonsense.


Thats a very good idea


I wonder if the quality of entries in general would go down... if too many people are entering garbage just to earn the right to vote.

Having said that, I do think it's a good idea overall for new voters to have to wait a certain period of time, whether it is measure by entries or just time.
05/05/2010 07:01:55 AM · #21
Originally posted by Tammster:

Originally posted by bobonacus:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Enter 3 challenges, earn the right to vote. An easy end to most of this nonsense.


Thats a very good idea


I wonder if the quality of entries in general would go down... if too many people are entering garbage just to earn the right to vote.

Having said that, I do think it's a good idea overall for new voters to have to wait a certain period of time, whether it is measure by entries or just time.


Well if they are entering garbage...they might get a taste of what they are about to dish out. Or they will get kicked off if they enter stolen images....!
05/05/2010 07:07:50 AM · #22
could there be anything more foolish than cheating to win a virtual ribbon?
Joe
05/05/2010 07:08:39 AM · #23
Like I wrote earlier it would help voters learn how the site works. And honestly, if you're becoming a member to simply vote and not enter, that's odd. Voting is a privilege that should be earned after some submissions have been made. Personally, I held off on voting until I had submitted something because it just didn't feel right to judge while not being judged.

Of course now I'm thinking about not voting in the challenges I enter as I was nipped by hundreths of a point by a couple of photos I gave 8s to. : /
05/05/2010 07:26:31 AM · #24
Originally posted by FourPoint7:

could there be anything more foolish than cheating to win a virtual ribbon?
Joe


I guess it means that much to people.
05/05/2010 07:28:05 AM · #25
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by FourPoint7:

could there be anything more foolish than cheating to win a virtual ribbon?
Joe


I guess it means that much to people.


Or it means that much to help their friends by voting others down.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/17/2020 05:23:26 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/17/2020 05:23:26 PM EST.