« Back to story "Eight Strikes and You'?re Out"

Story Comments

Posted by: populist 1 year, 3 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

  • 100%
    populist1 year, 3 months ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    600+ reads with just 5 votes in less than two hours. Wow.

    I'm gonna go read another post 3000 times because it's so great!

    (by the way, Beau, that's no indictment of you. I always enjoy your submissions. It's just that there's definitely been a concerted effort by some people on here to manipulate the stories on the front page by artificially increasing the "reads" on an article)

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply

    10 Replies

    loading loading ...
    • 100%
      Beau78901 year, 3 months ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      I know. I've been wondering what a "read" is, exactly, and if that kind of manipulation has been going on. Some articles seem to get tens of thousands of read" in a fairly short time, but very few props.

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply

      7 Replies

      loading loading ...
      • 100%
        populist1 year, 3 months ago

        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

        A read is how many times the page here on propeller has been loaded. It sems to me that people are able to re-load it over and over....and over, and drive that number up. I'm not sure how much that affects the points on an article, but it's clear to me that it does drive it up considerably.

        One of my submissions yesterday had 600 reads in just a couple hours (with like only 4 props), and was on the home page shortly after. Then, unsurprisingly, it got less than 1000 additional reads in the next 15 hours.

        I've sent feedback to propeller regarding this kind of activity on my submissions and many others. I'm confident from their reply that it'll get fixed, but sooner is always better.

        to me, the site will be much better if it's the community as a whole that determines what's popular and what's not - and not the the initiative of a few spammers.

        Ok, enough off-topic ranting for me!

        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply

        6 Replies

        loading loading ...
        • 100%
          Beau78901 year, 3 months ago

          This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

          So it has nothing to do with clicking through to the actual article. That's what I thought it might mean...seems a better measure of who's interested in the topic.

          (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
          Reply

          5 Replies

          loading loading ...
          • 100%
            populist1 year, 3 months ago

            This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

            I would have to agree, Beau. But, it's all about how many times the page is viewed here on propeller. Either way, though, they do need to do something about people clicking over and over..

            (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
            Reply

            4 Replies

            loading loading ...
            • 100%
              flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago

              This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

              I could be wrong, but I think clicking on the little red triangles count.
              The numbers are out of hand.

              (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
              Reply
              loading loading ...
              • 100%
                ind061 year, 3 months ago

                This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                To increase the reads you hit refresh. Try it, increase the reads on any post you choose by five or ten or twenty, it'll take you about two or three minutes.

                Votes are the most heavily counted part of the overall "score" a post receives, but a simply massive number of reads will push the numbers up as well, and, if you're dishonest, with time on your hands.

                As is apparently the case for some,

                You can artificially promote a post to the home page.
                The only conceivable way I can see a post getting four votes and a thousand reads is if the post had some hum-dinger grab 'em by the shorties title but the article was a total piece of garbage, indicating the poster had disappointed 996 readers.

                (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                Reply

                2 Replies

                loading loading ...
                • 100%
                  Beau78901 year, 3 months ago

                  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                  I guess leaving that option pen for gamers boosts some metrics...but i'd think there'd be other more accurate ones tracking unique hits.

                  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  loading loading ...
                  • 100%
                    ind061 year, 3 months ago

                    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                    I hope by laying out how it's done I can speed the closing of the loophole. Seems like a glitch to me.

                    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                    Reply
                    loading loading ...
        • 100%
          lfergie8121 year, 3 months ago

          This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

          Populist said
          "there's definitely been a concerted effort by some people on here to manipulate the stories on the front page by artificially increasing the "reads" on an article)"
          That's how AG and her gang get their stories on the front page. They send out messages to their shills and (drum roll please) ka da they're on the front page. LMAO

          (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
          Reply

          1 Reply

          loading loading ...
          • 80%
            ind061 year, 3 months ago

            This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

            I'd don't think so.
            I disagree with the politics of many of her posts but I've never seen one early on with a lopsided read / prop count. A normal read / prop count would actually be about 30 to 50 props and 200-400 reads. It has to be REALLY lopsided to indicate foul play and I've never seen that with one of Alpha's posts.

            (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
            Reply
            loading loading ...

        Post Reply

        You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.

        People Who Liked This Comment (12)

        People Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)

        No one voted this comment negatively.