< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 833 OF 833 ·
|Jun-28-15|| ||Abdel Irada: The entire site is a trolling area, thanks to certain lawless users, whom you choose to defend by ridiculing those who complain of them. I think this says something about your character.|
|Jun-28-15|| ||offramp: Quick!! Get me OUT of the loop!!|
|Jun-28-15|| ||chessgames.com: <is there any chance of getting some Live Games from the ongoing Sparkassen Chess Meeting in Dortmund?> Unfortunately we won't be covering the first few rounds, but stay tuned.|
<don't you think it might be wise to change the registration process to make it harder for trolls to create sock accounts?> I am pretty well acquainted with the different kind of registration pages websites offer, and don't know what you mean that they make it "harder for trolls." We require a validated email; we refuse services like trashmail.com, we make them enter a Captcha. What else can we do, require them to mail us a photograph of their passport?
<October 25th of this year will be the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Azincourt.> Thanks for the head's up, I'm marking my calendar!
|Jun-28-15|| ||WannaBe: Did white win at Azincourt?|
|Jun-28-15|| ||Benzol: The British even named a dreadnought battleship after the battle but it wasn't called HMS Azincourt.|
|Jun-28-15|| ||Benzol: I didn't realize a knowledge of a foreign language was needed to operate the equipment onboard.|
|Jun-28-15|| ||Sneaky: https://xkcd.com/1078/|
|Jun-29-15|| ||Penguincw: Yes! <cg> is back online! :)|
Am I the only one wondered what to do with my life for the 2 hours the site was offline? ;p I'm basically hooked to this site...
|Jun-29-15|| ||Phony Benoni: Was it really two hours? I can't be sure. They didn't have a clock in my room at the asylum.|
|Jun-29-15|| ||al wazir: <chessgames.com: What else can we do, require them to mail us a photograph of their passport?> Check IP numbers.|
|Jun-29-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <<don't you think it might be wise to change the registration process to make it harder for trolls to create sock accounts?> I am pretty well acquainted with the different kind of registration pages websites offer, and don't know what you mean that they make it "harder for trolls." We require a validated email; we refuse services like trashmail.com, we make them enter a Captcha. What else can we do, require them to mail us a photograph of their passport?>|
<al wazir>'s suggestion is an excellent one. Beyond that, shifting from automatic to manual, admin-reviewed registration would require more work up front, but I think it would save a lot of headaches in the long run.
You'd certainly avoid registering new members with names like <temp.account>, along with parody accounts like <HeMatesMe> (although I have to admit that was funny, unlike your uncalled-for sarcasm about passports).
Believe it or not, I'm trying to help. I want this site to succeed, and to be a pleasant environment for all of its legitimate members, which at present it is not.
|Jun-29-15|| ||MarkFinan: <<What else can we do, require them to mail us a photograph of their passport?>>|
Well twitter, eBay, PayPal and AJ Goldsby have all asked for proof of my passport or driving license. I refused to give my details to AJ but begrudgingly gave them to the others. In all seriousness though there are a few accounts that seem to be targeting <ljyffe>, it's most likely one person and he's not being very nice.
|Jun-29-15|| ||Tabanus: What about charging a symbolic sum, say 1 Cent or 1 Dollar, for the right to register.|
It might scare away too many though?
|Jun-29-15|| ||MarkFinan: I think charging $1 for an account is a good idea, Tabanus. Include live games for the $1 but not the OE, personal forums etc etc etc. I'm pretty sure no one would pay $1 just to create a dummy account.|
|Jun-29-15|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: <Tabanus: What about charging a symbolic sum, say 1 Cent or 1 Dollar, for the right to register.|
It might scare away too many though?>
<cg> shot down this idea just a month ago: chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #22600)
In that case the suggestions were $5/year or $10/year for posting privileges, which CG rightly rejected. The $1 would be paid by all the same people who would pay the $10/year, and the results would be the same except that <cg> made a lot less money.
Very few users would be willing to pay $1 for membership, but not $10.
|Jun-29-15|| ||MarkFinan: <<Very few users would be willing to pay $1 for membership, but not $10.>>|
Switch.. That makes as much sense as when you told me people who start at the bookies with 1000 cb's are just as likely to win as the people who start with 10,000 cb's. I just don't understand!
|Jun-29-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <Phony Benoni: Was it really two hours? I can't be sure. They didn't have a clock in my room at the asylum.>|
Wait. They gave you your own room?
|Jun-29-15|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: <MarkFinan> To a very high percentage of the users who'd be lost, the deal-breaker would not be the difference between $1 and $10, or even $0.01 and $29 (full premium membership); it would be the difference between $0 and $0.01. Countless users (including many who could easily spare $29) would not pay even $0.01 because they either a) didn't have access to an easy method of paying or the skills required to use it, or b) didn't trust the security, or c) generally avoided paying and used free sites whenever possible, or d) didn't want to give any of their money to this particular site for some reason, or e) found the registration process inconvenient or asked themselves "do I really want to register on this site?" one extra time and got cold feet, or f) several or all of the above. |
Of course, more users would pay $1 than $5 or $10 or $29, but not so many more that asking for $1 would be a sound financial approach. Most paying customers could afford the full $29/year, especially if <cg> (as they currently do) offered their money back.
|Jun-29-15|| ||offramp: Keep things the way they are.|
|Jun-29-15|| ||Abdel Irada: "The way things are" isn't working. If it were, this discussion would not have begun, much less continued.|
Sockpuppets are taking over the site. You trip over them in every forum. They attack members and grandmasters alike, and if banned, they titter and come right back under another name because no mechanism is in place to discourage them.
There are ways to control this behavior. I think it's past time to adopt one of them. <al wazir> has suggested one; I another, and <Tabanus> a third. If <cg.com> doesn't like them, there are others.
But ignoring this problem won't make it go away.
|Jun-29-15|| ||WannaBe: We have discussed banning IPs, it was suggested by me, and discussed before:|
Above, is one of the link I found, another can be found in this forum, but I don't know which page or how long ago it was.
|Jun-29-15|| ||Abdel Irada: IP bans can be only a partial solution, because many ISPs, such as AOL, use dynamic IPs that change with every login.|
However, taken in conjunction with manual registration, it could make a dent in the problem, so I think your idea has merit.
|Jun-29-15|| ||Penguincw: <WannaBe>
I believe this is the post you're looking for: chessgames.com chessforum.
|Jun-29-15|| ||WannaBe: <Penguincw> Yes, that is the one. Thank you for finding/posting the link.|
|Jun-30-15|| ||chessgames.com: <Abdel Irada> and <others> |
On the topic of "anti troll measures" —
I'm sorry if I came across sounding sarcastic with the passport quip, and I do know that you are all trying to help. Some of the ideas discussed recently are good, others are untenable, but none of them are original.
We do in fact monitor IP addresses and from time to time block one. However, such blocks have to be only temporary, and even then innocent people end up getting caught up in it. Meanwhile there are 1 or 2 very pernicious trolls who are very well versed at changing IP addresses and this measure has no effect on them.
The idea of micro-charges to gain authorization is to my knowledge only used in one industry: websites that peddle smut. When they do it, it's usually under the guise of "proving you are 18", and then if you read the fine print you've just given them the right to bill you recurrently if you don't cancel your "free" subscription. In short, it's a scam. We don't want to model Chessgames after a scam born out of the adult industry.
The idea of monitoring new sign-ups takes place daily. I don't see any advantage to "manually approving new accounts", because unless the username is outrageous there'd be no reason for us to decline a new account. Admins can review all the accounts registered in the past 48 hours and when a name is inappropriate, action is taken. Occasionally we make a note to keep an eye on the person if we have reason to believe it might be a troll, based on IP address or just a pattern in the email or naming methods. They are still innocent until proven guilty.
Usernames like "temp.account" are not violations per se. We have to wait and see what the person does with the account. Usernames that imitate or mock another user get banned the instant we notice one, although sometimes one slips through and we need to be notified via the Whistle.
The one original idea that's been introduced recently is the PITA score system. Under this system, the rate at which you post is modulated by several factors, notably the number of people who ignore you. In the worst case, the rate of posting floors out at two posts daily. Some users have found an obvious workaround to the system: register 10 accounts, so that while each account is limited to two posts per day, they can still hop from account to account and end up with 20 posts daily. However, unless they are really careful, we can easily catch them hopping from account to account and then ban them on the grounds of multi-accounting. What's more, even if they can manage to juggle so many accounts that they can squeeze in 20 posts a day, by the very definition of the PITA score it must be true that they are massively ignored. And so their posts invariably fall on many dead ears.
My advice is twofold:
(1) First, if somebody is obviously a troll / stalker / joker, or if you just can't stand their contributions, ignore them. If you are alone or nearly alone in your assessment, then they won't be banned, but you won't have to read their posts. If many people agree with you, they will become severely limited in posting frequency, and possibly even banned.
(2) If somebody is clearly derailing a thread then please blow the Whistle. However, please note that this is much more critical for pages like Wesley So and Dortmund than our designated off-topic areas like the Kibitzer's Cafe.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 833 OF 833 ·
from the Chessgames Store