Comments on: Wired and Annalee Newitz Drop the Ball http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/ Never Mess With a Woman Who Can Pull Rank Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:10:47 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: john andrews http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-4533 john andrews Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:11:02 +0000 http://www.sugarrae.com/blog/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-4533 Wired lost my attention years ago when they wrote an article on an area I know well, and got it horribly wrong. I wrote the author and showed him where to look for the truth, and got back a reply that was something like "hey thanks! That was the first time I wrote about X, and Wired doesn't have any pending interest in more on that topic, but I'll be sure and save your comments in case I am ever asked to write about X again". Sure you will. Trash journalism in my book. Worse than many blogs. Wired lost my attention years ago when they wrote an article on an area I know well, and got it horribly wrong. I wrote the author and showed him where to look for the truth, and got back a reply that was something like “hey thanks! That was the first time I wrote about X, and Wired doesn’t have any pending interest in more on that topic, but I’ll be sure and save your comments in case I am ever asked to write about X again”.

Sure you will. Trash journalism in my book. Worse than many blogs.

]]> By: Neo http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-4062 Neo Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:17:43 +0000 http://www.sugarrae.com/blog/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-4062 As a rabid Ebay'er I think it's funny they reported that some are using fake Id's to boost their positive score. I suppose they think we aren't smart enough to look and see our sellers entire list of purchases they have made (it's available in their feedback) to see if they are all just bots? People who use Ebay don't just look at approval ratings, they go digging through the persons last purchases and last sales like a good little internet voyeur..you know we all do it! The big score is finding a granny from WI buy edible underwear, we live for that kind of treat:P Bu there is a serious problem with "mystery gifts" on Ebay and one user will use bogus accounts to boost his positive and then the bot account will leave feedback like "I got a million dollars in my mystery gift box! wow!" But we go to that ebay id's profile and snoop around and see it's just a bot. I have even caught them leaving feedback on the day the auction closed when there is no way they had the item yet. That's a bot for sure. Maybe they should have titled the article "Herding the sheep" Because mobs are too intelligent to fall for bot boosted Ebay feedback scores. Excellent blog and comments I wish more people were talking about this problem without over overdramatizing it as they did on wired. As a rabid Ebay’er I think it’s funny they reported that some are using fake Id’s to boost their positive score.

I suppose they think we aren’t smart enough to look and see our sellers entire list of purchases they have made (it’s available in their feedback) to see if they are all just bots?

People who use Ebay don’t just look at approval ratings, they go digging through the persons last purchases and last sales like a good little internet voyeur..you know we all do it!

The big score is finding a granny from WI buy edible underwear, we live for that kind of treat:P

Bu there is a serious problem with “mystery gifts” on Ebay and one user will use bogus accounts to boost his positive and then the bot account will leave feedback like “I got a million dollars in my mystery gift box! wow!”

But we go to that ebay id’s profile and snoop around and see it’s just a bot. I have even caught them leaving feedback on the day the auction closed when there is no way they had the item yet.

That’s a bot for sure.

Maybe they should have titled the article “Herding the sheep” Because mobs are too intelligent to fall for bot boosted Ebay feedback scores.

Excellent blog and comments I wish more people were talking about this problem without over overdramatizing it as they did on wired.

]]> By: Rae http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3303 Rae Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:00:49 +0000 http://www.sugarrae.com/blog/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3303 >>>and the 10,000 random transactions would definitely be statistically significant Interesting point. >>>and the 10,000 random transactions would definitely be statistically significant

Interesting point.

]]> By: Leo http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3299 Leo Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:29:14 +0000 http://www.sugarrae.com/blog/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3299 Having not read the Wired article nor the study regarding the 6,000 examples of buyers and sellers, I can't argue the following point is correct, but... Whether 6,000 examples is significant or not depends on how many transactions he had to look through to find those 6,000. If he searched through 10,000 randomly selected transactions and found 6,000 examples, than 60% is very significant, and the 10,000 random transactions would definitely be statistically significant. As far as your general point about the article, I guess it all comes down to the definition of spammers and scammers, no? At least one, if not more, of the examples you quoted are definitely examples of ways to game the systems. Whether they were intended to do so maliciously or simply as a valid technique of marketing has to be determined by the value the reader gets out of the material. No? Having not read the Wired article nor the study regarding the 6,000 examples of buyers and sellers, I can’t argue the following point is correct, but… Whether 6,000 examples is significant or not depends on how many transactions he had to look through to find those 6,000. If he searched through 10,000 randomly selected transactions and found 6,000 examples, than 60% is very significant, and the 10,000 random transactions would definitely be statistically significant.

As far as your general point about the article, I guess it all comes down to the definition of spammers and scammers, no? At least one, if not more, of the examples you quoted are definitely examples of ways to game the systems. Whether they were intended to do so maliciously or simply as a valid technique of marketing has to be determined by the value the reader gets out of the material. No?

]]> By: Rae http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3298 Rae Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:01:02 +0000 http://www.sugarrae.com/blog/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3298 Actually, I said digg has a traffic value - it was a *direct* monetary value that I questioned. I'm very familiar with lead generation, but unless you're in the right sector, it's my opinion that Digg traffic won't produce much in the way of leads... links and side effect traffic that *does* convert from being in Digg, now that is another matter. ;-) Actually, I said digg has a traffic value – it was a *direct* monetary value that I questioned. I’m very familiar with lead generation, but unless you’re in the right sector, it’s my opinion that Digg traffic won’t produce much in the way of leads… links and side effect traffic that *does* convert from being in Digg, now that is another matter. ;-)

]]> By: what what http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3297 what what Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:35:07 +0000 http://www.sugarrae.com/blog/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3297 The fact that I'm reading your blog, via a link from Digg, contradicts your contention that placement on Digg is worthless. Would you rather pay to Digg $100 for 10000 impressions of your add resulting in 100 hits to your site, or pay a gaming network $100 for 10000 hits. You obviously have no exposure to the industry that is called Lead Generation, but it happens to be one of the fastest growing sectors of Internet Advertising. The fact that I’m reading your blog, via a link from Digg, contradicts your contention that placement on Digg is worthless. Would you rather pay to Digg $100 for 10000 impressions of your add resulting in 100 hits to your site, or pay a gaming network $100 for 10000 hits. You obviously have no exposure to the industry that is called Lead Generation, but it happens to be one of the fastest growing sectors of Internet Advertising.

]]> By: Rae http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3296 Rae Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:25:34 +0000 http://www.sugarrae.com/blog/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3296 I was doing the percentage as being what percentage of 150,000,000 was 6000 - since ebay says it has 105 million listings up at any point in time, making it the total amount "findable" on any given day. But I probably wasn't super clear on that because math is not my strong point. ;-) I was doing the percentage as being what percentage of 150,000,000 was 6000 – since ebay says it has 105 million listings up at any point in time, making it the total amount “findable” on any given day. But I probably wasn’t super clear on that because math is not my strong point. ;-)

]]> By: Cale http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3292 Cale Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:14:01 +0000 http://www.sugarrae.com/blog/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3292 Great analysis. Sounds like they're over dramatizing much like the news magazine shows on TV. Great analysis. Sounds like they’re over dramatizing much like the news magazine shows on TV.

]]> By: Jon Smith http://www.sugarrae.com/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3291 Jon Smith Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:58:32 +0000 http://www.sugarrae.com/blog/wired-and-annalee-newitz-drop-the-ball/#comment-3291 Minor quibble, but i think 6,000 is 0.1% of 6,000,000, not 0.001%. One percent, represents 100th of the original quantity, so 1% of 6M is 60K, and so 0.1% is 6K. 0.001% of 6M is 100 times less, that is 60. Of course my 5th grade math was years ago.... Minor quibble, but i think 6,000 is 0.1% of 6,000,000, not 0.001%.

One percent, represents 100th of the original quantity, so 1% of 6M is 60K, and so 0.1% is 6K. 0.001% of 6M is 100 times less, that is 60.

Of course my 5th grade math was years ago….

]]>