5 ms·

How spammers are gaming the podcast charts

93 points by voodooranger 8y ago

jakemor 8y ago
or: How to Game to Podcast Chart
- appleiigs 8y ago
  There is no “how” in the article other than “click farms”. It should be “Spammers are gaming podcast charts”.
arprocter 8y ago
The algorithm seems to be weighted to boost new subscriptions - looking at the Chartable top US-all there is one at #20 which recently launched (has 6 episodes) which is above This American Life at #28
- smock 8y ago
  While Apple doesn't comment on how the rankings are calculated, the common knowledge is indeed that its heavily biased towards recent subscriptions.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    Maybe it should be more weighted towards regular releases over a longer period of time... points for releasing on average of once a day, or once a week for over 2 years after hitting X subscribers. I can't speak for anyone else, but those are the podcasts that I would be most inclined to want to hear/see.
CPLX 8y ago
I think this article should be retitled to remove the word "How" at the beginning, since it doesn't even really speculate how one would go about doing this. It's interesting nonetheless. Any ideas? Assume that someone decided to harness one of the many click-farms to do automated podcast subscriptions? I suppose it's also possible that Apple did an ill-advised algorithm change or something that changed the weights very heavily, and the spammers who had been quietly doing their thing for months suddenly all got promoted.
- smock 8y ago
  We can't say for sure how the charts are being gamed, but there is strong evidence that its related to a pay per play scheme to pump subscription numbers in a small time window. The implication of the graph visualization is that the same iTunes users are subscribing to all of the suspect shows, and all on one storefront (the U.S.).
  - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
    I'm reminded of the images from China where one person is in front of rows and rows of phones clicking on stuff and that is their job. Would that do the job here?
    - smock 8y ago
      Apple doesn't publicly comment on how the chart rankings are calculated, which is why we can't draw strong conclusions, but our understanding is that this would do the job. Since the somewhat catastrophic failure of the charts a week ago its clear that Apple did update their algorithms, but its not clear how (and some of the same players identified in the blog are still ranking highly).
ballenf 8y ago
A podcaster (and Youtuber) who I really enjoy is CGP Grey. He has been proposing allowing voluntary removal of view numbers from Youtube and similar platforms. I think Apple should fix or remove their rankings but, please, don't add any more metrics. The podcast world is currently mostly immune from so much of the clickbaity trash on Youtube (that arguably isn't even YT's fault). I admit it's very counterintuitive or almost subversive these days to suggest that internet points be kept secret. Edit: Here's a CGP Grey video where he talks indirectly about how he sees the internet fracturing his (our?) ability to pay attention and focus. https://youtu.be/wf2VxeIm1no https://youtu.be/wf2VxeIm1no
- shrikant 8y ago
  > I admit it's very counterintuitive or almost subversive these days to suggest that internet points be kept secret. Interesting point. I'm not sure if you already know this, but Hacker News used to display points for each comment previously. This was turned off in...I dunno, early 2011? I don't think it's harmed user activity on the site at all!
  - warent 8y ago
    I did not know that but I'm glad they did. Displaying "internet points" causes herd mentality to propagate and removes critical thinking or at least diminishes one's capacity to genuinely listen to one's own feeling. The same goes beyond intellectual content; ditto for creative content (e.g. YouTube videos) etc.
- a7776f88862 8y ago
  > I admit it's very counterintuitive or almost subversive these days to suggest that internet points be kept secret. Media popularity rankings are toxic for everyone but distribution middlemen and advertisers. They turn what should be heterogeneous markets for content producers and their audiences in many different niches (geographic area, interests, subcultures, etc), into a global winner-take-all popularity race in a single market (owned by the distribution middlemen, like iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, etc). The kind of market where every seller is ranked by a single metric and only the top few are rewarded makes sense for things like professional sports, but very little else.
mcbits 8y ago
Startup idea for anyone so inclined: Create a podcast distribution service where podcasters pay the current cost of a postage stamp per listener to push podcasts onto devices. If the recipient listens to the podcast, the money is refunded to the podcaster. If they delete it or ignore it for 30 days, they keep the money. The podcasters are allowed to see anonymized metrics for who listens to what. Listeners can use their earnings to tip their favorite podcasters, or just cash out.
- CPLX 8y ago
  Couldn't we just skip the technology part and have podcasters send money directly to scammers in exchange for the scammers not listening to their podcasts?
  - mcbits 8y ago
    "Scammer" here is someone who signs up and then never listens to anything? Don't send them anything. Scammer and spammer problems solved.
    - cwkoss 8y ago
      How do you verify if someone actually listened to a podcast vs. someone who has 100+ accounts, a wall of 100 mobile phones constantly 'listening' to 100 podcasts simultaneously to game the system?
      - mcbits 8y ago
        That would be a really counterproductive way to game the system. :)
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  So you're paying people to not listen to podcasts? That seems like the mother of all perverse incentives.
  - 8y ago
Latteland 8y ago
It's going to be just like record charts. People are looking for those popularity lists to find the interesting and good stuff that other people are listening to. We'll have scandals, companies will be pushing up their own ratings via nefarious means. Then you get more viewers, more money from advertisers, your network benefits - there must be podcast celebrities who get the equivalent of payola to say they like another podcast. History repeats itself.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
I have never used a podcast top X chart before. I usually think, hmmm, I wonder if there's a podcast about <some subject> and search the internet for that. I guess I care more about a subject than popularity.

93 points by voodooranger 8y ago

jakemor 8y ago

or: How to Game to Podcast Chart

appleiigs 8y ago
There is no “how” in the article other than “click farms”. It should be “Spammers are gaming podcast charts”.

arprocter 8y ago

The algorithm seems to be weighted to boost new subscriptions - looking at the Chartable top US-all there is one at #20 which recently launched (has 6 episodes) which is above This American Life at #28

smock 8y ago
While Apple doesn't comment on how the rankings are calculated, the common knowledge is indeed that its heavily biased towards recent subscriptions.
- tracker1 8y ago
  Maybe it should be more weighted towards regular releases over a longer period of time... points for releasing on average of once a day, or once a week for over 2 years after hitting X subscribers. I can't speak for anyone else, but those are the podcasts that I would be most inclined to want to hear/see.

CPLX 8y ago

I think this article should be retitled to remove the word "How" at the beginning, since it doesn't even really speculate how one would go about doing this. It's interesting nonetheless. Any ideas? Assume that someone decided to harness one of the many click-farms to do automated podcast subscriptions? I suppose it's also possible that Apple did an ill-advised algorithm change or something that changed the weights very heavily, and the spammers who had been quietly doing their thing for months suddenly all got promoted.

smock 8y ago
We can't say for sure how the charts are being gamed, but there is strong evidence that its related to a pay per play scheme to pump subscription numbers in a small time window. The implication of the graph visualization is that the same iTunes users are subscribing to all of the suspect shows, and all on one storefront (the U.S.).
- JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
  I'm reminded of the images from China where one person is in front of rows and rows of phones clicking on stuff and that is their job. Would that do the job here?
  - smock 8y ago
    Apple doesn't publicly comment on how the chart rankings are calculated, which is why we can't draw strong conclusions, but our understanding is that this would do the job. Since the somewhat catastrophic failure of the charts a week ago its clear that Apple did update their algorithms, but its not clear how (and some of the same players identified in the blog are still ranking highly).

ballenf 8y ago

A podcaster (and Youtuber) who I really enjoy is CGP Grey. He has been proposing allowing voluntary removal of view numbers from Youtube and similar platforms. I think Apple should fix or remove their rankings but, please, don't add any more metrics. The podcast world is currently mostly immune from so much of the clickbaity trash on Youtube (that arguably isn't even YT's fault). I admit it's very counterintuitive or almost subversive these days to suggest that internet points be kept secret. Edit: Here's a CGP Grey video where he talks indirectly about how he sees the internet fracturing his (our?) ability to pay attention and focus. https://youtu.be/wf2VxeIm1no https://youtu.be/wf2VxeIm1no

shrikant 8y ago
> I admit it's very counterintuitive or almost subversive these days to suggest that internet points be kept secret. Interesting point. I'm not sure if you already know this, but Hacker News used to display points for each comment previously. This was turned off in...I dunno, early 2011? I don't think it's harmed user activity on the site at all!
- warent 8y ago
  I did not know that but I'm glad they did. Displaying "internet points" causes herd mentality to propagate and removes critical thinking or at least diminishes one's capacity to genuinely listen to one's own feeling. The same goes beyond intellectual content; ditto for creative content (e.g. YouTube videos) etc.
a7776f88862 8y ago
> I admit it's very counterintuitive or almost subversive these days to suggest that internet points be kept secret. Media popularity rankings are toxic for everyone but distribution middlemen and advertisers. They turn what should be heterogeneous markets for content producers and their audiences in many different niches (geographic area, interests, subcultures, etc), into a global winner-take-all popularity race in a single market (owned by the distribution middlemen, like iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, etc). The kind of market where every seller is ranked by a single metric and only the top few are rewarded makes sense for things like professional sports, but very little else.

mcbits 8y ago

Startup idea for anyone so inclined: Create a podcast distribution service where podcasters pay the current cost of a postage stamp per listener to push podcasts onto devices. If the recipient listens to the podcast, the money is refunded to the podcaster. If they delete it or ignore it for 30 days, they keep the money. The podcasters are allowed to see anonymized metrics for who listens to what. Listeners can use their earnings to tip their favorite podcasters, or just cash out.

CPLX 8y ago
Couldn't we just skip the technology part and have podcasters send money directly to scammers in exchange for the scammers not listening to their podcasts?
- mcbits 8y ago
  "Scammer" here is someone who signs up and then never listens to anything? Don't send them anything. Scammer and spammer problems solved.
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    How do you verify if someone actually listened to a podcast vs. someone who has 100+ accounts, a wall of 100 mobile phones constantly 'listening' to 100 podcasts simultaneously to game the system?
    - mcbits 8y ago
      That would be a really counterproductive way to game the system. :)
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
So you're paying people to not listen to podcasts? That seems like the mother of all perverse incentives.
- 8y ago

Latteland 8y ago

It's going to be just like record charts. People are looking for those popularity lists to find the interesting and good stuff that other people are listening to. We'll have scandals, companies will be pushing up their own ratings via nefarious means. Then you get more viewers, more money from advertisers, your network benefits - there must be podcast celebrities who get the equivalent of payola to say they like another podcast. History repeats itself.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

I have never used a podcast top X chart before. I usually think, hmmm, I wonder if there's a podcast about <some subject> and search the internet for that. I guess I care more about a subject than popularity.