4 ms·

@unclebucknasty, could you show your original submission for comparison? At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8052399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8

by swehner 12y ago

@unclebucknasty, could you show your original submission for comparison? At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8052399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8052399 it says right now: "Hacking Online Polls and Other Ways British Spies Seek to Control the Internet", which is linked to https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-online-polls-ways-british-spies-seek-control-internet/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-o... What did you originally post?

discostrings 12y ago
Here's a comment of mine from that thread explaining what he posted, how it changed, and what happened [~]: This story was in the first position on the front page less than an hour ago. It was there for hours. The link was then changed from [0] to [1], and within thirty minutes, it was on the second page at number 47. (It first took a drop to around 17, hovered there for a while, then hit 47.) Could we have an explanation of what's going on here? How can penalties from flagging be this steep for a story with 200 upvotes and 90 comments? Why did the position suddenly change shortly after the link was changed, but not right away? [0] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/documents_show_gchq_manipulating_online_information_like_web_polls_and_traffic.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/documents... [1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-online-polls-ways-british-spies-seek-control-internet/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-o... [~] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8054173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8054173
- misiti3780 12y ago
  interestingly enough , I submitted [1] after it was initially published and no one cared https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8031791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8031791
  - discostrings 12y ago
    No one cared because it was quickly buried, which could quite possibly be due to a flag ring or automated monitoring for flagging of the firstlook.org domain. Here's my other comment on the topic [~]: It would be incredibly easy to use this sort of program to game visibility on HN. This story itself serves as the perfect example. When it was submitted four days ago [0], it quickly took a huge ranking hit and dropped off the front page. When a story drops off the front page this quickly, it's nearly impossible for it to get the upvote momentum required to gain any additional visibility. And the same URL can't be submitted again, so the opportunity for discussion of the article has essentially been removed. Then, we're left discussing a breaking story as the top item four days later, when a summary report about the original story that contains no new information is published on Slate. One might be quick to blame moderators, but in the discussion of another recent First Look story, dang said most of the penalty came from users flagging the story. [1] How many users flagging the story does it take to produce this outcome? Does GCHQ just need three accounts with a little karma to seriously diminish visibility here for days? Safeguards should be developed to prevent this sort of malicious activity. Maybe some sort of collusion penalty, where if the same users are flagging the same stories, the effect is diminished? Or a greater restriction on the maximum penalty? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8031791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8031791 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8008472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8008472 EDIT: And it's happened again! This story was #1 when the link was to [3]. About a half hour ago, the link was changed to firstlook.org, and within minutes, the story fell to the center of the main page. Now, thirty minutes later, it's at number 47 (with 200 points after six hours). It was at the top for hours, then dropped to 47 within thirty minutes of the link being changed. The fact that flagging happened right after the link was changed seriously suggests that some someone has automated monitoring for First Look links to flag. [3] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/documents_show_gchq_manipulating_online_information_like_web_polls_and_traffic.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/documents... [~] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8053852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8053852
- swehner 12y ago
  Thanks! How about the text? Would be good to know the text changes as well.
  - discostrings 12y ago
    The title was "U.K. Intelligence Agency's Ability to Manipulate Online Polls, Etc.", which notably doesn't include words that would trigger automated alerts if someone with an agenda that involved flagging surveillance stories had set them up somehow.

by swehner 12y ago

discostrings 12y ago

Here's a comment of mine from that thread explaining what he posted, how it changed, and what happened [~]: This story was in the first position on the front page less than an hour ago. It was there for hours. The link was then changed from [0] to [1], and within thirty minutes, it was on the second page at number 47. (It first took a drop to around 17, hovered there for a while, then hit 47.) Could we have an explanation of what's going on here? How can penalties from flagging be this steep for a story with 200 upvotes and 90 comments? Why did the position suddenly change shortly after the link was changed, but not right away? [0] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/documents_show_gchq_manipulating_online_information_like_web_polls_and_traffic.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/documents... [1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-online-polls-ways-british-spies-seek-control-internet/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-o... [~] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8054173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8054173

misiti3780 12y ago
interestingly enough , I submitted [1] after it was initially published and no one cared https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8031791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8031791
- discostrings 12y ago
  No one cared because it was quickly buried, which could quite possibly be due to a flag ring or automated monitoring for flagging of the firstlook.org domain. Here's my other comment on the topic [~]: It would be incredibly easy to use this sort of program to game visibility on HN. This story itself serves as the perfect example. When it was submitted four days ago [0], it quickly took a huge ranking hit and dropped off the front page. When a story drops off the front page this quickly, it's nearly impossible for it to get the upvote momentum required to gain any additional visibility. And the same URL can't be submitted again, so the opportunity for discussion of the article has essentially been removed. Then, we're left discussing a breaking story as the top item four days later, when a summary report about the original story that contains no new information is published on Slate. One might be quick to blame moderators, but in the discussion of another recent First Look story, dang said most of the penalty came from users flagging the story. [1] How many users flagging the story does it take to produce this outcome? Does GCHQ just need three accounts with a little karma to seriously diminish visibility here for days? Safeguards should be developed to prevent this sort of malicious activity. Maybe some sort of collusion penalty, where if the same users are flagging the same stories, the effect is diminished? Or a greater restriction on the maximum penalty? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8031791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8031791 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8008472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8008472 EDIT: And it's happened again! This story was #1 when the link was to [3]. About a half hour ago, the link was changed to firstlook.org, and within minutes, the story fell to the center of the main page. Now, thirty minutes later, it's at number 47 (with 200 points after six hours). It was at the top for hours, then dropped to 47 within thirty minutes of the link being changed. The fact that flagging happened right after the link was changed seriously suggests that some someone has automated monitoring for First Look links to flag. [3] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/documents_show_gchq_manipulating_online_information_like_web_polls_and_traffic.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/documents... [~] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8053852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8053852
swehner 12y ago
Thanks! How about the text? Would be good to know the text changes as well.
- discostrings 12y ago
  The title was "U.K. Intelligence Agency's Ability to Manipulate Online Polls, Etc.", which notably doesn't include words that would trigger automated alerts if someone with an agenda that involved flagging surveillance stories had set them up somehow.