Dan from Comoros

Post questions or suggestions here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Anders Schlander
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Dan from Comoros

Post by Anders Schlander » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:27 am

advertisement bot with a google translate : bad.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Dan from Comoros

Post by Kelly Jones » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:47 am

It'd be funny if the spambots were so well-written, that they were nearly indistinguishable from excellent posts. For instance, they would write interesting and intelligent comments, and only at the very bottom, in the basement so to speak, you would find a tiny advertisment, but the hyperlink would be missing, and on the face of the little ad was a large sign in big black letters: "Dangerous Tiger! Beware!".

.

User avatar
Anders Schlander
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Dan from Comoros

Post by Anders Schlander » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:59 pm

Exactly, well, yes, it would :)

The posts are build such that they are not exactly coherent, but still maintain a range of interesting 'glips' of sentences, that might make the unsuspecting person unaware that the links could be harmful.

If they were more coherent, and better written, a malicious link/advertisement would problably be very unexpected, the post would look geniune, especially with a decent username, and nobody would realize it.

But, as far as malicious spyware links go, if somebody 'really' cared enough to make an intelligent, coherent, and interesting post, they would problably be beyond the stage of causing spite. The main motivations for these kind of people is to make a living i think. And it certainly seems to be a lot of effort going thrugh the work of making a good post, to hide some advertisement. That's why they problably used google translator, fixed up some surface interesting sentences that wasn't quite coherent, and went on a spam spree. It's all for efficiency.

edit: If they were good at english, the next efficient thing might be to do just that, make templates of posts that are good enough to be read that lead up to a link , and write it all over the internets. It's an interesting battle really. Reminds me of internet games where developers try to fight off hacks and cheats that change the game, or viruses and malware, that are constantly being altered, with anti-virus programs trying to "outsmart" them.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Dan from Comoros

Post by Kelly Jones » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:26 pm

I wouldn't mind donating a few cents for every intelligent thing written. That would be a good way to sponsor intelligence.

Unfortunately, it's prone to abuse. Just as on Youtube, where people voted thumbs-down or thumbs-up, without giving any explanation, people would start regarding their account balance as an indication of how intelligent their posts were. But perhaps having to pay money for voting would put a brake on that behaviour.

.

User avatar
Anders Schlander
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Dan from Comoros

Post by Anders Schlander » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:26 pm

Kelly Jones wrote:I wouldn't mind donating a few cents for every intelligent thing written. That would be a good way to sponsor intelligence.
Aye, but hey, in this world, intelligence is hardly as good as shameless advertising if you need money to feed your kids, given the awful situations people put themselves in.

I reckon it would be wiser to donate personally instead of to who-ever comes up with an intelligent post. Get to know the person through more than one single post, flicking money at people before knowing them and how best to help leads into bad decisions. It's not that people who are not geniunely interested in being rational and intelligent will try their luck trying to rip off people, because as i said, shameless advertising, and many other dodgy pursuits earn much more money, but my point about personally knowing what you donate to still stands. I don't think donating a couple dollars to intelligent channels or accounts without some personal knowledge or background works that well.
Kelly Jones wrote:Unfortunately, it's prone to abuse. Just as on Youtube, where people voted thumbs-down or thumbs-up, without giving any explanation, people would start regarding their account balance as an indication of how intelligent their posts were. But perhaps having to pay money for voting would put a brake on that behaviour.
Well, given the level of the average person on youtube, the votes there are hardly credible. However, you could reduce voting on youtube only to 1month+ old accounts that have already paid some money for their channel, thus showing that they are serious. It shouldn't discriminate against people with no money that have geniune things to offer, ideally, but to limit voting doesn't limit geniune people from posting videos and comments, it just stops people from making an account just to 'mess about' on u-tube, which is good, and outweighs the downside of limiting voting to those who are intelligent.


edit: a very tiring and long, but effective process, is for people to make rational requests on why they should be allowed to vote/comment, a team would deal with the request, and weed out the people neccesary to make a somewhat serious youtube. The huge popularity and sucess of youtube that drives it however, is not what i'd call serious or rational though, so maybe it's really quite hopeless if you don't change the way people think, the world runs on idiots.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Dan from Comoros

Post by Kelly Jones » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:43 am

The donation idea wasn't that great, I agree. What would happen is, the wealthy people would have the most votes. And since wealthy people tend to value wealth, at the expense of wisdom, it would tend to work in opposition to my intention. Instead of sponsoring intelligence, it would simply promote the values of people with a lot of money.

Yes, you're right. One should pay for quality and consistency.

.

User avatar
Anders Schlander
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Dan from Comoros

Post by Anders Schlander » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:12 pm

edited: mentioning your post + moving two sentences around.
kelly wrote:What would happen is, the wealthy people would have the most votes. And since wealthy people tend to value wealth, at the expense of wisdom, it would tend to work in opposition to my intention. Instead of sponsoring intelligence, it would simply promote the values of people with a lot of money.
yes, that's the core of it, written in few words. That is basically what I was afraid of, that the money was given without personal knowledge and judgement, leading to people recieving money for the wrong reasons.


I'd like to be able to be more concise, I get alot of mental disturbances and It's hard to extract my ideas very clearly(EDIT: there was a post on your own forum entitled Tips on Samadi, so i'll go have another look at that).
kelly wrote:Yes, you're right. One should pay for quality and consistency.
Consistency is important, i agree, it's a measure of how well the person will act if he/she recieves money, an inconsistent person isnt likely going to be responsible to a task long enough for it to be a good investment. Quality goes without saying almost.

Consistency can also be a mark of quality ofcourse, such that one produces something of quality with consistency, Ofcourse, there is a reason you used both of those words; consistently bad, or consistently good :), likewise, quality without any consistency whatsoever, is nothing.

Post Reply