Multiple accounts - menace or meaningless?

April 20, 2006 10:41 PM

"I know someone who owns hundreds upon hundreds of digg accounts, and thousands more on other 'buzz'-worthy sites. I know that he owns about 5 metafilter accounts, all registered after the $5 registration fee, all well used and difficult to call 'plant' on." O RLY? That doesn't seem like a good thing to me, at least. What say the rest of you? Menace or meaningless?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken to Etiquette/Policy at 10:41 PM (49 comments total)

I think digg is as shitty as I've always believed they were. It's never been much better than MeFi in any way, in my mind, yet it has a "CEO." Oooooooo!
posted by scarabic at 10:45 PM on April 20, 2006

I'm not a fan of tattling, but toby\flat2 should either identify who he's talking about or e-mail Matt about it.
Bullshit puppet gaming is bad for the community, dangling that kinda bait is bad for the community, and protecting the offender is just shitty as all get out.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:54 PM on April 20, 2006

Huh? He should write to Matt and say he knows someone who's gaming Digg? Why?

"Protecting the offender" is hard to defend, but do you go around turning all your friends in for their various and sundry offenses?

If so, you are, in fact, a fan of tattling.
posted by scarabic at 11:03 PM on April 20, 2006

Dude, you're well random tonight.

The reason I asked what people thought is 'he owns about 5 metafilter accounts, all registered after the $5 registration fee, all well used and difficult to call 'plant' on' -- nothing to do with digg.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:07 PM on April 20, 2006

which just goes to show... fuck I don't know. it's been said before that we're probably being gamed all the time by talented professionals, because everyone we catch is likely just some schmoe with a bad idea. Actual marketing plants wouldn't piss away the opportunity to get revenue/pagehits off metafilter by being really obvious about it. what do we do about that? no idea. hopefully this time matt will get a list of the 5 accounts, but how many other accounts are there that we'll never find out about? Are we really hurt by marketing we don't know about that still entertains us? probably, but not in a way we're ever conscious of until it's been exposed. meh. this depresses me.
posted by shmegegge at 11:15 PM on April 20, 2006

Y'know, if someone has gone to all the effort to create five legitimate-seeming MetaFilter accounts with solid, respectable posting histories, so that someday he can Pepsi Blue us -- I'd almost say he's earned the right to have a go at it. That's some serious, if fucked-up, dedication we're talking about.
posted by kindall at 11:48 PM on April 20, 2006

If someone is that dedicated, there's really no way to catch him/her/them short of DNA testing for new members.

Also, even if you kept all the marketeers from opening accounts of their own, there would always be existing members who were willing to sell out.

I, for one, am a total whore. For example, were I to be approached by Sprint, which provides the best nationwide cellular network, I could be relied upon to slip product endorsements into my posts in completely unnoticable ways.

Hypothetically, of course.
posted by tkolar at 12:00 AM on April 21, 2006

no way i heard sprint totally sucked balls tkolar i heard you need a totally different network altogether to totally use if you want to really hear anybody you talk to
posted by cgc373 at 12:06 AM on April 21, 2006

Presumably, the person is hired by a company similar to the one discussed in the second entry here.
posted by Bugbread at 12:16 AM on April 21, 2006

Damn, bugbear, that's depressing stuff. People are clever and all, but sometimes it'd be better if their cleverness weren't exercised quite so . . . um, cleverly? I remember plasticbag.org got hit with this stuff a while back, too.
posted by cgc373 at 12:29 AM on April 21, 2006

Someone please sponsor me so that I can have 100 MeFi accounts. I want to own the Internets. And this looks like a good place to start.

Menace or meaningless?

How about foolish (the user)? How many more puppets are out there anyway? Um, probably heaps, so why try and out just one?
posted by sjvilla79 at 12:34 AM on April 21, 2006

5 accounts? Surely some database manipulations based on IP addresses would help to root this out (assuming IP address is stored in the database. It probably isn't, come to think of it.) It would be a rare thing to find one household with five different legitimate people posting to Metafilter.
posted by Jimbob at 12:42 AM on April 21, 2006

Huh? He should write to Matt and say he knows someone who's gaming Digg? Why?

I guess you got that eye condition where you can't read italics. Over three thousand Americans suffer from Ocular Ed<em>as and sadly, nearly half don't know it.
Here you go:

I know that he owns about 5 metafilter accounts, all registered after the $5 registration fee, all well used and difficult to call 'plant' on."

"Protecting the offender" is hard to defend, but do you go around turning all your friends in for their various and sundry offenses?

If all your friends are actually one guy with five sock puppets, you're better off playing frisbee alone.
Since when is account fraud a various and sundry offence?
Maybe someone should tell dhoyt?

If so, you are, in fact, a fan of tattling.
I'm telling!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:59 AM on April 21, 2006

posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:29 AM on April 21, 2006

I am, in fact, a fan of tattling, if I don't like the crime being broken. Tattling on downloading mp3s? No way. Tattling on child abuse? Yeah, I'm all for it. Tattling on jaywalking? Nope. Tattling on submarine marketeers with sock puppets on Mefi? Give me a badge and call me Sergeant Tattlepuss.
posted by Bugbread at 1:41 AM on April 21, 2006

Since we're linking to Penny Arcade... here's something a bit more relevant.



I second any calls to determine if this claim is true or false. If true, it should not stand.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:47 AM on April 21, 2006

Meh. Egregious PepsiBlueing gets shouted down. Links to actually interesting products or companies stay based on their merits. The source never really comes into play. I'd say there's nothing here to really be concerned with, besides someone who gets paid to be a (okay, several) member(s) of the community. We should all be so lucky.
posted by Plutor at 2:57 AM on April 21, 2006

How many more puppets are out there anyway? Um, probably heaps, so why try and out just one?

Right, and there are heaps of murders and always will be, so why lock up just one! Brilliant reasoning! (And no, to pre-empt dumb comebacks, I'm not saying sockpuppetry is as bad as murder, I'm making an analogy to show you how bad your reasoning is.)

I agree with Alvy: toby\flat2 should let Matt know who the offender is. Actually, I really think he should tell us all so we could have a huge pileon with torches and pitchforks and boiling oil and I could sell hot dogs and beer, but that may be too much to ask for.
posted by languagehat at 4:57 AM on April 21, 2006

I've been trying to compile a list of people with sockpuppets, along with the proof and evidence, on my user page. If any of you come across messages that I can add to the scorecard, drop me a line. Thanks.
posted by crunchland at 5:13 AM on April 21, 2006

I approve heartily of crunchland's project, because I can't keep goddamn track anymore, and it maddens me like bees around the black bear's ears.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:57 AM on April 21, 2006

Did I miss the part where toby\flat2 said this person is making money as a spammer (rather than just being some assless joker like me who enjoys putting socks on his appendages)? Or did everyone of you just jump to the same unsubstantiated conclusion?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 6:18 AM on April 21, 2006

Crunchland: Behold, I Have An Anus!; Likable Lefty; Harry Morgan (partial); the ones I've forgotten at the moment.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 6:24 AM on April 21, 2006

There's two possible outcomes:

1. He uses those accounts and we don't notice that anything is wrong. Whatever he posts either gets no attention or ends up a decent post anyhow, even if it's a shill post.

2. He uses those accounts and we catch him doing shill posts, and the post gets deleted and he gets banned.

Which of those gets outrage? I've got all this outrage ready and I don't know where to aim it!

On a web forum I administer, people who get banned always write back and say "I'm going to create another account and you won't even know it's me!", to which I usually reply that up until the point that I banned them I was trying to get them to stop acting like them. I think the same principle applies here.
posted by mendel at 6:26 AM on April 21, 2006

Or did everyone of you just jump to the same unsubstantiated conclusion?

No conclusions were jumped to on my part, at least. I just hate sockpuppetry of all kinds regardless of the motivation, because I think it destroys identity, which subverts community (on the net, to whatever degree community is possible, which is anotther discussion for another day, probably).

The sockpuppetbigotry is, I acknowledge, my problem only. I'm seeking counseling from trained puppet-counselors.

So I asked. 'cause I think it's important. And it pisses me the hell off. Heh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:36 AM on April 21, 2006

Ocular Ed<em>a was much funnier at three in the morning. Sorry about that.

But I'm still gonna use it for my band's name. If anyone's interested, and can keep up with my mad triangle chops, send me an e-mail.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:15 AM on April 21, 2006

"That's some serious, if fucked-up, dedication we're talking about."

They're Al Qaeda Spam Sleeper Cells!
posted by klangklangston at 7:58 AM on April 21, 2006

I just hate sockpuppetry of all kinds regardless of the motivation, because I think it destroys identity, which subverts community (on the net, to whatever degree community is possible, which is anotther discussion for another day, probably).

Understandable, but interesting, perspective. I wonder if Metafilterans would get so worked up about multiple people using the same account - similar violation of identity, and matthowie doesn't even get his 5 bucks.

Maybe toby\flat2's friend is If I Had an Anus (*smooches*) - then it's all worked itself out.
posted by muddgirl at 8:25 AM on April 21, 2006

Wait...Florence Henderson is gone? No more Pot and Kettle?

*sniff*
posted by graventy at 8:31 AM on April 21, 2006

posted by klangklangston at 8:42 AM on April 21, 2006

obviously, toby\flat2 is referring to him/herself.
posted by poppo at 8:59 AM on April 21, 2006

How many more puppets are out there anyway?

How about a show of hands?


Well, then how about a show of feet?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:02 AM on April 21, 2006

We are all unique snowflakes I tell you! Each and everyone one of me!
posted by tiamat at 9:53 AM on April 21, 2006

Let's immediately vote to give mathowie wartime powers under a new "Defense of Metafilter" law.

I call for full IP tracing, and revealing of anonymous postings!!

We have to stamp out this Puppet Menace!
posted by matkline at 10:03 AM on April 21, 2006

Sorry stav - I guess since you included the line about digg I assumed you were assigning it relevance.
posted by scarabic at 10:15 AM on April 21, 2006

5 metafilter accounts, all registered after the $5 registration fee

hence, this phantom user, if he exists, gave 25 dollars to mathowie, which is 25 dollars more than I or the wonderchicken or many other posters in the thread paid to become members of this site.

he is financially much more valuable than those who belong to the pre-five-dollar crowd. come to think of it, dhoyt and his tranny-sockpuppet army donated more money to mathowie than many of us freeloaders
posted by matteo at 10:42 AM on April 21, 2006

he is financially much more valuable than those who belong to the pre-five-dollar crowd.

Umm, no?

He has already given his money, and he won't be getting it back. At this point his financial value to Matt is the same as any other poster -- I.E. how many people his interesting posts can attract to the site to pay Matt $5 for themselves.

From a financial perspective, Matt is driven by the need to attract new members, not coddle old ones regardless of how much they did or did not pay. Keeping the site fresh, interesting, and attractive (i.e. not full of spam) is in Matt's best interest, so wiping out spamming sockpuppets is also in his best interest.

Frankly though, the whole "Matt is driven soley by money" argument rings kind of hollow with me. There is a lot of love lavished on this site.
posted by tkolar at 11:05 AM on April 21, 2006

Addendum: Now that I think of it, what's really in Matt's best financial interest is to wipe out the sock-puppets but to make no attempt to stop the creation of new ones. The occasional purge of sock-puppets should just result in a surge of new ones being created, at $5 a pop.
posted by tkolar at 11:09 AM on April 21, 2006

right, which is why money isn't the #1 goal here.

Crunchland figured out someone has seven paid accounts. Sockpuppets can't be blocked 100%, and they do have the potential to do harm, but whenever harm is done, users are dealt with in an appropriate manner. It sucks to hear some viral marketer might have a bunch of accounts, but we do a pretty good job spotting the shills and ratting them out.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:12 AM on April 21, 2006

It's Raining Florence Henderson was Pot and Kettle?! damn!

at least he wasn't shilling, though. I liked those two sock puppets. I'll miss that guy.
posted by shmegegge at 11:20 AM on April 21, 2006

Crunchland didn't figure out anything.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:03 PM on April 21, 2006

My personal tinfoil hat hypothesis on sock puppetry is that PP is a sock on the hand of Matt. The more people that are viewing the site, the better. Nothing seems more effiecient (than (.)(.), of course ) for drawing page refreshes than a vitriolic flame war with a right-center identity on a left-center site.

posted by bastionofsanity at 12:23 PM on April 21, 2006

Yeah, I didn't figure anything out. In fact, thanks to all who have already sent me messages about who is whose sockpuppets, but I really am looking for messages where either people screw up and out themselves by mistake, or when they come right out and say it. I don't want to post people's pet theories. I am encouraged by the number of people who think sock puppets are a scourge on Metafilter society, though.
posted by crunchland at 1:11 PM on April 21, 2006

I agree (and have long agreed) with the scourge part.
posted by Mid at 1:18 PM on April 21, 2006

bastionofsanity writes "My personal tinfoil hat hypothesis on sock puppetry is that PP is a sock on the hand of Matt. "

Of course! mathowie obviously hired this actor to play PP at a meetup he was also planning to attended (that's PP's back - I think it's the only picture in which they appear together).
posted by mullacc at 1:35 PM on April 21, 2006

Wait, so ParisParamus isn't a hot Asian chick?
posted by dersins at 2:40 PM on April 21, 2006

Not that night.
posted by mullacc at 3:17 PM on April 21, 2006

So what if someone decided that they screwed up in picking a user ID that could out them and they create a new account and stop using the old account? Is that sock puppetry too?
posted by acoutu at 3:23 PM on April 21, 2006

No, it isn't, I don't think. Concurrent user identities would be the Bad Thing.

Sorry stav - I guess since you included the line about digg I assumed you were assigning it relevance.

Yeah, it was just that the MeFi part didn't make as much sense if I didn't quote the digg part too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:41 PM on April 21, 2006

Damn, dude. You have some serious issues.
posted by tkolar at 11:22 PM on April 21, 2006