Why were we all ditched as editors?

[projectphp]

I work in a web dev company, and a few of us had editor logins for JoeAnt, but it seems that now we have all lost them. We all come in on the same IP (cause at work we all share one) so we all created accounts to use from home, and then login from work. Is that why we were ditched?? I never once got an email saying this would happen, and If I had I would've replied. I pretty much login once a week, mainly as a hobby. I know I was never as prolific as some, but this still seems a little poor to me!!!!!!!!!

:(

[Glo]

It had nothing to do with how prolific an editor was or wasn't, though prolonged inactivity can cause an account to be removed or put on an inactive list. We had a problem with editors having multiple accounts, so a program was written to keep that from happening, at least, from the same IP number. No emails were sent out but there were several announcements made on our internal message board, giving editors plenty of time to make other arrangements.

Everyone at your work place should create an account from their home. They will still be able to login to their account from their work place.

[JoeAnt]

No two accounts can use the same IP. It's our only way to assure editors aren't gaining access to more topics then their level allows. Allowing editors to do so would make our point system pointless. Unfortunately, even if all of you registered from home...if at anytime two ip's match up, those accounts are gathered for removal. IP's are captured every time you login. In order to keep your account active, you must never login from another IP that has logged in under another alias. In your unique situation, this may seem unfair, but this also allows us to keep an honest editor count.

We're working on a system that'll partially solve this issue. Instead of just deleting the account, it'll tell you another alias is using your IP you've just logged in under. Then it'll ask you to delete all but one...letting you decide which account you'd like to keep. You'll need to know the passwords for the others in order to delete them. If at anytime you login under an already used IP, your access rights will be halted. But, when you return home and login under your personal IP, your account will be back to normal. As long as it's never been used under another alias. So...if you return your account to a unique IP, it'll forget it ever matched up with another.

[projectphp]

A lecturer I used to ahve was fond of referring to virtually ALL my programming efforts as "a bit poor". Unfortunately, this situation falls under the same umbrella.

How many people use multiple computers on a single IP? It is EXCEEDINGLY common. If I get an ISP that has a good deal cause of IP sharing, that will screw ppl big time. I think perhaps you should reconsider how you do this, and perhaps instigate some new form of restriction. This really has dented my enthusiasm for the whole endeavour, however I am willing to give you one more chance PROVIDED I can still use my old email address, projectphp at Yahoo.com

Is that possible???

[Alan Perkins]

There's always a balance to be found between discriminating against people who don't set out to cheat the system and preventing people who do. I'm not convinced that you've found it, JoeAnt. :)

According to how an ISP operates, there are instances where, within the same user session(s), several people may be on the same IP address or one person may appear on several different IP addresses.

[JoeAnt]

The current script in place does take some of this into consideration. For example: If it finds an account with two different names under one IP, but they're registered for the same topic, it's overlooked. When it comes across numerous accounts with one IP listed under all of our topics...it deletes them immediately. In most cases, the ones deleted have all had over 4 accounts. They all were registered under one IP and each had a different topic. One solution to this problem is to go back to manually reviewing applications. We opened up our applications in hopes to change the way people feel about directories and having to get approved. If it's taken advantage of or the complaints become overwhelming, we'll have no choice but to convert it back to the way all the other human-edited directories have it.


If your account has been deleted, you can register again...as long as it's from a unique IP. You'll need a new username, but the rest of your information can be exact. Including your email.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by JoeAnt
When it comes across numerous accounts with one IP listed under all of our topics...it deletes them immediately. So if two AOL (for example) subscribers who don't know each other sign up months apart for different topics, both may be immediately deleted because they happened to be assigned the same IP address by AOL during the sessions in which they signed up ... that doesn't seem very fair on either of them.

There has to be a better way ... what are you trying to achieve? You say it's the only way to "assure editors aren't gaining access to more topics then their level allows". One might expect that by spreading edits among many accounts, rather than concentrating them all into one account, would give someone less power, not more...

[trffcsndrs]

...if at anytime two ip's match up, those accounts are gathered for removal
Here's a low cost suggestion that would allow you to continue to use an automated system and provide greater flexibility to the system as a whole.

I suggest adding a field to your account's table that would allow administrative exclusion or override to your automated system. Any account that is flagged would be omitted from your IP match query. Then instead of just...

We're working on a system that'll partially solve this issue. Instead of just deleting the account, it'll tell you another alias is using your IP you've just logged in under. Then it'll ask you to delete all but one...letting you decide which account you'd like to keep.
Give an option to request a manual review for that account.

This should give you a greater control over your system while keeping costs lower.

[JoeAnt]

So if two AOL (for example) subscribers who don't know each other sign up months apart for different topics, both may be immediately deleted because they happened to be assigned the same IP address by AOL during the sessions in which they signed up ... that doesn't seem very fair on either of them.

After that quote I wrote...

In most cases, the ones deleted have all had over 4 accounts.

Your scenario above is very unlikely even with just two accounts. It's each of their last IP's they logged in under that counts.

I'll acknowledge that this dup IP system needs work. I appreciate all of your advice. Having a script govern anything is no easy task. We'll try our best to do what's necesary to appeal to all of our editors. For those that have been affected by this situation unfairly, we appologize. For now, it's the best system we can come up with. We'll take your advice and try our best to make it better and more understanding.

[JoeAnt]

Give an option to request a manual review for that account.

We're doing that now for accounts that match 2 other accounts or less. It's only the large number ones that are being deleted automatically. And even then, they have to all be registered under different topics. The smaller accounts are only being gathered for removal. We check log times, number of entries, the paths they've taken around the editor interface, submissions, etc... and determine whether or not they should be removed.

[Glo]

One might expect that by spreading edits among many accounts, rather than concentrating them all into one account, would give someone less power, not more...
It's not about having more or less power, it's about respecting the directory's guidelines. New editors do not come with the knowledge required to edit. They need to learn how we want it done. It takes time to learn a topic and its sub-topic tree, how to add to the correct topic, rate, review, and describe sites in an objective way. It takes time to learn how to suggest a sub-topic in the most appropriate topic by making sure it doesn't already exist elsewhere. Hence the one topic to begin with. Once they learn how to maneuver that topic by adding sites and being reviewed by senior editors, they can move up to another topic and start reviewing new editors. There are exceptions, of course. If a new editor shows good skills and knoweledge of the guidelines and directory structure, they can be fast tracked to more topics.

By keeping new editors confined to one topic (which covers all its subs) their submission get much better, much faster than if they were jumping all over the directory with little or no experience. They just become confused and adds to the workload of the senior editors.

Having multiple topics also allows them a bigger opportunity to spam the directory. Yes, they will be discovered eventually, but that will take considerable resources that can be better spent helping editors who do respect and follow the guidelines. We have a good flow of submissions coming in and listed in a very short amount of time. If we start getting hug amounts of spam again, we will be like all the other directories - with a large queue of unreviewed submissions.

I doubt there will ever be a perfect solution for those who are bent on abusing a system without some consequences to whatever is setup to stop or prevent the abuse.

[Alan Perkins]

Hi Glo

I just meant that if the system rewards having 10 accounts and doing one edit per account more than it rewards one account doing 10 edits, maybe - maybe - there's something wrong with the system. :)

[Glo]

Hi, Alan

When I first read your last comment it only confused me. I thought, how can we be rewarding those with ten accounts? We are trying to prevent that from happening. But after a few re-reads and pondering the comment I realized you may be referring to the whole setup of allowing anyone to become an editor, right? Which in your mind allows for an open door policy for potential abuse. Am I right? If so, what is the answer, go back to screening editors and opening to webmaster submission again? Or do you have another idea?

[Alan Perkins]

Sorry for the confusion, Glo. :)

This strategy has been introduced to stop editors abusing the system. I'm suggesting that if having 10 accounts with 1 edit per account allows someone more power than having 1 account that has performed 10 edits, people will find a way to gain and exploit that power. Rule #1 in anti-spam measures is "Don't talk about your anti-spam measures". In this case you've had to, because you had to explain to an innocent editor why their account has been removed.

Now that you've discussed it, anyone can see that the way to have multiple editor accounts is to make sure they're all on separate IP addresses. This is not that difficult to achieve, it's just a question of "Is it worth doing?".

I haven't put any real thought into your problem but, being detached from it, may I suggest that you look at it from another tangent - rather than trying to detect people who have ten accounts, why not make it more beneficial to have one account rather than 10? How could you do this?

[Glo]

Thanks, Alan, I see what you mean.
In this case you've had to, because you had to explain to an innocent editor why their account has been removed.
Unfortunately, the editor was not so innocent, as he is well aware of, but it seems he has accomplished what he set out to do.
why not make it more beneficial to have one account rather than 10? How could you do this?
That's a very positive approach to any situation and a more creative one, thanks for the reminder. :)

[projectphp]

I work in an office of many in Web Dev, and each one of us has (SORRY HAD!!!) a JoeAnt account partially, I admit, to submit clients and our own sites to different categories (although not always). I have submitted people I don't know (I bought a phone at a shop, liked the service, so I submitted them) and friends stuff.

Many people in here were editors for similar reasons, and it seems to me a little silly. It is really very easy to get a new account. Simple in fact. So why are you stopping "spam" in this way?? There are many other ways to approach the problem, and as far as I can see, the method chosen is, at best, problematic. I actually REALLY liked the way that all entries were reviewed by a second person. I always felt that the DMOZ way of "your in, go for it" was a little spammy, and after getting criticism for my "editting style", when so many entries are poor, I think the JoeAnt way is better.

The problem of spam surely doessn't arise from a desire to encourage people to pay, as you could achieve this another way. You must have a business model based upon some revenue stream, although I fail to see what that is, but surely this isn't the reason for this anti-spam measure??!?

I really like JoeAnt. I find it useful, the info on sites is excellent, and there are many good features. This anti-spam issue, however, is not one of them.

[projectphp]

Unfortunately, the editor was not so innocent, as he is well aware of, but it seems he has accomplished what he set out to do.
..And what did I "...set out to do" Pray tell??

That sounds a bit sinister. There is really not MUCH I could have done except post sites...

And not innocent?? ME?? Butter wouldn't melt in my mouth

:angel:
:angel:
:angel:
:angel:

(SOOO happy that Icon was there!!! LOL)