Something happened today at the Daily Mail? sHillbots.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Let's dissolve this notion that the Daily Mail comments section doesn't matter:


Article views, US only:

LAST HOUR 340,042 TODAY 7,365,909

That's over 94 views per second.

OK then...At abt 7 Million views per day in the USA...and Trump with 50%+ unfavorability...that is 3 Million viewers per day that don't like Trump.

I know it is a wild idea...but is it possible that people are up-voting negative Trump comments cuz they don't like him?

To engineer a website vote system for a high traffic website such as DM, I would imagine having a real time upvote tick would be the absolute worse way to go, and would be a burden on their database server(s).

I imagine they have a queue based system, and every vote gets put into a queue that is constantly being consumed. The consumer tallys the votes, and after a set interval updates all the votes for the specific comments in their database. This type of system would reduce the amount of database hits.

This sytem would show to the end user as sudden large spike in votes if they constantly refresh, because the vote are only tallied and updated at intervals. It would explain the graphs shown at www.fakegreenarrows.com

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Let's dissolve this notion that the Daily Mail comments section doesn't matter:


Article views, US only:

LAST HOUR 340,042 TODAY 7,365,909

That's over 94 views per second.

OK then...At abt 7 Million views per day in the USA...and Trump with 50%+ unfavorability...that is 3 Million viewers per day that don't like Trump.

I know it is a wild idea...but is it possible that people are up-voting negative Trump comments cuz they don't like him?

Why just these specific posters...and not ALL anti-Trump posts?

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
To engineer a website vote system for a high traffic website such as DM, I would imagine having a real time upvote tick would be the absolute worse way to go, and would be a burden on their database server(s).

I imagine they have a queue based system, and every vote gets put into a queue that is constantly being consumed. The consumer tallys the votes, and after a set interval updates all the votes for the specific comments in their database. This type of system would reduce the amount of database hits.

This sytem would show to the end user as sudden large spike in votes if they constantly refresh, because the vote are only tallied and updated at intervals. It would explain the graphs shown at www.fakegreenarrows.com

Wouldn't the lag time be evident to the poster? MME posted and was published immediately.

a reply to: Indigo5

It's not just one article. It's consistent throughout all DM's U.S. political/election articles.

And a few handful of people seem to be getting most of the massive upvotes.

Like Brooklyn_Ky


If it IS the mods, then *ahem* the mods even like Brooklyn_Ky's comments about the Brown's quaterback's financial worth and the fact he gets "hot women:"

Link

a reply to: IAMTAT

Plus, I've seen 1180 up votes appear in the time it took me to refresh the page.

And others at the DM have taken notice, too.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I think some non-shills are getting upvotes for their pro-Hillary/anti-Trump comments.

But there's a handful that are getting a clear huge majority of the massive upvotes.

This person is one of them: Link to profile

And he's getting up votes on stupid, non-politically natured comments, too.

Like the Brown's quarterback comment I linked to above.

I don't think the mods just like him a lot. I think he 'likes' himself a lot and expresses his self-love with some kind of voting bot.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Do you mean the voter?

If you upvote, you will instantly see the vote increased, and the green thumb become solid instead of outlined. This is most likely just a client side trick to satisfy you, changing what is on your screen instantly just to give you instant feedback that your vote was added to the queue, but not actually tallied yet on the server side.

This can be seen when you upvote, and then instantly clear your cookies, and check the votes again. It will appear you didn't vote and your vote wasn't counted.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

I could be wrong, but I think he might be referring to the fact that I wrote a comment exposing the up-voters and it instantly showed I had 1400 down votes just minutes later.

Someone fudged my down votes.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

No, you can see other comments upvote increment as well, but there are few specific commenters who's upvotes increment by a huge amount in very short time periods. And this can be witnessed by several people simultaneously. I've seen it myself and not voted, all I do is refresh the page on a suspected comment, and it's upvotes grow by a very large number.

See this post

And then this post for specific examples.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok...Not being a DM reader...it is strange...they actually compete for up and down votes...scoreboard here..

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Strange...beyond that I am not tabloid minded, not a fan of the Daily Mail...thus moving on.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Let's dissolve this notion that the Daily Mail comments section doesn't matter:


Article views, US only:

LAST HOUR 340,042 TODAY 7,365,909

That's over 94 views per second.

OK then...At abt 7 Million views per day in the USA...and Trump with 50%+ unfavorability...that is 3 Million viewers per day that don't like Trump.

I know it is a wild idea...but is it possible that people are up-voting negative Trump comments cuz they don't like him?

Why just these specific posters...and not ALL anti-Trump posts?

Entirely possible some posters are using an Upvote bot..I researched around and sure enough people use them and the Daily Mail was mentioned...and yes they are used for all topics, not just politics.

The Daily Mail kind invites it by actually having a daily/weekly/monthly upvote competition..

In my strong opinion the Daily Mail is an utter rag of paper...and if our election comes down to people being influenced by the comments section of a British Tabloid rag...then we 100% deserve an apocalypse...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well ''The Daily Mail'' just like any news outlet is run by elites. That has been the case since day one. Depending on what the agenda is, depends on how they will change news and news websites to viewers. It is such a simple procedure to on mass, control people. This is no conspiracy, this is just business. I know some of us here know this already.

So, to the OP point. It would be clear that such a site would automatically enhance a comment in defence or to go against whatever the end result wished for those that pay the newspapers salaries.

They will be even more worried since the change with UK exiting Europe, they thought their propaganda was enough. Obviously not. This worries them.

a reply to: Indigo5

I have visited the Daily Mail for years and never realized they had a leaderboard. I don't recall any commenters even mentioning it either so I doubt many people are motivated by it. Like most forums, they allow a comment voting system. That's not unique to the DM.

Love it or hate though, the Daily Mail has a huge audience. I am sure, however, these up votes won't sway many voters. But they could be serving other purposes, the benefits of which remain to be seen...or evaluated. I am sure we'll never get any investigation about the who or why.

a reply to: Indigo5

It's not to convince anyone to vote, it's to make the rigged voting plausible.

It's not the media's job to convince us to vote, (well it is, the more we tow the line less needs to be manipulated), but mostly it's to paint a story, create an image of reality, that while fictional, explains the results we see on election day.

This way it's harder to prove anything nefarious happened, and they can show the picture they painted and say, "See? Everything is on the up and up" using a well done forgery of reality as proof.

So chances are we don't deserve who we get, because they probably aren't even who we voted for.

originally posted by: Willtell
What don’t you people understand the elite WANT HILLARY


SO DOES DONALD TRUMP

Makes great sense of the trump campaign if you look at it this way. It seems as if they are trying to lose. If I were hillary I would have wanted a trump win in primaries more than any other. She has controled the media and the media gave so much more trump coverage than any other republican canidate. You should make a thread about this. Hoe trump might actually be a clinton plant and why. Funny thing is I am still voting trump.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
To engineer a website vote system for a high traffic website such as DM, I would imagine having a real time upvote tick would be the absolute worse way to go, and would be a burden on their database server(s).

I imagine they have a queue based system, and every vote gets put into a queue that is constantly being consumed. The consumer tallys the votes, and after a set interval updates all the votes for the specific comments in their database. This type of system would reduce the amount of database hits.

This sytem would show to the end user as sudden large spike in votes if they constantly refresh, because the vote are only tallied and updated at intervals. It would explain the graphs shown at www.fakegreenarrows.com

On regular news articles, a good comment gets at most 3000 votes. That's on something like "let's deport the illegals" or "let's deport the mad mullahs"

There is no way any article will get 28,000 green arrows. I smell a bottle net being programmed to hit a particular link.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What I am trying to explain might be above you.

I'm saying the votes are not tallied in real time, you have to refresh to see them, and it might not gradually increase, it will instantly increase because they are tallied in intervals.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

No, I got you. A queue that runs in the background and holds on to votes until it's time to tabulate again, or something like that, yeah?

But it sure seems like the intervals are of such a small time period as to be nearly indistinguishable from real time to an observer.

See especially MME's example of her comment receiving 1400 downvotes in the time it took her to hit 'refresh' for her comment and when she finished typing.

There are quite a few other commenters who are pointing out the rigged arrow votes. It is not something only the OP has noticed.

Here's a comment from a Daily Mail forum:

I contacted Mail Online 'Communities Section' the same day. They responded withwhat I assume to be a standardised 'we're doing all we can' reply. But, interestingly,they did mention that 'as readers do not need to be logged in to register avote, and they can use proxy IP addresses to create a distributed network, itis not possible to trace exactly who is trying to have this effect. All that wecan do is endeavour to deal with the issue as and when it becomes prevalent'.I'm no computer expert, but I can only assume that 'proxy IP addresses' and'distributed networks' mean that opponents of the DM readership can createa virtual 'mob' for the purposes of Red Arrowing. And I suspect that 'Red' isthe operative word.

Then there is this, which was posted earlier in the thread. So it certainly seems to be a thing.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Earlier in the thread I commented about myself making a proof of concept bot. I reverse engineered the DailyMail upvote button, and made a way to programmaitcaly upvote. I found that they block you from voting more than once using cookies and IP, and you can't request an upvote more than 5 times in a short period.

The only way I see it feasable is to have a large network of available IP addresses, and that makes this more unlikely. To have a bot make 1400 requests from 1400 different IP addresses in a matter of seconds is not exactly something common people can do.

My job requires me to have access to about 600 different virtual machines and phyiscal machines, on 600 different networks, and I can easily create a bot to run on each one and upvote, but I am a unique case. Not everyone has a position as I do, and 600 votes is just not enough...

You could make a bot that crawls the internet and collects public proxies then makes requests using the proxy, but that is slow, and public proxies don't make that easy, and a bunch wont even work. It would be slow and nowhere near 1400 in the time you mention would be easy, and if some other person is using the proxy to upvote you may be blocked when you use it.

--

From what I see and hear from you and others, this upvote bot thing appears to be wide spread, and I am just not buying it. I would buy it if it was 1 or 2 people who got noticed, but not this many. It would require a rediculous amount of resources.