Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

RVAspeculator (29.02)

Recs now mean nothing! Change this back Motley Fool!

Recs

35

May 03, 2010 – Comments (70) | RELATED TICKERS: REC.DL2

I was checking my blog from yesterday on another computer to see if there were new comments.

Even though I was not signed into CAPS I noticed that the “Rec” button was enabled.   I pushed and to my surprise it gave me a rec.   When I was not signed in as ANYONE.

I have been blogging here since January 2008 and I know for a fact it has did not work this way for the longest time…  In fact I think the change was made very recently.

Have you noticed that Alstry is getting lots more recs these days?

Did you notice that this guy “Vet67to82” got 168 recs on one post without a single comment that was not his?    (15 comments that he posted himself)

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=356687&t=02004281496154185991

Did you also notice that every post he has made has had 60-168 recs even though they are very short and don’t really convey any useful information?


Let me explain what is happening here.

[One person is reccing multiple times.]

It is because of the change Motley Fool made that allows you to do this.   I would surmise that it was around late March judging from this Vet67to82 character.

Sure we have had rec fraud in the past...  Goodvibe with his multiple ghost accounts, That “AndrewGreenBull” guy who would pump worthless penny stocks and then get them 65 recs with his multiple accounts (GETA.OB is a 10 bagger!!!!  LOL)

But this rec fraud didn’t bother me much because if you really took the time to create 30 different accounts, sign in as 30 different people and just to get 30 recs first off it would take forever, secondly you would need a lot of e-mail address and lastly it would be just sad.

Simply clearing your internet history and voting again and again is WAY too easy.   As a programmer I could write a IE macro that could vote for this post 10,000 times in the next few hours (maybe more).   Instead I think I will just get this post 100 recs and stop there as I think my point will be made.

If you agree this needs to change, please give me 20-30 recs.  It will only take you about 5 minutes.

PS:   Motley Fool can pull this post down if they like, but if you do so please at least make the change.   I write these blogs and use the amount of recs I receive as a gauge of how useful my post was.   If everyone can easily inflate their number of recs, good posts will be buried under utter crap.  This is the only point I am trying to make here.

70 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 03, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Option1307 (29.76) wrote:

Even though I was not signed into CAPS I noticed that the “Rec” button was enabled. 

If that is true it seriously needs to be changed back. But I'm far too alzy to sign out of my account and actually try it! I'll just take your word for it.

Report this comment
#2) On May 03, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Option1307 (29.76) wrote:

Well judging by the fact you have 80 recs, I guess it's true. Or you have one huge following!

Report this comment
#3) On May 03, 2010 at 10:41 PM, JGus (28.68) wrote:

That was fun! I started recing this blog at under 30 and helped run it up to 100. Thanks for pointing out this horrible oversight!

Report this comment
#4) On May 03, 2010 at 10:48 PM, PDTBiotech (94.19) wrote:

Even if they fix this Recs are worthless without a -1 option as well.  As I've said before, not having a -1 makes this system similar to equity research (no sells).

Report this comment
#5) On May 03, 2010 at 10:51 PM, RVAspeculator (29.02) wrote:

Yea....  I only did the 100 I said I would and as you can see it took me a grand total of 10 minutes.

The macro would do it much faster and it wouldnt get bored like I just did.

I see my count is over 130 now so this is taking on a mind of it's own now.  :) 

I hope the Motley Fool does not take this the wrong way.  I love this community and 99% of the bloggers out here rock.  I guess it shows by the fact that I have blogged pretty much every month since January 2008.

Report this comment
#6) On May 03, 2010 at 10:58 PM, whereaminow (20.62) wrote:

GIve yourself 20,000.  It'd be nice to have a new blogger at the top of the leaderboard :)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On May 03, 2010 at 11:07 PM, ChrisGraley (29.78) wrote:

I don't really care about the recs.

I've learned to look for blog post from certain posters.

Even though good posters with an opposite opinion can get flamed by me, they usually get a rec. It takes time and thought to put out these blog posts.

I also have learned to ignore garbage bloggers that post drivel that they haven't spent 2 minutes thinking about. These guys get recs from lemmings that would still exist even with the fix.

Alstry does manage to post a headline or 2 that draws me in from time to time. I've even recced a few of his posts. Most of those were when he was pretending that he was leaving.

He's actually had a couple of decent posts in the last 2 years when he's not pretending to be a failed news anchor on a 3rd rate unknown TV station during sweeps week.

anyway +1 rec

Even if this is fixed though, what's to stop someone from creating a macro that creates 100 accounts? 

Report this comment
#8) On May 03, 2010 at 11:13 PM, RVAspeculator (29.02) wrote:

Each account has to be registered to a real e-mail address.

So first off you would have to register 100 e-mail address.  Then you would have to create usernames and passwords for all these e-mails, then you would have to create usernames and passwords for all these CAPS accounts. 

You then would have to script the login and the logout and rec in between.   Very time consuming and MUCH more difficult.  I think that is why you didnt see much rec fraud in the past, way too time consuming.

Report this comment
#9) On May 03, 2010 at 11:26 PM, ChrisGraley (29.78) wrote:

There was still rec fraud in the past.

One guy has been creating new accounts every day to trash the same stock. I believe it was Zixi.

Remember that you only have to create 100 accounts once and you have 100 recs for every post for life.

I have 2 caps accounts and use the same email adress and same password for both.

If someone uses firefox the macros to do this are pretty easy.

 

 

Report this comment
#10) On May 03, 2010 at 11:40 PM, tonylogan1 (28.08) wrote:

Are you suggesting GETA is not a 10 bagger? I am confused.

I'll give you 10 recs or so... we'll see when I get bored. 157 so far

Report this comment
#11) On May 03, 2010 at 11:49 PM, tonylogan1 (28.08) wrote:

ok, I got bored at 6 recs.

p.s. for the fool... I used firefox "private browsing" sothe history was auto deleted, making the auto-rec'ing all the easier.

Pretty lame.

Report this comment
#12) On May 04, 2010 at 12:07 AM, coralbro (92.86) wrote:

+1

(or +30ish)

You are soon to be over 200, give me just one more minute. 

IE also has a private browsing option...you don't even have to log off. 

Report this comment
#13) On May 04, 2010 at 12:17 AM, SockMarket (42.10) wrote:

I have known, more or less, about this since I started clearing my history about 6 mos. ago and have been very tempted several times when posts of mine that I worked hard on received 1-5 recs. So far I have refrained but if TMF doesn't do anything about this I think that I will make the point by getting some of mine 10-20 recs just for the heck of it... 

 

Chris & others,

I am a bit surprised that you can have 2 accts on 1 email. I have 2 accts as well but they are on different emails. Anyway assuming you eliminate this:

There are several reasons to switch to a system under which an account can only rec once and you must be signed in to do so:

1) as Rev says to get 100 recs you need 100 email accounts, which take forever to set up. Granted you could make a macro to do it for you at one site, but that generates more problems

1a) correct me if I am wrong, I am not the programmer type (although I can do some basic HTML), but generating a realilistic email address with a macro is very tough to do. You would probably have to give it a fairly large dictionary of words to play with and in so doing you would probably spend longer writing the code than it would take to create the account mannualy.

That said it is easy to recognize a fake email. ie: sazdnahdenat1247694@msn.com probably isn't a real email that someone uses and would be easy for TMF staff to pick out, so if someone created a whole bunch of accounts this way they would be fairly easy to find.

2) if 20-30 accounts always rec a post, and the guy does not have much diversity (ie more than 5 different people per time) in his rec stream you can pick out, and delete the fake accounts. If TMF was smart they would build a tool to look for this.

Report this comment
#14) On May 04, 2010 at 1:12 AM, ChrisGraley (29.78) wrote:

1) do it without a macro and set up 10 email accounts for 10 days straight. If you find an email site that doesn't look for bots, it can be done with a macro in a few seconds.

1a) pick 1 very unique email adress and run the macro to add the numbers 1 to 100 to the end.

2) this requires a human over a computer in most cases. You and I both have groupies and they are more likely to rec our posts than people that disagree. I'm sure that even Alstry has groupies.

It would be easier to look for accounts that only rec 1 blogger, but it still needs some human thought to avoid alienating a new member.

 

Report this comment
#15) On May 04, 2010 at 1:20 AM, TMFUltraLong (99.95) wrote:

Damnit, when a man has a 2093 post thread he EXPECTS to come home and find himself the leader in recommendations....make it happen people!

UltraLong

Report this comment
#16) On May 04, 2010 at 2:03 AM, DaretothREdux (43.63) wrote:

I personally put this blog over 250 recs to make it the most recced blog of ALL Time. I have had to work very hard for every rec I have ever recieved and I see no reason TMF should make it so easy for people to cheat now. I sincerly hope this is changed.

Dare

P.S. I may quit blogging here altogether until this is fixed.

Report this comment
#17) On May 04, 2010 at 2:37 AM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

Using the private browsing and setting this blog as my home page, I was able to rec once every 3 seconds to put you at 300 pretty quickly. 

This makes me feel more strongly that some people are indeed driving up the recs on their own posts. 

Report this comment
#18) On May 04, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

I appreciate the mention ... and the heads up  ... however  ... you might want to view this link. 

http://www.peopleandpicks.com/blog/Vet67to82/3319562/BioTechnology-HOMERUN-potentials/

 I post to SEVERAL other sites, as well as withing GROUPS in other sites  ... and I think members there MIGHT want to join Motley Fool so ... I give them the link to MY  blogs here ...   please note the LAST part: 

 " ... also, check out the Motley Fool CUR quote and comment page. There's only seven of us now.

(3) http://msncaps.fool.com/Ticker/CUR.aspx

Tags : CUR   DNDN   BIOTECHNOLOGY   "  
   Sooooo, if non-Motley Fools, visit b'cuz I posted a link ... and  give my blog a rec, and join MF CAPS ... and may be sign up for MF Premium services  ... seems to me MFool is going to be happy ... and should WANT new people ....  Oh, yeah, as to the " ... even though they are very short and don’t really convey any useful information?..."      ... Zacks published one of my blogs under:http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=BW&Date=20100428&ID=11461249&Symbol=CURthat appears on the MSN MONEY page so that ANY ONE can link to and read it ... whether they're a Zack's member  .... or not.      Hmmmm!    Useful information .... in YOUR opinion, Zack's ... or the readers ...   
  Report this comment
#19) On May 04, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

Oh, by the way  ...

   Here is a recent blog  ( March ) "

DJIA looking good for positive close

 "  with only 7 sad little Recs ....

http://msncaps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=355843&t=02004281496154185991

   perhaps ... you could demonstrate your procedure ... and give that a couple of hundred recs ...

   Thanks  

 

Report this comment
#20) On May 04, 2010 at 7:18 AM, outoffocus (22.86) wrote:

Awe man this sucks. I just got my highest recced post ever this week only to find out now that recs are meaningless? *cries*

Report this comment
#21) On May 04, 2010 at 7:53 AM, lemoneater (81.98) wrote:

Don't cry. Instead adopt a cat. My cat thinks I'm wonderful. Every morning he greets me eagerly by rubbing his soft furry face against my hand. Many of my blogs entertain me and it is an added bonus if somebody else enjoys them but sometimes NOBODY CARES.  Save yourself some grief and get a kitten or a puppy for a friend.

Report this comment
#22) On May 04, 2010 at 9:45 AM, XMFSinchiruna (27.49) wrote:

I'm no techie by any means ... are there filters out there that can permit just one rec per IP address regardless of login status? Seems like that would be an easy fix. I do like the idea of readers being able to rec whether they are registered or not.

At the end of the day, though, as much as abuse of recs is definitely annoying, I think lemoneater is on to something in #21 ... it's equally important for us to keep the matter in proper perspective and not equate recs with some kind of measure of greatness. outoffocus, recs might be meaningless, but your kind post certainly was not. I can't thank you enough for that inspiring reminder that our posts here can impact people in meaningful ways.

Here's something you can't cheat on (unless you're the shoe-bot): comments. I value comments from my readers far more than recs. I love knowing who is reading, who is enjoying which parts of a post, and I love the dialogue that ensues. I always request recs on my published articles because that helps them to gain circulation and reach a broader audience outside of our community. For blog posts, though, I feel it's the comments that makes them memorable and let's fellow Fools best know the reaction of the community to the content.

Here's a poignant example: This was my most enjoyable blog post of all time. As a community, we made magic happen through the comments to that post. Recs were immaterial to the impact of the post, and in fact the low-ish number of recs speaks volumes to the tremendous commitment by a relatively small subsection of the community to carry that effort through to fruition.

So I do hope they close that hole that allows fraudulent reccing activity, but I will not lose sleep or stop blogging over it. I also hope that they can close the hole in a way that still permits unregistered readers from reccing a post (once!). In the meantime, I strongly encourage fellow community members to resist the urge to make some kind of a statement by racking up hundreds of fraudulent recs ... I would think it would be quite a bit more challenging to retroactively remove fraudulent posts than to prevent new ones, so doing so would injur the repaired system as much as it would injur the present system. Let's let this one record-breaking post stand as the single protest post to voice our concern over the matter ... it will be heard.

Those are my $0.02. Fool on!

Sinch

Report this comment
#23) On May 04, 2010 at 10:28 AM, drgroup (69.27) wrote:

You can't be serious. It isn't that important. I just wrote 500 rec's on a piece of paper for one of my past post. It still didn't change anything in my world.... 

Report this comment
#24) On May 04, 2010 at 10:35 AM, YodaBuffett (< 20) wrote:

aww ultralong deserves the recognition for fielding a 2000+ post blog haha

Report this comment
#25) On May 04, 2010 at 10:36 AM, ChannelDunlap (< 20) wrote:

It wouldn't cause me to stop using TMF or anything, but that is pretty lame.  Might as well just get rid of the Rec feature all together if thats how it's going to work.

Report this comment
#26) On May 04, 2010 at 11:55 AM, binve (< 20) wrote:

RVA, I agree man. This really sucks. I post because I want to share information and a viewpoint. I don't post to get recs per se, but the rec system is a useful way for the community to feed back what ideas it finds useful / agrees with / etc. I agree with Sinchi that comments are by far the most useful (well most the time at least), but the rec system is almost as important in providing feedback. And we now find out it is broken. This is very discouraging to say the least and I am very disappointed..

Report this comment
#27) On May 04, 2010 at 12:04 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

There have been some great points here from bringing this bug out in the open.  While I agree this is a CAPs investment community where we share ideas and we shouldn't get hung up on RECs, this is also a GAME, which means competition ro tools to measure ourselves against.

Some of us compete against ourselves, some take it up a level. Anytime you have LISTs of TOP tens, BEST, WORSE, etc, you have a goal that someone can shoot for. Some people may not be their caps score overall, but they may have personal goals for accuarcy, percentage gains, score leaders, etc. When these goals they've worked for have been proven to be meaningless then it can take some of the "FUN" part out of the "game".

Dialogue is an important aspect of blogs.  (And this community). That Vet67to82 can get a top five ever place on a blog that had zero community dialogue is clearly unfair to Ultralong's blog that will barely load due to it's shear size of dialogue.

While Vet67to82 may not have used the self rec feature, that he linked to other websites where people could come into the community multiple times and give a REC, a community they do not have an account in, or participate in, is certainly another form of the flaw.

Currently you can't rec pitches unless you are signed in. The same precaution would limit this "bug" and was no doubt the intent at some point, but a bug got introduced to open the door. Yes, you can have multiple accounts, which I also thought required multiple email addresses, but the extent of the spoofing you can do is at least somewhat limited and can be sniffed out much easier.

While REC's may not have meaning to everyone, if they are a metric or goal that some players look at and they are part of the competition or recognition of the game, they should work properly.

I AM CERTAIN FOOL is working on this issue.

Thanks RVAspeculator for pointing out this bug.

 +30 or so from me!  :)

TSIF

Report this comment
#28) On May 04, 2010 at 12:11 PM, HooDaHeckNose (96.06) wrote:

The single best thing MF could do would be to add neg recs to the system. Prehaps then some self important douchetards would actually understand how unimportant their scratchings on this web site are.

Report this comment
#29) On May 04, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Option1307 (29.76) wrote:

As funny as this "rec" flaw is, it's getting out of hand now as posts are becoming irrelevant. Does anybody actually think the Starcraft II release date is the 2nd most important post of the day, no they don't.

TMF, where you at? Are you working on a fix or...?

Report this comment
#30) On May 04, 2010 at 1:09 PM, outoffocus (22.86) wrote:

As funny as this "rec" flaw is, it's getting out of hand now as posts are becoming irrelevant. Does anybody actually think the Starcraft II release date is the 2nd most important post of the day, no they don't

Oddly enough it was that post that alerted me to this one. O.o

Report this comment
#31) On May 04, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Option1307 (29.76) wrote:

TMF, where you at? Are you working on a fix or...?

btw I don't mean this as a criticism, TMF does a terrific job of running things around here. A+ for team TMF!

Report this comment
#32) On May 04, 2010 at 1:51 PM, TMFCHarris (99.55) wrote:

Hey guys,

We made this change a number of months ago, as part of a general fix for our login/authentication system that was breaking. In general, we haven't seen it as being a problem, because 1) you need to remove your cookies to rec again, and 2) we have systems in place to detect when people are repeatedly reccing from the same location.

We have removed recs and bloggers in the past for abuse, and will continue to do so when things become disruptive, but I don't think we'll be moving the rec button behind a reg wall anytime soon.

In that spirit, we're going to take most of the recs on this post away, but we still welcome your feedback.

Fool on,
Chris

Report this comment
#33) On May 04, 2010 at 2:17 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

While I commend you on your reply Chris, this is one of the few times when I disagree with you and am disappointed.  The cat is out of the bag. 

It's certainly easy enough as proven by this one post to remove your cookies ONE time and rec away.  The BLOG system is letting people in without being logged into any account. Once you remove your cookies you can REC limitlessly without ever logging in.

REC's should only be allowed when you are signed in. Again we understand people can have multiple accounts and still abuse the system, but the issue at hand currently is that you don't need an account at all.   You can't leave a pitch rec without being logged in, so I'm unclear why the system would need to be opened up in the blog area.  No account with MF, no recs.

Thanks,

TSIF

Report this comment
#34) On May 04, 2010 at 2:27 PM, goalie37 (91.54) wrote:

+1 rec   :P

 

But really.  +1 rec.  Good post.

Report this comment
#35) On May 04, 2010 at 2:35 PM, AndrewGreenBull (99.24) wrote:

I swear that I have never done this. By the way, how do you clear your internet history? and when I og out, I can't rec again?

Report this comment
#36) On May 04, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Option1307 (29.76) wrote:

We have removed recs and bloggers in the past for abuse, and will continue to do so when things become disruptive,

That seems like a much harder approach to things IMO but if that's what the staff feels is best than so be it. However, I have to say that I hope you guys can keep up with pace. As Fools now know how to "game the system", I expect that this abuse to be rampant.

And if that is the case, what is the point of contributing and writting blogs if they are only going to be overrun by this rec abuse? Seriously? 

Report this comment
#37) On May 04, 2010 at 2:42 PM, TMFCHarris (99.55) wrote:

Good point about the cat and the bag, TSIF, but we've had this out there for a while and people have known about it without it becoming a major issue. I will remove the step by step instructions, though, to ease a bit of the strain.

Report this comment
#38) On May 04, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

Sorry, TMFCHarris, TSIF, et al,  for causing such a ruckus. 

  First, I had no idea Zacks was going to publish my blog as a press release ... nor did I ask Zacks to do that ...

  Two, I use links to give credit where credit is due ( including myself)  ... and I have observed ... unfortunately, some individuals  ( on other sites, of course )  copying and pasting whole articles, or coments, which then read as theirs  .... including MINE ... .  

  Three, this Motley Fool site does several things better than other sites ... and I thought refering them here would benefit MFool ...

   (1) with potential new members,

   (2) readership and "clicks" are good for advertising revenue,

   (3) potential new members may subscribe to MFool premium services ...

   (4)  and yeah, I might get a blog rec, etc ...    

Report this comment
#39) On May 04, 2010 at 3:06 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

TMFCHarris - This bug is very lame. People should have to be logged in to rec or comment on things and only one rec per user.

Report this comment
#40) On May 04, 2010 at 3:15 PM, galtline (33.15) wrote:

Agree with chk999 on this.  Whether the Motley Fool realizes this or not, the game (user points) and recs help to keep the community active.  Yes, most of us value informative posts over empty and meaningless ones, but I'd suspect many posters value the recognition and accolades.  

TMFCHarris, I would re-think your position on this.  Also, getting rid of cookies is pretty easy.  In Firefox, Shift+Ctrl+Delete, hit enter and refresh...and rec again...pretty quick if you ask me.

 

Report this comment
#41) On May 04, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Tastylunch (29.25) wrote:

agree with above posters especially TSIF

integrity and perceived integrity, while often inconvenient, is not something that should ever be taken lightly.

Recs may not matter much to me, but they do matter to a lot of people and they do Influence how many people read a blog.

I don't know what the tech issue is on your side TMFCharris, I'm guessing it must be significant, but if you guys don't address this issue, it really sends a message I don't think you want to send to some of your most loyal contributors.

what TSIF said

.>-No account with MF, no recs.

Sounds fair to me.

Report this comment
#42) On May 04, 2010 at 3:38 PM, blueberrygoo (73.53) wrote:

Now you FEEL that we have entered the Digital Age that Alstry has warned us about!!  :-)  

Report this comment
#43) On May 04, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

Here is what I am telling  my other groups now ..

  You don't have to join to read the articles. 

    ****   CLICK ON NOTHING **** .

 

 

  ... and I will CEASE posting ANYTHING here ...

 NO new picks  

 NO BLOGS ...

    NO pitches ....

   NO comments ...

 

 

 

Report this comment
#44) On May 04, 2010 at 5:05 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

Vet67to82  Thanks for the comments, it appears to me, as just my own opinion, that the issue was caused by recs being allowed to occur by people not signed in to CAPs. While you're promoting your blog  appears to have brought readers to CAPS, the requirement for them to have an account would have done what you indicate you intended; some may have joined or viewed other material available here. 

The hole of allowing anyone to REC a blog is contrary to ANY forum I have ever been part of.  In one where the REC system is used as a "game" tool, while CAPS appears to have it's reasons, it appears to be even less desirable. 

My point, while your activities may have highlighted one result of what some of us consider a bug, you didn't cause it. 

Again, just my opinion. Your stance of not blogging, pitching, or commenting, appears that you are taking this more personal than any of us intended as the extent of the issue has been identified.   Clearly when the bug was noted, self rec'ing was one possible consequence, you merely pionted out another one;  that those brought to the community from outside links also don't need an account to rec.

Thank you again for what are clearly conscientious replies.

TSIF 

 

Report this comment
#45) On May 04, 2010 at 5:32 PM, blesto (31.91) wrote:

Gulp!

I'm sorry.

Really.

When I discovered this bug I rec'd some of my posts a couple of times. I once also went thru all of the HypnoToad's posts to give them multiple recs. And other posts that I was impressed with.

All Glory to the HypnoToad.

I still get a kick out of that.

But I swear, I'll never do it again. 

Wow, just like Goldman Sachs,

legal but unethical.

Report this comment
#46) On May 04, 2010 at 5:37 PM, TMFCHarris (99.55) wrote:

@Vet67to82,

Sorry for not replying earlier to the accusations against you. We did check to see if there was something fishy going on with your recs (the same way we did with AndrewGreenBull and others) and saw that there wasn't. I'm sorry I responded to the specific rec issue without clearing your name as well.

-Chris

Report this comment
#47) On May 04, 2010 at 5:47 PM, kdakota630 (29.57) wrote:

I once also went thru all of the HypnoToad's posts to give them multiple recs.

I was wondering how he got so many recs out of nowhere recently.  Now I know.

Report this comment
#48) On May 04, 2010 at 5:58 PM, blesto (31.91) wrote:

Confession is good for the soul.

You can't abuse recs like that on the Message Boards,

so why not make it that way on the Blogs?

Report this comment
#49) On May 04, 2010 at 6:30 PM, DarkToast (49.94) wrote:

My most rec'd post is a hollow sham. *SOB* I am going to sit alone drinking whiskey in a darkened room.

Report this comment
#50) On May 04, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Robuh (24.10) wrote:

Well, I know this stuff pretty well and I don't really understand this as being a fix for an authentication problem. For a site that makes heavy use of asynchronous JavaScript calls and uses somewhat sophisticated web techniques I find it hard to believe that the developers couldn't find a way of associating an AJAX call with a particular account to prevent multiple recs by the same user. This is a problem that has been solved long ago by lesser sites. This seems to me like a way to allow unauthenticated users to provide recs in which case the whole integrity of the rec system is kind of shot. I'm just guessing here but I think their reasoning is that allowing unathenticated users the ability to rec shows more CAPS participation. I would seriously disagree with this if it's the case.

I believe that the CAPS guys are missing an invaluable opportunity to grow the community by tracking who recs/comments what and allowing users visibility into everything. It's a system that has been well proven by other social media sites. It promotes participation far better than allowing lurkers the ability to recommend posts. It is the nature of lurkers not to participate even if it's only clicking a "recommend" button. It's better to grow the community of users that choose to actively participate.

Also, switch to ASP.NET MVC and jQuery for your next version. You'll be much better off.

Report this comment
#51) On May 04, 2010 at 10:34 PM, AirForceFool (99.93) wrote:

Click Tools, Internet Options, Delete History... hit delete again... then O.K.... click the refresh button... rec again... Click Tools, Internet Options, Delete History... hit delete again... then O.K.... click the refresh button... rec again... Click... well, you get the picture... I did it about 20 times and got to 480 before I tired of the endeavor.

 Chris

agrees with the need for change. 

Report this comment
#52) On May 04, 2010 at 10:50 PM, RVAspeculator (29.02) wrote:

Vet67to82, AndrewGreenBull....

I only noticed that the self rec thing opened up at the same time that you got all the recs.   It appears you got them via some external website instead of self recommending… I apologize for implying otherwise but you still see the problem here right?
Vet, your post about natural gas was only a few lines long and basically you said.  “I’m bullish on natural gas because it is cheap, clean and we have a lot of it”.    This received 162 recs.   
Read some of the other blogs in the top 5 all time like EverydayInvestors “The Greatest Blog Post in the World “  (my personal fav).   Take a look at the amount of work that went into that and the amount of content that is there.  
This is all I was referring to…   Hope you read down this far and I didn’t get too peaved by this post.   I just checked this blog post for the first time since I posted it last night.  Way too long hours these days…

Everyone else,

I am glad TMF responded but disappointed there is going to be no change.   The top post for today now that mine got knocked down is a good case study.  “Starcraft 2 Release Date” with 80 some recs…   As long as it is open like this the abuse will be constant and unending.

I believe TMF will be forced to change this just by the types of blogs that will be ending up in the top blogs for the next few weeks until they make the change.

They said they would ban people for abusing self recommending but what if the person who is doing the multiple recing is the reader and not the writer?  Anyone could decide from any computer which blog they wanted to give 10, 100 or 1000 recs to.  There would be no one to ban and it would not be the writers fault.

Anyway, enough rambling... time for bed. 

Report this comment
#53) On May 05, 2010 at 1:00 AM, tonylogan1 (28.08) wrote:

sorry to andrewgreenbull if by some chance this is true.you do sound more honest this time...

big shame to TMF.

I like looking at the top blogs of the day, but now, I can never tell if they are legitimately rec'd by members.

I'm going on CAPS retirement and hopefully when I return someday they will have the "ignore" feature and the rec issue will be resolved.

All glory!Rec 502

Report this comment
#54) On May 05, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

To MFool

   Please delete all Vet67to82 blog posts

   Please delete all Vet67to82 comments

   Please delete all Vet67to82   pitches

    Please delete all Vet67to82   all current picks

     ------- 

  MFool is a business ... a 'for profit" business ... you NEED people visiting your site ... AND  clicks equal advertising dollars ... I get it  ... These FOOLS don't  ...maybe you should give non-member visitors guest recs  which you could track separately from member recs to see which members are most valuable to your bottom line  ... before its too late.

These FOOLS want their own little pond, outsiders NOT WELCOME, 

 Special Thanks to  the following clowns :

RVAspeculator  (97.85)
Option1307 (29.95)
JGus (29.62)
PDTBiotech (94.10)
whereaminow (96.15)
ChrisGraley (99.65)
 tonylogan1 (28.46
coralbro (78.46)
danielthebear (95.96)
UltraLong (99.98)
DaretothREdux (90.33)
bullishbabo (100.00)
outoffocus (< 20)
lemoneater (86.04)
TMFSinchiruna (97.55)
YodaBuffett (< 20)
ChannelDunlap (< 20)
binve (< 20)
goalie37 (83.36)
AndrewGreenBull (98.12)
chk999 (100.00)
Tastylunch (56.69)   ---  .>-No account with MF, no recs.
HooDaHeckNose (99.29)
galtline (46.36)
Tastylunch (56.69)
blueberrygoo (54.56)
blesto (< 20)
TMFCHarris (99.61)
kdakota630 (99.88)
blesto (< 20)
DarkToast (98.70)
Robuh (83.20)
AirForceFool (99.89)

   Wants their own little pond, outsiders NOT WELCOME,   Really doesn't get it

RVAspeculator(97.85),  TSIF (99.41),  HooDaHeckNose (99.29)


  ***   Duh 101 

---  Top DUH to TMFCHarris (99.61)  " ... Your stance of not blogging, pitching, or commenting, appears that you are taking this more personal than any of us intended a ... "

    

Report this comment
#55) On May 05, 2010 at 12:33 PM, kdakota630 (29.57) wrote:

Vet67to82

Thanks for the shout-out!

RVAspeculator 

Yesterday I gave you a rec for this blog, and later in the day I rec'd it again.  I thought perhaps I'd neglected the first rec, but currently I have the option to rec it again.

I haven't done anything to my browser, and this is the first time I've ever noticed it happen before.

Strange.

Report this comment
#56) On May 05, 2010 at 6:51 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

Duh 101 Vet67to82

Having the REC button available to those who come in from outside the site has ZERO bearing on click throughs.  They can click their way into the site just as easy either way.

In regard to your comment on TMFCHarris, I believe the "top DUH" you gave him was based on one of my comments, not his.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

TSIF 

 

Report this comment
#57) On May 05, 2010 at 10:52 PM, coralbro (92.86) wrote:

 TMFCHarris (99.61) wrote:

2) we have systems in place to detect when people are repeatedly reccing from the same location

 

I understand the desire to allow outsiders to rec a post, it brings them into the site, and that is good for business.  But if you can detect (and presumably control) when someone is repeatedly reccing from the same location, why not limit recs to one per IP address.  This would severely limit abuse, yet still allow people who are not logged in or who do not have an account share their opinion via a single rec.  This seems to be a solution that would appease people on both sides of the fence. 

 

and Vet67to82,

Thanks for the shout out, though I think you misinterpreted our stance.  I do not want to keep other people out (see previous paragraph), I only want to know how the cmmunity feels about certain posts.  Many members of the community have limited time and looking at # of recs is a good metric to decide which blog posts to read.  Being able to game the system and rec your own post an unlimited number of times makes recs a worthless metric for deciding which blogs to read.

Report this comment
#58) On May 06, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

 First, I want to apologise to TMFCHarris as I incorrectly attributed a statement to him that was TSIF's.  TSIF .... needs to re-read RVAspeculator's blog.   TSIF gets, and deserves  the  DUH!  

Second, I checked further to try to determine the "source" of the "recs"  of which I was accused.  I accepted some of the blame, YOU weren't satisfied, Zacks ... got some of the blame ... but there's MORE.

  I did a WEB search for " Vet67to82" ...  Guess who came up FIRST on the list?

 Here's a hint:  Motley FOOL ...:

 Vet67to82's CAPS Page 

Vet67to82 is outperforming % of all CAPS members. A member's score is the total percentage return of all his picks subtracting out the S&P. ...caps.fool.com [Found on Google, Bing, Yahoo! Search]

... and LOOK at ALL the other Financial websites, page after page,  that are "plugging" my work  ... all to direct visitors to their website ...

this is just page 1:

 

Vet67to82's Profile - Vet67to82's comments ...  I like to do my fundamental analysis first.Look at the market info and direction, the sector, the industry and then individual companies. I then do weekly stock screens followed ...community.marketwatch.com [Found on Bing, Yahoo! Search]

 Vet67to82's Profile and Stock Picks on People & Picks  I like to do my fundamental analysis first.Look at the market info and direction , the sector, the industry and then individual companies.www.peopleandpicks.com [Found on Google, Bing]

Personal Finance and Investing - MSN Money  Recent All-Star Picks: more... justme1964 (rated 87.98) picked SBP: Vet67to82 (rated 99.34) picked MCD: Vet67to82 (rated 99.34) picked WMTmoneycentral.msn.com [Found on Bing, Yahoo! Search]

Vet67to82's Picks - Stock Predictions  Intraday data provided by Interactive Data Real Time Services, a division of Interactive Data Corp. and subject to terms of use. Historical and current end-of-day data ...community.marketwatch.com [Found on Bing, Yahoo! Search]

MarketWatch - Stock Market Quotes, Business News ...  Tokyo shares sink, with the Nikkei 225 Average touching its lowest intraday level ... Top KFT picker is Vet67to82www.marketwatch.com [Found on Bing, Yahoo! Search]

Vet67to82's CAPS Blog  May 5, 2010 ... Vet67to82 (< 20). Lucky Charms 5+ Helpful Pitches ? Score Club 300 ? Score Leader ... Vet67to82's CAPS Blog ? Get Vet67to82's RSS text feed. ...caps.fool.com [Found on Google]

Nasdaq's Q-50 Index  #1) On March 22, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Vet67to82 (99.35) wrote: So, based on "Buy on Market Open " orders - how are the additions to the Nasdaq Q-50 doing today?caps.fool.com [Found on Bing]

A 4 or 8 Stock Market Proxy ? by Vet67to82 on P&P  A couple of articles recently suggested using the first 4 stocks, or all 8, in the list to avoid fund fees and with a good daily correlation to the market, ab...peopleandpicks.com [Found on Yahoo! Search]

Looking for Healthcare Monday's Market direction by Vet67to82 on P&P  Sadly, the outlook for a positive close on Friday ... didn't work out. Monthly, triple and quadruple witching days are not indicators of future market ...www.peopleandpicks.com [Found on Google]

 Investing in unique - the "TERMINATOR" line by Vet67to82 on P&P  April 08, 2010 – RELATED TICKERS: HPQ , AAPL , INTC When it comes to investing the money clearly flows to companies with unique products that the c...www.peopleandpicks.com [Found on Yahoo! Search]

Friday 4/23/2010 - The Q50 Backup - Marketwatch Group Discussion  Vet67to82 7 days ago. Report Abuse. Earnings expected Friday include Travelers, Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, Schlumberger, T.Rowe Price, ...community.marketwatch.com [Found on Google]

Monday 3/29/2010 - The Q50 Backup - Marketwatch Group Discussion  Vet67to82 35 days ago. Report Abuse. Friday's Close: Dow 10850.36 +9.15 +0.08% Nasdaq 2395.13 -2.28 -0.10% S&P 1166.59 +0.86 +0.07% ...community.marketwatch.com [Found on Google]

Data Mining - With Your OWN Spreadsheets - Zacks.com  Apr 22, 2010 ... Zacks' Voice of the People Highlights user Vet67to82: "Data Mining - With Your OWN Spreadsheets" from the People & Picks community. ...www.zacks.com [Found on Google]

AlphaDog Stocks by Vet67to82 on P  April 02, 2010 – RELATED TICKERS: CHK , MU , PDLI I strongly believe in fundamentals first and foremost. I ran the fundamentals, today, on lots ...www.peopleandpicks.com [Found on Bing]

Zacks' Voice of the People highlights opportunities with ...  For Immediate Release Chicago, IL â€" April 28, 2010 â€" Zacks highlights commentary from People and Picks Trader “Vet67to82. For more Voice of the People,finance.yahoo.com [Found on Yahoo! Search]

Zacks' Voice of the People highlights opportunities with Citigroup ...  Apr 22, 2010 ... Chicago, IL – April 28, 2010 – Zacks highlights commentary from People and Picks Trader “Vet67to82”. For more Voice of the People, ...www.zacks.com [Found on Google]

Zacks' Voice of the People highlights opportunities with ...  For Immediate Release Chicago, IL â€" April 12, 2010 â€" Zacks highlights commentary from People and Picks Trader “Vet67to82. For more Voice of the People,finance.yahoo.com [Found on Yahoo! Search]

Personal Finance and Investing - MSN Money  justme1964 (rated 87.98) picked SBP Outperform. Vet67to82 (rated 99.34) picked MCD Outperform. Vet67to82 (rated 99.34) picked WMT Outperform ...money.msn.com [Found on Google]

5-Star Stocks Poised to Pop: SandRidge Energy (SD)  These bulls include DaretothREdux and Vet67to82, both of whom are ranked in the top 5% of our community. In late November, DaretothREdux tapped SandRidge as an oily turnaround play ...www.fool.com [Found on Bing]  

 Try it yourself ...

Now ... like Paul Harvey used to say.  you know the rest of the story. 

 

Report this comment
#59) On May 06, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

Did you read number 6 ... read it again.  " ... Get Vet67to82's RSS text feed. ...caps.fool.com [Found on Google] "

Duh ... get Vet67to 82s RSS text feed ...  

I DID NOT KNOW ...  and apparently none of you knew either ...

   are the surprise recs making sense NOW?  

 

 ...

Report this comment
#60) On May 06, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

So, I did a search for RVAspeculator ... down past the RV links, (8 down) , I even found a plug and link for RVAspeculator :

RVAspeculator's CAPS Page  RVAspeculator 's rating is 96.38. Score: 946.80 (93rd percentile) Accuracy: 61.08% (94th percentile) A member's rating indicates his percentile rank in CAPS.caps.fool.com [Found on Bing, Yahoo! Search]  

  You're probably ALL in there ... that's where those extra recs are coming from ... AND MF knows it ...  

   HA! HA! ...

Report this comment
#61) On May 06, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

I did another search for "Vet67to82" with Bing ..

  Page ... after page .... actually : 

ALL RESULTS

1-10 of 9,510 results ...

Report this comment
#62) On May 06, 2010 at 9:28 AM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

Thanks for the DUH! 

Here's another DUH back to you...

Searchbots for search engines do ZERO calculations. They just search. Yes, you have an unusual username. That puts you tops of any bot finds with that search term.

SO......  WE can all google our usernames and find hits depending on how prolific we are on CAPS or any other users board.

There are plenty of CAPS players who write BLOGS with thousands of search engine hits.  Congratulations!

"YOU weren't satisfied, Zacks ... got some of the blame ... but there's MORE", 

WHO out of all the dozens of CAPS players you DUH'd werent' satisfied. FIND even one.  No problem, you got outside recs. Congrats for being prolific as long as it's not in bearing children.

The Issue is that the system is broken. It has NOTHING to do with CAPs wanting Click through money. The REC button doesn't need to be blindly light up like a Christmas tree for multiple recs, insiders or not. Outsiders can open an account if they want recs.

 

 

Report this comment
#63) On May 06, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

Searchbots .... REALLY???? Searchbots ...

 

Rather than have me explain it  ... read this for yourself:

"The Web Marketing Checklist:
37 Ways to Promote Your Website by Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, E-Commerce Consultant
Web Marketing Today, June 2, 2009 - Printer friendly page"

 http://www.wilsonweb.com/articles/checklist.htm 

  He does a real good explanation of "Web Marketing" ....

and then look at the link formats .... the attached info wasn't formulated by the searchbots ... the attached info was formulated by ... ( ________________ ) ??

a) web marketing

b) web marketing

c) web marketing

d) all of the above ...

 

Even you should be able to get this right TSIF ..

 ... oh yeah, DUH

 

Report this comment
#64) On May 06, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

TSIF  ... you added your $0.02 to RVAspeculator's blog  as did everyone on the list who either added their comment or gave it multiple recs.  

 Did you take your concerns, allegations, etc to MF ... no, you ALL wanted a public battle.... at my expense, ... HA, HA, HA

...  and now you don't like the outcome ....   so sad ... TOO BAD!  

Nothing any of you write  NOW whitewashes  what you've already written ...  or what each of you FAILED to do.      

NOTHING!

 **************  PERIOD.  *********** 

Report this comment
#65) On May 06, 2010 at 12:34 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

You need some attention Vet67to82, more than anyone can give you here.  How would you know who said what and to whom outside this forum. Our concerns went to MF via the blog, same as your concerns. Some of us did speak to MF directly.  I know how search engines work. There are no conspiracy issues here. 

The public replies were to clarify mis-information. The concern was open REC's and the chance to have repeat RECs.

You have made the battle something else.   I doubt anyone knows what you think it is at this point, other than you think you were wronged and you're looking for action. 

You have yet to point out where anyone said or did anything to you after the information became available about how open the rec system had become, to repeat recs and outside recs.

PERIOD

Report this comment
#66) On May 06, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

TSIF ... whay haven't you , and the rest of RVAspeculator's blog commentators ...   asked MF to CLOSE my active picks ... and delete the stuff as I asked ...?  

 I can then go to my favorites and delete Motley Fool ... never to return. 

You'll never see or be bothered by my writing anything here, ever again  ...

Report this comment
#67) On May 06, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

RVAspeculator ... whay haven't you , and the rest of your RVAspeculator's blog commentators ...   asked MF to CLOSE my active picks ... and delete the stuff as I asked ...? 

 I can then go to my favorites and delete Motley Fool ... never to return. 

You'll never see or be bothered by my writing anything here, ever again  ...

 Seems simple enuf ...

Report this comment
#68) On May 06, 2010 at 4:19 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

You know Vet67to82 after more thought today, you are absolutely right. I'm not sure why I didn't see it before.  It's great that we have people like you to keep perspective!

I'm really sorry I argued with you, demeaned you, accused you, disagreed with you, or any combination,  or anything else you think I did.  You are absolutely right in everything you said.

The DOW had an 800 Point swing today.  I bought and sold, moved some limits set some limits and had a wild day. I have no idea why I spent part of it debating with you. Again, you are completely correct in everything.  My sincere apologies for anything I did or you perceived I did.

There's bound to be some great blogs on how to deal with the DOW on an 800 point range day.  I'll go find some and give them some rec(s).

Good luck with whatever it is you are looking for or need.

TSIF

Report this comment
#69) On May 06, 2010 at 6:24 PM, PDTBiotech (94.19) wrote:

WTF @ #64)?  

Report this comment
#70) On May 10, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Bad2dBone99 (< 20) wrote:

+0 rec    :( 

mi post in

"Topic: Good Friday - Day to Reflect (37 days ago) Vet67to82 has created a new Group " The Q-50 Backup ". He's been posting fundamental analyses that he's run on many companies ... with price targets, price/book value, etc. and he has promised more ... check it out. I think it's a must read in addition to FAZ or FAS?

... and like Vet says ... You don't have to join the group to read the posts ... but all who want to join are welcome."

----  plus, i sent out a few emails to fam n friends w/ links to vets' pages, those emails were fowarded n r probably half way 2 china 

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement