Web 2.0 features against Web 2.0 vulnerabilities.
Now I will describe another service to you, which, given the availability of interested parties and sound financing, can specifically impair attendance. I'm not looking for a job, but just trying to draw the attention of the owners of similar projects to how they can be fooled.
This is gamemag.ru. The strengths of this resource are at the same time its weaknesses.
The resource supports its authors who have scored a fairly large number of points.
The points directly depend on how the users of the service voted for the news.
The most authoritative authors are highlighted in the top, often they wind their news to get maximum points. They must be dealt the first blow. Since the principle of “one person, one voice” works on the portal, this is a very convenient mechanism for influence.
Within a month or two, we systematically minus specific people. Neatly. 30 accounts is enough to demoralize the user. This increases the rating of boring and uninteresting news.
')
The second move is more brutal. Gaming news a large number, their accuracy is usually not in doubt. At first, I throw in small fakes, for example, “GTA 4 is postponed”. Then another author throws conflicting information, and since this resource deliberately ignores the indication of the source, then you can understand for a long time. Then comes the publicity that the resource publishes unverified information. The user's reaction to this will be clear. The information will be removed, and the sediment will remain. After 3 months of systematic work there will be a significant loss of attendance of the resource, therefore, to the loss of advertising revenue.
How would you stop such actions at the site of the portal administration?
This is gamemag.ru. The strengths of this resource are at the same time its weaknesses.
The resource supports its authors who have scored a fairly large number of points.
The points directly depend on how the users of the service voted for the news.
The most authoritative authors are highlighted in the top, often they wind their news to get maximum points. They must be dealt the first blow. Since the principle of “one person, one voice” works on the portal, this is a very convenient mechanism for influence.
Within a month or two, we systematically minus specific people. Neatly. 30 accounts is enough to demoralize the user. This increases the rating of boring and uninteresting news.
')
The second move is more brutal. Gaming news a large number, their accuracy is usually not in doubt. At first, I throw in small fakes, for example, “GTA 4 is postponed”. Then another author throws conflicting information, and since this resource deliberately ignores the indication of the source, then you can understand for a long time. Then comes the publicity that the resource publishes unverified information. The user's reaction to this will be clear. The information will be removed, and the sediment will remain. After 3 months of systematic work there will be a significant loss of attendance of the resource, therefore, to the loss of advertising revenue.
How would you stop such actions at the site of the portal administration?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/17171/
All Articles