"Anti-people" vote on the "Runet Prize"?
The results of the “Runet Prize” , summed up at the end of last week, caused quite an expected reaction. Some sites that took part in the so-called “Popular voting” signed an open letter to the organizers of the competition. Representatives of the Russian-speaking community “Mozilla Russia” and a number of Orthodox resources complain about the lack of transparency of the voting mechanism and some other organizational mistakes.
Representatives of the sites included in the “top ten” of the “national rating”, in particular, draw attention to the fact that many participants did not even place an announcement on their websites that they could be voted for. As a result, the voting page turned out to be a huge amount of low-rating “ballast”, which prevented users from finding a “favorite site”. The fact that the voices received via sms were equal to 12 “Internet voices” caused confusion, and no restrictions were imposed on them. As a result, according to an open letter, “the one who pays the most” could win.
The signatories of the letter directly accused a number of network projects (Dozory.Ru, Odnoklassniki.Ru, Poems.Ru, MyJane.Ru, Prose.Ru, Eurofootball.Ru) of “voice exchange”: their administrators organized a campaign calling for voting “wholesale” - right away for all these sites. As if justifying their own "promotional campaigns" , the letter notes that the target audience of different resources on Orthodox subjects is about the same, while in the case of "violators" it does not actually coincide.
')
“Oppositionists” urge to change the rules of “Popular voting” in order not to repeat past mistakes, in particular, to publish in advance detailed rules for conducting “Popular voting” and not to change them during voting, to abandon the idea of SMS voting, to reduce the number of sites for which you can vote at the same time, up to 3-5 projects, etc.
A few days ago, Maxim Borzov, a technical officer at the Regional Public Center for Internet Technologies (ROCIT), in an interview with AlgoNet, actually accused the Mozilla Russia community of “cheating” its rating: “The check of the source of the IP address was also used. If it is a proxy server, is it anonymous? For example, one Canadian anonymous proxy server sent votes by sorting addresses from its list. Such addresses were identified and “cut off” ... In “Mazilla” they openly admitted that they had “cut off” 20 thousand votes, claiming that the votes were sent honestly. (Although in fact it was obvious that Canadian and American proxy servers “tried” here. ” Apparently, this accusation was one of the motives that prompted the administrators of several “popular” (according to the “People’s Vote”) websites to sign an open appeal to the organizers of the “Runet Prize”.
Ambiguity, lack of development and constant changes in the voting rules, in which both network users and cell phone owners took part, led to numerous disputes around it. At one time, the campaign in support of Orthodox resources provoked a lively discussion on the RuNet: even then it was clear that those sites would benefit primarily if a specific community formed around it - loyal and easily mobilized. It is easy to identify the right and the one who is guilty in a situation where there are clear rules, but when the voting procedure is not spelled out clearly and clearly, this causes only useless disputes. However, it is worth remembering that the lack of normal regulation is primarily a problem for the organizers - and it is their reputation that has once again suffered.
Representatives of the sites included in the “top ten” of the “national rating”, in particular, draw attention to the fact that many participants did not even place an announcement on their websites that they could be voted for. As a result, the voting page turned out to be a huge amount of low-rating “ballast”, which prevented users from finding a “favorite site”. The fact that the voices received via sms were equal to 12 “Internet voices” caused confusion, and no restrictions were imposed on them. As a result, according to an open letter, “the one who pays the most” could win.
The signatories of the letter directly accused a number of network projects (Dozory.Ru, Odnoklassniki.Ru, Poems.Ru, MyJane.Ru, Prose.Ru, Eurofootball.Ru) of “voice exchange”: their administrators organized a campaign calling for voting “wholesale” - right away for all these sites. As if justifying their own "promotional campaigns" , the letter notes that the target audience of different resources on Orthodox subjects is about the same, while in the case of "violators" it does not actually coincide.
')
“Oppositionists” urge to change the rules of “Popular voting” in order not to repeat past mistakes, in particular, to publish in advance detailed rules for conducting “Popular voting” and not to change them during voting, to abandon the idea of SMS voting, to reduce the number of sites for which you can vote at the same time, up to 3-5 projects, etc.
A few days ago, Maxim Borzov, a technical officer at the Regional Public Center for Internet Technologies (ROCIT), in an interview with AlgoNet, actually accused the Mozilla Russia community of “cheating” its rating: “The check of the source of the IP address was also used. If it is a proxy server, is it anonymous? For example, one Canadian anonymous proxy server sent votes by sorting addresses from its list. Such addresses were identified and “cut off” ... In “Mazilla” they openly admitted that they had “cut off” 20 thousand votes, claiming that the votes were sent honestly. (Although in fact it was obvious that Canadian and American proxy servers “tried” here. ” Apparently, this accusation was one of the motives that prompted the administrators of several “popular” (according to the “People’s Vote”) websites to sign an open appeal to the organizers of the “Runet Prize”.
Ambiguity, lack of development and constant changes in the voting rules, in which both network users and cell phone owners took part, led to numerous disputes around it. At one time, the campaign in support of Orthodox resources provoked a lively discussion on the RuNet: even then it was clear that those sites would benefit primarily if a specific community formed around it - loyal and easily mobilized. It is easy to identify the right and the one who is guilty in a situation where there are clear rules, but when the voting procedure is not spelled out clearly and clearly, this causes only useless disputes. However, it is worth remembering that the lack of normal regulation is primarily a problem for the organizers - and it is their reputation that has once again suffered.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/4771/
All Articles