New Opinion Requirement

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:23 am

Hey All,

The opinion submission form has been updated so that if a video is locally available, an opinion can only be submitted if the member has downloaded the video. This is meant to help prevent the casual "create fake account and leave fake opinion" junk.

I hope this helps.

Phade.

Kai Stromler · Post by **Kai Stromler** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:47 am

Are there measures in place to allow for ops left on videos with multiple links? I know that whenever possible, I try to use direct or indirect links to save .org bandwidth; this rule is eminently reasonable if a video is only available locally (even if someone sees the vid at a con or other public showing, if they want to op it, most of the time they're going to want their own copy), but those with multiple links may cause some issues.

--K

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:21 am

Hey,

The new requirement is only in place for locally available videos. If a vid is only available externally, an opinion can be left at any time.

Phade.

Coderjo · Post by **Coderjo** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:15 am

Is this for videos that only have a local link and no external links, or for all vids that have a local link, regardless of external links?

I think it should be the former, personally, as the latter would force people wanting to leave an opinion to download from the local hosting even when external sources are available, at a time when we're having issues with the amount of bandwidth the local hosting is consuming.

pen-pen2002 · Post by **pen-pen2002** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:23 am

I think you missed Kai's point.

He's saying that when given a choice, he downloads from Directs sources instead of the Local source to save bandwith. Obviously he should still be allowed to leave an oppinion.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:41 am

Exactly. I provide both direct and local links for almost all of my videos, and I know that lots of people get the direct versions.

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:36 pm

Hey,

Yes, but the issue of fake opinions seems to be a larger issue than bandwidth consumption nowadays (judging by the number of complaints I receive). This new requirement should help to knock out a good chunk of those fake ops for everyone. If the general public were nice and honest and left only opinions for videos they viewed, this wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't need the check.

How about as a compromise we add an option for the video creator to allow opinions on their videos even if the member has not downloaded the video locally or not? The default would be to require the member to do a local download before an opinion can be left.

As for the people who download externally, there's not much I can do about that since we can't detect a successful download or not. On the cost/benefit scale, I think that requiring a member to locally download the video before an opinion can be give is a good thing.

I hope this helps.

Phade.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:45 pm

Instead of doing it like this, how about just get together an elite group of opinion task force officers to investigate into abusive opinions, and remove such opinions and punish the offenders.
Add possible opinion restrictions onto new accounts. Maybe you can't leave an opinion unless you have been a member for 2 weeks. This would stop people from creating 100 new accounts at one time to quickly boost up their video. Such attempts would have to become more complicated and drawn out, and people would be less likely to even bother.

With the solution you are proposing, I can see a lot of confusion popping up when people can't leave an opinion on the videos they have just downloaded.

AquaSky · Post by **AquaSky** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:50 pm

Not to mention that it's a problem for videos that can't be hosted on the .org (a recent example would be AMV Hell 0).

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:54 pm

Hey Zarxrax,

I think that is a great idea and really should be implemented that way, but there is one problem: development time. Putting in this fix took me about 15 mins. Adding all the tools necessary for opinion ninjas to keep out the bad guys would take much much more time. Eventually a system like you describe will be up and running, but it will be a while.

Phade.