Polls

[Rob Monster]

Just wanted to support you in this post @Ategy.com. I voted a number if days ago in the poll, but to me it seemed immediately obvious that the voting was rigged for VettedName. It had 30% of the votes but no mentions (at the time) in the thread as to why anyone was picking it. I also saw it as a relatively poor name and for the vote to be at such an overwhelming majority was highly irregular. I was going to mention at the time that someone should check how many new NP accounts were voting for it, but thought better of it and deleted the comments before I posted them. So I just stopped watching the thread and decided to ignore it since I was pretty sure others would figure it out too. So I've read nothing between page 2 and page 9. I just decided to jump in again as the thread was in the 'popular this week' box. I read this last page and from your post I can pretty well guess what the pages of posts have been about so I'm quite happy I've been ignoring the thread till now. Anyway, your post seems very diplomatic and well thought out so just wanted to say so. I shall now go and hide back under my rock...

I do think @Paul Buonopane will want to look at the problem of "Ballot stuffing" and "Brigading". The technique that I think is interesting is to use a service like Maxmind that measures the integrity of a user. In the case of Maxmind score, the risk goes from 0 to 100, where 0 is riskless and 100 is almost certainly a fraud. We are using this for TrustRatings as a way to adjust ballot-stuffing using bots or proxies. I won't comment on any particular group because last time I did, the moderators considered it off-topic and removed my post. My goodness.

 

[oldtimer]

At the bottom of the poll it says:

"Multiple votes are allowed"

Why not expand that and include some more guidelines, a lot of people say that they didn't know that they weren't supposed to vote for a name just to help their friends, it might cut down drastically on false results if rules are clearly indicated at the top and below the poll. Also as I and others had indicated before there should be some minimum requirements for a person to be able to vote such as minimum 3 months membership and minimum of 25 posts. IMO

 

[Paul]

Just a forum thread with the person submitting the name encouraging everybody to go vote for the name, 50/62 voting from that name from Africa. Tell me what other name has that percentage? And again, I didn't say all, but yes, some. Some could have registered before and just had accounts here.

We don't consider that manipulation because we have no way to prevent such things from happening. That is the nature of polls. Someone could just as easily do this in private, and we'd have no way of knowing.

If you're going to hold polls, you have to accept this as a possibility. It's ridiculous to suggest that we can prevent this.

At the bottom of the poll it says:

"Multiple votes are allowed"

Why not expand that and include some more guidelines, a lot of people say that they didn't know that they weren't supposed to vote for a name just to help their friends, it might cut down drastically on false results if rules are clearly indicated at the top and below the poll. Also as I and others had indicated before there should be some minimum requirements for a person to be able to vote such as minimum 3 months membership and minimum of 25 posts. IMO

For the sake of science, here are what the results would be if we were to do that:

Edit: Hold on a sec, updating this; did the query wrong.

Edit 2: Fixed.

Edit 3: Okay, really fixed this time.

select count(*), r.response from xf_poll_vote v inner join xf_poll_response r using (poll_response_id) inner join xf_user u using (user_id) where v.poll_id = 4157 and u.message_count >= 25 and u.register_date <= (1569387806 - 90 * 24 * 60 * 60) group by v.poll_response_id order by count(*) desc;
+----------+--------------------+
| count(*) | response           |
+----------+--------------------+
|       49 | NameSeal.com       |
|       33 | DNprotect.com      |
|       32 | NameProtector.com  |
|       23 | VettedName.com     |
|       21 | Assurer.com        |
|       11 | NameAssured.com    |
|        9 | NameSafeguard.com  |
|        9 | NameAssurance.com  |
|        7 | NameSquare.com     |
|        6 | NameSurety.com     |
|        5 | NameLegit.com      |
|        5 | NameRoot.com       |
|        5 | NameFax.com        |
|        5 | NameCertify.com    |
|        4 | NomTrust.com       |
|        4 | NameNotary.com     |
|        3 | NameInspection.com |
|        3 | NameSoldier.com    |
|        2 | Trusturo.com       |
|        2 | CrucialNames.com   |
|        2 | NameValidate.com   |
|        1 | NameCertain.com    |
|        1 | NameCleared.com    |
+----------+--------------------+

 

[wwwweb]

I can very clearly see that the overwhelming majority of people did not register just to vote. They are established members.

They are regular established CONTRIBUTING members, or simply come online from time to time to perform a single task to be gone again?

 

[Paul]

They are regular established CONTRIBUTING members, or simply come online from time to time to perform a single task to be gone again?

@oldtimer suggested that we exclude people who have been registered for less than 3 months or who have less than 25 posts. I ran a query with those constraints; the results are above.

 

[JB Lions]

We don't consider that manipulation because we have no way to prevent such things from happening. That is the nature of polls. Someone could just as easily do this in private, and we'd have no way of knowing.

If you're going to hold polls, you have to accept this as a possibility. It's ridiculous to suggest that we can prevent this.

Again, I said there is no way to totally eliminate this and I've posted this many times now, and not once have you addressed this. Why do you think other forums, set join date/post count limits? I've done this myself. If you had a favorite domaining tool poll and the owner of 1 tool, got all his employees, friends and family to come vote for the poll vs. a poll where the voters had to have a min join date, 300 minimum post count. Which poll would be a more accurate picture?

 

[Paul]

Again, I said there is no way to totally eliminate this and I've posted this many times now, and not once have you addressed this. Why do you think other forums, set join date/post count limits? I've done this myself. If you had a favorite domaining tool poll and the owner of 1 tool, got all his employees, friends and family to come vote for the poll vs. a poll where the voters had to have a min join date, 300 minimum post count. Which poll would be a more accurate picture?

As I mentioned before, it depends what you're trying to measure.

Here's what we get if we limit it to voters with >= 300 posts who have been registered for >= 365 days:

select count(*), r.response from xf_poll_vote v inner join xf_poll_response r using (poll_response_id) inner join xf_user u using (user_id) where v.poll_id = 4157 and u.message_count >= 300 and u.register_date <= (1569387806 - 365 * 24 * 60 * 60) group by v.poll_response_id order by count(*) desc;
+----------+--------------------+
| count(*) | response           |
+----------+--------------------+
|       38 | NameSeal.com       |
|       25 | DNprotect.com      |
|       20 | NameProtector.com  |
|       17 | Assurer.com        |
|        8 | NameAssured.com    |
|        7 | NameSafeguard.com  |
|        6 | NameSquare.com     |
|        6 | NameAssurance.com  |
|        5 | VettedName.com     |
|        5 | NameSurety.com     |
|        4 | NameCertify.com    |
|        3 | NameInspection.com |
|        3 | NameLegit.com      |
|        3 | NameRoot.com       |
|        3 | NameFax.com        |
|        3 | NameNotary.com     |
|        3 | NomTrust.com       |
|        2 | NameSoldier.com    |
|        2 | NameValidate.com   |
|        1 | Trusturo.com       |
|        1 | NameCertain.com    |
|        1 | CrucialNames.com   |
|        1 | NameCleared.com    |
+----------+--------------------+

 

[JB Lions]

As I mentioned before, it depends what you're trying to measure.

Here's what we get if we limit it to voters with >= 300 posts who have been registered for >= 365 days:

select count(*), r.response from xf_poll_vote v inner join xf_poll_response r using (poll_response_id) inner join xf_user u using (user_id) where v.poll_id = 4157 and u.message_count >= 300 and u.register_date >= (1569387806 - 365 * 24 * 60 * 60) group by v.poll_response_id order by count(*) desc;
+----------+-------------------+
| count(*) | response          |
+----------+-------------------+
|        1 | Assurer.com       |
|        1 | NameSeal.com      |
|        1 | VettedName.com    |
|        1 | NameProtector.com |
|        1 | NameAssured.com   |
|        1 | NameSurety.com    |
+----------+-------------------+

Doesn't seem particularly useful.

That's not right. I just checked NameSeal.com and there are plenty of members that have been here longer than a year with over 300 posts. Not just 1.

 

[oldtimer]

Everyone here is putting their focus on fraud and intentional manipulation of the Poll, I believe that we should give people the benefit of the doubt and focus more on educating them and providing them with clear guidelines on what would be okay and what would be considered unacceptable by the majority of members here when voting. In my opinion the clear guidelines plus the minimum requirements to vote will drastically cut down on false results, why not try it and see.

 

[Paul]

That's not right. I just checked NameSeal.com and there are plenty of members that have been here longer than a year with over 300 posts. Not just 1.

Hmm... maybe I did something wrong. I'll try again.

 

[Paul]

That's not right. I just checked NameSeal.com and there are plenty of members that have been here longer than a year with over 300 posts. Not just 1.

Okay, I think I got the queries right this time.

 

[JB Lions]

As I mentioned before, it depends what you're trying to measure.

Here's what we get if we limit it to voters with >= 300 posts who have been registered for >= 365 days:

select count(*), r.response from xf_poll_vote v inner join xf_poll_response r using (poll_response_id) inner join xf_user u using (user_id) where v.poll_id = 4157 and u.message_count >= 300 and u.register_date <= (1569387806 - 365 * 24 * 60 * 60) group by v.poll_response_id order by count(*) desc;
+----------+--------------------+
| count(*) | response           |
+----------+--------------------+
|       38 | NameSeal.com       |
|       25 | DNprotect.com      |
|       20 | NameProtector.com  |
|       17 | Assurer.com        |
|        8 | NameAssured.com    |
|        7 | NameSafeguard.com  |
|        6 | NameSquare.com     |
|        6 | NameAssurance.com  |
|        5 | VettedName.com     |
|        5 | NameSurety.com     |
|        4 | NameCertify.com    |
|        3 | NameInspection.com |
|        3 | NameLegit.com      |
|        3 | NameRoot.com       |
|        3 | NameFax.com        |
|        3 | NameNotary.com     |
|        3 | NomTrust.com       |
|        2 | NameSoldier.com    |
|        2 | NameValidate.com   |
|        1 | Trusturo.com       |
|        1 | NameCertain.com    |
|        1 | CrucialNames.com   |
|        1 | NameCleared.com    |
+----------+--------------------+

Big difference.

NameSeal.com - 38
DNprotect.com - 25
NameProtector.com - 20
Assurer.com - 17
.......
VettedName.com - 5

This one looks better to me. The current poll, VettedName.com is winning. Put some minimum checks in place and it only has 5 votes.

 

[oldtimer]

Having too strict of requirements will deprive new domainers from voting who maybe just weren't aware of what is okay and what is not when voting, so I still believe that a modest minimum requirements PLUS adequate guidelines is the way to go so we won't leave good people who didn't know any better out (you can always raise the minimum requirements later if necessary). IMO

 

[Paul]

Having too strict of requirements will deprive new domainers from voting who maybe just weren't aware of what is okay and what is not when voting, so I still believe that a modest minimum requirements PLUS adequate guidelines is the way to go so we won't leave good people who didn't know any better out. IMO

Can we discuss this elsewhere? I've provided a lot of aggregate information on the polls; that's all I can do. If you want to discuss making changes to how polls work in general, that's off-topic for this thread.

Update by moderator: These posts have been moved to their own thread.

 

[oldtimer]

Can we discuss this elsewhere? I've provided a lot of aggregate information on the polls; that's all I can do. If you want to discuss making changes to how polls work in general, that's off-topic for this thread.

I believe everything that needs to be said is already said, it's just up to you to see if you want to try them or not, but thanks for your attention and input anyway.

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

Just for the sake of argument , to @JB Lions and anyone else who believe there should be strict requirements on people voting, how can you make sure other members will not be doing exactly this and get support from members who they are good friends with and bypass such strict requirements?

You might have not liked the support the owner of that domain got from his people or anyone else, but there is no way to 100% avoid such thing , and yes, there is nothing wrong with this since it is like elections. People ask for support to get the result they want. Think of petitioning.

Also, @Paul Buonopane said only 4 members signed up after this thread was started. These discussions have taken the thread of topic.

 

[AmiraB]

Reference was made to if he could ask people to vote his name...The response was positive,ALLOWED.

If it wasn't allowed,He most likely wouldn't have gone soliciting votes..

 

[TCK]

It sounds like NamePros is doing their job to make sure that people don’t create multiple accounts.

Polls are not official voting booths. Even votes for public officials include friends and family.

What is the problem?

 

[oldtimer]

Just for the sake of argument , to @JB Lions and anyone else who believe there should be strict requirements on people voting, how can you make sure other members will not be doing exactly this and get support from members who they are good friends with and bypass such strict requirements?

You might have not liked the support the owner of that domain got from his people or anyone else, but there is no way to 100% avoid such thing , and yes, there is nothing wrong with this since it is like elections. People ask for support to get the result they want. Think of petitioning.

Also, @Paul Buonopane said only 4 members signed up after this thread was started. These discussions have taken the thread of topic.

You asked a question so I assume it's okay to continue with this discussion to answer it.

It all depends on what the poll taker is asking which in this case was which domain was most suitable for his project, so people who are voting are expected to put his interest first when voting for a domain name. If the poll taker had asked whom do you all want to help by buying their domain then it would have been okay for people to petition for their friends and vote their names up regardless of their quality.

Nevertheless as far as established domainers doing the same thing I don't think that we need to worry about that that much and if it did happen I am sure that other experienced domainers here will certainly notice any anomalies if a mediocre domain is voted to the top.

Also as I had mentioned before perhaps it would have been better if the list had been refined first to like 5 candidates and then the poll was taken to see which one people liked the most. all other domains could have been mentioned and evaluated in the thread itself without being included in the poll, (unless of course the poll taker wanted to add a late entrant). IMO

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

that that much and if it did happen I am sure that other experienced domainers here will certainly notice any anomalies if a mediocre domain is voted to the top.

See , you concentrated on mediocre...it is not just about that.It is about getting support for everything. Or by mentioning mediocre...do you mean it is ok for non mediocre names as per your opinion? We will not reach any where with this , will we ?

 

[oldtimer]

See , you concentrated on mediocre...it is not just about that.It is about getting support for everything. Or by mentioning mediocre...do you mean it is ok for non mediocre names as per your opinion? We will not reach any where with this , will we ?

The reason that I mentioned a mediocre domain is because that that will show up as a clear anomaly as is the case with the poll in this thread.

Nevertheless give people the benefit of the doubt by believing that most will do the right thing if they are provided with proper and adequate guidelines, and for the few that might not I guess that's why all polls have a margin of error.

 

[equity78]

@Paul Buonopane thank you for all the effort you put in here of course you could not do more, this is beyond nonsense to imply anything else.

First off @Rob Monster started the poll so it's his poll, each person who starts a poll can provide the terms they want.

Let's keep it real the Namepros poll for The anonymous search engine didn't get picked by the Namepros top vote getter SearchIT.com beat Toki.com easily here, it was the vote on GAB where Toki.com won. https://www.namepros.com/threads/br...search-aggregator.1150560/page-6#post-7383378

I don't think anyone else will be running polls like this, most people might want some feedback but for their money, their brand they are the final say on the name.

 

[Cal2]

You might have not liked the support the owner of that domain got from his people or anyone else, but there is no way to 100% avoid such thing , and yes, there is nothing wrong with this since it is like elections. People ask for support to get the result they want. Think of petitioning.

Also, @Paul Buonopane said only 4 members signed up after this thread was started. These discussions have taken the thread of topic.

This isn't politics. In my world, there is something wrong with this, in this instance.

But I can understand the desire to win on this, even if that means messing with the ballot box.

Rob is quite astute, imo. I'm sure he wouldn't have bought into the voting results, so in ways all this is academic. But how far to trust some people in the future, some have revealed themselves.

 

[wwwweb]

This is a huge reason why online polls, have very little meaning online unless they have massive sample sizes.

Obviously someone tried to enrich themselves by thinking they would financially benefit by selling their below par name if they got enough votes. There is no other need for someone to promote such a poll, other than to attempt to believe the dollars would fall from the sky once they weighed the scales on false hope.

So whose name is this?

 

[oldtimer]

@Paul Buonopane thank you for all the effort you put in here of course you could not do more, this is beyond nonsense to imply anything else.

First off @Rob Monster started the poll so it's his poll, each person who starts a poll can provide the terms they want.

Let's keep it real the Namepros poll for The anonymous search engine didn't get picked by the Namepros top vote getter SearchIT.com beat Toki.com easily here, it was the vote on GAB where Toki.com won. https://www.namepros.com/threads/br...search-aggregator.1150560/page-6#post-7383378

I don't think anyone else will be running polls like this, most people might want some feedback but for their money, their brand they are the final say on the name.

With all due respect for you to jump in and call all these constructive suggestions and discussions beyond nonsense makes your comment pretty worthless.

 

[equity78]

With all due respect for you to jump in and call all these constructive suggestions and discussions beyond nonsense makes your comment pretty worthless.

What I stated was fact there is no more @Paul Buonopane can do if you want to talk about a poll starter that's another story.