What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

Suspicious voting activity: is there a list / FAQ of currently known patterns?

I'm not asking about how the current automatic system works, but rather what I have to be on the lookout for when reviewing / flagging. The automatic system most probably includes features such as analyzing the voting graph (PageRank algorithm would probably be a good fit here), comparing IP addresses for suspected sock puppets, tracing proxies to the same organization, etc. - techniques not available to me.

share|improve this question
1  
What is it exactly that you're looking for? If you're looking for inside information on how illegal voting patterns are detected, I think you're out of luck. –  Bart Jun 8 '12 at 11:30
    
@Bart, edited the question. –  malenkiy_scot Jun 8 '12 at 11:50
    
Ah okay. Going on the information in the Moderator Election proposals, I'll wait for @Lucifer to share his secrets. :) –  Bart Jun 8 '12 at 11:52
    
@Bart, that's exactly where I got the idea for the question from. –  malenkiy_scot Jun 8 '12 at 11:59
    
"Clobber you with downvotes"? You have a net total of -6 across seven questions. If you add up all your up and down votes, you're fairly positive. Downvotes aren't about whether the quality of your post is bad; they're about whether the subject of your post is bad. –  Nicol Bolas Jun 8 '12 at 12:09
    
@NicolBolas, the reason I'm having a positive rate is precisely because I've looked at how META works and refrain from asking, unless I am absolutely sure. In any case, I'm taking down that update. It was a momentary weakness. –  malenkiy_scot Jun 8 '12 at 12:13
    
No sweat, this is also how Meta works. –  Arjan Jun 8 '12 at 12:53
    
Well, if you see something odd like an extremely poorly written post getting an unjustified number of votes, that's typically worth a flag - or other patterns that just don't seem 'quite right'. You'd also be amazed at how often people accidentally tell on themselves, it happens quite a bit. You're bound to see it during the course of reviewing. –  Tim Post Jun 8 '12 at 15:30

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

There's no need to be on the lookout for anything; the system does it for you.

Focus on flagging low quality posts instead :)

Note: Unless you become an SE dev, nobody will ever tell you the exact patterns the vote fraud script catches. It's top secret to prevent people from circumventing it.

share|improve this answer
    
>Focus on flagging low quality posts instead :) - Is it a hint? By the way, automatically detected 'low quality posts' are mostly fine. I've stopped reviewing them - concentrating rather on first questions / answers and on late answers. –  malenkiy_scot Jun 8 '12 at 11:54
    
@malenkiy_scot: Single-line answers/link-only answers deserve downvotes and sometimes a flag. At least downvote them, no need to flag (certain mods decline those, certain mods don't) –  Manishearth Jun 8 '12 at 12:14
    
I can't downvote an answer unless I am a (relative) expert in the subject matter. In areas where I am a relative expert, I've seen many an excellent one-line answer (mostly a code snippet that solves the problem better than many words). What I am saying is that it is simply not worth my time to prowl through all those presumably 'low quality' answers when I can't judge them on merits in most cases. –  malenkiy_scot Jun 8 '12 at 12:21
1  
@malenkiy_scot: A code snippet is bad no matter what. It solves the OP's immediate problem, but it doesn't really help other visitors. And nobody learns from it. That's sort of against the StackExchange motto/whatever--we want to make the Internet Better. We do not want to degrade into one of those quick-fix forums. All posts should carry some good explanation. Unfortunately, the size of SO has lead to such posts becoming rampant. –  Manishearth Jun 8 '12 at 12:27
    
The other day, I downvoted 40 posts like that without needing to know the subject matter. Many of them were later deleted. –  Manishearth Jun 8 '12 at 12:28
    
>That's sort of against the StackExchange motto/whatever. - Ok, I see what you mean now. Can you please point me to that 'manifesto'? –  malenkiy_scot Jun 8 '12 at 12:33
1  
    
@Arjan, thank you! –  malenkiy_scot Jun 9 '12 at 20:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .