On the Disqus moderation page, you can see each commenter's reputation badge: High Rep, Low Rep, Average, and undefined. If you request the comment data using the Disqus API, it returns a reputation number "reputation":1.233156 instead of the default badges.
What does this reputation number mean? And how does this score translate to badges? Also, how is the score calculated?
(Reference)
Was wondering the same thing, from an API query I saw:
'rep': 3.3011290000000004,
'reputation': 3.3011290000000004,
'reputationLabel': 'High'
On the definitions page it confirms that rep and reputation are the same thing (obvious..)
Here are the descriptions of what it is on the Disqus site.
I looked around, they don't seem to reveal their exact formula for calculating the score but you can guess the nature of it from what it says there: everyone starts at 'average', lots of activity and up-votes makes it 'high' and deleted by moderator, marked as spam, flagged by other users makes it low.
Badges does not seem to be adequately defined anywhere not totally sure what it is but it is possibly something assigned by the moderators or users themselves rather than calculated by the system, the small icons in the usernames here for example.
Related
I am the founder of an educational site + app that uses Disqus for commenting.
Recently we have had a spate of spammers upvoting random posts. The upvote causes an email to be generated to the author of the original post, and the upvoter's name is also visible when you hover over the number of votes. The upvoter's display name is usually something like "(Heart) See Bio (Heart)" and the bio contains a link to a porn site, etc. Sometimes the display name is more explicit.
Since the spammer is not actually leaving comments but simply voting on existing comments, the existing spam countermeasures do not catch this. If the spammer votes on a recent post, a moderator might notice, but if they vote on an old post, it would probably go undetected (except to the victim who receives an email notification, and any users who happen to view the upvoter list).
Is there any way to see a list of all recent upvotes, across all posts on a forum, so that we can manually moderate? I've looked through the methods in the Disqus API, but I don't see anything. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
I've gotten a message that my site may be knocked off of Google Merchant Center due to "Inaccurate availability (due to inconsistent availability between the landing page and checkout pages on your website)".
This affects only a small amount of products (only around 0.3% of my 40,000-ish products), so I know it's not an engine issue. After asking Google to recheck the results, they came back with the same error, but with a completely different list of products with no overlap, so I know it's not a problem on the individual product level.
There's no geo-locking on these products, and Google says that the problem exists on US IPs.
Nearly all of the errors look like this:
Value on the landing page - v:out_of_stock
Value in the data feed - v:in_stock
Performing an audit on the products in question shows that none of them have been out of stock for weeks, so the data feed is correct.
None of Google's suggested common issues (geolocking, buy button not working, product can't be shipped to an address, products not available country-wide) seem to apply. The country Google checked this on was a US-based IP.
I'm running out of ideas here, does anyone have any other suggestions?
The answer turned out to be something silly for my site, but I'm posting the answer here just in case this helps someone else.
Google's crawler was setting their country to be Andorra and attempting to check out using the US site. This is obviously not a good representation of the US experience. Google advised us that this was a mistake on their crawler's part, and that we would pass the next audit without any modifications. So if you're here looking for a solution, the absolute best advice I can give you is to find a phone number for Google Merchant Center and give them a call because the error may not be on your end at all.
Update: We passed the audit with no changes made on our part.
Quick question - as stated in the title. Is that possible? I thought the following endpoint would be my best shot: https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/docs/comments/update, but can't find anything that resembles api call for rating a video, nor did I find any documentation on that for v3
If it is, please point me to the http endpoint.
Partially Yes, You can use that endpoint and specify a value for snippet.viewerRating but as of now it only allows you to specify two values like and none.
The rating the viewer has given to this comment. Note that this property does not currently identify dislike ratings, though this behavior is subject to change. In the meantime, the property value is like if the viewer has rated the comment positively. The value is none in all other cases, including the user having given the comment a negative rating or not having rated the comment.
While it would seem to be a bug, it's always been true that LinkedIn's r_basicprofile API permission only returns the user's current positions, while r_fullprofile returns current and past positions. But with today's announcement that r_fullprofile will require enrollment in LinkedIn's partnership integration program, this difference has a real consequence: Many LinkedIn-integrated sites will no longer be able to get past positions.
My question is to LinkedIn API folks: Is it deliberate that past positions are not returned for r_basicprofile requests? Hopefully not, and hopefully this could be fixed. Alternatively, three_past_positions could be enabled for r_basicprofile... That'd give us something to work with.
If everything is working as intended, and no changes will be forthcoming, how difficult will it be to join the partnership program? Do you foresee many companies and start-ups being able to join?
Thanks!
I think that #JoseR answer was extremely close... the part that was missed was that of within the 'field' description it states:
positions -> An object representing the member's current position
https://developer.linkedin.com/docs/fields/basic-profile
so, if the member has ten 'current' positions, it will return ten, but if they only have one, then just one is returned... so, to get the r_fullprofile is your next best option (with application of course)
As we can see in https://developer.linkedin.com/docs/fields/basic-profile is supposed that now in the basic profile we are going to get all the positions, at least it does not say anything about any restriction to the current ones.
But please I'm +1 in this question. It would be good to have some confirmation from the linkedIn staff that, when accessing the new API, we are going to get all the positions.
Thank you.
I am using a wordpress plugin called "GD Star Rating" to allow my users to vote on stories that I post to one of my websites. http://everydayfiction.com/ Recently we have been having a lot of abuse of the system. Stories that have obviously been voted up artificially. "GD Star Rating" creates some detailed logs when a user votes on a story. Including; IP, Time of vote, and user_adgent, ect..
For example this story has 181 votes with an average of 5.7 http://www.everydayfiction.com/snowman-by-shaun-simon/ Most other stories only get around ~40 votes each day.
At first I thought that the story got on to a social bookmarking site Digg, Stumbleupon ect... but after checking the logs I found that this story is getting the same amount of traffic that a normal story gets ~2k-3k.
I checked if all the votes for this perpendicular story where coming from a the same IP address. I could see this happening if a user was at a school's computer lab using all their lab computers to vote up this story. Not one duplicate IP address in the log for this story.
SELECT ip, COUNT(*) as count FROM wp_gdsr_votes_log WHERE id=3932 GROUP BY (ip ) ORDER BY count DESC
Next I thought that a use might be using a proxy to vote up a story. I checked this by grouping all the browser user_agent together to see if there a single browser voting in a perpendicular way. At most 7 users where using a similar browser but voted sporadically (1-5), no evidence of wrong doing.
SELECT user_agent, COUNT(*) as count FROM wp_gdsr_votes_log WHERE id=3932 GROUP BY ( user_agent) ORDER BY count DESC
I also check to see if all the votes came in at a once. Maybe someone has a really interesting bot that can change the user_adgent and uses proxies, ect... At most 5 votes came with in 2 mins of each other. It doesn't seem to be any regularity on how people vote (IE a 5 vote does not come in once a min)
SELECT * FROM wp_gdsr_votes_log WHERE id =3932 AND vote=5 ORDER BY wp_gdsr_votes_log.voted DESC
The obvious solution to this problem is to force people to login before they are allowed to vote. But I would prefer to not have to go down that route unless it is absolutely necessary.
I'm looking for suggestions on things to test for to detect the abuse.
Edit
Anther thing that I just tested was to see if all the people that voted on this perdicutre story were first time voters on the site by IP address. It appears that about 80 people by IP address voted on this story first and no other story. I check it against other stories and found that most of the time it is the opposite where 80% of the people that do vote, vote in several different stories as well. I think this proves that there is something fishy going on here but i'm not sure how they would have done it or how I could filter out the artificial votes.
SELECT id, `ip`, COUNT(*) as count FROM `wp_gdsr_votes_log` GROUP BY (`ip` ) ORDER BY `count` ASC
Edit 2
Wow OK, it looks like one of the band members from http://www.mychemicalromance.com/ (rhythm guitarist) posted a link about the article in their twitter and on the bands website. I'm just surprised that there hasn't been a big increase of visitors only people up voting the story..
Maybe it's not a problem at all. Maybe you hit on a story that more people cared enough about to actually vote on.
One thing you might check is the percentage of votes versus traffic as compared to other stories that have similiar traffic.
I read it. Nice story. I voted as well. ;)
You must ensure that your voting is at least establishing a session when they first hit the page, and that the session is still active when they vote. If you're not at least requiring some type of token that you specify, the client could post data to your server all day, spoofing IP addresses and User Agents.
If you're using sessions, or some other type of token access that forces the use of your forms, then it seems, according to the information that you have so far, that the votes are indeed coming from different computers.
Check your web server logs for the referrer to see how they're finding the article.
If you can't prove that a vote is invalid, then I think you have to accept it.
If there's a flaw in your rating system it most likely situated with the form itself. A simple F5/refresh could get multiple votes in if no checking is done. There must at least be a session or userid as well as a unique token you can check against to avoid F5 exploits.