Troll Spotting

As entertaining as The Da Vinci Code?

[21_blue]

I have found the autogeneration thread a very entertaining read. My initial impression was that it was trollish in nature, and it has turned into a 'this is trollish' vs 'this is real' debate.

The reality underlying the thread is undeniable - we can see autogenerated sites turning up in the search engines. What is so entertaining about the autogeneration threads that occur is that - like The Da Vinci Code - the boundary between fact and fiction is so blurred.

Experienced users can see trolling for what it is and choose to ignore it - though some genuine stuff will inevitably get overlooked as a result. However, I wonder if there is enough information for people who are unaware of the practice, so they can make an informed choice about how to respond.

Are there any WW troll FAQ available? (I've searched but not found any)

[ann]

to start it off:

#1 check other threads and posts.
#2 imperialistic tone to the post

keep it going.

Ann

[ncreegan]

While the specific thread you're speaking of is certainly the work of a troll, some of us decided to use the opportunity to push a certain ethical code that hasn't been seen much on forum89. It has done its job, as not only is autogeneration being discussed quite a bit, but surprisingly, some unexpected defendants have come into the fray.

[21_blue]

Focusing the discussion on a positive topic, and ignoring the trollish element, sounds like a good response (perhaps item #3 on Ann's list). And the ethical issue is one that I'm interested in.

I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be an FAQ on trolls, given that trolling seems to be such an integral feature both of WW forums and, presumably, many of the forums that WW members manage

I've had a quick look through some of the WW threads where members have been accused of trolling, and some threads where there seems to be some trolling that has gone unrecognised or unnamed. There are some good examples of how to respond to trolls, by both members and moderators, but also some examples of things going haywire through participants being hooked and there being little or no moderator intervention.

I think it would be good for someone to distill that collective experience into an FAQ. This would be useful reading for WW neophytes.

[andrea99]

The more benevolent end of the trolling spectrum simply provokes thoughtful comment, and there can be trollish elements to valuable questions.

I don't see a problem unless there are personal attacks or the tiresome rehash of old familiar but unsolvable issues. That's what moderators are for.

[DamonHD]

Hi,

This is an issue of "netiquette" and has been an ongoing issue since (at least) 1992 and USENET. Probably some of the original FAQs from then would cover it!

BTW, just because someone says something utterly outrageous and clearly unlikely (a) does not mean that they don't think it's OK (b) aren't doing it (c) would feel any urge to stop doing it just because some "prissy stuck-up weirdos" condemned it (d) would learn anything from the condemnation except to keep quiet. This is not speculation, that's what sociopaths/psycopaths do: they remain emotionally oblivious to the various ethical/social restraints most of us feel. That's one reason for having laws and Ts&Cs; to handle the people who just truely don't understand what all the fuss is about.

None of this means the discussion is pointless, it just means it may not be trolling and it may well not have any affect on the still-oblivious OP, though it may deter some budding borderline scammers.

Rgds

Damon

[ronburk]

I don't see a problem unless there are personal attacks or the tiresome rehash of old familiar but unsolvable issues.

Seems like the problem lies in percentages. Mayberry RFD could handle one town drunk just fine, but wouldn't have been so quaint if 10% of the town were drunk on the street on any given day.

Like all fairly unskilled endeavors where it is known that large sums of money do change hands at least some of the time (ah, real estate :-), AdSense has attracted a cadre of unscrupulous people (just Google for "AdSense" and look at the ads) willing to prey on the desperate and uneducated. The WebmasterWorld AdSense forum represents a large and attractive target for such people, IMO, partly because of size, but partly because people believe that there are "experts" in that forum. They are already predisposed to be more gullible (see, for example, the canonical con described in "The Power of Persuasion", by Levine). It's a near-ideal environment for those smart enough to see it, and immoral enough to take advantage of it.

To me, the really important issue is: are the WebmasterWorld anti-spam defenses sufficient to keep most of the vultures from feeding in the AdSense forum most of the time, or will this kind of attack increase in frequency until it reaches a tipping point, where the disgusted experts move elsewhere, and the forum is largely left to the vultures and their victims?

[andrea99]

the vultures and their victims?

Again, that's what moderators are for. If we are specifically talking about autogeneration trolling I think it represents a larger class of scammers in general who will move on to the next game when autogeneration (or whatever) is dealt with to the point where it is played out.

It is instructive to read threads where there are vultures trolling for victims. I only caught the very beginning of the thread in question and can't seem to find it now, but in a forum where "vultures" are exposed by the more honest participants these scams can be more easily defined and avoided or nullified.

I don't think anyone can autogenerate sites while thinking they are doing something worthwhile. If they are "victims" they are victims the same way victims of the 419 scams are lured in--by their own greed.

edit: found the thread in question, it seems to have been bumped up again. I'll read the rest of it and post again if I have anything to add.

[DamonHD]

Hi,

I don't think anyone can autogenerate sites while thinking they are doing something worthwhile.

If you'll allow me some more of my amateur psychology, that is not the point IMHO. The "sociopath" mind deals in outcomes such as "food on the table" for them; "worthwhile" does not necessarily figure. The brain connections are just not there (or are weakened it seems) for that stuff to be relevant. There WILL be some deliberate vultures in there too, and I don't know what the ratio is, but just because someone isn't setting out to do good does NOT imply that they are setting out to do bad. The whole good/bad thing may simply not be part of the motivation. (And anyway, the "law of the excluded middle" is not really viable in pure maths/logic any more!)

If they are "victims" they are victims the same way victims of the 419 scams are lured in--by their own greed.

Well indeed: I, you and the police of most nations have little sympathy for the venal, stupid and greedy. But that of course doesn't make the vultures (or my favourite sociopaths) right either, and we should try and squash them where we can.

Quietly demolishing their "trolling" with calm arguments and a small amount of outrage each and every time they turn up is probably the best thing to do.

All IMHO of course... B^>

Rgds

Damon

[incrediBILL]

The simple truth of the matter is the same people that think autogenerating garbage sites to rip off advertisers is OK would also be at ease with selling illegal copies of CDs, grifting, shoplifting, selling junk nobody needs over the phone to old people and probably steals from their own grandmother.

But that's probably over generalizing just a tad and being too kind.