Microsoft Caught Rigging ZD Net Poll 768
Dj writes "Microsoft have been found to be rigging a ZDNet
poll". Apparently they didn't dig on the idea of .NET losing.
Of course as anyone knows, never trust an online poll because this
sort of stuff is obviosly happening all the time. I just wonder how
many comments posted around the net are posted with the same
goals in mind.
So why didn't ZDnet pull the poll? (Score:5, Interesting)
The poll is still available here [zdnet.co.uk]. It carries no warnings or disclaimers that the poll has been massively rigged by Microsoft.
Why?
Interesing 'privacy' note... (Score:5, Interesting)
MS sponsored comments on slashdot (Score:1, Interesting)
In the last few months ive been noticing more pro-ms comments here which i think are suspect.
Its impossible to be certain, it might just be that the slashdot demographic is changing.
Re:There's a shocker (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/13255.html [theregister.co.uk]
um, nice spin ZDNet puts on this nonetheless!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, I thought "Net Rigging Illustrates Dishonesty of Microsoft" or something like that, or perhaps the fact they they have a hard time imagining competing in a market where they don't have domination or some massive advantage.
"The inevitable conclusion is that these are some of the first salvos in what will be a bitter PR struggle. Microsoft may have shot itself in the foot this time, but future efforts may be a little more subtle."
Um, yeah, Microsoft just started their first PR war and they might start using sneaky tactics soon! Um, anyone can go read http://www.mackido.com/History/Where_is_stack.htm
Well, I guess this dishnoesty probably wasn't official. More like just some sucky group of MS employees, I guess...
Re:Is this terribly different? (Score:5, Interesting)
Therefore, we could conclude that people were paid to vote on MSs behalf. Whereas when we click on a link on slashdot, unless you're CmdrTaco or CowboyNeal etc.. you're not being paid to do so and are under no obligation. not terribly different, but slightly enough to make a huge difference. Asking someone to vote one way or the other vs. paying someone to do so. slightly different.
Re:There's a shocker (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm with Taco... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's another question -- how many of these web polls are posted with the primary goal of getting posted in one or more advocacy forums and generating hits, which is why a lot of sites and mailing lists have a flat policy against announcing them? I mean, that's what web polls are for, right? So Mac / Java / BSD / Amiga / what have you fans can compete to see who can more thoroughly stuff the ballot box. Don't tell me you guys actually take those results seriously?
I thought using the word "rigging" in this context ("Ohmigod! Microsoft is destroying the integrity of a ZDNet click-poll!") was as outlandish as it was going to get, but then already there's the guy [slashdot.org] pulling out the bold tag to wonder why the MS board is going to jail over this. Clearly, this is a job for that Craig guy who spent months pestering everyone on Gnotices and dot.kde.org to spam the poll on his site...
Re:Is this terribly different? (Score:3, Interesting)
Happens all the time (Score:4, Interesting)
As it turned out, they didn't mind at all. They had already decided who the top two choices would be and only cared which of the two came out on top. In short, Limp Bizkit was popular, but not THAT popular.
I won't name names, but perhaps folks who listen to popular radio in the Chicago area (and other major venues) should keep this in mind the next time your radio station claims to give you what *YOU* want.
It's not just online...
History repeating (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft got caught ages ago with its hand in the cookie jar doing exactly that with the Barkto indcident [essential.org].
Nothing compared to falsifying letters to congress (Score:3, Interesting)
But have we forgotten about MS fabricating letters to congress? Using -dead- people as the names, so at least there would be a real name there? Forget stupid zdnet polls... MS has engaged in true astroturfing with the intent to sway government in their favor (above and beyond the usual political contributions/manipulation of the illuminati to put GWB in charge). There is no comparison between these two events, other than if MS will send false letters to congress it is 0 surprise to see them hacking an online poll.
Fire vs Fire? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Interesting)
If the register person at McDonalds reaches across the coulter an punches you, McDonalds is responsibles.
If I write a sript that causes another company to loose all its data, the company I work for is responsible.
Sure, the people who commmit the offence are to blame as well, but company are responsible for the actions of there employee's.
If a company sent you an email that said "Please remeber to Go Vote", an thats it, fine, got no problm with that, but if a company says "Go Vote For Gore" Now we have a problem. PIF, companies have gotten into trouble for encouraging employees to vote for a specific candidate.
Re:What happened (Score:4, Interesting)
The question on my mind... was he fired - or promoted?
Re:Doesn't taco... (Score:1, Interesting)
However, if you look around
Self-selection polls (Score:3, Interesting)
The basic problem here is that the poll's respondents are self-selecting, which as any good statistics student -- or anyone with a modicum of common sense -- will tell you, immediately renders the results dubious at best.
Several people on this thread have observed that if the story had made /. in time, the slashbots could have voted it back the other way, "evening things up". Unfortunately, all that happens then is that the poll's response is 45% MS, 45% /. and 10% real respondents, whose opinion is lost in the noise. In other words, the poll result now looks like it's close but isn't actually representative at all. If anything, that might be more misleading; at least the MS rig is obvious.
Such is the price you pay for self-selection. It only takes one group to get together with a common purpose, and your result will go their way. This is why the consultants choose a random sample of a few thousand from their target audience -- and then ask them questions carefully phrased to bias the responses in favour of the desired outcome, but we'll gloss over that bit... :-)
Re:What happened (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't this obviously more than just shameful mass e-mail tactics? Such as automated scripts?
orgnine
Re:ZDNet? The CNN ones scare me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What happened (Score:2, Interesting)
As long as you can't come up with more than "serious doubt" and "probably" your guess is just as good as mine, and mine is different. MS tends do shit like this ("aggressive marketing", just that it's not that, it's "dishonest marketing") at every opportunity. So it kinda is "high-level". And what if they teach their salesman that stuff like this is proper practice? Does the CEO have to write the email himself for it to be "high-level"?
And even if the author of the email "acted alone", don't you think that the MS management very likely approves of it?
No conspiracy required. (Score:3, Interesting)
We could indeed conclude that, if we are in the habit of drawing conclusions from evidence so slender it's all but non-existent.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. There's no evidence that anyone was paid, or that there was any concerted effort, or that their was any conspiracy. Yes, the votes originated from a microsoft.com account, yes emails appear to have originated from a microsoft.com account, no there is no evidence of 'official' action.
Three guys from the