Re: Another rating scam! (And a proposal on how to fix it)

Aaron Nabil (nabil@teleport.com)
Sun, 13 Oct 1996 22:17:19 -0700 (PDT)

Paul Francis writes...
> ( . . . ) I think
> we would both agree that as long as people think they will
> benefit from listing a given keyword 40 times or creating
> multiple "search-engine advertisement pages" that all point
> to the "user-browser advertisment page", they will do it.

I certainly agree.

That's why I think we should add "risk" to balance out the
potential "payoff".

The worst that can happen now is that a spammer's spam just
doesn't work very well, and he doesn't end up as highly
rated as he'd like.

I'm proposing that the "risk" be that he doesn't end up being
indexed AT ALL. This would actively discourage people from
even experimenting with ratings manipulation.