Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

manpageview rating dive

Expand Messages
  • Charles Campbell
    Hello! I recently checked my plugins ratings: 08/09/11 script 677/279/10776: Manpageview.vim 08/31/11 script -133/1094/10866: Manpageview.vim This seems like
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 31 7:29 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello!

      I recently checked my plugins' ratings:

      08/09/11 script 677/279/10776: Manpageview.vim
      08/31/11 script -133/1094/10866: Manpageview.vim

      This seems like an odd thing -- is this preparation for a general
      bombing of plugins' ratings?

      Regards,
      Chip Campbell

      --
      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
    • Charles Campbell
      ... I should explain this a bit more. The rating for Manpageview on August 9, 2011 was 677, with 279 people having rated it, and 10776 having downloaded it.
      Message 2 of 7 , Aug 31 8:49 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Charles Campbell wrote:
        > Hello!
        >
        > I recently checked my plugins' ratings:
        >
        > 08/09/11 script 677/279/10776: Manpageview.vim
        > 08/31/11 script -133/1094/10866: Manpageview.vim
        >
        > This seems like an odd thing -- is this preparation for a general
        > bombing of plugins' ratings?
        I should explain this a bit more. The rating for Manpageview on August
        9, 2011 was 677, with 279 people having rated it, and 10776 having
        downloaded it.
        On August 31, 2011, the rating was -133, 1094 people having rated it,
        and 10866 having downloaded it.

        It is odd that Manpageview received -810 in karma when there were only
        90 additional downloaders over that time period. Did irc have a
        anti-Chip attack? Is someone testing a bot to destroy multiple
        plugins' ratings?

        Chip

        --
        You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
        Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      • Tony Mechelynck
        ... I wonder how SourceForge allocates memory for these numbers. It sounds like overflow into the sign bit, except that the next bit above 677 is 1024 (2^10)
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On 31/08/11 17:49, Charles Campbell wrote:
          > Charles Campbell wrote:
          >> Hello!
          >>
          >> I recently checked my plugins' ratings:
          >>
          >> 08/09/11 script 677/279/10776: Manpageview.vim
          >> 08/31/11 script -133/1094/10866: Manpageview.vim
          >>
          >> This seems like an odd thing -- is this preparation for a general
          >> bombing of plugins' ratings?
          > I should explain this a bit more. The rating for Manpageview on August
          > 9, 2011 was 677, with 279 people having rated it, and 10776 having
          > downloaded it.
          > On August 31, 2011, the rating was -133, 1094 people having rated it,
          > and 10866 having downloaded it.
          >
          > It is odd that Manpageview received -810 in karma when there were only
          > 90 additional downloaders over that time period. Did irc have a
          > anti-Chip attack? Is someone testing a bot to destroy multiple plugins'
          > ratings?
          >
          > Chip
          >

          I wonder how SourceForge allocates memory for these numbers. It sounds
          like overflow into the sign bit, except that the next bit above 677 is
          1024 (2^10) which is not at a byte or word boundary...

          Only 90 new downloads but as many as 815 new ratings is also a bit weird
          to say the least. And almost all of those negative? Some troll must hate
          Manpageview (and/or you) quite a bit to have gone to the trouble of
          logging in 810 times to give a negative rating.

          Best regards,
          Tony.
          --
          hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
          167. You have more than 100 websites in your Bookmark.

          --
          You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
          Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
          For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
        • Ingo Karkat
          ... I have seen a similar drastic downvote for the SmartCase plugin, http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1359; its rating is -326/355, Downloaded
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            On 01-Sep-2011 17:24, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
            > On 31/08/11 17:49, Charles Campbell wrote:
            >> Charles Campbell wrote:
            >>> Hello!
            >>>
            >>> I recently checked my plugins' ratings:
            >>>
            >>> 08/09/11 script 677/279/10776: Manpageview.vim
            >>> 08/31/11 script -133/1094/10866: Manpageview.vim
            >>>
            >>> This seems like an odd thing -- is this preparation for a general
            >>> bombing of plugins' ratings?
            >> I should explain this a bit more. The rating for Manpageview on August
            >> 9, 2011 was 677, with 279 people having rated it, and 10776 having
            >> downloaded it.
            >> On August 31, 2011, the rating was -133, 1094 people having rated it,
            >> and 10866 having downloaded it.
            >>
            >> It is odd that Manpageview received -810 in karma when there were only
            >> 90 additional downloaders over that time period. Did irc have a
            >> anti-Chip attack? Is someone testing a bot to destroy multiple plugins'
            >> ratings?
            >>
            >> Chip
            >>
            >
            > I wonder how SourceForge allocates memory for these numbers. It sounds like
            > overflow into the sign bit, except that the next bit above 677 is 1024 (2^10)
            > which is not at a byte or word boundary...
            >
            > Only 90 new downloads but as many as 815 new ratings is also a bit
            > weird to say the least. And almost all of those negative? Some troll
            > must hate Manpageview (and/or you) quite a bit to have gone to the
            > trouble of logging in 810 times to give a negative rating.

            I have seen a similar drastic downvote for the SmartCase plugin,
            http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1359; its rating is -326/355,
            Downloaded by 488, even though it works perfectly well for me.

            My best guess is that some bot did this; either by accident or through human
            evil. In these times, voting probably needs to be protected by captcha, but that
            would just make the feature even less attractive. As long as these are rare
            incidents, stick with the current system, and only move to e.g. an invitation to
            "comment on this script on the linked Vim Tips Wiki page" if it gets worse.

            -- regards, ingo

            --
            You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
            Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
            For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
          • Benjamin R. Haskell
            ... Can t find it currently, but someone mentioned in the not-so-distant past that some search engine(s) grabbed the down-vote URL when crawling www.vim.org.
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Charles Campbell wrote:

              > Charles Campbell wrote:
              >> Hello!
              >>
              >> I recently checked my plugins' ratings:
              >>
              >> 08/09/11 script 677/279/10776: Manpageview.vim
              >> 08/31/11 script -133/1094/10866: Manpageview.vim
              >>
              >> This seems like an odd thing -- is this preparation for a general
              >> bombing of plugins' ratings?
              > I should explain this a bit more. The rating for Manpageview on
              > August 9, 2011 was 677, with 279 people having rated it, and 10776
              > having downloaded it.
              > On August 31, 2011, the rating was -133, 1094 people having rated it,
              > and 10866 having downloaded it.
              >
              > It is odd that Manpageview received -810 in karma when there were only
              > 90 additional downloaders over that time period. Did irc have a
              > anti-Chip attack? Is someone testing a bot to destroy multiple
              > plugins' ratings?

              Can't find it currently, but someone mentioned in the not-so-distant
              past that some search engine(s) grabbed the down-vote URL when crawling
              www.vim.org. In this case, googling:

              site:www.vim.org inurl:unfulfilling

              (where 'unfulfilling' is the 'rating' value for a down-vote) comes up
              with exactly one result for me:

              ManPageView - Viewer for manpages, gnu info, perldoc, and php …

              With the link: (...'s to prevent clicking)

              http://.../scripts/script.php?script_id=489&rating=unfulfilling

              And I may have accidentally just downvoted it myself, by hovering over
              the result (which pops up a preview).

              Seems like the ratings should only use $_POST (PHP var), but they appear
              to be using $_GET, too.

              --
              Best,
              Ben

              --
              You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
              Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
              For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
            • Charles E Campbell Jr
              ... Nice bit of sleuthing! So perhaps the large downvoting is due to bots such as google, yahoo, bing, etc., and I suppose Manpageview can expect a continuing
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
                > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Charles Campbell wrote:
                >
                >
                >> Charles Campbell wrote:
                >>
                >>> Hello!
                >>>
                >>> I recently checked my plugins' ratings:
                >>>
                >>> 08/09/11 script 677/279/10776: Manpageview.vim
                >>> 08/31/11 script -133/1094/10866: Manpageview.vim
                >>>
                >>> This seems like an odd thing -- is this preparation for a general
                >>> bombing of plugins' ratings?
                >>>
                >> I should explain this a bit more. The rating for Manpageview on
                >> August 9, 2011 was 677, with 279 people having rated it, and 10776
                >> having downloaded it.
                >> On August 31, 2011, the rating was -133, 1094 people having rated it,
                >> and 10866 having downloaded it.
                >>
                >> It is odd that Manpageview received -810 in karma when there were only
                >> 90 additional downloaders over that time period. Did irc have a
                >> anti-Chip attack? Is someone testing a bot to destroy multiple
                >> plugins' ratings?
                >>
                > Can't find it currently, but someone mentioned in the not-so-distant
                > past that some search engine(s) grabbed the down-vote URL when crawling
                > www.vim.org. In this case, googling:
                >
                > site:www.vim.org inurl:unfulfilling
                >
                > (where 'unfulfilling' is the 'rating' value for a down-vote) comes up
                > with exactly one result for me:
                >
                > ManPageView - Viewer for manpages, gnu info, perldoc, and php …
                >
                > With the link: (...'s to prevent clicking)
                >
                > http://.../scripts/script.php?script_id=489&rating=unfulfilling
                >
                > And I may have accidentally just downvoted it myself, by hovering over
                > the result (which pops up a preview).
                >
                > Seems like the ratings should only use $_POST (PHP var), but they appear
                > to be using $_GET, too.
                >
                >
                Nice bit of sleuthing! So perhaps the large downvoting is due to bots
                such as google, yahoo, bing, etc., and I suppose Manpageview can expect
                a continuing more-of-the-same.

                Bram: any chance that this situation can be fixed?

                Regards,
                Chip

                --
                You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
              • Bram Moolenaar
                ... Right, the form was using a GET. That s wrong. I changed it to a POST now. Please verify the rating still works. I found another one on the page where a
                Message 7 of 7 , Sep 2, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Benjamin Haskell wrote:

                  > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Charles Campbell wrote:
                  >
                  > > Charles Campbell wrote:
                  > >> Hello!
                  > >>
                  > >> I recently checked my plugins' ratings:
                  > >>
                  > >> 08/09/11 script 677/279/10776: Manpageview.vim
                  > >> 08/31/11 script -133/1094/10866: Manpageview.vim
                  > >>
                  > >> This seems like an odd thing -- is this preparation for a general
                  > >> bombing of plugins' ratings?
                  > > I should explain this a bit more. The rating for Manpageview on
                  > > August 9, 2011 was 677, with 279 people having rated it, and 10776
                  > > having downloaded it.
                  > > On August 31, 2011, the rating was -133, 1094 people having rated it,
                  > > and 10866 having downloaded it.
                  > >
                  > > It is odd that Manpageview received -810 in karma when there were only
                  > > 90 additional downloaders over that time period. Did irc have a
                  > > anti-Chip attack? Is someone testing a bot to destroy multiple
                  > > plugins' ratings?
                  >
                  > Can't find it currently, but someone mentioned in the not-so-distant
                  > past that some search engine(s) grabbed the down-vote URL when crawling
                  > www.vim.org. In this case, googling:
                  >
                  > site:www.vim.org inurl:unfulfilling
                  >
                  > (where 'unfulfilling' is the 'rating' value for a down-vote) comes up
                  > with exactly one result for me:
                  >
                  > ManPageView - Viewer for manpages, gnu info, perldoc, and php …
                  >
                  > With the link: (...'s to prevent clicking)
                  >
                  > http://.../scripts/script.php?script_id=489&rating=unfulfilling
                  >
                  > And I may have accidentally just downvoted it myself, by hovering over
                  > the result (which pops up a preview).
                  >
                  > Seems like the ratings should only use $_POST (PHP var), but they appear
                  > to be using $_GET, too.

                  Right, the form was using a GET. That's wrong. I changed it to a POST
                  now. Please verify the rating still works.

                  I found another one on the page where a script delete is confirmed.
                  Fixed that too.

                  --
                  BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
                  ARTHUR: You're a looney.
                  "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD

                  /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                  /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
                  \\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
                  \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///

                  --
                  You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                  Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                  For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.