Sanibel Cottage/Talk

InfoInfo ArticleArticle

This page exists to discuss the content on Sanibel Cottage. Remember that comments can contain wiki markup. As always, we ask that you review our etiquette page.


Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2008-12-01 19:53:35   So here we have three new comments posted by first-time users, all very enthusiastic, and all within a very short time. I think this is an open-and-shut case of shilling.

If anyone objects to me deleting these, then go ahead and make a case for their legitimacy. —EastSideStephen

2008-12-01 20:59:41   Stephen-I object. They come from 4 entirely different IP's (4 replies). While they are certainly suspicious in their timing, I don't see this as an "Open-and-shut case". —PeteB

2008-12-01 21:25:38   Yes, I noticed that. Apparently, the shills have gotten crafty.

My thought was that possibly the owner had some of his/her friends write some "reviews". Maybe someone was using a remote desktop?
The timing is just too suspicious to let it slide. —EastSideStephen

2008-12-01 22:27:35   It is not open and shut. I also say the timing is extremely dubious, especially due to the fact that they both double-saved their posts, but it still is not open and shut. —BadFish

2008-12-02 11:09:43   I immediately thought this was shilling when I saw these comments go up. I know it can be hard to prove this. I like's way of addressing this on food sites like yelp. They have a shill-meter. Unless there's been a change in management at this establishment, I think most RocWiki users will be able to judge for themselves what is a shill and what isn't. —MarcVera

2008-12-02 16:51:49   Well, today's activities sure strengthen my accusation. I assume now we can call this "open and shut"? —EastSideStephen

2008-12-02 17:04:53   Marc, here is my problem with the "let the users decide for themselves" attitude:

If we take this position, we open the door for more shills. Eventually, there will be a poor "signal to noise ratio" on the wiki, and users will have to do a lot of deciding for themselves. This is a larger hurdle than we might think for new users. While you and I have been here a while, and we can discern these things, new users haven't necessarily attained that skill. Therefore, it is up to us, the experienced users, to act as a filter. In the name of fairness, we have to let controversial things go, but we need can think of ourselves as a SPAM filter, with a variable setting. We cna set our "filter" to something like 95% and catch junk like what is on this page. Sure, it will very rarely pick up a valid comment, but that's a small price to pay for the amount of good it does.

The "let the users decide" argument sounds a lot like the argument creationists use for teaching creationism in the classroom: "Let's teach both and let the children decide". Sure, this sounds all well and good at first, but we need to realize that there is significant negative value in having to sift through bad information. We also need to realize that not everyone has the ability to discern good information from bad. —EastSideStephen

2008-12-02 17:05:37   Locking the page for awhile, as there's a heck of a lot of reverting going on. Please hash out the dispute here. Thanks! —RyanTucker

2008-12-02 17:08:37   JohnBrennan/DavidMcArthur — Your comment is being edited because you—JohnBrennan—clearly made two comments, then edited the name on one to make is look like DavidMcArthur wrote it. When that was reverted, John seemed to sign up as DavidMcArthur and edited it again. "John" left the comment and any efforts to revert it to make it look like DavidMcArthur did will of course be reverted. Mods — could you lock the Sanibel page? —BadFish

2008-12-02 17:09:56   The page must have been locked while I was commenting above. The only thing is that it was locked with the "illegal" edit by John/David above. —BadFish

2008-12-02 17:14:46   I locked it on the last version edited by an editor with an edit history spanning more than 30 minutes, otherwise I would have locked it without reverting first. No endorsement is implied with regards any particular version of the page. Just for the record. :-) —RyanTucker

2008-12-02 19:12:21   John Brennan and David McArthur's comments/logs both come from the same IP address of - this is now clearly a schill. If there are no objections within 24 hours I'll be deleting John Brennan/David McArthur's comments. David McArthur has been banned for vandalism of the page. —PeteB

2008-12-02 19:30:21   Ryan, yeah I kind of figured you were "stopping the storm". I should have mentioned I was commenting on that just for the record as well. —BadFish

2008-12-02 20:46:59   When will comments be allowed again? —PaulRingwood

2008-12-02 21:24:04   PaulRingwood-we do not know when we will allow comments. When we figure out where the vandalism of the page and the schilling is coming from. —PeteB

2008-12-02 21:39:21   Paul Ringwood's comment on this page came from the IP of a proxy server located in China. This is getting very suspicious. —JoannaLicata

2008-12-02 22:36:50   Regarding PaulRingwood's comment, it could certainly be John/David using a um...different method of seeing the page. He's banned afterall. The tone of the question also makes me think it may be the same person. Everyone else wants to work it out, he wants to edit more. Of course I could be wrong... —BadFish

2008-12-02 22:38:12   That's a good thing it says my IP is coming from China seeing as I am in China right now for work. Does this disqualify me from being able to comment? —PaulRingwood

2008-12-02 22:45:28   Just making observations about what is likely, noting definite. —BadFish

2008-12-02 22:46:49   Paul-in the past 48 hours we've had multiple comments excessively promoting Sanibel Cottage...including 2 comments from the same IP pretending to be the same person as well as having on of those people trying to delete others comments (aka vandalize the page). There is something going on here and it's not legit-therefore yes your IP would be questioned but you are not disallowed from posting. —PeteB

2008-12-03 11:16:10   So you have to use a public anonymous proxy (that I can connect to from here in Rochester), when you're in China? And now you you're posting from an IP in Vietnam? You really have to get better at this if you want to deceive someone. —RichChiavaroli

2008-12-03 12:41:51   Look, I am not telling you how to run your business so don't try to tell me how to run mine. Point is, I have done nothing wrong here. I came on to write a comment, which is what this site is for. Since, the way I connect to the internet is odd to you, I have been blackballed. So if you are really going to start banning people because they seem suspicious then go for it. And before everyone starts to freak out again, this is a different IP china —PaulRingwood

2008-12-04 23:46:23   In case there was any question, Paul's post above mine was from another proxy in China, and then his subsequent repost when he refreshed the page was from an IP in Erie PA. —RichChiavaroli

2008-12-11 10:39:36   Are you really going to keep all of these one time posters shills? Really? Even after what's gone on here? —RichChiavaroli

2008-12-11 11:54:32   Rich-Concern noted and its on my agenda for Saturday's meeting. Why don't you join us? —PeteB

2008-12-15 11:03:51   At the December contributors' meeting we discussed this page, and we agreed that the alleged shill comments should go. Everyone approved of the addition of the shilling definition to wiki community/offenses, so we will use that from now on. We generally agreed that the application of common sense can be used in absence of a formalized policy —EastSideStephen