Using HyperLogLog to detect voting rings (2013)(opensourceconnections.com)
opensourceconnections.com
Using HyperLogLog to detect voting rings (2013)
http://opensourceconnections.com/blog/2013/10/14/detecting-reddit-voting-rings-using-hyperloglog-counters/
9 comments
If you use this sole technique, you allow an attacker to "DoS" a honest user by creating n fake accounts and upvoting all users' posts, thus increasing his global_total_upvotes with a small increase of his estimated_unique_upvotes.
I'm not sure I fully "get" it. Wouldn't more popular posters (like PG here on HN) be immediately considered in a voting ring, because the same people upvote their posts regularly?
or an even more basic / stupid question - what exactly is a "voting ring"? does it mean people having some kind of a pact to always vote for each other?
or an even more basic / stupid question - what exactly is a "voting ring"? does it mean people having some kind of a pact to always vote for each other?
It's a spectrum, there's no black-and-white definition. On one end there are posts that get votes from people who visit the front/new page, vote for multiple things and make comments that get upvoted, and on the other end there are posts that get direct visits from accounts that only ever view and vote for posts from that one author. In the middle, there's a weighting function with empirically tuned parameters.
While there are a few clever voting rings, the vast majority are just one guy with many sockpuppet accounts upvoting self-serving crap.
HN doesn't need anything as fancy as HyperLogLog. Most voting rings are apparent within the first 20 votes so elementary data structures work fine.
(I know how the HN system works and anecdotally how Reddit's used to work, but I'm being a bit generic here to avoid revealing that One Weird Trick to Get to the Top of HN.)
While there are a few clever voting rings, the vast majority are just one guy with many sockpuppet accounts upvoting self-serving crap.
HN doesn't need anything as fancy as HyperLogLog. Most voting rings are apparent within the first 20 votes so elementary data structures work fine.
(I know how the HN system works and anecdotally how Reddit's used to work, but I'm being a bit generic here to avoid revealing that One Weird Trick to Get to the Top of HN.)
if a ring introduces noise (meaning they attempt to avoid the "not clever" trap you describe) how does this effect the measurement? I can assume that introduction of noise is somewhat counter to the greed and objective of the ring leader. But now the objective would change to be meerly introducing enough noise to putting the metric on this ring in a state of question.
With that though, of course this is better than a model that requires no noise. Forcing noise from the edges reduces the set of entries requiring human review and, still, human review might reveal with sufficient weight the existence of a possible ring. But, this is an evolution to the cat+mouse stage. Hence, rings could still survive if clever?
With that question (ring survival with measured noise) set aside, it seems if the cat+mouse were to come in earnest that reputation dependent models would be a driver for mapping user "types" (social, political, behavioral models) in a much more accurate manner than the current driver of advertising (google wanting to increase price of adds)
With that though, of course this is better than a model that requires no noise. Forcing noise from the edges reduces the set of entries requiring human review and, still, human review might reveal with sufficient weight the existence of a possible ring. But, this is an evolution to the cat+mouse stage. Hence, rings could still survive if clever?
With that question (ring survival with measured noise) set aside, it seems if the cat+mouse were to come in earnest that reputation dependent models would be a driver for mapping user "types" (social, political, behavioral models) in a much more accurate manner than the current driver of advertising (google wanting to increase price of adds)
It would be more effective if only the first 100 votes were looked at because voting rings are used in the beginning to kickstart the post. In which case, the author wouldn't have an excuse to apply HLL.
I think it's more something like posting on Facebook: "Hey guys here is my HN submission, please upvote!", ie: making people upvote your content for another reason than because they find it interesting
So wouldn't this be trivially defeated by not always posting as the same user? If you control N users, then to promote a story:
1. Pick U out of N. Submit the story as U.
2. Pick [U1, U2...UX] out of N, and upvote the story enough to carry it to the front page. Let the random front page upvotes do the rest.
3. ...
4. Profit.
Also, why not write a bot that randomly upvotes stores for your N controlled users (presumably, they are not real people)?
1. Pick U out of N. Submit the story as U.
2. Pick [U1, U2...UX] out of N, and upvote the story enough to carry it to the front page. Let the random front page upvotes do the rest.
3. ...
4. Profit.
Also, why not write a bot that randomly upvotes stores for your N controlled users (presumably, they are not real people)?
I don't think this would work very well on Reddit unless you applied some sort of correction factor to account for the size of the subreddits that the user posts to. For instance, someone who posts regularly to /r/luthier would have far fewer unique users upvoting their posts than, say, /r/pics, which is a much larger community.
[deleted]
I doubt this would get you far in practice. Many spammers are sophisticated enough to know that they should disguise their accounts.
For example: if you buy likes on Facebook, the likebots won't just like your page and other spammers, but will also like many innoculous pages as well (Coke, Obama, "Facebook Needs a Dislike Button!1!", etc.)
For example: if you buy likes on Facebook, the likebots won't just like your page and other spammers, but will also like many innoculous pages as well (Coke, Obama, "Facebook Needs a Dislike Button!1!", etc.)
I think this would still work for that scenario. To beat it, you'd need like-bots that only liked/upvoted one or two sponsored things, then never did again. An algorithm like this would at least prevent you from re-using like-bots.
Another solution with similar properties (approximate votes, etc) would involve bloom filters on each post, and the vote counter would only be incremented when a user is not present in the bloom filter, and is immediately added to it.
The linked javascript demo of hyperloglog is broken.
I found it here:
http://research.neustar.biz/2012/10/25/sketch-of-the-day-hyperloglog-cornerstone-of-a-big-data-infrastructure/