Non-traditional Media in Chicago: Time Out Chicago

Non-traditional Media in Chicago: This Week in Time Out Chicago

This week's Time Out Chicago has a very interesting range of opinions regarding non-traditional, internet-based (food and other) media in Chicago, including some expressed by our own GWiv:

http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles ... s-a-critic

I started a separate thread for this article (rather than simply announcing it in the Total Media Domination thread) because I believe it may generate some discussion and should have its own space on the board.

Even food writers who aren’t as open about their relationship with LTH would be hard-pressed to declare they had never been tipped off by the site, where they often discover restaurants and dishes that find their way into articles.

At least some are coming out in the open:

http://www.lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=17310

with more information comes a downside. Conflicts of interest or ulterior motives are hard to detect, and while bloggers may write authoritatively, there’s often nothing in their background to suggest they’ve earned that authority.

This is a criticism we've heard before, and it's not without validity on some sites, but on LTH, we've actually developed a hair-trigger response to posts that may suggest undue familiarity with a specific establishment. Sometimes we even go overboard, piling on new posters who may be simply enthusiastic about a new place. Of course, with a tech guru like Eat Chicago around, it's sometimes not so challenging to track down and verify that some posters are, indeed, shills who must be shut down or at least brought into the open.

The question of authority is, of course, answered by reference to those people who've established their authority on the board. It doesn't matter if you're an editor for Gourmet, if you can't present convincing support for your opinions, you won't be credited with authority on LTH. If you're a first time poster, and you present solid ideas and first-hand evidence, your opinions will be respected for as long as you keep those well-supported thoughts coming.

David Hammond wrote:Of course, with a tech guru like Eat Chicago around, it's sometimes not so challenging to track down and verify that some posters are, indeed, shills who must be shut down or at least brought into the open.

Might I ask how exactly that is done? I always thought true shillers were fairly obvious on their face, but this sentence makes it sound as if surreptitious, Department of Homeland Security-like tactics are used to ferret them out.

aschie30 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Of course, with a tech guru like Eat Chicago around, it's sometimes not so challenging to track down and verify that some posters are, indeed, shills who must be shut down or at least brought into the open.

Might I ask how exactly that is done? I always thought true shillers were fairly obvious on their face, but this sentence makes it sound as if surreptitious, Department of Homeland Security-like tactics are used to ferret them out.

I'd love to explain it, but I don't have the tech vocabulary. There's nothing sinister or sneaky about it, but we would prefer not to give the shills a leg up by providing any specifics.

According to the TOC article, true shillers are not that obvious. Based on my experience, sometimes they are; sometimes they're not.

According to the Patriot Act, I don't have to say anything more than that -- actually, I didn't have to say even that.

Alberto Ramos - El Cubanito wrote:“LTHForum?” he asked. “Never heard of it.”

Sometimes we're just like the Lone Ranger.

David Hammond wrote:

aschie30 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Of course, with a tech guru like Eat Chicago around, it's sometimes not so challenging to track down and verify that some posters are, indeed, shills who must be shut down or at least brought into the open.

Might I ask how exactly that is done? I always thought true shillers were fairly obvious on their face, but this sentence makes it sound as if surreptitious, Department of Homeland Security-like tactics are used to ferret them out.

I'd love to explain it, but I don't have the tech vocabulary. There's nothing sinister or sneaky about it, but we would prefer not to give the shills a leg up by providing any specifics.

According to the TOC article, true shillers are not that obvious. Based on my experience, sometimes they are; sometimes they're not.

According to the Patriot Act, I don't have to say anything more than that -- actually, I didn't have to say even that.

If that was meant to comfort me, it didn't.

Technically speaking, the board software probably has the ability to check where posts are coming from (within reason, it is something that can also be easily spoofed, if you want to do so).

So if 3 reviews come in from 3 different people but from the same computer ID, something might be up.

Or if a review of restaurant X comes from a computer listed as computer3.restaurantx.com....

leek, let's talk about this the next time we're at dinner together. I'm a little concerned about giving potential spammers and other ne'er do wells additional information about how they might avoid detectinon, mess up discussions, and give us headaches. Thanks for understanding, David

David Hammond wrote:leek, let's talk about this the next time we're at dinner together. I'm a little concerned about giving potential spammers and other ne'er do wells additional information about how they might avoid detectinon, mess up discussions, and give us headaches. Thanks for understanding, David

David- you're kidding, right? (Sometimes it doesn't always translate through the written word.) Wouldn't being outright about the shilling-prevention techniques only discourage them from coming (unless of course, illegal tactics are being used, in which case I'd stop using those)? I don't really think what Leek said is a secret, but I also don't think shills are worth the time to ferret out, because as I said, they seem kind of obvious to me. But that's just my opinion.

aschie30 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:leek, let's talk about this the next time we're at dinner together. I'm a little concerned about giving potential spammers and other ne'er do wells additional information about how they might avoid detectinon, mess up discussions, and give us headaches. Thanks for understanding, David

David- you're kidding, right? (Sometimes it doesn't always translate through the written word.) Wouldn't being outright about the shilling-prevention techniques only discourage them from coming (unless of course, illegal tactics are being used, in which case I'd stop using those)? I don't really think what Leek said is a secret, but I also don't think shills are worth the time to ferret out, because as I said, they seem kind of obvious to me. But that's just my opinion.

No, I'm not kidding, and to repeat: spammers are sometimes obvious and sometimes not, so to detail how, through technical and other means, we ferret them out and keep this board vibrant and healthy is not something we're comfortable discussing "out in the open."

Not sure if you realize this, but it's common for mods to delete sometimes a dozen or more obvious spams every day, and we're usually discussing one or more less obvious ones. No one's purposes -- except the spammer's -- is served by detailing, in a public discussion, our strategies for subverting spam. I can't be any clearer about that.

If you don't feel it's worth finding and neutralizing spam, then we disagree on a very basic level about the nature of this board, how it gains in value, and how moderators maintain that value.

David Hammond wrote:

aschie30 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:leek, let's talk about this the next time we're at dinner together. I'm a little concerned about giving potential spammers and other ne'er do wells additional information about how they might avoid detectinon, mess up discussions, and give us headaches. Thanks for understanding, David

David- you're kidding, right? (Sometimes it doesn't always translate through the written word.) Wouldn't being outright about the shilling-prevention techniques only discourage them from coming (unless of course, illegal tactics are being used, in which case I'd stop using those)? I don't really think what Leek said is a secret, but I also don't think shills are worth the time to ferret out, because as I said, they seem kind of obvious to me. But that's just my opinion.

No, I'm not kidding, and to repeat: spammers are sometimes obvious and sometimes not, so to detail how, through technical and other means, we ferret them out and keep this board vibrant and healthy is not something we're comfortable discussing "out in the open."

Not sure if you realize this, but it's common for mods to delete sometimes a dozen or more obvious spams every day, and we're usually discussing one or more less obvious ones. No one's purposes -- except the spammer's -- is served by detailing, in a public discussion, our strategies for subverting spam. I can't be any clearer about that.

If you don't feel it's worth finding and neutralizing spam, then we disagree on a very basic level about the nature of this board, how it gains in value, and how moderators maintain that value.

In my mind, there's a distinction between shilling (First time poster talking about the "best new restaurant run by the best owners") and spamming ("See Britney Spears naked"). I agree that both do not further the integrity of the board but the latter seems a lot more bothersome and dangerous.

Anyhow, I get it - I think I initially read too much into your initial statement.

aschie30 wrote:In my mind, there's a distinction between shilling (First time poster talking about the "best new restaurant run by the best owners") and spamming ("See Britney Spears naked"). I agree that both do not further the integrity of the board but the latter seems a lot more bothersome and dangerous.

Yes, there is a distinction, thanks for making it, and alhough spamming may be more bothersome to most posters, it's also easier to spot than shilling, which I believe is more sinister because less overt.