We're going to be updating the rules (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/rules.php) to include something to the effect of, "If you're caught shilling, you're banned and you're not coming back".

To be fair, we need to define what a shill is when it involves WHT.

I'm thinking that the shill definition would look something like ...A shill is an owner or associate of a seller of products or services who pretends (or purposefully omits) any association with the product or service, while pretending to be a satisfied customer or interested bystander. People who omit an association with a product or service for other reasons (they're paid to post about it, they're helping a friend, etc.) so that they can help promote it are also shills.Anyone got any additions, subtractions or completely different definition you think fits this community? :think:

Sounds like a good idea to me :)

We're going to be updating the rules (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/rules.php) to include something to the effect of, "If you're caught shilling, you're banned and you're not coming back".

To be fair, we need to define what a shill is when it involves WHT.

I'm thinking that the shill definition would look something like ...Anyone got any additions, subtractions or completely different definition you think fits this community? :think:

A wonderful move, but why its named as shill?????:confused:

I hope so you did not create thread in Lounge to get our visitors to your thread.:stickout:

A wonderful move, but why its named as shill?????:confused:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

I'm personally for naming and shaming. Maintain a public directory of those caught.

I define it as wrong and misleading. I think you have it summed up pretty well.

From Google:

define: shill
# act as a shill; "The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"
# a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Sounds good to me.

I think it sums it up accurately.

I also think it's a good idea.

Maybe we should also create a page of rules written in "simple english", so people with poor english can also understand the rules. The definition in the first post is a perfectly worded rule, however it may be difficult for some people to understand.

Seems like a good idea, Would keep a lot of reviews off of WHT that don't belong here.

Woot....slap my thighs and call me Eva.....they'll be dancing on the streets of Bueno Aires tonight.

Seems like a great addition to the rules.

owm

Maybe we should also create a page of rules written in "simple english", so people with poor english can also understand the rules. The definition in the first post is a perfectly worded rule, however it may be difficult for some people to understand.

Or provide examples of a user breaking the rule. I had to read it twice... but my English is fine.

I don't know, sounds good but. There is always the possibility of bad press creating good
publicity for a product or company. Will this be included?

How about banning "tag team posting"?

You pretty much get the idea from the phrase.

A new or low post count user starts a thread asking about XYZ and a few minutes later, amazingly enough, a satisfied user of XYZ shows up to extoll the virtues of XYZ. Then they go back and forth about it for a bit to push the thread along.

A new or low post count user starts a thread asking about XYZ and a few minutes later, amazingly enough, a satisfied user of XYZ shows up to extoll the virtues of XYZ. Then they go back and forth about it for a bit to push the thread along.
If you see them report it so we can investigate :) Chances are they are shills. The tools we have to investigate can usually figure out what is going on :)

If someone is paid to post, how would you even know about it unless they come out clean? The new rule is good but it's going to increase your workload a whole lot due to the massive increase in reported threads.

If someone is paid to post, how would you even know about it unless they come out clean? The new rule is good but it's going to increase your workload a whole lot due to the massive increase in reported threads.

It's already a large part of the workload, actually. This just helps clarify the point for those that come here to do so. If they don't bother to read the rules they agreed to on signup or simply ignore that point, they will probably lose their account (and potentially get the domain censored).

As for knowing they were paid to post, we won't go into details, but we've grown pretty good at spotting these. :wht:

Agree. that the rule is good :agree: wonder how its going to be implemented.
If someone is paid to post, how would you even know about it unless they come out clean? The new rule is good but it's going to increase your workload a whole lot due to the massive increase in reported threads.

yippee......shills no more.


owm

I realize a shill is for positive customers but what about the opposite end of the spectrum (eg: individuals who consistently post nothing but negative remarks for a host and/or people who seem to be "paid" to post negatively.)

I realize a shill is for positive customers but what about the opposite end of the spectrum (eg: individuals who consistently post nothing but negative remarks for a host and/or people who seem to be "paid" to post negatively.)

Thats a good point as well, as for the "shilling" good to see WHT is implementing rules about it :)

If someone is paid to post, how would you even know about it unless they come out clean? The new rule is good but it's going to increase your workload a whole lot due to the massive increase in reported threads.

There should be a team for it.

The members in the team should not hold any webhosting company or be a part of any webhosting firm.

Since the definition sounds to be broad enough, i think the team or mods don't require high knowledge on Web Hosting, but they should be strong enough to catch the real culprits.

There should be a team for it.

There is a team for it (always has been) and we are damned good at it :D

We have been banning shills for years. Hopefully we will have a few less to ban if they bother to read the rules. They will know they can't pull that stuff now.

If someone is paid to post, how would you even know about it unless they come out clean? The new rule is good but it's going to increase your workload a whole lot due to the massive increase in reported threads.

In my opinion, shilling does not necessarily involve payment.

It ought to include simply "posting with the main motivation of promoting a specific site without adequate disclosure, or in a deceptive manner".

Sometimes it's easy to spot, sometimes not.

When it's blatant, it does not involve much work if it has been brought to the mods' attention through the "report this post" button.

In my opinion, shilling does not necessarily involve payment.

It ought to include simply "posting with the main motivation of promoting a specific site without adequate disclosure, or in a deceptive manner"...It does include that. A shill is an owner or associate of a seller of products or services who pretends (or purposefully omits) any association with the product or service, while pretending to be a satisfied customer or interested bystander. People who omit an association with a product or service for other reasons (they're paid to post about it, they're helping a friend, etc.) so that they can help promote it are also shills. This is something that's always been done here (banning of shills). We're just writing it into the rules so a thief can't go, "I didn't know I couldn't steal here".

OK - It ain't a thief thread. It's a shill thread. Little difference though. ;)

I don't know, sounds good but. There is always the possibility of bad press creating good publicity for a product or company. Will this be included? Shills are shills. Don't matter what path they take.
Maybe we should also create a page of rules written in "simple english", so people with poor english can also understand the rules. The definition in the first post is a perfectly worded rule, however it may be difficult for some people to understand. :smash: Don't get writespeak started! :P She's been on me about re-writing the rules for years. :S

I agree that they could be made simpler. But that'd make them longer. And then there's always the option for someone that doesn't understand a certain section to contact the help desk (http://helpdesk.webhostingtalk.com/) for clarification. But it is on the ever expanding To-Do list. :blush:

Shills are shills. Don't matter what path they take.
:smash: Don't get writespeak started! :P She's been on me about re-writing the rules for years. :S

I agree that they could be made simpler. But that'd make them longer. And then there's always the option for someone that doesn't understand a certain section to contact the help desk (http://helpdesk.webhostingtalk.com/) for clarification. But it is on the ever expanding To-Do list. :blush:

Add me to the list :D

If a rewrite of a particular rule takes X hours, but it prevents Y queries about said rule, each of which consumes Z minutes to answer properly, then there is a finite point at which payback has been achieved and the rewrite starts being a profitable investment.

Then there is the advantage of consistency. Some of the more complicated rules can result in answers from the mods that, variously, do not address the question posed, are in conflict with another rule, or require multiple followups to resolve.

The above sentences could almost an example. Notice how they require the reader to parse multiple clauses to fully comprehend the message?

But, that's just the way I write :D

OK. Thanks for all your feedback!

We've added it as written here. http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=941202

So just out of curiosity do the people promoting their favorite "top ten" list site fall into the category of being classified as a shill?

So just out of curiosity do the people promoting their favorite "top ten" list site fall into the category of being classified as a shill?
It depends how they go about promoting it. Do you have an example?

Maybe we should also create a page of rules written in "simple english", so people with poor english can also understand the rules. The definition in the first post is a perfectly worded rule, however it may be difficult for some people to understand.

Or provide examples of a user breaking the rule. I had to read it twice... but my English is fine.

Same here. I had to read it thrice. However the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)page is just fine and is in simple English


This should be included in the next newsletter.

So just out of curiosity do the people promoting their favorite "top ten" list site fall into the category of being classified as a shill?If they fit the definition. ;) A shill is an owner, employee or associate of a seller of products or services who pretends (or purposefully omits) any association with the product or service, while pretending to be a satisfied customer or interested bystander. People who omit an association with a product or service for other reasons (they're paid to post about it, they're helping a friend, etc.) so that they can help promote it are also shills.

... the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)page is just fine and is in simple English

...That doesn't seem to fit WHT.

The first sentence states, "A shill is person who is paid to help another person or organization to sell goods or services".

So if I own a company, do I have to put me on the payroll in order to be considered a shill? We included "owner" in our definition for this very reason.

This should be included in the next newsletter.Our shill definition? Their shill definition? That we've updated our rules to define shills?

Don't get me wrong, I'm always interested in newsletter ideas. :) I just wanna understand what the topic would be.

If I talked about shills, I'm sure it would start with, "I never knew what a shill was, until I started moderating WHT". I guess I always knew them as plants.

I'm thrilled to see this update to the rules. Beyond a doubt, WHT has always done a great job of moderating. :D