Voting Manipulations. Main Varieties

Updated: 11/14/2005 10:47
Hyip Monitor
I think, there is a really huge problem in HYIP arena, that concerns literally everybody. That's the problem of rating voting. Today we will try to describe this problem in general, as well as give some consideration to the main questions concerning it. Newcomers will be able to get acquainted with its core and learn how to orient in so-called �voices for sale', �graft', etc. Professionals, we hope, will be able to investigate these difficulties better and will join the discussion.

So, rating and voting. For HYIP arena these notions are almost essential. They occupy the very important space between the investor and the program administration. In fact, rating and monitoring are two different notions, however it happened that every monitoring functions as a rating. That's the demand of time and market conditions. It's an additional competitive arena attracting both investors' attention and program administrators' attention.

If you are not familiar with HYIP, in short the rating is a system similar to monitoring (a program's name and brief information), where an investor can vote for a program he likes. As a result, every program has its rating depending on the number of points in total. Quantity is calculated in a different way in different systems. Sometimes even points are added differently.

It has been long ago since the moment of rating and voting systems origin. They play important role at the market today, because actually they should express the real recognition of investors for their services, that means to really help choose the most interesting and suitable variant. In addition, each rating has either board / forum or the comments system. But now it's getting worse that it used to be.

Firstly, the programs became very dependable on the voting systems. They had to provide themselves with the votes, because nobody wanted to invest in them. People trusted voting. If the program didn't have a high rating, it couldn't claim for many investors.

The matter was that they didn't want to vote. Even the convenient and ergonomic buttons put in plain view didn't help. Now it's getting on better, however often there are some cases when the program administrators have to FORCE their investors to the monitoring services (rating) to get precious quantity of votes for each payment. Usually it looks not quite nobly and honestly. Vote or we CLOSE is a usual way to solve the problem.

Secondly, paid votes. Many people just earn with voting at the rating and getting money for it. Of course, they can vote only after payouts, and then it would have some sense. But most of such people just vote without any connection with the program.

That's why quite often in many ratings there are often positive votes that completely don't correspond to the reality. It only confuses the picture. The program seems still working but in reality one should believe those votes who inform NO PAYOUTS. If you see similar, be sure – it smells a rat.

With all this going on, that phenomenon obviously gained an aggressive character, when there are lots of 'blackmailers' who EXTORT money or else the program will get negative votes. These guys are easy to crush. We never allow our voting to have negative votes WITHOUT ANY REASON (no problem for investors, no bad responses, payouts to us).

The programs just have to connect with good, high-quality monitorings and ignore messages of this kind. However, quite often you can come across with one or two negative responses among a pile of good ones in the low-quality monitoring. Here you have an example of work of such blackmailers.

Thirdly, votes for sale. It's a rather rare thing but possible when the rating administration places a certain number of votes without distinction. But such things are easy traced and can be deleted from your monitoring. As a matter of fact, one should try to keep an eye on such things, and then define for oneself a few ratings, or better one, which you can always trust. You just check its honesty. It's not difficult. Just be attentive.

The list can be continued but the above mentioned is quite enough to understand that the picture in total given by catalogs, ratings, and similar is pretty much distorted. From one side it's difficult to rely on the results of unchecked rating, from the other side, it's difficult for the honest ratings themselves to achieve representation of REAL status.

There is the way out, of course. The base of it is certainly incorruptibility of the administration. If it keeps its positions firmly, it won't assist to various twists. For example, we are ready to do our best in fighting with this. All our steps to improve the rating are directed namely at this issue.

However, it's impossible to work out rules using which any kinds of intrigues can be traced and identified. You can only learn observing the process whether the votes are consistent, how much they are on time. The resources are necessary for this though, special people who will trace the voting process, find and analyze logs.

We keep on watching a program in our catalog. If there are negative responses at the market but still positive ones in the monitoring, first of all we check who, how and why voted. Finally, not many people create a separate mail-box for each monitoring, IP can be helpful. When there's a vexed question, we compare our results with the results from other places. It clarifies the situation partly.

Very likely it's one of few really effective ways-out. Some administrations declare – we don't take money, we say no to votes for sale. But how can that trace it, if every investor in this program has right to vote, if the administration itself is INTERESTED in high rating? And it's a healthy striving. So now you can see how much it is ambiguous?

In fact that's all for today. The volume of our issue doesn't let us go deeper. Next time looking at the program's rating think twice before you trust it. We strongly recommend to follow our advices. Be sure, your successful hits will get more frequent.

About the author

Brett Sherpan has been working for seven years writing and editing for online and print media. He has held various editing and copywriting positions and can quickly and competently write copy for sales, marketing and editorial content. Brett is a consistently dependable team player, who thrives in a high-pressure environment, enjoying the challenges of meeting deadlines and am comfortable researching, writing and editing on a wide range of topics
You May Also Like