Vote for Neyland in the Finals vs. Clemson...LINK

#51
#51
ImportedVoL said:
Neyland: 19,138 votes (84.7%)
Memorial: 3,456 votes (15.3%)

We are destroying Clemson Kittens, Not even really a contest at this point.
Click to expand...

Those number were never posted in the comments, where did you find them?
 
#56
#56
vertec909 said:
They update on there twitter every so often.


Athletic Business @AthleticBiz · 1h 1 hour ago
An update in the College Facility Playoff:

Neyland: 19,138 votes (84.7%)
Memorial: 3,456 votes (15.3%)
2014 College Facility Playoff: Championship - Athletic Business
0 replies 4 retweets 5 favorites
Click to expand...

Awesome thanks! Will keep an eye on their twitter.

You guys can vote more than once if you're using Chrome.

Open an incognito window ctrl+shift+n
Paste the URL ctrl+v
Vote
Close incognito window
Open a new incognito window ctrl+shift+n
Paste the URl again
Vote
Close incognito window
Repeat!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#58
#58
Coug said:
Awesome thanks! Will keep an eye on their twitter.

You guys can vote more than once if you're using Chrome.

Open an incognito window ctrl+shift+n
Paste the URL ctrl+v
Vote
Close incognito window
Open a new incognito window ctrl+shift+n
Paste the URl again
Vote
Close incognito window
Repeat!
Click to expand...


Watch out bocogatorvol will question your integrity.
 
#59
#59
Boca Vol said:
So going incognito and voting until your fingers fall off is OK but writing a program to do it is over the line?
Click to expand...

I did a little math. The numbers they were showing as being "spammed" entries were about 100,000. What I read said this happened overnight and the 'bots' were easy to spot because they averaged 10 entries a minute over an extended period of time. For the sake of argument, let's say overnight was 10 hours. It would take 17 programs running simultaneously and submitting 10 votes per minute, for 10 hours, to get those inflated numbers.

That isn't a small difference. That isn't even in the same ballpark as a human entering votes manually until they get bored. A human might net, at most, a few hundred votes (this would be the most driven individuals who had nothing to do except drool their school colors). To compare automation to manual entry is like saying you can win the Boston marathon because you drove a car. Hey, the runner and the driver are both humans right?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#60
#60
Coug said:
Awesome thanks! Will keep an eye on their twitter.

You guys can vote more than once if you're using Chrome.

Open an incognito window ctrl+shift+n
Paste the URL ctrl+v
Vote
Close incognito window
Open a new incognito window ctrl+shift+n
Paste the URl again
Vote
Close incognito window
Repeat!
Click to expand...

How many votes do you think you could submit in a minute for a sustained period?
 
#61
#61
daj2576 said:
How many votes do you think you could submit in a minute for a sustained period?
Click to expand...

If you are fast and do not tire easily you could get about 8-10 votes a minute.

I doubt anyone has the fortitude or the attention span to do this for very long... I would be extremely surprised if someone could hit the 30 minute mark.
 
#63
#63
ImportedVoL said:
If you are fast and do not tire easily you could get about 8-10 votes a minute.

I doubt anyone has the fortitude or the attention span to do this for very long... I would be extremely surprised if someone could hit the 30 minute mark.
Click to expand...

I could see that a few of the most determined could make the 100 vote mark, with maybe a tiny few obsessive people getting to multiples of that. That is why the automated systems, at least to me, are cheating. When a machine votes tirelessly for hours upon hours, racking up tens of thousands of votes, this outpaces even the most fervent human fan by a magnitude of 100s of times.
 
#64
#64
Pretty sure we win this! Had my wife , parents and three friends vote at least once, I voted periodically through the day around 35 -40 times, now if Clemson fans decide to wake up and send their entire student body to vote Sunday then we got this!
 
#65
#65
ImportedVoL said:
If you are fast and do not tire easily you could get about 8-10 votes a minute.

I doubt anyone has the fortitude or the attention span to do this for very long... I would be extremely surprised if someone could hit the 30 minute mark.
Click to expand...

Anyone who would do this for 30 minutes is pathetic...

Just my kind person!:rock:
 
#66
#66
daj2576 said:
How many votes do you think you could submit in a minute for a sustained period?
Click to expand...

Ok... It varies on your method

Opening an incognito window, voting, closing, then reopening I was only able to get 3 to 4 votes in in a minute.

Opening multiple incognito windows, waiting for the site to load, and then hitting the vote button one after the other I was still only able to get 7 in in a minute.

Page load time slows you down and even without page load the voting submission time slows you down. Between the time you click vote until the time it pops up and says "done" is not always instant.

So there it is.
 
#67
#67
daj2576 said:
I did a little math. The numbers they were showing as being "spammed" entries were about 100,000. What I read said this happened overnight and the 'bots' were easy to spot because they averaged 10 entries a minute over an extended period of time. For the sake of argument, let's say overnight was 10 hours. It would take 17 programs running simultaneously and submitting 10 votes per minute, for 10 hours, to get those inflated numbers.

That isn't a small difference. That isn't even in the same ballpark as a human entering votes manually until they get bored. A human might net, at most, a few hundred votes (this would be the most driven individuals who had nothing to do except drool their school colors). To compare automation to manual entry is like saying you can win the Boston marathon because you drove a car. Hey, the runner and the driver are both humans right?
Click to expand...

daj,

I was making a joke about people getting worked up over the "integrity" of an internet poll.

A better example of your Boston Marathon analogy would be 1 runner (1 vote) vs. using 26 people each running 1 mile (multiple votes in Igcognito mode) vs. a car (running a script). Anything past 1 runner winning a marathon nullifies the validity of the marathon.
 
Last edited:
#68
#68
Athletic Business @AthleticBiz · 25m 25 minutes ago

College Facility Playoff voting update: Neyland holding its lead. 2014 College Facility Playoff: Championship - Athletic Business

B5TnlfqCEAAUl3b.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#69
#69
Our glorious stadium already beat Tiger stadium in Baton Rouge and Bryant Denny so whipping the dog snot outta Clemson should be a walk in the park.
 
#73
#73
Poll should be renamed "whose fan base had the most free time this week."

These are so pointless.

Still... glad we won. I voted once. Go Vols!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#74
#74
About the only thing you can give Hamilton credit for is better facilities and a better Neyland stadium, the fact that it was an 8 seed behind any of the big 10 is still laughable.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top