Posted on 11/05/2007 5:02:49 AM PST by PJ-Comix
All you have to do is get the reload every extension for firefox and watch the vote tallies for sadly nuts vs. the rest of the sites in the list. They consistently have been getting 2 or more votes every 30 seconds for the last several minutes. While on the other hand DUFU got only a few and no one else in the category was receiving any votes.
There’s no way that many people just started jumping on the bandwagon to vote for them in the kind of numbers it would take to sustain that kind of voting. I don’t care what any of them say, among netizens there isn’t that large of a disparity between people who would vote for either site given the huge controversy and coverage surrounding this.
The only way they can keep widening their lead like this is through vote fraud.
I just voted and I see that they must have figured out how to cheat.
Sadly NUts 45.4%
DUFUs 24.7%
There is no other explanation possible than cheating.
I understand that last year Sorry NUts won with about a third of the total. It makes no rational sense that they’d be so much more popular this year to the tune of nearly half the vote.
Clearly, a total spite vote and/or massive fraud, hardly a real measure of it being a “funny” blog...
Not possible normally.
I'm the guy that wrote the 2007 Weblog Awards voting program. I based it on Pete Holiday's code from last year. Believe me when I tell you, this particular conspiracy theory is bunk. I have a lot of separate points to make, so for clarity I shall number them.1. The instructions on that stupid Web page would work on some online polls, but not on the Weblog Awards.
2. If anyone tried following those instructions on the Weblog Awards, it would not result in a bunch of votes; it would result in one vote and a bunch of failures. (Although if he left it running for over 24 hours, it might in fact result in one vote every 24 hours.)
3. Even if someone found a method to defeat our system and vote multiple times, the gains would be temporary. We have other ways of detecting fraud, and we disqualify all fake votes before certifying the results.
4. There is no evidence that Sadly No's lead is due to fraudulent voting of any sort.
I would ask anyone who has been spreading this rumor to please publish this refutation to the same channels.
Welcome to FR. Your first post. How did you find out about the DUmmie FUnnies, and what brought you here?
Curious.
I’m trying!
Looks like the moonbats are eating extra pizza and drinking more soda in order to keep on clicking.
The vote fraud is palpable.
IBFZ...
You know, it’s long past time for everyone to stop being defensive about that matter of two and a half years ago.
That matter started on April 28, 2005.
The principal character had known since late February, early March—and possibly even as early as December 2004—that he was terminally ill; that there was no hope.
That matter of two and a half years ago was something entirely different. It started rolling down the tracks before it had been well thought-out, and someone on this side by random chance switched the rails, sending the train down a different set of tracks.
Alas, as the primitives most involved in the matter of two and a half years ago have significantly declined since then, to near-certifiable decreptitude and derangement, with every passing day it becomes less and less likely they themselves will ever tell what it really was.....and they are even now in no competent mental state to “explain” it.
There was nothing anyone on this side need feel ashamed of; legitimate questions were asked (but left unanswered).
It’s time to stop being defensive; everybody on this side did good.
I saw a couple other categories with disproportionate numbers of votes. Notably that for Best Blog, where Michelle Malkin is getting creamed by some really vile, tasteless site. Most of the categories are pulling in about 5 to 9 thousand votes, and the voting is more or less even. These categories are pulling in 20,000+ votes. No way there are enough people who care about this stuff to be voting this much legitimately.
Yes, that’s all explained in a subsequent post.
By the way, when that other guy excerpted a paragraph of that same post to show how unfunny I am, he left off the punchline.
This does tend to make jokes less funny. For instance, here’s a joke:
ME: “Knock-knock.”
YOU: “Who’s there?”
[rimshot]
I notice that the same group leading the Andy fundraising drive are now the ones leading the attack on the DUFUs. Some unbiased enterprising reporter out there might want to investigate that fundraising situation since there was NO accountability involved...just like when Bev Harris raised oodles of DUmmie cash with no accountability. Which was why Skinner and Pitt got upset about this in DUmmieland until the PC Police turned them around. Any questioning of that fundraiser automatically made you a HEARTLESS MURDERER.
I get to vote in about another hour.
A cople of FRiends at work are voting for you too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.