[+BCC to Kevin at wizbang: comments on anywhere that I've misunderstood the situation would be most welcome indeed.] A current Weblog Awards online poll had its results fudged because it allowed the use of HTTP GET to vote. The site owner eventually found out what was happening--an <img> tag pointing to the vote URI was embedded in a series of major sites--and stopped the covert voting. I have a feeling, however, that it was stopped by checked the referrer, and not by requiring people use POST. Most entertaining pertinent quote: [[[ If you think it will help your favorite site by padding votes or hacking you are wrong. I'll be lopping off the cheaters [sic] votes and banning addresses. I am watching the vote logs and zapping cheaters [sic] votes. ]]] - http://wizbangblog.com/archives/001268.php I'd not thought of HTTP GET as "hacking" (used, I'm sure, in the media sense) before. I wonder if Googlebot and clients that pre-load links are really eligible voters? Originally reported [1] on #rdfig. Cheers, [1] http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-12-07.html#T2 1-30-11 -- Sean B. Palmer, <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> "phenomicity by the bucketful" - http://miscoranda.com/Received on Sunday, 7 December 2003 16:52:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT