Topic: Earning fraudulent Merits: automated translations to local boards (Read 265 times)

What I found funny here is that Google Translator translates so off that you couldn't understand it well in your own language. In my case, if someone uses the translator and translates some English context onto Filipino, the proper construction of the sentences would be different and wouldn't be that understandable. And shouldn't be the local community be knowledgeable with the google translated articles?

But if there were really users that do such ridiculous activities, negative trusts isn't a fit for the issue, but rather a report or deletion, and a warning by the moderator. Negative trust should only be implied if and only if the user did not comply with the warnings (for the 3rd time/3rd offense), while if the user is already high ranks (in which they already know such activities is prohibited and never been tolerated in the forum), negative trusts upon 2nd offense would be fine..

Many thanks everyone for your replies and roughly, that's also what I had expected to be the outcome.
Neutral trust after the first offense to prevent users from sending Merit to that user is also a good idea, especially if that user tries various languages with his fake translations.   

---

Well, we had a case recently where that happened but only a single Merit was sent. 
Merit sources are well aware, that such cases can happen and are always reading posts carefully. Depending on the translation tool, especially inexperienced users can fall for this.

---

But it is blatant Merit abuse gaming the initial purpose why Merit was created: deliever meaningful / interesting / educating content to increase the post quality and prevent spammers / account farmers from ranking op. Just pasting some already written content into Google Translate and spam it to a foreign local board is a slap in the face to everyone else who earns Merit with effort. Especially for the person whose topic got abused.

That's in fact Merit abuse.

---

I don't know if that's really plagiarism according to the rules. They post a reference link to the original topic and pretend it's an official translation, brought from the international to a local board. But not a legit translation, just simply copy pasted via Google Translate in a language that the user doesn't know and never posted in before.

I agree, it's indirect "stealing" of content but not sure if plagiarism can be applied here. For such grey areas, Trust seems to be a better tool.

---

We have already such a topic for Bounty translation abuse (Übersetzungs-Spam gefunden? Hier könnt ihr ihn berichten) and there I'm also giving out some warnings first and taking action on how the user reacts. It's working very well.

Because it is not plagiarism if they include the original source link.
They just use a translator to create a shitty version of the original topic, and include a reference to the original one.

If they are stealing/plagiarizing others material, then no warning neg trust. Why treat them any different then anyone else who plagiarizes?

I did notice that there is an increase in translated topics on local boards, just like the new DT by theymos and other great topics that LoyceV produced or something. I have been mentioned in a couple of them, and I didn't check if it got merits just with those kinds of topics. I don't think it could easily be a negative trust just because of his "merit strategy," but it's going to be viewed as taking advantage of it. It's stupid to merit a Google Translated topic, and I think it's going to be evident with the members included there.

When that happens, maybe there could be a centralized topic in which people could report from the local board on what they are doing.

I don't think a negative trust rating would be appropriate at all.


Using a translator to get merits just because your post quality is so low no one actually likes reading your posts, does not mean that trading with this person is high-risk.
IMO a neutral one definitely would be accurate, but a negative one seems to be a bit too harsh.

If you personally believe trading with people using an auto translator to gain merits is high-risk, this is more than enough explanation you need for a neg trust rating.

although it is against the rules I don't think people will automatically get banned for using an automated translator. I remember reading a post that a member used a translator on a local board for the purpose of helping out the members of that local board and got a notice from the moderator of that local board to stop using automated translator because it is against forum rules. I think automated banning for using automated translator are for those who provide service of translation that use a translator tool.(I might be wrong though)

@OP I think it is best to just warn or give notice for the first offence and a negative trust for the second offence since they have been given a warning the first time.

How come someone merit a post like this?

There are some local boards we really have too much merit sources imo... merit simple isn't scarce in some local boards.

Sounds about right. And perhaps a neutral after first case to warn potential merit senders to be skeptical about any translations posted by that user.


It's quite obvious to someone who is fluent in the target language when text is machine-translated so there isn't really much of a confirmation needed.

It is true that low rank users mainly newbies do this most often to get some merits. I have seen it lots of times in our local thread. However it is not merit abuse in my opinion. The purpose is to earn merits. If you say this abuse, I think most of the global boards posters are also abusing merit because most of them create topic to earn merit and rank up only.
Using automated tools to translate article is forbidden in the forum. So, if you report the post, they will get banned. I think this is the best thing you can do against automated transator.

LoL  I still believe the merit is hard to earn for me to upgrade my rank  the merit is sent based on each person's thoughts, so I think this cheating can't work well unless they use multiple accounts and use those accounts to send merit  these posts are only a platform for those who own multiple accounts to abuse merit

Personally, I don't object to people using Google Translate to participate in discussions, it's good for people who are not fluent in English. But I absolutely hate those who abuse this automated tool to do other bullshit, participating in translation is an example. It is not abusive, but it is fraud. Fraudsters should receive appropriate punishment.

I think we can skip for the first time, neutral feedback for the second or third time. But I'm not sure if it is a negative feedback, it should be scrutinized.

The question here, will you be the one to come forward and confirm them? Confirm that it is translated by Google Translate?

Some spammers consider Merit still "hard to be earned" and trying to use some fraudulent techniques like picking good guides from other users / websites, pasting them into Google Translate and publishing them at local boards to get some Merit of a language they don't know at all or can barely speak a single word and have never posted in before. I know, normally that doesn't work because such translations are getting caught and deleted quickly but since it's so fantastically fast and easy to do, few users gave it a try already.

I would consider such a practice as "Merit abuse", even if the link is posted because they are clearly only interested to get the Merit and not to discuss. Nobody would do this just for fun. But when (and if) would you give a negative Trust for "Merit abuse"?

In my opinion I would give it for the second or third offense. After the first offense, I would give them a warning and a chance for defense. Some will still see an opportunity to do it once, say sorry and get away with the earned Merit. That can be abused at a larger scale but I'm also not someone who want to tag innocent accounts. I'm always open for a second or even third chance. For sure, we have to consider each case on it's own before we make a decision.

For now I would go for:
Negative trust after second or third offense depending on the users reaction after the first offense. Also considering the age and history of the account.

Am I too liberal here or too conservative? What would you do?