MFC Faking guest room counts - out of control

[DJ_Pioneer]

Okay, so reformulating my idea, could MFC change the algorithm for listing the 10 "most popular rooms" on the sidebar based on the number of premium and basic users in the room? Completely ignore the guests in making that calculation.

If you weighted premiums as - for example - five times more valuable than basics, your rating would heavily skew towards rooms that attract premiums.

People could still game that system by creating lots of robot basics, but it just makes it a bit harder. MFC might fight against that by removing from the calculation all basic users who are registered three or more months without ever buying tokens....

I'm not arguing for or against anything specific. I am just saying that in general MFC could make it hard to scam the system.

I don't think there is a point in doing that. Those who sells botting services would just make a script that creates basic and premium accounts and it would create new basic accounts every third month.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I don't think there is a point in doing that. Those who sells botting services would just make a script that creates basic and premium accounts and it would create new basic accounts every third month.

Well, premium accounts would be pretty expensive for bot company to make. Fundamentally, it was a bad idea for either CB or MFC to count non-paying accounts for any type of placement system. But both sites are stuck with it, because it makes all types of people models, site owners, and even some members feel better knowing there are 1000+ "people" "watching" something.

 

[Smores]

I don't think there is a point in doing that. Those who sells botting services would just make a script that creates basic and premium accounts and it would create new basic accounts every third month.

Creating premium accounts costs money. So now you need to weigh the cost of those accounts against the extra revenue you generate by gaming the system, and it at very least skews the balance away from cheating.

Your point on basic accounts is probably right.

 

[DJ_Pioneer]

Well, premium accounts would be pretty expensive for bot company to make. Fundamentally, it was a bad idea for either CB or MFC to count non-paying accounts for any type of placement system. But both sites are stuck with it, because it makes all types of people models, site owners, and even some members feel better knowing there are 1000+ "people" "watching" something.

Creating premium accounts costs money. So now you need to weigh the cost of those accounts against the extra revenue you generate by gaming the system, and it at very least skews the balance away from cheating.

Your point on basic accounts is probably right.

Indeed it would cost money but if the expected return on the investment would be good enough they would do it. Remember they could reuse the accounts over and over again unless they get banned. So in this scenario where 1 premium account equals 5 basic accounts, if they made 100 premium accounts at a cost of $1999 it would guarantee that they could put any room in the top 10 most popular rooms at any time. Then they could sell the premium viewers for $50 per room per week and they could probably have them in at least five rooms at a time without risking getting them banned. This would means that if they could sell the service to five rooms in 4 weeks they would have earned back the cost of the premium accounts.

 

[Smores]

Indeed it would cost money but if the expected return on the investment would be good enough they would do it. Remember they could reuse the accounts over and over again unless they get banned. So in this scenario where 1 premium account equals 5 basic accounts, if they made 100 premium accounts at a cost of $1999 it would guarantee that they could put any room in the top 10 most popular rooms at any time. Then they could sell the premium viewers for $50 per room per week and they could probably have them in at least five rooms at a time without risking getting them banned. This would means that if they could sell the service to five rooms in 4 weeks they would have earned back the cost of the premium accounts.

But they have to spend the tokens in those accounts or MFC will quickly be able to figure out those users are fakes. So now MFC raises the bar by excluding premiums who have not spent x% of their tokens in the last y weeks.

Okay, it's an arms race. I get it.

 

[DJ_Pioneer]

But they have to spend the tokens in those accounts or MFC will quickly be able to figure out those users are fakes. So now MFC raises the bar by excluding premiums who have not spent x% of their tokens in the last y weeks.

Okay, it's an arms race. I get it.

So they make a deal with a model who will give them a percentage of the tokens they spend in her room. They get some of their money back and she gets camscore and the rest of the money.

 

[Smores]

So they make a deal with a model who will give them a percentage of the tokens they spend in her room. They get some of their money back and she gets camscore and the rest of the money.

Yes, but that is hard to scale. So at each step MFC makes it harder and harder to game their system. You can never remove 100% of such things. But you can make it difficult to do.

 

[DJ_Pioneer]

Yes, but that is hard to scale. So at each step MFC makes it harder and harder to game their system. You can never remove 100% of such things. But you can make it difficult to do.

What it would actually do is to make it harder for models that don't use bots to get into the top 10.

 

[SaffronBurke]

But they have to spend the tokens in those accounts or MFC will quickly be able to figure out those users are fakes. So now MFC raises the bar by excluding premiums who have not spent x% of their tokens in the last y weeks.

Okay, it's an arms race. I get it.

There are actually a handful of premium accounts out there who paid to go premium, but have never even spent their first 200 tokens. Bizzare, those dudes.

 

[Lucid1]

But they have to spend the tokens in those accounts or MFC will quickly be able to figure out those users are fakes. So now MFC raises the bar by excluding premiums who have not spent x% of their tokens in the last y weeks.

How would MFC be able to determine this? I tend to keep "X" amount of tokens in "token storage" at any given time on my own account, so it seems it would be highly labor intensive for them to check individual premium accounts for this kind of activity.

 

[Smores]

How would MFC be able to determine this? I tend to keep "X" amount of tokens in "token storage" at any given time on my own account, so it seems it would be highly labor intensive for them to check individual premium accounts for this kind of activity.

They have an accounting system that knows how many tokens you tip each day. Inactive premium accounts are those that have no tips for the last N days?

In any case, I feel like @HiGirlsRHot makes some valid points that you would not eliminate all of the fraud. I am just making the point that MFC could make it significantly more difficult than apparently they do currently.

I don't have a strong feeling about this and I tend to never use the 10 most popular rooms list.

 

[Lucid1]

All of the fake users must be causing MFC customer service quite the headache