RoadTest Rule Update: Submitting Identical RoadTest Applications Under Different Names

I find it rather difficult to believe two applicants would come up with verbatim applications independently, so I think if you do find duplication like this, it is not unintentional and likely represents a "bad actor" of sorts. I wouldn't be surprised if those who don't know anything about the program perhaps try to take it to the extreme as with other lottery competitions - automating account sign-ups and spamming duplicate entries by the hundreds of thousands.

I think that any duplicate entries should be disqualified, particularly if it is found that the accounts are recent sign-ups or perhaps the two accounts have been logged in via the same IP or have been signed up on the same/nearby days. Regardless, it is highly suspicious behaviour and I think the RoadTest terms and conditions should cover this in:

1.4 Multiple applications are not permitted.

1.5 Applications may not be submitted by an agent whether acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal or otherwise.

2.3 All applications submitted to this RoadTest must meet the following criteria:

2.3.1 Applicants must be the author, creator and owner of the proposed review idea. Applicants must not submit someone else’s idea.

I suspect maybe that's not clear enough that it refers to the individual rather than an account - but as someone already mentioned - addresses, phone numbers, e-mails are ways of weeding duplicates. But already, given the above conditions, there really doesn't seem to be an excuse for a verbatim-duplicate application. If one had been improved in some way - perhaps this is a sign that someone didn't know how to edit their application post-submission. But there shouldn't be any way for unprivileged members of the site to view other people's applications (short of a few bugs in the early days), so foul play in the way of copying other people's applications can be excluded.

While I think excluding them from recommendation is a relatively light punishment, I would be in favour of excluding them from selection for that RoadTest at a minimum. Perhaps even excluding them from the RoadTest program as a whole would not be too unfair, as it seems very likely that the applicant wanted to have some level of unfair advantage and probably didn't even read or understand the terms and conditions of the RoadTest they were applying for. I suspect such candidates are unlikely to be quality applicants anyway - if they were, perhaps you could reach-out to them for an explanation, but I probably wouldn't go so far.

- Gough

Some folks collaborate on projects and even with RoadTests so it might be possible where one person comes up with the idea and another publishes the proposal.

Besides, how is it possible to prove any of this?

Making the submitter process more complicated may discourage more than just the RoadTest abusers.

If so, you still wouldn't get verbatim applications. Also note terms where applicants must not submit someone else's idea nor submit on behalf of another. That is clear and already existing in the terms.

If you collaborate, submit one proposal from one person then do the project together. Perhaps name collaborators in proposal rather than submitting identical proposals under different names.

Proof for some things could be found in the metadata of the submission that site admins probably have some level of access to. IP addresses, login times, cookie tracking, user agents, screen resolution, OS, languages installed, etc. There are many ways to fingerprint a browser that makes random coincidental results fairly unlikely - e.g. demonstrated by Panopticlick. Just testing my browser today showed:

Making it more complicated may discourage people, but this is not about making the application process more complicated or difficult. The terms I listed are already the currently operating terms of RoadTests. The new rule is more like a warning to potential repeat submitters, but mainly only affect how RoadTests are vetted - that affects the staff. If people fail to read and understand this, that's not exactly the fault of element14, nor should we condone mindless enrollment. The issue is ensuring quality, legitimate RoadTest proposal submissions and some level of fairness, transparency in selection, in part to avoid needless waste of time on the submitter and judger's behalf.

As it stands, a RoadTest review is a commitment at least 20-times greater than that of a proposal alone. If a potential reviewer isn't willing to pony up a decent proposal, it seems unlikely they would be able to put in even greater effort to deliver a quality RoadTest.

- Gough

Interesting how this has gone from a discussion about a something we don't have a clear understanding of to being decided and definitely determined. Sounds like in future the FBI, Scotland Yard, CIA, NSA MI5 among others should be involved in the selection process to be sure al rules, regulations and correct intentions are followed.

OOPS let's not forget a full complement of lawyers to be sure any interpretation of the rules fits with the best "intentions" of the road test community.

Kas

Interesting how this has gone from a discussion about a something we don't have a clear understanding of to being decided and definitely determined. Sounds like in future the FBI, Scotland Yard, CIA, NSA MI5 among others should be involved in the selection process to be sure al rules, regulations and correct intentions are followed.

OOPS let's not forget a full complement of lawyers to be sure any interpretation of the rules fits with the best "intentions" of the road test community.

Kas

Well, as with everything, it's both clear and unclear at the same time depending on how liberal you want to be in your interpretations. I'm only providing my views as I see it from the T&Cs as published on prior RoadTests.

I mean, the outcome of this discussion is likely going to be another rule that will probably go into the T&Cs, so if the problem is about the interpretation of the T&Cs, then basically we're back to square one ... It's always a case of definitions?

That being said, I do agree with the fact that adding more stuff to the T&Cs isn't going to change much on the premise that so many people don't read them anyway. People still probably submit poor applications despite all the "how to apply" tips provided. I guess this was more about warning anyone else thinking about doing the same?

- Gough