# Why Indies Can't Have Nice Things



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

If you ever wondered why I rage like I do about unethical behavior, this is why.

So we’re in open voting for the eFestival of Words Best of the Independent eBook Awards. This is supposed to be a fun way to celebrate the indie community and encourage readers to explore indie books. Last year, we had a few isolated problems with people who didn’t play nice, but for the most part everything went off without a hitch.

I guess because now that the awards have a little visibility, people have decided it’s time to try to break them. Over the last week, I’ve banned over two dozen users for creating multiple accounts to vote for their own books. I’m talking over a hundred fake accounts that were created specifically to try to game the system. It was so bad that I had to send out a general email to all attendees reminding them of the rules. I didn’t know what else to do. My gut instinct was to post the names of the offenders online for public shaming, but I don’t want to start a flame war that would ruin the good vibes I’m trying to generate for indie authors. 

But now I am furious, because I got an email yesterday from an author who was very upset because someone emailed her to convince her to exchange votes. Apparently this person actually sent emails to several other finalists offering to exchange votes. But here is the thing, you can only vote ONCE in the poll, so it seemed like this person’s goal was to trick people into voting for him/her by promising to vote for them. And while I had a very nice conversation with the author who alerted me to this issue, she is obviously upset. She wanted her book pulled from the contest because she felt voting was corrupted.

I have busted my ass to protect the integrity of these awards, and these cretins crap on it.

I don’t even understand. There is no money involved for the winners. It’s bragging rights, an award seal, and a sense of camaraderie. It isn’t like Amazon is going to give you front page space for winning. 

I keep telling myself that it is only a small percentage of indies who do this stuff. But that’s not true. It’s widespread. The number of ballots I had to disqualify during the initial nomination process was obscene. The number of sock puppet accounts being created is obscene. I don’t understand. This makes everyone look bad. 

Ranting here isn’t going to change the behavior. I know that. But I had to get it out of my system.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If you ever wondered why I rage like I do about unethical behavior,


Regardless, I for one appreciate it. The more people who stand up and say "I'm not gonna tolerate this crap!" the better it is for all of us who take this seriously.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

That's craptastic  

(I will say it's not just indies though. You see writers from all walks asking for everyone and their dog to vote for them for things. True they may not be 'fake' votes but the people voting will often not have even read the book they've voting for.)


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

:/

Honestly, I would take an outwardly soft stance, but an inwardly hard stance to this kind of thing. First warn, then uncompromisingly ban. By allowing the sockpuppets to cheat without punishment, there's no risk regarding cheating. In gaming terms, you might as well spend a move action to attempt a fast dismount while riding, even untrained in ride, because if you fail it's just a move action which is what it is to dismount normally.

I'm reminded of the time, back in university, we realised that our DC++ file sharing server could access file sharing servers in other Australian universities without having that internet meterd. We immediately connected and starting downloading to our hearts content.

Of course, this was completely transparent to the university admin guys who saw the huge spike of traffic on those ports almost instantly. Instead of jumping down our throats, they sent us all a brief email saying something like,

Hello <studentid>,

This is . I know exactly what you're doing with DC++. Stop connecting to other universities or I'll have to report it.

Cheers,

I suggest something like that. "We know you're making fake, sockpuppet accounts. You've been reminded that this is against the rules. If this doesn't stop, you'll all be banned, permanently, no appeals process."

Alternatively, you can just list the votes like this:

Book I (Votes: 19 Disqualified: 410)
Book II (Votes: 46 Disqualified: 1)
Book III (Votes: 14 Disqualified 0)

Etc. It's a subtle way of going, "If you cheat, you won't win. So play nice."


----------



## NicoleSwan (Oct 2, 2011)

It's the gold-rush fever. A reasonable portion are going to go out of their way to game the system and find their winning nugget.

You can almost appreciate why places like Amazon forums just loathes authors making comments.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

NicoleSwan said:


> It's the gold-rush fever. A reasonable portion are going to go out of their way to game the system and find their winning nugget.
> 
> You can almost appreciate why places like Amazon forums just loathes authors making comments.


Yep. This isn't much different than the dotcom or housing booms. As with any new market, the gold diggers come out and start claim jumping.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Wow, seriously? I have a book that's a finalist, and I just sort of assumed people would vote for it if they liked it, and not vote for it if they liked something else better. I guess that was naive. I've been on the internet long enough to know that people will cheat on just about any poll or contest.



> If you ever wondered why I rage like I do about unethical behavior, this is why.


Raging is good. You're trying to run a fair contest and these people are making it much harder. If there are going to be contests open to indies, we need to not make life difficult for the people running the contests.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

David Adams said:


> Alternatively, you can just list the votes like this:
> 
> Book I (Votes: 19 Disqualified: 410)
> Book II (Votes: 46 Disqualified: 1)
> Book III (Votes: 14 Disqualified 0)


I like that. It's definitely a good poke in the eye with a sharp stick.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Some people really don't understand there is something wrong with it. Some are so instant results driven, they will charge into the industry without learning or thinking about what it takes to succeed. When that doesn't happen, they resort to cheating. Very sad, but not surprising after watching what happened with the tags and likes  

Is it possible to program some way to keep people from voting twice? Just a thought.


----------



## NicoleSwan (Oct 2, 2011)

Martitalbott said:


> Very sad, but not surprising after watching what happened with the tags and likes


I was wondering what happened to Zon's tags. Shame, they were useful


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

David Adams said:


> Etc. It's a subtle way of going, "If you cheat, you won't win. So play nice."


The problem unfortunately is that indie authors are not the same as students. As a student, there were real consequences for your actions, so all you needed was a warning. You've been around long enough to know what would happen if I sent out that email. All those newly created sock puppet accounts would be leaving 1 star reviews on my books and badmouthing me and the festival all over the place. And what is worse, a couple of these people have street cred. I WOULD BE THE BAD GUY. They accuse me on their blog of unfairly accusing them of something, and it is my name that gets dragged across the dirt.


----------



## B. Ashcroft (Jul 3, 2013)

Sad day. But isn't this just life in general? In college, I hated when lots of people cheated. At work I hated when people gamed the system to do less work. Dishonesty is just rampant. I mean a trad pubbed guy basically brought the the sock puppet thing to light by using his sock to bash other authors. 
But yes, indies have been very guilty too. 
I'm genuinely sorry that these people are ruining a contest that you organized just to build the community. No good deed goes unpunished. Bad people ruin things for everyone else.
I still see new authors all the time with clear socks in their reviews. Not so much from this board though, but from people who seem to think they are the first people to think of fake reviews. At least it looks like it. And there are new books every day teaching people to do anything to make the dollars.
As for that author wanting to leave, I can totally see that. No one wants to put their pride on the line when other people are rigging the game. Are you able to take out the fake votes and disqualify the bad eggs? If so, announcing that you can may warn the jerks and alleviate the fears of the honest. Personally I think that guy should be out of the contest or outed publicly so he can't trick others. 
Man it just sucks.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Martitalbott said:


> Is it possible to program some way to keep people from voting twice? Just a thought.


It's a forum poll that is set to only allow one vote per account. But the site doesn't restrict by IP address because people share IP addresses all the time. I've been manually policing it looking for suspicious behavior because I know the flags, but it isn't the kind of thing you can just block an IP address to resolve.


----------



## B. Ashcroft (Jul 3, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The problem unfortunately is that indie authors are not the same as students. As a student, there were real consequences for your actions, so all you needed was a warning. You've been around long enough to know what would happen if I sent out that email. All those newly created sock puppet accounts would be leaving 1 star reviews on my books and badmouthing me and the festival all over the place. And what is worse, a couple of these people have street cred. I WOULD BE THE BAD GUY. They accuse me on their blog of unfairly accusing them of something, and it is my name that gets dragged across the dirt.


Blargh.....dang it. I say just take out the bad votes then and let them know if there is backlash you will publicly shame them here. You aren't alone here.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

B. Ashcroft said:


> Personally I think that guy should be out rod the contest or outed publicly so he can't trick others.
> Man it just sucks.


My knee-jerk instinct is to publicly out people, but I know that if I do that the focus will be on the negative stuff and distract from the positive stuff we are trying to do. If I pull a book from the finals, it will look suspicious and people will start talking about that and accusations start flying. I'm sitting here shaking with rage because every part of me wants to post the names of people who did it but if I do it's going to cause a flame war that will hurt the festival and the other authors who play fair.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

B. Ashcroft said:


> Blargh.....dang it. I say just take out the bad votes then and let them know if there is backlash you will publicly shame them here. You aren't alone here.


I have been deleting the votes. When I delete the bad accounts I also delete all of the account's activity, which includes posts and polls.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Sucks.

It just seems that something like this with evoting, often the winner will be the one most dedicated to rustling up votes, whether it be with family/friends/author groups or fans.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I just don't get this sort of thing.  I mean, I do, I guess - but it's just so alien to me that I shake my head in disgust when I hear about it.

Where is the accomplishment if you cheat?  Where is the self-respect?

Not to mention all the bad karma.

The one consolation, is that people who want to cheat (as some kind of fast track to success) are less likely to stick around - because they don't have the patience to do it honestly.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

That really sucks. I did get the general message you sent and thought it must be one or two people, which is bad enough. I was excited to make the finalists and now this makes me just feel sad. The funny (odd, not humorous) thing is, I had one person ask me if they could vote multiple times! I said no. This person is someone I consider honest, yet they obviously would have seen nothing wrong with voting for me numerous times! I just don't get people. It also irritates me when people use social media to ask everyone to vote for their book. How about asking through social media for those who actually READ the book and loved it to vote for it? Isn't that how an award should be won? Why would you feel good about winning if you knew the votes were from people who had never read of heard of your book, but voted for you because you follow each other on twitter or something? Kind of a hollow win. Now, please know, I doubted from the start that I would win, as my book is the 3rd in a series, which makes it kind of tricky to vote for, so this isn't sour grapes. I am just happy to have made it to the finals. But, I do think you should show the number of invalid votes each book has. That would teach those who created sock puppets a lesson by embarrassing them. (Although, what if friends do that and the author doesn't know it? That would suck, too. I doubt other people have so little time that they would do that, but then I would think authors should be spending that time writing...as should I, instead of hanging out on kboards...)


----------



## B. Ashcroft (Jul 3, 2013)

I just think some of them might be pretty intimidated by the idea of you posting them here. I'm just thinking of your books and you're right that they may do something to them. Anyway it sucks, but if anyone can work through this it's the Sith witch.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Are you only allowed one account per eMail address?  That sometimes narrows down the options, as some people either don't know how or won't bother to set up multiple eMail accounts.  Of course, that's not a deterrent for everyone.

What about limiting participation in polls to members that have reached a minimum post count or have been members for a minimum number of days?  A sudden rash of "me too" type posts might help to eliminate fake accounts.  Requiring people to have been members since prior to the start of the poll may also help to stop people from setting up accounts just to vote for their books.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> Are you only allowed one account per eMail address? That sometimes narrows down the options, as some people either don't know how or won't bother to set up multiple eMail accounts. Of course, that's not a deterrent for everyone.
> 
> What about limiting participation in polls to members that have reached a minimum post count or have been members for a minimum number of days? A sudden rash of "me too" type posts might help to eliminate fake accounts. Requiring people to have been members since prior to the start of the poll may also help to stop people from setting up accounts just to vote for their books.


It is one account per email address, but that doesn't stop people from creating multiple disposable accounts. Really, some don't even try to hide it. They think I'm not watching (they obviously don't really know me.)

And I don't want to put a lot of restrictions on voting because I don't believe in treating everyone like potential criminals. I WANT people to sign up and vote and hopefully come back in August for the festival. If I make people jump through too many hoops, they aren't going to want to be involved at all.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Caddy said:


> It also irritates me when people use social media to ask everyone to vote for their book. How about asking through social media for those who actually READ the book and loved it to vote for it? Isn't that how an award should be won?


Exactly. I was a member of an author group where a lot of people were going for awards in something like this, and they were all asking for others in the group to vote for each other. Then they were all delighted and self-congratulatory when so many in the group did well, instead of realizing that the awards meant nothing when won like that. I remember knowing that a book that was second in the sci-fi/fantasy category had sold only 2 or 3 books.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> My knee-jerk instinct is to publicly out people, but I know that if I do that the focus will be on the negative stuff and distract from the positive stuff we are trying to do. If I pull a book from the finals, it will look suspicious and people will start talking about that and accusations start flying. I'm sitting here shaking with rage because every part of me wants to post the names of people who did it but if I do it's going to cause a flame war that will hurt the festival and the other authors who play fair.


Yeah, you are right about that. How about just banning those people's books in the future? Not even telling them, so that they can't start flame wars or hurt your books, but keeping a list of authors who do this and, in the future, if their books get nominated, just tossing the nomination because of past behavior?


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Caddy said:


> Yeah, you are right about that. How about just banning those people's books in the future? Not even telling them, so that they can't start flame wars or hurt your books, but keeping a list of authors who do this and, in the future, if their books get nominated, just tossing the nomination because of past behavior?


Oh, you know me. I have lists. Oh, yes. I have lists.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

If you start talking publicly about taking action against people who get fake votes, remember that authors are creative enough to think of creating fake accounts to "vote" for their competitors' books to get them banned, too.  I don't know what the solution is.  Sorry you're having to deal with this.


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

Hey, Julie. Maybe you can do some sort of pre-screening for users to get them eligible to vote. Maybe they have to make x # of posts or go through a series of steps (ie: facebook, tweets and verify what their username is, etc. ) to get enough 'points' to unlock them to the voting level. It's more work, but it might help weed out some of the bad apples.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Oh, you know me. I have lists. Oh, yes. I have lists.


A litte early for holiday music, but:

"She's makin' a list
Checkin' it twice!
We're gonna find out
If you're naughty or nice
Cuz the Sith Witch is coming to town!

She knows when you've been cheating
She knows when you have sock puppet accounts
She knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for your book's sakes!

She works at it hard
To honor all bards
She's too hard to trick 
And won't take no sh*t
The Sith Witch is coming to town."


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Caddy said:


> A litte early for holiday music, but:
> 
> "She's makin' a list
> Checkin' it twice!
> ...


I am printing this to post next to my computer. I feel better now!


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I am printing this to post next to my computer. I feel better now!


Glad to hear it. Hey, I feel good cuz I see 2 more people voted for me...even though I am way behind. It's fun to see someone voting for your book!


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

So sad.   I nominated people in many categories, mostly people who are new to the eFestival. I haven't been in to vote yet (I'm terrible!) but I did get the message about the problem.

In all honesty, the bragging rights for being a finalist are about as good as winning, for purposes of putting a feather on your Amazon blurb. I don't see why people would cheat, although there are some very rabid fan bases out there. I could see a couple fans thinking they were doing a good thing by trying to stuff the box for their favorite author. I would be horrified if I found out someone was doing it -- but I couldn't necessarily control it.

Amazon thinks I'm a big cheat and sock puppet because I teach publishing classes, and therefore my KDP log in has the same IP address as all my students' KDPs when we are together on a network. I can't do anything about it except just not write any reviews for anything anymore and make sure my students know that they can't write reviews of my books either, even if they'd like to.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

I think the solution is obvious. List all my books, everyone vote for them to win, and then I will mock and deride the losers remorselessly. I'll do an ugly little victory dance in my lime green man thong, replete with obscene gestures that are easily decipherable in any language, and call them lying, cheating #sshats.

Everyone goes home happy.

WIN!

You're welcome.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

David Adams said:


> Alternatively, you can just list the votes like this:
> 
> Book I (Votes: 19 Disqualified: 410)
> Book II (Votes: 46 Disqualified: 1)
> Book III (Votes: 14 Disqualified 0)


I like this a lot.
It's like saying "ooopsie, you silly billies, there you go and don't read the rules properly. Don't worry, I've fixed it"
Then you're not shouting at people for cheating but just pretending that they made an error. They'll get the message.

I'm not familiar with this contest but from mentions here know that you put a lot of work and heart into this. It's a shame to see the idiots come out of the woodwork.

For what it's worth, when people send me "vote for me" requests, I do not vote unless I have an actual opinion on what I'm voting for. And sometimes it's not a good one


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

blakebooks said:


> I'll do an ugly little victory dance in my lime green man thong, replete with obscene gestures that are easily decipherable in any language, and call them lying, cheating #sshats.


I think I found a picture....












Betsy


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Regardless, I for one appreciate it. The more people who stand up and say "I'm not gonna tolerate this crap!" the better it is for all of us who take this seriously.


Hear, hear.

Julie, I'm so sorry you have to deal with this crap.


----------



## penrefe (Nov 30, 2011)

Was it a majority of entrants that did this, or was it another case of a few bad apples upsetting the whole cart? Because if it was more than one or two, it is indeed a sad day to be indie.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Maybe you should out them. This way it will discourage bad behavior in the future. You have the IP addresses.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

penrefe said:


> Was it a majority of entrants that did this, or was it another case of a few bad apples upsetting the whole cart? Because if it was more than one or two, it is indeed a sad day to be indie.


Let me put it this way.

I processed over 500 ballots for the initial nomination process. *I disqualified around 100.* This was just during the nomination process. People nominated themselves (despite the fact that the rules said no self-nomination). People traded nominations (do they not realize that their posts on message boards and social media show up in Google searches?) A couple of people with multiple pen names tried to be slick and used pen name A to nominate pen name B. That was just the nomination process. What was funny is, for those folks who filled out the ballot, you probably remember it was pretty intense. You had to provide not just an email address, but a link to your site to validate who you were. I guess people thought I wouldn't check.

But yes, with the voting, it is more than one or two people. Now I can't say with 100% certainty that the root cause isn't being encouraged by a handful of authors who are getting others to do the dirty work for them. I know I've been able to narrow down almost a hundred sock puppet accounts to around a dozen people. But whether that dozen represents a dozen different authors or one or two working in collusion with a team I can't say for sure.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I think I found a picture....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My eyes! My eyes! They burn!

There went editing for the day.


----------



## RoseInTheTardis (Feb 2, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I processed over 500 ballots for the initial nomination process. *I disqualified around 100.* This was just during the nomination process. People nominated themselves (despite the fact that the rules said no self-nomination). People traded nominations (do they not realize that their posts on message boards and social media show up in Google searches?) A couple of people with multiple pen names tried to be slick and used pen name A to nominate pen name B. That was just the nomination process. What was funny is, for those folks who filled out the ballot, you probably remember it was pretty intense. You had to provide not just an email address, but a link to your site to validate who you were. I guess people thought I wouldn't check.
> 
> But yes, with the voting, it is more than one or two people. Now I can't say with 100% certainty that the root cause isn't being encouraged by a handful of authors who are getting others to do the dirty work for them. I know I've been able to narrow down almost a hundred sock puppet accounts to around a dozen people. But whether that dozen represents a dozen different authors or one or two working in collusion with a team I can't say for sure.


Wow. That's a lot of cheating going on for one contest. Sorry you have to deal with it when you're just trying to run a fair, fun contest.


----------



## penrefe (Nov 30, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Let me put it this way.
> 
> I processed over 500 ballots for the initial nomination process. *I disqualified around 100.* This was just during the nomination process. People nominated themselves (despite the fact that the rules said no self-nomination). People traded nominations (do they not realize that their posts on message boards and social media show up in Google searches?) A couple of people with multiple pen names tried to be slick and used pen name A to nominate pen name B. That was just the nomination process. What was funny is, for those folks who filled out the ballot, you probably remember it was pretty intense. You had to provide not just an email address, but a link to your site to validate who you were. I guess people thought I wouldn't check.
> 
> But yes, with the voting, it is more than one or two people. Now I can't say with 100% certainty that the root cause isn't being encouraged by a handful of authors who are getting others to do the dirty work for them. I know I've been able to narrow down almost a hundred sock puppet accounts to around a dozen people. But whether that dozen represents a dozen different authors or one or two working in collusion with a team I can't say for sure.


Wow, that's disappointing. Like Rose, I'm sorry you had to deal with that. I want to be able to say we're not all like that, but evidently, a vast number are, so... =(


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

I told my husband about it and he said, "Geez, it isn't American Idol!" That brings up a good point. So many people watch that show. You can vote multiple times for someone on there. I am betting that's why some friends of authors do it...although one would think that the fact that you have to make up an account to do so would clue you in that it is WRONG. Still, I don't get the whole American Idol thing. How is it fair that someone can win because some people vote hundreds of times? Ah, well. I don't watch it, anyway.

Aslo, 20% of the nominations were bogus. That means 20% were asshats. That would be about normal with society in general. Some days, I swear 80% are.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Caddy said:


> I told my husband about it and he said, "Geez, it isn't American Idol!"


You know, if it WAS American Idol, it would almost make sense in a weird way. I suffer no delusions of grandeur here. This is not the Pulitzer or the Bran Stoker or the anything like that. This was just meant as a small little contest to celebrate indies. There is no money on the line or anything like that. This was a way to show support to fellow writers by giving them a little recognition.

But I still strongly believe in the goal here and I'm not about to let the cretins ruin this for everyone else. My hope is that, when their schemes don't work, they won't come back next year because they will realize they cannot outwit the Sith!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Lynn McNamee said:


> My eyes! My eyes! They burn!
> 
> There went editing for the day.


It just seemed like this thread needed it...but I'm blaming Blake....

Betsy


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Ranting here isn't going to change the behavior. I know that. But I had to get it out of my system.


And I'm glad you did! A pox on their scheming, poorly-written houses!

If I was inclined to expend the energy, I'd be strongly tempted to cherry-pick a few of the worst offenders (being careful to locate the ones with truly atrocious writing, because I suspect the cheating and bad writing probably go hand-in-hand), and give their books a thorough, brutally honest review.

But that's just me, and I'm just indulging in a little bit of mean-spirited fantasy here.


----------



## Vivi_Anna (Feb 12, 2011)

Wow 12 possible people.  That for some reason surprises me.  1-3 I can see, but 12, that kinda makes me want to vomit in my mouth a little.

And it isn't just indies who do this.  I've seen it happen in the trad world.  A lot.

There will always be people out there who don't want to earn it honestly.


----------



## Sophrosyne (Mar 27, 2011)

LOL -- I like Russell's solution!

I was wondering what was going on, when I saw that email. 

Do you think it's authors stuffing their own ballot boxes? Or fans thinking they're doing the author a favor?

Have you contacted the authors? If I had a fan who was stuffing a ballot box, I'd like to know.

Maybe sending the author a message like, we all have fans, friends and family who want to help, but it looks like someone in your network of fans, friends and family, is trying to help a little too much, so we've had to remove their excess votes. 

That way, you're not automatically dumping blame on the author, so they're less likely to get pissed about it, and hopefully, the problem will go away.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

This is by no means "indie-only" behavior. You just happen to be running an indie-only contest so that's all you're seeing. I'm trad pubbed as well by a big six and have interacted many a time with other trad pubbed authors and the same behavior goes on with them. Within each system, someone is going to try to game it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Sophrosyne said:


> Do you think it's authors stuffing their own ballot boxes? Or fans thinking they're doing the author a favor?


That was my thought at first, but using my top-secret Sith Lord methodologies , I am not inclined to think this is the work of independent fans. The cases in question don't seem to have huge fan bases that are active like that. There are a whole lot of things that I look at when I'm working on weeding out the bad accounts. In these instances, there is nothing to indicate that this is the work of a fan gone lone wolf.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Sorry to hear it. I registered when the voting started because a book I liked had been nominated and I voted for it. It was the only vote I cast. I hope that didn't look suspicious.


----------



## davidhaynes (Sep 30, 2012)

Sorry if this is harsh but... Name and Shame?

This is the sort of behaviour which we are fighting against in order to give us respectability. I know several authors who are absolutely delighted to be nominated and are treating this award with the respect it deserves.

It makes me sad to hear about folks cheating (trying to anyway)


----------



## Janet Michelson (Jun 20, 2012)

Caddy said:


> Yeah, you are right about that. How about just banning those people's books in the future? Not even telling them, so that they can't start flame wars or hurt your books, but keeping a list of authors who do this and, in the future, if their books get nominated, just tossing the nomination because of past behavior?


   

"Oh, you know me. I have lists. Oh, yes. I have lists."


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I'm sorry to hear this but not surprised. It's one of the inherent flaws in awards that are really popularity contests and why I try not to get involved in them.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You know, if it WAS American Idol, it would almost make sense in a weird way. I suffer no delusions of grandeur here. This is not the Pulitzer or the Bran Stoker or the anything like that. This was just meant as a small little contest to celebrate indies. There is no money on the line or anything like that. This was a way to show support to fellow writers by giving them a little recognition.
> 
> But I still strongly believe in the goal here and I'm not about to let the cretins ruin this for everyone else. My hope is that, when their schemes don't work, they won't come back next year because they will realize they cannot outwit the Sith!


Amazing the number of authors who have no scruples isn't it? And it is such a tiny contest too? I guess it tells you there are lottsa desperate authors with no principles. I doubt you could shame them enough.  But do try.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Sounds like a really thankless job.  Sorry your hard work is being taken for granted.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

WOW.

I'm one of those authors who was ecstatic to be nominated and then make it to the finals. I did share the link the day the finalists were announced and even that, I felt a bit weird about doing. I know people went to go vote for my book because I shared that link. I haven't shared it since. I didn't think it right to drive people to the site just to vote.

I have seen one author acquaintance of mine go bananas with "Vote for me! Vote for me!" in a few of my author groups and on her Facebook pages. It's a daily ME ME ME show. ::shrug:: To be honest, this event is about just being nominated... winning is great, but in my category for example is an anthology with a number of very high quality authors. No way can I compete with multiple fanbases, and I wouldn't want to. 

Winning is based on popularity, nomination and finalist lists in my opinion were based on merit. I didn't ask anyone to nominate me etc. and that's why this honor is so special to me. Thank you Julie for running the event. I'm sorry it's more headache than anything at the moment.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Thanks for your hard work on this, Julie. I'm sorry you have to put up with this sn*w.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

This is a side effect of one of the biggest problems with the internet. Anonymity. Nothing good comes of it.

I feel for you, as it is a good thing that you do.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Thanks for letting me vent.   I do feel better now.

And yes, regardless of whether or not you win your category, being nominated and making it to the finals is something to be proud of. If you were nominated, that means your peers in the community think you are doing something of value. We actually had several librarians and professional/semi-professional reviewers who completed ballots this year. And if you made the finals, our committee felt your book really stood out and deserved more attention.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> WOW.
> 
> I'm one of those authors who was ecstatic to be nominated and then make it to the finals. I did share the link the day the finalists were announced and even that, I felt a bit weird about doing. I know people went to go vote for my book because I shared that link. I haven't shared it since. I didn't think it right to drive people to the site just to vote.
> 
> ...


It is cool to be nominated, to have someone like your work enough to do so, but si, I'm not comfortable in participating because of the popularity contest nature beyond the initial noms. I understand why it's done; it's easier. Running a contest with judges, etc is a pain and has its own set of issues, but I learned long ago not to play the "vote for me" game.


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

That's really a shame. Unfortunately, it's people acting like that who ruin good things for everyone else.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Monique said:


> It is cool to be nominated, to have someone like your work enough to do so, but si, I'm not comfortable in participating because of the popularity contest nature beyond the initial noms. I understand why it's done; it's easier. Running a contest with judges, etc is a pain and has its own set of issues, but I learned long ago not to play the "vote for me" game.


I actually do judge for the Ben Franklin awards. It's a whole helluva lot of work.

The entire point of the open voting was to drive folks to the site, where they could then see all of the nominees and hopefully decide to come back for the festival. And on the bright side, I've had lots of readers contact me with positive feedback thinking it is fun for them to have a chance to be involved. It's all the good vibes I've gotten that keep me from screaming "screw this!" and scrapping the whole thing. People are enjoying the competition and feel involved. Those are good things as far as I am concerned. We went through and did out own judging when we selected the finalists. But giving the readers a chance to vote gives them some ownership in the process which I think, in the spirit of the festival, is worthwhile.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I'm shocked. Really, people? Are we that insecure?

And don't authors have more to do during the day than to create sock puppet after sock puppet to win an award?

*Shakes head*

If it were me, I would threaten to out people and take books down in the rules, and hope that cuts most of that out. (I probably wouldn't actually do it, which now that everyone has read that takes away all the threat, but that's just me.)

On my Addicted to eBooks website I do state in the rules that if you submit your book multiple times you can get banned. I don't usually ban people, but I do delete the duplicates. Like I can't tell. What's the point in wasting your time? I can see at a glance if that book is already in the catalog. But I guess if people want to waste their time...who am I to stop them? I did ban one author for submitting book after book that did not meet the qualifications. Just wasted her time, filling out the form a million times for books that never went up. *scratches head*


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Open Internet polls don't work. Doesn't matter who it is or what it is or who's voting, they get stuffed with fake votes.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

It's not Indies, it's people. Human nature will always out. It's the most powerful force on earth. Julie, if they weren't trying to scam you, they'd be elsewhere looking for an 'advantage'. Their minds don't operate in the same way as those of ethical people. They are mini Lance Armstrongs. Some/many are sociopaths.

The saddest part of the whole thing is that you are restricted by fear of one-star retribution, and doubtless the scammers know they have that ultimate weapon.

What a 'reward' for a ton of work  

I suspect you'll be much less inclined to run anything similar again. You can put the death of the competition down to the disease of terminal sock-puppetry, a spreading affliction which will eventually account for all such enterprises. The only satisfaction we'll be able to take then is the anger the puppeteers will feel when there is nothing left...the sock will be on the other foot.

Wouldn't it be great if all we Indies lived in a virtual Deadwood and we could hire a gun-toting, dead-eye marshal to clean up the sock-puppets once and for all? Or for the pacifists, a pied piper?


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> I think the solution is obvious. List all my books, everyone vote for them to win, and then I will mock and deride the losers remorselessly. I'll do an ugly little victory dance in my lime green man thong, replete with obscene gestures that are easily decipherable in any language, and call them lying, cheating #sshats.
> 
> Everyone goes home happy.
> 
> ...


Maybe Julie can make the video of that dance the prize for whoever fakes the most votes?


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Zelah Meyer said:


> Maybe Julie can make the video of that dance the prize for whoever fakes the most votes?


*Hahaha* Good one.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Solution:

Get someone else to be the bad cop next year, so that you can be the good cop. The bad cop needs to be someone who either doesn't publish, or who has so many reviews they won't care about a 1-star bomb.


----------



## rod redux (Jul 12, 2013)

I think Cherise is right on this one. Get a non-author to be your bad cop. I don't know about public shaming. That just makes everyone look bad, but you definitely need one or more outside parties to lower the boom on the cheaters.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

> D. then forwarded me a copy of the email she had sent to Reb:
> "We are thinking of voting for Nobility in Novellas & I wondered if you might be thinking about voting for Storm Damage in the short story collections category?"


My goal was not for this to turn into a flame war. I have zero interest in the festival getting dragged into personal vendettas. I can't speak to your friend's intent. I don't even care about your interpersonal drama. But there is a clear inference in this line. There is an inference of "we'll vote for you if you vote for us" here. Regardless of all the other stuff in your email, I can see where someone would interpret the email as a quid pro quo from a stranger or a acquaintance. Maybe it wasn't meant that way. Maybe it was just poorly worded. But that is how it reads, I and can understand why someone would read it that way.

The email that I got was not the only problem I have had. It was the last straw that caused my need to vent.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I think I found a picture....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Julie, I'm so sorry you are going through this. With all of your hard work for indies, to have this happen just isn't right. I wonder who raised these people? Do they really think cheating and lying is ok?

And Betsy:


----------



## JTCochrane (Feb 6, 2012)

I know this might seem extreme but it might work.  In the rules up front for the next contest state something about sock puppets and then say as a result we are requiring some personal identification information(won't be used in any way just for identification purposes).  The require a divers license number or credit card number.  You could right or have a programmer right a routine that would verify that the credit card number is real.  Just a thought.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Let me put it this way.
> 
> I processed over 500 ballots for the initial nomination process. *I disqualified around 100.* This was just during the nomination process. People nominated themselves (despite the fact that the rules said no self-nomination). People traded nominations (do they not realize that their posts on message boards and social media show up in Google searches?) A couple of people with multiple pen names tried to be slick and used pen name A to nominate pen name B. That was just the nomination process. What was funny is, for those folks who filled out the ballot, you probably remember it was pretty intense. You had to provide not just an email address, but a link to your site to validate who you were. I guess people thought I wouldn't check.
> 
> But yes, with the voting, it is more than one or two people. Now I can't say with 100% certainty that the root cause isn't being encouraged by a handful of authors who are getting others to do the dirty work for them. I know I've been able to narrow down almost a hundred sock puppet accounts to around a dozen people. But whether that dozen represents a dozen different authors or one or two working in collusion with a team I can't say for sure.


Ouch! My first reaction is to say that you should quietly disqualify the cheaters. That wouldn't keep it from sucking sweaty balls for you to have to deal with.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

Man that does suck.  Sorry you are having to go through this - but good for you for maintaining a high level of integrity within your selection process.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I know this might seem extreme but it might work. In the rules up front for the next contest state something about sock puppets and then say as a result we are requiring some personal identification information(won't be used in any way just for identification purposes). The require a divers license number or credit card number. You could right or have a programmer right a routine that would verify that the credit card number is real. Just a thought.


I understand that you are trying to help, but making it harder to vote won't help people get the votes that people really want to give them in an honest way. Making it difficult, or asking too many questions and for a credit card, will make many readers just decide to leave without voting. I mean, seriously, two friends of mine were really irritated that they had to fill out a profile, including birthday just to vote.  And, yes, they had read my book.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

This is so sad. I'm sorry you're going through this, Julie. It's a lot of hard work for a good cause, and it has to get spoiled by a handful of corrupt people.


----------



## Vivi_Anna (Feb 12, 2011)

Hugs Julie.

I was just so happy to be nominated in the same category as Hugh Howey.  I mean hello?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I've temporarily locked this thread until it can be reviewed.  John, I also, possibly temporarily, removed your post with some history in it.  Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of a deadline, and I can't review this as fully as I'd like but I'm sending up flares for one of the other mods.

A quick glance at John's very long post indicated that there was some private communication or forum post, and our policy is to not post the content of private communications of a third party here.  If the Admin team reviews it and deems it okay, the post will be restored.

Forgive me both for not dealing with this immediately and for the Borat pic.

NOTE:  After further review of the thread, and discussion, we're going to leave the thread as edited and locked, thanks.

Julie, I have every confidence in the Sith Witch.  But it's too bad you're having to go Sith.  Not surprising based on some of the stunts I've seen here, but too bad nonetheless.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------

