Topic: Autopuzzles needs your help.

[AlexFrance]

We are very mindful of the threat to our existence from Google Search by Image, which continues to be used by a small number of members to gain points to which they are not entitled.

I am certainly against that 'audit' idea.

I don’t think it will make a difference for all the reasons explained before. A cheater is a cheater and will always find a way out, while honest players might suffer from that rule.

I can remember a lot of occurrences in which I might not have been able to give a good answer to an audit. Why? Because I had been searching for six to ten completely different cars during the same time period and could not remember the keywords I used on Google. Or because I just had a feeling or souvenir that proved completely right. Or because I was just being lucky. For instance, I can remember finding one puzzle car while I was searching for a totally different one...

Frankly, I am getting a bit weary at seeing good people whose honesty could be potentially challenged because of cheaters, especially when I believe that there are much more good people than bad people.

This is why I am genuinely wondering if the existence of Autopuzzle.com is really at such a risk because of cheaters? Could the editors tell us the number of ‘cheaters’ that was banned in the past, as well as the number of currently suspected ones, as opposed to the total number of members?

[gilescooperuk]

We'll I don't use the image search and never have, but if anyone asked for the thought process used in the last puzzle I solved (wicker wonder) it was a random guess based on the previous answers, which then resulted in a load of searching to try and find the builder....

Ask me to quantify that a few weeks later and not a chance.

I can see it is a problem for some people with those cheating, but you can't stop them no matter how hard you try. It is the same both on and offline. I generally use my own photos for puzzles but have had an occurrence when someone used one of my photos from a website for a puzzle (that was a very easy point though).

So in that case do I need to prove it was one of my own photographs?

Either you need to be very draconian and insist on proof for everything or you have to accept people may cheat and nothing can really be done about it.

I have over 25000 indexed photos on my computer, even if someone does a directory listing and screenprints it that can be faked, just because a picture exists in a folder with an old creation date doesn't mean it wasn't put there five minutes ago and the metadata faked. That is very easy to do with a few simple tools - if you do a search they can be found in less than a second.

Giles

[Paul Jaray]

I'd like to explain better this whole idea:

Cheaters will keep cheating, we won't stop them in this way.

True, but we do not want to let pass the idea we are totally unable to fight back, not to defeat them but just to expose theyr silly behaviour

Sometimes I can't explain how I found a puzzle because: I just knew it, I had a general feeling that pointed me in the right direction, or because that's too complicated or because I don't remember, etc etc

If someone will ask you how did you find a puzzle, you can answer as you please: going deeply into the process that lead you there, or just saying 'I knew it' or 'I found it looking for something else'. There is not a good way to reply, your integrity or honesty will never be questioned and you can have us all rely on your word alone if you want.

How can we decide or question anyone integrity?

No one will doubt anyone's reply. Each one of you can answer what he likes to. There will never be a 'commission' looking into your replies to spot a cheater!

And if the cheater keep cheating and produce fake explainations?

He will keep scoring useless points...and probably he will start to feel the vacuum of his game.

What's the utility of it, then?

If I spend hours looking for puzzles to post and they get solved in a flash, I could be frustrated expecially if I have the feeling someone could cheat to solve them. I could ask how did they knew it, but as some of you already said, it was not a pleasant feeling to be questioned. Now, we all are accepting to be questioned and we can feel free to 'just ask' without hurting anyone. It will not mean someone is suspected or there will be further investigations.
It's like a random antidrug test: if I tell you we will do random tests, you can pass them easily if you know how, but 1. you won't be offended if you are clean because you understand the meaning of that random test, 2. you probably will think twice if you are dirty. 3. you all know that we are dealing with this issue.

[AlexFrance]

Could the editors tell us the number of ‘cheaters’ that was banned in the past, as well as the number of currently suspected ones, as opposed to the total number of members?

?

[AlexFrance]

It's like a random antidrug test: if I tell you we will do random tests, you can pass them easily if you know how, but 1. you won't be offended if you are clean because you understand the meaning of that random test, 2. you probably will think twice if you are dirty. 3. you all know that we are dealing with this issue.[/i]

In an antidrug test the result is true or false! There is no human arbitration.

That's really what makes me uncomfortable with that rule. Especially when dealing with people whose native tongue is not English, which means that an answer might not be fully understood or, worst, misinterpreted.

[Carnut]

Could the editors tell us the number of ‘cheaters’ that was banned in the past, as well as the number of currently suspected ones, as opposed to the total number of members?

?

Er, no!  It's only a very small number; most here are top-notch puzzlers.

Are you actually French Alex or an Englishman trapped domiciled on the wrong side of the Channel?!  I ask because your English is perfect!



P.S. I'm only joking; actually I love France!

[Paul Jaray]

It's like a random antidrug test: if I tell you we will do random tests, you can pass them easily if you know how, but 1. you won't be offended if you are clean because you understand the meaning of that random test, 2. you probably will think twice if you are dirty. 3. you all know that we are dealing with this issue.[/i]

In an antidrug test the result is true or false! There is no human arbitration.

That's really what makes me uncomfortable with that rule. Especially when dealing with people whose native tongue is not English, which means that an answer might not be fully understood or, worst, misinterpreted.

It was an example.
The antidrug test has got 1 aim: to find and punish the dirty ones.
This rule has a different aim, not to find a cheater by analizing his replies and as stated before, we won't ban anyone with this rule.

We are asking you to be patient if we ask you how did you find a car, just like that. You don't have to create a convincing story or be afraid if you can't explain...we are among gentlemen and your word will be trusted.

The example was in this direction: if I tell you I'm going to make this test you can probably find a way to pass it (I don't know if it's technically possible, let's pretend it is) and it's fine for me because I want this 3 results: 1. you won't be offended if you are clean because you understand the meaning of that random test, 2. you probably will think twice if you are dirty. 3. you all know that we are dealing with this issue.

[SACO]

 I try  to propose photos which are not found by Google search
But I think that it would be necessary to finalize  a method to modify photos
Have the right to invert photos or other methods ?

[Carnut]

I try  to propose photos which are not found by Google search
But I think that it would be necessary to finalize  a method to modify photos
Have the right to invert photos or other methods ?

The photos can be modified in certain ways to obscure the identify but not changed into something they are not, which inverting would do.
For instance blanking out a radiator grille is one thing (it's OK) but superimposing the grille from another car on to the puzzle picture is not OK.

[Otto Puzzell]

.... which is clearly delineated in the rules, which are listed at the top of every puzzle thread. Upstream in this here thread, one or more of us are taken to task for being a noodge, by reminding members of the rules in our puzzle posting, as it may or may not imply everyone who reads such reminders is being accused of cheating.

Given the "is it OK to invert pictures" question, perhaps we don't noodge enough. 

[grobmotorix]

So... I think that the only solution to avoid the problem is to post puzzles that cannot be found via GSBI... and the best way to do it is to search the picture in this way before posting the puzzle... if Google find the picture... it's time to use some graphic camouflage on the image... until google does not find it anymore...

Agreed - ever since this service from Google or Bing was available, I have tried my test my puzzle-pic in advance.
Only if it was not to be found, I have placed it here.