Game the system
franzi
Google:
"If search engines were forced to disclose their algorithms and not
just the signals they use, or, worse, if they had to use a
standardised algorithm, spammers would certainly use that knowledge to
game the system, making the results suspect."
What does "game" mean here, such that search results become suspect?
--
franzi
the Omrud
It's horrible, but it clearly means the same as "play the system".
--
David
Iain
I've come across this expression only once before. I understand it to mean
along the lines of gaining intimate information about the operation of the
system in order to abuse it.
--
Iain
BrE
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Let's start with this definition of the noun "game":
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/game.html
1. Decision theory: Situation of conflict (competition) in which
the payoffs received by participants from their actions, choices,
and decisions are at least partly determined by the actions,
choices, and decisions of the other contestants. This concept of
games includes contests of strategy (such as baseball, basketball,
card-games, checkers, chess, cricket, hockey, soccer, tennis), but
not those based on pure chance (such as lotteries). In these
situations, while one may (with practice) become more adept at
predicting the opponents' strategies and tactics, one's moves are
still constantly conditioned by the other participants' moves.
The Google search algorithm is a strategy that is intended to achieve
certain ends. "Gaming" this "system" would be to compete against it by
using knowledge of the algorithm to achieve other ends. If the algorithm
(strategy) is secret it is much more difficult to game, compete against,
the system.
If someone knows Google's algorithm and "games the system", search
results will be biased in a way wanted by the person gaming the system.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Iain
Yes - it's similar to playing the system in order to gain the advantage, in
this instance, to manipulate or compromise the results.
(However, put in a less patronising way!)
--
Iain
BrE
John O'Flaherty
M-W online recognizes this newer usage:
game (verb)
2 : to take dishonest advantage of : cheat <game the tax system>
--
John
James Silverton
I've been aware of the usage for years, it seems, but I was surprised to
find that the OED does know it under "game v". I'm not absolutely
certain that all gaming can be called dishonest and it may just be
taking advantage of imprecision that framers of laws have missed.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
tony cooper
What I haven't seen mentioned here is how gaming the system gives any
an advantage. It can.
If you sell widgets, knowing how to game the system allows you to have
your page show up, or even show up at the top of the search page, in
a search when the searcher uses any remotely applicable search terms.
A search for "widgets" is going to result in your page coming up
without any gaming of the system. Gaming the system can mean that
your page will show up using terms that don't include "widget".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Don Phillipson
news:hmr0465udcfhci5v9...@4ax.com...
> >>>> I've come across this expression only once before. I
> >>>> understand it to mean along the lines of gaining intimate
> >>>> information about the operation of the system in order to
> >>>> abuse it.
. . .
> >> M-W online recognizes this newer usage:
> >> game (verb)
> >> 2 : to take dishonest advantage of : cheat <game the tax
> >> system>
"James Silverton" <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:i1ppuo$is0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >I've been aware of the usage for years, it seems, but I was surprised to
> >find that the OED does know it under "game v". I'm not absolutely
> >certain that all gaming can be called dishonest and it may just be
> >taking advantage of imprecision that framers of laws have missed.
> What I haven't seen mentioned here is how gaming the system gives any
> an advantage. It can.
JS is right in this respect. Counting cards when playing Blackjack (21)
demonstrates the case. Counting card values enables the player to
calculate more exactly his chances of winning the next hand, and
some professional gamblers are so good at these calculations as to
be sure of winning in the long run. Nothing in the rules of the game
forbids
this use of (non-secret, face-up) information during play: but casino
operators know this technique can win money, thus seek to identify card
counters and expel them.
"Gaming the system" now has this sort of meaning, viz. the exploitation
by a few of knowledge theoretically available to all, but which most
lack the training or technique to exploit. Another notorious example is
that the British middle classes supposedly benefit more from "welfare
state" institutions than the larger working classes whom the system
was intended to help. The supposed reason is that more education
enables better knowledge of and exploitation of the uniform rules
that govern everyone's entitlement.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
tony cooper
Hmmm. I would not consider card-counting as "gaming the system". To
me, "gaming the system" is some form of manipulation that gives
advantage. There's no manipulation in card-counting even though
casino owners ban card-counters.
In the Google area, "gaming the system" is using key words that have
the website show up when a searcher enters non-related (to the
searched-for item) terms. The manipulation could be using hidden
nonsense lines of keywords.
In the welfare area, registering on the welfare rolls as Mary Jane
Smith and getting benefits is just taking advantage of the system.
Gaming the system is manipulation by also registering as M.J. Smith,
Mary Smith, Jane Smith, and any other variations.
That's just my take on the meaning of "gaming the system". Not all
may agree.
>"Gaming the system" now has this sort of meaning, viz. the exploitation
>by a few of knowledge theoretically available to all, but which most
>lack the training or technique to exploit. Another notorious example is
>that the British middle classes supposedly benefit more from "welfare
>state" institutions than the larger working classes whom the system
>was intended to help. The supposed reason is that more education
>enables better knowledge of and exploitation of the uniform rules
>that govern everyone's entitlement.
--
mm
It's a pretty new phrase I think, 5 or 10 years.
It means to recognize or ottherwise learn about idiosyncracies or
procedural weaknesses in some system or another, and use them to one's
advantage.
It doesn't include really obvious things, like learning to slow down
when one sees a cop giving traffic tickets. Everyone does that, and
it's not complicated enough to be called "gaming".
If someone figures out how to predict when a traffic cop will be one
place or the other, based on the weather or where he was before, and
is careful to avoid those places or slow down when there at those
times, that might be gaming the system.
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
James Silverton
>> Marissa Mayer, vice-president of search product and user
>> experience at Google:
>>
>> "If search engines were forced to disclose their algorithms
>> and not just the signals they use, or, worse, if they had to
>> use a standardized algorithm, spammers would certainly use
>> that knowledge to game the system, making the results
>> suspect."
>>
>> What does "game" mean here, such that search results become
>> suspect?
> It's a pretty new phrase I think, 5 or 10 years.
> It means to recognize or otherwise learn about idiosyncracies
> or procedural weaknesses in some system or another, and use
> them to one's advantage.
> It doesn't include really obvious things, like learning to
> slow down when one sees a cop giving traffic tickets.
> Everyone does that, and it's not complicated enough to be
> called "gaming".
> If someone figures out how to predict when a traffic cop will
> be one place or the other, based on the weather or where he
> was before, and is careful to avoid those places or slow down
> when there at those times, that might be gaming the system.
Another one concerns automatic speed cameras. There is a set on a three
lane highway where I once was caught in the inside lane. I've spent a
little while watching the camera since it can be seen from a bench at my
library parking lot and I think I've seen the flash for people in the
middle lane but not the outside one. I've been too parsimonious to try
out this idea but I would not feel particularly guilty if I turned out
to be correct.
franzi
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:17:20 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
>
>
>
> >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:hmr0465udcfhci5v9...@4ax.com...
>
> >> >>>> I've come across this expression only once before. I
> >> >>>> understand it to mean along the lines of gaining intimate
> >> >>>> information about the operation of the system in order to
> >> >>>> abuse it.
> >. . .
> >> >> M-W online recognizes this newer usage:
> >> >> game (verb)
> >> >> 2 : to take dishonest advantage of : cheat <game the tax
> >> >> system>
>
it came about. Some unorthodox way of improving the odds in your
favour. So to make up a trivial example, if you know that the Google
algorithm maximises the significance of words that occur precisely
four times on a web page, you put each of your key words into your
page four times exactly.
The side question is what this has to do with spamming. The orginal
quotation said "...spammers would certainly use that knowledge to game
the system." Spammers?
I can't see "gaming" being used to increase visits to web pages
reporting unexpected sums of money found in Nigerian banks. But I can
see it as an attractive opportunity for spammers if it would promote
the higher ranking in search results of web pages in far-off lands
that offer things for sale, especially things that are offered, shall
we say, outside the normal regulatory controls.
--
franzi
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<et.in.arca...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>I see the consensus of what it means now, though I don't quite see how
>it came about. Some unorthodox way of improving the odds in your
>favour. So to make up a trivial example, if you know that the Google
>algorithm maximises the significance of words that occur precisely
>four times on a web page, you put each of your key words into your
>page four times exactly.
>
>The side question is what this has to do with spamming. The orginal
>quotation said "...spammers would certainly use that knowledge to game
>the system." Spammers?
>
>I can't see "gaming" being used to increase visits to web pages
>reporting unexpected sums of money found in Nigerian banks. But I can
>see it as an attractive opportunity for spammers if it would promote
>the higher ranking in search results of web pages in far-off lands
>that offer things for sale, especially things that are offered, shall
>we say, outside the normal regulatory controls.
I think Marissa Mayer used the word "spammers" in the absence of a more
suitable word.
The point about most spam is that it is intended to draw the recipients'
attention to a contact point, a website, email address, phone number or
physical address. It is an advertising activity
"Gaming the system" to manipulate Google search results would be another
method of achieving the same end, another string to their bows. Those
who currently use spam might well extend their activities into gaming
Google.
tony cooper
<et.in.arca...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>The side question is what this has to do with spamming. The orginal
>quotation said "...spammers would certainly use that knowledge to game
>the system." Spammers?
Sure. Let's say you Google search for "cameras". The spammer seller
of a completely different type of product games the system if he
includes keywords on his page that make it come up when you Google for
"cameras". He can hide the keywords on his page.
Iain
> Another
> notorious example is that the British middle classes supposedly
> benefit more from "welfare state" institutions than the larger
> working classes whom the system
> was intended to help. The supposed reason is that more education
> enables better knowledge of and exploitation of the uniform rules
> that govern everyone's entitlement.
Off topic - but correcting a slightly misinformed statement.
An interesting statement that. You will find that some benefits are purely
means-tested - irrespective of background or status. Other benefits are not
means tested and are available to anyone who wishes to claim - again
irrespective of background or status. For instance, child allowance is
available for every mother - and a very large proportion of mothers collect
it. This is one specific benefit which may well become means-tested.
What is currently happening, which is upsetting a large proportion of the
population is the immigration from many less well-off countries. It has
been shown that many of these people come prepared, having been well briefed
beforehand, and know exactly how to 'milk' the system.
Doctor, medical and hospital treatment is available to all - no charge. It
is all a good system, but yes, it is exploited by some, but not necessarily
in the way that you suggest.
--
Iain
BrE
Iain
Isn't this more like hijacking - making the system do things that you do not
necessarily want it to do or go where you do not want to go, but you are
forced to do what, and go where, the hijacking program wants.
Could the gaming of Google be to do with financial aspect of the
advertising, like manipulating AdSense so that more money can be earnt?
https://www.google.com/adsense/login/en_GB/
--
Iain
BrE
R H Draney
Other examples of "gaming a system" in the real world:
"Teaching to the test" - a government edict says that funds will only be
provided to schools whose students pass a specific test to show that they're
learning what they need to know...if the teachers find out what will be on the
test, they teach their students exactly those topics while overlooking other
parts of the standard curriculum...students long ago learned a closer-to-home
version as indicated by the frequent question "will this be on the final?"...
"Working to rule" - a group of workers collude to do exactly what the law or
company policy requires of them, no more and no less...this ensures that they're
in compliance with the law or policy while at the same time making it
unnecessary for them to get any actual productive work accomplished....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Mark Brader
>> What does "game" mean here, such that search results become suspect?
> It's a pretty new phrase I think, 5 or 10 years.
At least a little older. A few months ago I submitted this to the
OED people (typo corrected here):
| In addition to the meanings of "game" (verb) now in the OED Online,
| what I think is a new one has developed recently: "to treat (something)
| as a game to be won, thus acting purely for tactical reasons without
| regard to honesty". This is especially used in the phrase "to game
| the system", which I heard used in a recent episode of a TV drama
| just the other day.
|
| Here are some examples I found in Google Books. The only ways I could
| think of to find this exact sense were to search on the exact phrases
| "gaming us", "game the system", or "gaming the system", so that's
| what I found.
I also noted:
| Note the related sense of "play" (verb, sense 13i): "to play games
| (also a game): to act manipulatively, deceitfully, or frivolously
| towards another."
My Google Books cites were from 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2004. I later
came across another use in a 2010 online New York Times article where
the writer says that the bond rating agencies "turned out to be only
too happy to be gamed".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "What's fair got to do with it? It's going
m...@vex.net | to happen." -- Lawrence of Arabia
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
> I've been aware of the usage for years, it seems, but I was surprised to
> find that the OED does know it under "game v".
It does? Not when I submitted the email I just posted excerpts from.
--
Mark Brader "I suppose that the distances from us [to the
Toronto stars] vary so much that some are two or three
m...@vex.net times as remote as others." -- Galileo
Garrett Wollman
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>James Silverton:
>> I've been aware of the usage for years, it seems, but I was surprised to
>> find that the OED does know it under "game v".
>
>It does? Not when I submitted the email I just posted excerpts from.
My experience (just now, checking the online OED2) matches Mark's.
This headword has yet to be revised.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Frank ess
When quite a few years ago I was making my first Web pages, it was
common practice to include "invisible" keywords on a page so that any
search engine looking for items/words included in the keyword section
would return a "hit" on that page, regardless of the appropriateness
of the invisible content to the visible content. The search
algorhythmists quickly excluded non-visible text unrelated to visible
text as influences on results rankings. Then it became fashionable to
place the illicit text in a visible section of the page, but to make
the text match most folks' backgrounds: white text. Last time I paid
attention, the white-on-white technique had been successfully defended
against.
Judging by some of the results I see in inocuous, non-product-seeking
searches I attempt, the system-gamers are still ahead, but I have no
idea how.
--
Frank ess
James Silverton
> In article <JeadnSmE1ceRRt3R...@vex.net>,
> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>> James Silverton:
>>> I've been aware of the usage for years, it seems, but I was
>>> surprised to find that the OED does know it under "game v".
>>
>> It does? Not when I submitted the email I just posted
>> excerpts from.
> My experience (just now, checking the online OED2) matches
> Mark's. This headword has yet to be revised.
> -GAWollman
You're right of course! From the context of my note, It might be
apparent that lousy proof reading caused me to omit the "not". and I
don't even have the excuse of not being fully awake.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Franzi"
>>> What does "game" mean here, such that search results become suspect?
>
> M.M.:
>> It's a pretty new phrase I think, 5 or 10 years.
>
> At least a little older. A few months ago I submitted this to the
> OED people (typo corrected here):
>
> | In addition to the meanings of "game" (verb) now in the OED
> | Online, what I think is a new one has developed recently: "to
> | treat (something) as a game to be won, thus acting purely for
> | tactical reasons without regard to honesty". This is especially
> | used in the phrase "to game the system", which I heard used in a
> | recent episode of a TV drama just the other day.
> |
> | Here are some examples I found in Google Books. The only ways I
> | could think of to find this exact sense were to search on the
> | exact phrases "gaming us", "game the system", or "gaming the
> | system", so that's what I found.
>
> I also noted:
>
> | Note the related sense of "play" (verb, sense 13i): "to play games
> | (also a game): to act manipulatively, deceitfully, or frivolously
> | towards another."
>
> My Google Books cites were from 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2004.
I've known it for a lot longer, and I see Google Books hits with
verifiable dates going back to
Clearly, under these circumstances, the litigants would attempt to
game the system.
Gordon Tullock, _Trials on Trial_, 1980
with many hits from 1984 on.
I disagree with your definition
to treat (something) as a game to be won, thus acting purely for
tactical reasons without regard to honesty
To me, the crucial idea behind gaming the system is paying scrupulous
attention to the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit and
thereby finding loopholes and corner cases unforseen by those who
designed the system which allow you profit by doing things contrary to
the designers' intent. You don't have to be dishonest (or even be
willing to be dishonest) to game the system, and just because you
treat, say, betting on football games or investing in stocks as a game
to be won (rather than supporting "your" team or companies you believe
in) you're not necessarily gaming the system.
Married couples who divorced (or single couples who held off getting
married) primarily because married couples were taxed more heavily
than pairs of unmarried people were gaming the system. They took a
perfectly honest action solely because the people who made the rules
made it advantageous for them to do so, even though that wasn't the
incentive the rule-makers had intended to set.
The origin would appear to be something like "applying game theory to"
the system. The OED cites "game theory" to 1954, although I would
have expected it to go back to von Neumann and Morgenstern's _Theory
of Games and Economic Behavior_ (or slightly thereafter--a search of
that book doesn't turn up the phrase).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is something fascinating
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |about science. One gets such
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |wholesale returns of conjecture out
|of such a trifling investment of
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |fact.
(650)857-7572 | Mark Twain
Rich Ulrich
I thought that "gaming Google" was doing stuff to get listed
near the top for a search. You seem to emphasize getting
listed for a seemingly-irrelevant search. I agree that including
other words counts as "gaming", but it is not what I thought
was the prominent part.
Hiding of other keywords is sometimes "gaming." But I was
pleased to learn that I could find "Rensselaer Polytechical"
no matter how I misspelled it. IIRC, RPI did that some time
before Google's own spell-checking was as efficient as it is
today.
The web site that I built a dozen years ago was fairly
prominent for searches in statistics, partly because I
accidentally met a key criterion. - In order to download
quickly by dial-up, I organized my 400,000 bytes of info into
60 or so different small files, each of which referred to the
home page. For a while, so I read, Google used a fairly
simple count of the number of pages that *referred* to
a page, in order to rank its importance. So my FAQ's
home page looked important.
A designer "gaming the system" in this case would create
a large number of files that did little more than point, in
order to create a high count when Google's web-crawler
is surveying the Web. The original algorithm no longer
serves its purpose when its results are dominated by
game-players, so Google has to do something more
sophisticated.
--
Rich Ulrich
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The origin would appear to be something like "applying game theory to"
> the system. The OED cites "game theory" to 1954, although I would
> have expected it to go back to von Neumann and Morgenstern's _Theory
> of Games and Economic Behavior_ (or slightly thereafter--a search of
> that book doesn't turn up the phrase).
It would probably have been worth noting that the book was written in
1944.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When you rewrite a compiler from
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |scratch, you sometimes fix things
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you didn't know were broken.
| Larry Wall
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Peter Moylan
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:10:38 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:23:05 -0700 (PDT), franzi
>> <et.in.arca...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The side question is what this has to do with spamming. The orginal
>>> quotation said "...spammers would certainly use that knowledge to game
>>> the system." Spammers?
>> Sure. Let's say you Google search for "cameras". The spammer seller
>> of a completely different type of product games the system if he
>> includes keywords on his page that make it come up when you Google for
>> "cameras". He can hide the keywords on his page.
>
> I thought that "gaming Google" was doing stuff to get listed
> near the top for a search. You seem to emphasize getting
> listed for a seemingly-irrelevant search. I agree that including
> other words counts as "gaming", but it is not what I thought
> was the prominent part.
What really worries Google, I suspect, is the possibility that companies
could be consistently given a high ranking without having to pay Google
for a sponsored link.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Mark Brader
> From the context of my note, It might be apparent that lousy
> proof reading caused me to omit the "not".
I did wonder.
> and I don't even have the excuse of not being fully awake.
"The excuse of being fully awake" would have been more fun.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Keep out of eyes--if this occurs, rinse with water.
m...@vex.net | (Directions seen on shampoo bottle)
Mark Brader
> I've known it for a lot longer, and I see Google Books hits with
> verifiable dates going back to
>
> Clearly, under these circumstances, the litigants would attempt to
> game the system.
>
> Gordon Tullock, _Trials on Trial_, 1980
>
> with many hits from 1984 on.
Thanks.
> I disagree with your definition
>
> to treat (something) as a game to be won, thus acting purely for
> tactical reasons without regard to honesty
>
> To me, the crucial idea behind gaming the system is paying scrupulous
> attention to the letter of the rules...
Well, of course. That's how you play a game.
> while ignoring their spirit...
And that's how you're dishonest. I was talking about "honesty" in a
larger context, not about cheating on the rules. In other words, we
agree on the concept, but you've found a better way to express it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "The last time I trusted you, we had Mark."
m...@vex.net -- Jill, "Home Improvement" (B.K. Taylor)
Garrett Wollman
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>James Silverton:
>> From the context of my note, It might be apparent that lousy
>> proof reading caused me to omit the "not".
>
>I did wonder.
>
>> and I don't even have the excuse of not being fully awake.
>
>"The excuse of being fully awake" would have been more fun.
Let's step back and think about the likely outcome of a
scenario that involves the words "James Nicoll", "a box of
sharp needles" and "possibly without ever having achieved full
consciousness" for a moment, shall we?
- James Davis Nicoll, 2005-10
Jared
[...]
> Married couples who divorced (or single couples who held off getting
> married) primarily because married couples were taxed more heavily
> than pairs of unmarried people were gaming the system. They took a
> perfectly honest action solely because the people who made the rules
> made it advantageous for them to do so, even though that wasn't the
> incentive the rule-makers had intended to set.
>
> The origin would appear to be something like "applying game theory to"
> the system. The OED cites "game theory" to 1954, although I would
> have expected it to go back to von Neumann and Morgenstern's _Theory
> of Games and Economic Behavior_ (or slightly thereafter--a search of
> that book doesn't turn up the phrase).
That may be the origin, but I think when used by non-mathematicians it
has a decidedly negative connotation. That doesn't mean "gaming the
system" is necessarily wrong, but it's commonly used by people to
express disapproval at others going against the purported spirit of
the rules. I associate it with politicians complaining about
unintended consequences of rulemaking.
Evan Kirshenbaum
No, what worries Google is that people might get used to seeing
irrelevant hits listed in the top ten and so decide to use a different
search engine, thereby decreasing Google's ad revenue. Their
reputation is based on their ability to find relevance.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post
|the wrong information, and wait for
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in
(650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how
|wrong you are.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read