comScore
Uncategorized Wednesday, June 23rd 2010 at 8:55 am

Did Team Oprah Rig a Contest Against Zach Anner? We Investigate [Update]

In case you don’t know, Oprah has been running a competition to give one lucky citizen the chance to have his or her own television show. Anyone can enter by submitting a tape, but then the tape must be voted up in an online poll to be in contention for earning its creator a series. One contestant, Zach Anner, suffers from cerebral palsy and wants to host a humorous travel show that would illustrate great trips that anyone can take. He has become an internet sensation via 4chan and Reddit, and for a week up until June 22 was the strong front-runner.

But in the span of an hour around or just before 3pm EDT, the woman who had been trailing Anner for some time, Doctor Phyllis, took the lead. And she did so at what sounds to be an unbelievable rate. The Huffington Post reports an increase of 300,000 votes in 20 minutes. Reddit reports 600,000 in an hour. Either way, the voting rates being bandied around are astounding, corroborate with what many Internet denizens who have been following the proceedings saw, and justly aroused suspicion.

At around 6pm EDT, a comment appeared on the Reddit post that the source code for Phyllis’ “Vote” button differed from that of all the other contestants. The first comment Geekosystem found reporting this claim was made on NowPublic at 5:32pm EDT.

At 8pm EDT, another comment appeared on NowPublic that claimed to show the specific difference in the coding. This comment was posted by a user going by the name b/rother, and it presented the following, reformatted here for easier reading:

Dr. Phyllis:  <div class=”clearfix” style=”float:left; cursor:pointer;” onclick=”add_vote(1, 1607, ’208260549′)”>

Zach:  <div class=”clearfix” style=”float:left; cursor:pointer;” onclick=”add_vote(1, 5615, ‘NA’)”>

Jacqueline:  <div class=”clearfix” style=”float:left; cursor:pointer;” onclick=”add_vote(1, 855, ‘NA’)”>

Shawn:  <div class=”clearfix” style=”float:left; cursor:pointer;” onclick=”add_vote(1, 1185, ‘NA’)”>

jasbina:  <div class=”clearfix” style=”float:left; cursor:pointer;” onclick=”add_vote(1, 6601, ‘NA’)”>

That extra number was labeled in the add_vote function as “eid,” which frequently stands for “employee ID” and could in theory allow for behind-the-scenes vote manipulation by an OWN employee.

function add_vote(promo_id, response_id, eid) {

var exp = new Date();

exp.setTime(exp.getTime() + 15000); // 15 seconds

setCookie(‘YOS_AUD_VT’, $A(arguments).join(‘,’), exp, ‘/’, ‘oprah.com’);

location.href = ‘http://myown.oprah.com/audition/index.html?request=vote_confirm’;}

… sending the following request to the server, which, straightforwardly enough, adds a vote.

GET /audition/index.html?request=vote_confirm

Cookie: YOS_AUD_VT=1,5615,NA

Update 1: Astute commenter Travis Wright, who is the creator of the chart below and continues to graph the voting (expect further updates), has written in our comments that EID in this instance stands for Entity ID, and the profile on Oprah’s site with the EID number 208260549 is LillianSkincare. The user has no followers and follows no one, and has no recent activity. Here is a link to the profile page. The EID can be seen at the end of the URL. It is unclear what this signifies at this point.

Around 12:00am EDT on Reddit, a comment appeared stating that the code for Phyllis had become identical to that of the others. Our own data, coming up shortly, suggests that by this time the weirdness in voting had stopped. And the fact that this code change falls in a window that coincides with the time Phyllis’ voting slowed down leads Geekosystem to believe that the code difference corresponded with some very strange patterns which mysteriously stopped later.

If you click the tiny chart to the right or right here, you will be linked to the full size image. This chart was posted anonymously on 4chan — which is a Zach Anner stronghold and not always to be trusted regardless — but it largely corroborates with our own independently collected data. It shows that, mathematically, it would fit nearly perfectly with for that mysterious coding to have given Phyllis two free votes every time Zach received a vote, in addition to the votes Phyllis otherwise received. But while the math seems to work well for most of his time window, there is no way to confirm this algorithm was actually implemented, especially now that the coding for the button has been reverted to its original form.

The suspected time of revert is between 10:00p.m. and 10:24p.m. EDT. Starting at 6:06p.m. EDT, Geekosystem took a screenshot of the voting totals on Oprah’s competition site roughly every 15 minutes. From 6:06 to 10:24, Phyllis consistently received more votes than Zach in each interval. Notably, though, these numbers were slightly inconsistent with the theory posited in the above chart, as Phyllis’ increases were often a bit less than double Zach’s.

Update 2: Travis Wright has provided us with a new chart that shows the time of the voting code revert was nearly exactly 7p.m. PDT, or 10p.m. EDT. You can click on it to the right, or here, to see it full size. It also shows that a new vote-altering algorith may have been recently implemented. (Note: In the chart graphic, the expected ratio written is that Phyllis gets one extra vote for every two Zach gets. Travis has informed us that the ratio is actually closer to Phyllis getting two votes for every three Zach gets.) Foul play may still be afoot, though we have verified that, if the coding has been changed, it was not done in the same way it was before.

Here is the number of votes per minute each of the top 9 total vote-getters (as of the time this was written) received between 6:06p.m. and 10:24p.m. EST on June 22. These are ranked by votes per minute in this time period, not by standing in the overall competition.

  1. Doctor Phyllis:     ~1923/min
  2. Zach Arren:          ~977/min
  3. Kornelius:            ~587/min
  4. Jacqueline:          ~224/min
  5. Jasbina:               ~167/min
  6. Maria:                  ~137/min
  7. Cheryl:                 ~29/min
  8. David:                  ~12/min
  9. Shawn:                ~2/min

At 10:24p.m. Phyllis’ increase rate plummets. Here are the rates for votes per minute from 10:24p.m. EST to 12:26a.m. EST, a span lasting roughly two hours from the suspected revert time. These are kept in the same order as presented above, for easy comparison.

  1. Doctor Phyllis:     ~3/min
  2. Zach Arren:          ~753/min
  3. Kornelius:            ~648/min
  4. Jacqueline:          ~255/min
  5. Jasbina:               ~334/min
  6. Maria:                  ~176/min
  7. Cheryl:                 ~80/min
  8. David:                  ~20/min
  9. Shawn:                ~4/min

Yes, Phyllis dropped from 1923 votes per minute to 3 votes per minute some time between 10:00p.m. and 10:24p.m. EST, while nobody else’s rate changed by anywhere near the same number of votes. This doesn’t just happen out of nowhere, and the button source code swap, knocking out the ‘eid’ value, is the leading suspect right now. If things continue at the current rate, post-revert, Zach will have no problem catching up with and surpassing Phyllis in the overall vote. As we write this, he trails by less than 300,000 votes.

Update 1: At the time of this first update, Zach has just closed the gap to under 3,000 votes.

Update 2: About ten minutes since the last update, and Zach has now taken the lead, and is winning by roughly 3,000 votes.

If you want to see for yourselves and get more exact numbers, the screenshots we took can be viewed here on Flickr. Just hit slideshow and you can track the increase rates. (Be sure to click “Show Info” after the slideshow begins so you can see the time for each photo.)

Update 3: Chart-master Travis has brought us another graph, showing the pivotal moment when Zach reclaimed the lead. It also shows the 3 to 2 vote-alteration algorithm more clearly. As always, click to the right or here to see it full size.

But perhaps now would be a good time to point out that none of this matters in terms of the contestants’ fates. Here is an excerpt from the FAQ of Oprah’s contest site:

How does the Your OWN Show competition work?
The top five (5) online submissions as voted on by the general public pursuant to the Participation Terms and Online Voting Rules will be flown to Los Angeles to meet the producers of the competition series. They will join a pool of talent selected by producers from the in-person casting calls and online submissions. From this group of finalists, a group of ten (10) cast members will be chosen to appear in the television competition series. At least one (1) online favorite from the top five (5) online submissions will be chosen for the television competition series.
Yes, it turns out that in theory, coming in first or second doesn’t actually matter at all in terms of whether Zach would eventually get his own show or not. But in practice, there would be a much bigger backlash if Oprah anointed someone other than Zach to be the winner of the contest if he was in first place than if he was in second or lower, whether that person was Dr. Phyllis or anyone else. And on principal, it still matters whether a poll run by a celebrity brand of Oprah’s stature is being rigged to favor one contestant over the others. We hope that OWN will release a statement explaining their side of the story — we’ve tried getting in touch with them several times, but have not received a response — but we’re not holding our breath.
Update: OWN has given the following statement to EW: “The online voting rules for the ‘Your OWN Show’ video submission competition were carefully crafted to be fair to everyone. Any allegations of impropriety will be investigated and the appropriate actions taken to keep the process unbiased.”
http://www.geekosystem.com/zach-anner-rigged-votes-oprah/?preview=true&preview_id=21635&preview_nonce=a48872b1e8
Filed Under |
  • lbistro

    Very suspicious!

  • http://www.geekosystem.com/ Michael Suen

    This is some fine investigative reporting. Let’s see how Oprah plays this one out.

  • traviskwright

    Greetings! Great investigative work.
    Just to let you know, I know exactly what EID means…

    http://myown.oprah.com/profile/user_info/index.html?entity_id=208260549

    EID stands for Entity ID for OWN’s profile pages. the number 208260549 links to “LillianSkincare”. I don’t know what this means, but there you go.

    Also, I am the creator of that graph. I don’t know how to post a picture here, but email me at traviskwright@gmail.com if you want an updated version that shows how the votehax has been turned off last night at 7, and was turned back on (this time giving her 1 vote for every of his 2 votes, much less than giving her 2 votes for every 1 of his) this morning. Thank you!

  • SouthCow

    Excellent report. I hope other news networks pick up on this. I think all of Zach’s fans as well as Oprah’s fans deserve an explanation. Keep pressing OWN to release that statement!

  • traviskwright

    Greetings again! i went ahead and followed geekosystem’s lead and updated all of my screenshots up to this point to twitter:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/51421543@N03/sets/72157624216508725/
    And hooray! Zach is in the lead! :)

  • GeekJunky

    Smells like another Lutfi finding. Proofs in the pudding. Nice work!

  • mrboris

    the entity id field is set from a cookie in the javascript of the page. Only if a previous cookie exists, I’m assuming a cookie that is created when a user logs in.

    if (getCookie(‘YOS’) && !doover) { url += ‘&entity_id=’ + getCookie(‘ENTITY_ID’); }

    IMO it’s just a tracking cookie to see which users are voting for other voters or for themselves.

  • Steadman

    This whole contest was really set up improperly to begin with. It is an interesting sociology experiment really – and perhaps shows how the political system works. When one person starts cheating the system, everyone does too. There is no way these top people are not using automated tools – even if some of the people are not affiliated with the entries… these people know and are part of the broken system. The views to votes ratio is proof of this — and only recently have these numbers improved!

    This was supposed to be a contest that showed which entries were the most favored by unique visitors, but has turned into a game, that is about how many people can we get to set their computers to vote all night long! It’s too bad – the coding of the site should have prevented this to begin with…so it’s in part the developer’s fault. It’s probably like the Olympics…or any high stakes sport – if one person is cheating (using PEDs), everyone has to in order to stay in the game. A good solution would be to reset the voting, and fix the website to allow unique votes by IP address, and then have Oprah tell her audience to go vote. The problem is placement – because it’s hard to say which videos will be most accessible by viewers. In the end, it’s a popularity contest based on how many people you ask to vote…

    Ultimately, if a video is no good, and has the most votes… it would be kind of embarrassing to win I would think. Plus, a good idea is a different thing than a good host that people will watch every week. So in the end, hopefully all this cheating won’t matter at all. The top 5 just get a little more visibility and a filter for the producers. In theory, the producers will just pick the best people for their television show, regardless of the votes…

    Will be interesting to see what happens! Scandal is always good television!!! :D

    Perhaps… a polygraph test would be the first episode of the show!??!!

  • Mitch Henderson

    I must now apologize to you good sir for correcting your mistake and proving me wrong in assuming you hate disabled people (and possibly stole my ipod).

    You are a great person for updating and revealing the true biased in the voting and the clear attempt to give Dr. Phillis a show over the amazingly charismatic Zack Anner perpetrated by non other than Oprah herself!

    And the response from Zack over the conspiracy to eliminate his chance itself shows what an amazing guy he truly is and just how great his character is.

    I again apologize to you good sir, have a wonderful day and I shall go back to searching for my ipod.

  • monika

    Comments on Dr. Phyllis’s video are being screened, and not just to filter out racial slurs and irrelevant memes. Yesterday, I attempted to make a post in which I stated that I don’t believe that neither she nor Oprah has anything to do with the rigging, and that it is likely the work of a single overzealous staffer (to borrow a phrase). I urged her to stop turning a blind eye, look at the evidence herself, and come to her own conclusions, and if she had any decency, speak out against the rigging rather than denying and ignoring it.

    That post has not yet appeared on the site. Meanwhile, posts complaining about her grammar, the possible effects of filming a school classroom, and gun-in-the-classroom and fat-mother jokes, as well as those outright accusing her herself of cheating and those insulting her in reasonably tame language, go up. So are a lot of posts by people with three-letter user names who over-use exclamation points and respond defensively to every post against her. (On a slightly related note, she herself is posting as both Philetha – the account the video is posted from – and AJ1 – which in theory could be someone posing as her -, both of whom also overuse exclamation points.)

    On the subject of 4chan’s retaliation, I watched a few of those threads last night. Some users were botting, but considering the 16-second-between-votes issue and the “we have bot detectors and will use them as an excuse to subtract votes” thing, most people seemed fine with just going back to the page and clicking vote every once in a while while doing other things. The only real fixing I saw was an attempt to vote four more people ahead of her, so that she would need to show up at an open casting call if they were to maintain an illusion of propriety and still have her on the show; that’s just a game theory technique, not cheating. (And as immature as it is, they started it.)

  • pmmmm

    I definitely think the contest is rigged. I voted about 10 minutes ago and Zach had 8,212,077 votes. I refreshed and he had 8,212,072 votes. I refreshed again a few minutes ago and he had 8,208,284 votes and currently has 8,212,284 votes now (8:59 am central time),9am 8,205,066 votes listed. .. CHEATERS!!!

  • John

    Just keep it simple and VOTE for me! PLEASE RETWEET!!!! John’s Audition: ReBoot Living! – Oprah’s OWN TV http://bit.ly/bpA4UP

  • LL77
  • redruby1941

    I have been watching one particular person who had only 30k votes 3 days ago and that person is now up to nearly 400k with only a few hundred extra views and has literally logged in 8000 votes in the past 10 minutes with 3 views. Now she is smartly on the front page of Health and Well being. The cheating yes it is going on but some people are taking it to a real limit and whatever they are doing…hopefully it will be caught because this should be based on the personality of the person and the concept of the show…not on how many programs you can set to vote all the time. There is no way that friends or family are going to sit and vote thousands of times and hour. It is literally impossible.

  • hobs

    If you were in the know with 4chan, you’d also know they are cheating for zach.
    I love the guy, but his first million votes were a complete sham.

  • tomboi1978

    Did anyone consider that maybe Phyllis had bots voting for her or maybe Zach did. I know this to be a possibility as I personally know an entrant who did it with just a rudimentary macro that admittedly wasn’t very good since he didn’t even get noticed. What I also find funny is that in the end Zach had 9.1mil votes with 1.3 mil views of his vid while Phyllis needed 2.6 mil views to get 8.2. Sounds to me like a lot more people were interested in Phyllis.

  • Anon

    Were you counting his over five million views on YouTube?