Alter Ego Detector 1.7.8

[GreasySpoon]

Liam W Thanks for the addon.

Is it possible to display both user name in the title, when the thread is created?

 

[Stuart Wright]

@Liam W would it be possible to make the cookies last forever please?

 

[Andy.N]

@Liam W would it be possible to make the cookies last forever please?

Forever cookies will be a killer feature.

 

[Liam W]

Liam W updated Alter Ego Detector with a new update entry:

Bug Fixes

Fixes bugs relating to conversion reporting of alter egos.

Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[RAHSTYLES]

Can you add a profile tab and also a automatic registration rejection when trigered

 

[dawg]

I had to remove this add on for now. It kept reporting that so and so was an alter ego of so and so. In other words it was reporting the same nick, i guess it cannot distinguished between cell, phone ip's, pads etc... I was getting hammered with alerts although not a a one of them was a real alter ego. Or troll like we used to call them.

 

[RAHSTYLES]

I had to remove this add on for now. It kept reporting that so and so was an alter ego of so and so. In other words it was reporting the same nick, i guess it cannot distinguished between cell, phone ip's, pads etc... I was getting hammered with alerts although not a a one of them was a real alter ego. Or troll like we used to call them.

Is this true?

 

[Harpers Tate]

Here are my personal observations:

Having a permission to exclude a user or usergroup from reporting is useful for globally permitted cases (eg Admins using duplicates for testing; advertisers also having a non-commercial member account; whatever fits each different site's needs).

However this is of reduced value when it comes to merely preventing repeated reporting of a known relationship (eg family members, friends) which we are therefore going to allow. The reason is that it is THIS RELATIONSHIP (and not any other duplicate pairing between either party individually and other accounts) that we are permitting.

The perfect addition to this would be for the actioning Moderator (etc) to be able to choose to mark the relationship (the two accounts together being reported) as permitted and not to be reported, but with no effect on either account individually.

In case I wasn't wholly clear there, a rephrase:

Suppose Member A is reported as a duplicate of member B. Suppose we decide this is OK as they are merely friends who shared a computer during a visit (say).

What we DO want is to be able to choose that future reports of A & B will be suppressed.
What we DO NOT want is for a detected duplicate of A with C or B with D to be suppressed.

Oh, and that cookie needs to be permanent until deleted.

 

[Mouth]

Suppose Member A is reported as a duplicate of member B. Suppose we decide this is OK as they are merely friends who shared a computer during a visit (say).

What we DO want is to be able to choose that future reports of A & B will be suppressed.
What we DO NOT want is for a detected duplicate of A with C or B with D to be suppressed.

I already achieve this.
I've created a usergroup called 'Alter Ego Bypass' and set the permission for this usergroup with 'Bypass Alter Ego Checking' = Allow.
Then just put A & B into this usergroup when I get a report and allow it.

 

[Harpers Tate]

@Mouth
Not quite. My point was that using individual permissions (or placing an individual in a UserGroup) will suppress a report of A with C as well. And perhaps that relationship has not been researched or allowed.

 

[Mouth]

@Mouth
Not quite. My point was that using individual permissions (or placing an individual in a UserGroup) will suppress a report of A with C as well. And perhaps that relationship has not been researched or allowed.

But if C logs-in, you have put them into bypass usergroup so it will generate an ego report.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Must be thinking along different lines.

As I see it - I get a report;
I research the TWO parties in the report together
I decide whether to allow the two accounts to co-exist (truly different people or a permitted duplicate - either way).

It is these two together that want suppressing - and not any other pairing involving either account individually.

 

[Mouth]

Must be thinking along different lines.

Perhaps?

A and B are husband and wife. They share a PC, and having common interests both visit your site.
A is the first member and logons regularly. B logs on irregularly, and triggers an ego report.
You investigate, find they are husband and wife sharing a PC, and put both A and B into your ego bypass usergroup.
Weeks pass, and A becomes mischevious - s/he creates C to go and troll a user s/he has taken a dislike to.
As soon as C logs in, it spawns an ego report with A and you can see that C is A's alter ego. You delete C account (or merge it into A) and have words with A.

.... rinse and repeat.

 

[CTXMedia]

Edit: Ninja'd by @Mouth

Must be thinking along different lines.

As I see it - I get a report;
I research the TWO parties in the report together
I decide whether to allow the two accounts to co-exist (truly different people or a permitted duplicate - either way).

It is these two together that want suppressing - and not any other pairing involving either account individually.

And that's what @Mouth's suggestion does. I use the same set-up.

If A & B are in the same household (or have a known relationship) and you put them into the 'bypass' usergroup - it stops them being reported.

If C comes along from the same household it will still report C because they are not on bypass; so it will catch additional alter-ego's to the ones you've bypassed.

Equally if you only put A or B on bypass the other continues to be reported - that's why both have to be members of the 'bypass' group to stop the reporting.

It's easy to do and very effective.

 

[JamesBrown]

With this enabled I'm getting log in issues. The user signs in but is presented with an error saying the user name is invalid even though they are actually signed in.

 

[RAHSTYLES]

No user diffrent user groups.. I just want people in one user group no second user groupo... but i also want what the guy about said.. about a b c d stuff.. but stop with the second user group stuff.. Nobody on my site is in 2 user groups.. that jsut takes more work and it get confusing.

 

[Mouth]

stop with the second user group stuff.. Nobody on my site is in 2 user groups.. that jsut takes more work and it get confusing

Your detriment. It's real easy, and no-one other than admin even needs to know about the 2nd user groups existence.

 

[Harpers Tate]

@RAHSTYLES Secondary UserGroups really ARE the way to go about this. Once you get your head around the concept it's very, very efficient.

As for A B C and D. I'm still not getting how placing a marker on an individual account satisfactorily sets the relationship between two accounts as being permitted. Perhaps I'm being purist, but it's both parts of the detection together that are researched and marked; not either one part.

Contrived example:
A & B are friends and share a computer. So we give A & B exclude permission.
C & D are work colleagues. So we give C & D exclude permission.

A & C are the same person. Normally, he uses A at home and C at work. When he slips up and uses A & C on the same machine......
- we should get a detection because A-C has never been researched, allowed
- with an individual permissions scheme, we don't because both accounts are excluded.

 

[Mouth]

Contrived example:
A & B are friends and share a computer. So we give A & B exclude permission.
C & D are work colleagues. So we give C & D exclude permission.

A & C are the same person. Normally, he uses A at home and C at work. When he slips up and uses A & C on the same machine......
- we should get a detection because A-C has never been researched, allowed
- with an individual permissions scheme, we don't because both accounts are excluded.

Sorry, I just don't see that scenario happening IRL. And if it did, the rarity of it would be so inconsequential.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Perhaps your board isn't blessed with the devious so-and-so's we have to endure.