Upper Deck's Social Media Awards: A Good Idea Gone Bad

It seems the guys at Upper Deck just can't get a break these days.
While some of its past misfortune is nobody's fault but their own, they
had no control over its most recent slip. In fact, the card company
actually came up with a great idea in creating its Upper Deck Social
Media Awards.

The premise is simple, original and well-intended. The awards were
designed to honor the online communities, blogs and box-break video
sites that help promote the hobby in a positive light. I was pleased to
see someone felt compelled to nominate this very blog for an award and
I even encouraged others to vote for the 7th Inning Stretch so on the
slim chance that if it was the top vote-getter, I could pass the prizes
along to our loyal readers. But never once did I consider going to the
extreme lengths some did to push my blog over the top and essentially
“buy” voters in an effort to claim the award. Unfortunately, others
nominated adopted the “win-at-all-costs” mantra and the awards quickly lost their cache.

The mistake they made in offering prizes was not considering to what
levels collectors will sink to when you offer up some free prizes to
the award winners.

I run contests on this blog every week and I understand that the prizes
help hook in more readers and boost participation. But I also realize
the number of vultures in this hobby and I also understand that you
need to make sure you have some checks in balances in place to ensure
everyone has a fair chance at winning. For the most part, Upper Deck
covered its bases, but as is typical in the sports memorabili

industry, a few bad apples make us all look like worms.

One nominated site went so far as to offer money and prizes in exchange
for a vote in their particular category. Upper Deck appears to have
since stepped in and asked the site to remove the questionable
vote-getting tactics but the damage may have already been done as the
site in question currently the leading vote-getter in its category.

If you check out the vote totals in the other categories, you might
assume that others are encouraging similar under-the-table methods to
boost their vote totals and ultimately win the prizes as well. The
contest allows each IP server to vote just once but I know there are
several ways to get around that restriction and I'm positive that the
guys running out websites out of their own living rooms are aware of
them as well. When you see a site with a very limited viewership
running away with virtually all the votes, it screams of more foul play.

Thanks to those who have participated and thanks to Upper Deck for the
great idea and the recognition. For those of you scouring up new IP
addresses and running from computer to computer stuffing the ballot
boxes, good luck and enjoy the prizes, but most importantly, thanks for
continuing the industry's long-standing tradition of allowing greed to
ruin a good thing. As I said, it sure would be nice to win the category
and give our
readers a shot at the great prizes Upper Deck has made available, but
to beg, pay or straight-up cheat in order to win those prizes, I'll
have to say no thanks.


187 thoughts on “Upper Deck's Social Media Awards: A Good Idea Gone Bad

  1. ethan cahn on said:

    And this is why you were nominated….
    Very well said, I spoke to one of the people at Upper deck in regards to the "Ballot stuffing", But they don’t feel it warrents their(the Website in Question) removal From the program.

    If you see the thread that particular Site had, not only did they Offer up cash for votes, but later in the thread, it was explained exactly how to switch your ip address( I believe it was from a member, but Still), It stinks that Such a good concept has been ruined…..

    Still on your side brother, Hoping for some more votes coming your way…

    Thanks again,

  2. Mitch on said:

    Great read Scott…. You are right… a few bad apples ruin the bunch…. O well.. thanks for trying UD.. Mission unaccomplished

  3. VOTC on said:

    Very well said Scott

  4. As I said on another blog… UD should just recognize all blogs equally, make a nice thank you letter and send it out, maybe with a pack of cards (there’s what, 150 blogs or so? Not so bad). Each blog brings a different thing to the table. Each forum is a separate and unique community. Each box breaker on Youtube does it differently.

  5. Nathan on said:

    Excellent read, Scott. I completely agree…it only takes a few bad apples to make the entire thing look bad. Unfortunately, greed took hold of what was meant to be a good thing and turned it into the equivalent of rancid apple juice. Hopefully Upper Deck will realize that something more needs to be done, sooner rather than later.

  6. Honestly?

    This contest has brought about the worst in the hobby on a lot of levels, but not where the most common fingers have been pointed. No one said a word when SCF jumped out to a huge lead on the first day of voting.

    Then FCB started closing ground. Maybe they have an older collector base who cannot access the poll at work (I can see the blogs and message boards, but the polling site itself is blocked). Only after FCB (perceived by many as the ‘new kid on the block’) started gaining ground did the daggers come out.

    Many members on SCF admitted to the same practices that they accused FCB of using.

    As far as using membership numbers as a guide, that’s a fairly useless stat. As a new board (and one you don’t have to sign up to view, a huge drawback to many boards), FCB probably has a much higher ratio of active users to registered members. Many users register simply to view the content on a board and then find it not to their liking. Those are ‘registered members’ but hardly ‘active users’.

    Personally, I am a ‘registered member’ of at least 6 of the nominated sites, but only active at two, and I only voted for one.

    There’s a lot of sour grapes right now, and blog posts or message board threads threatening to withdraw now that they are losing are not ‘taking the high road’ – you are just as much a part of the problem as the sites you are baselessly accusing of wrongdoing (I don’t consider a message board post proof of anything, anyone who has read a board for a long time knows there is a lot of BS on all of them).

  7. James on said:

    COI, no one said a word when SCF was on top because SCF is the biggest of the forums and it was no surprise.

    Also, we’ve seen the posts on FCB where users encouraged proxy votes. It’s not a "baseless accusation" – it is a FACT that FCB encouraged it. Yes, SCF members did the same, but let’s not paint FCB as all innocent in this. They don’t have the integrity of REAL sites like The Bench, Trader’s Arena, and Trader Retreat, and everyone’s seen it now. Your site has embarrassed itself and you can’t save it by being some reality-denying apologist for it.

  8. Great write up and very thoughtful. Keep up the great work we love your content – #respect

  9. ken on said:

    yea i got no respect for freedomcardboard after seeing all this. you don’t see a site like tcc begging for votes, lolz! if ur site is kinda new and you want to spread the word, bad publicity isnt the best way to go about it 🙂

  10. I have many problems with this article.

    First off it is almost a direct port of complaints directed at me via another forum owner, and it appears that you just wrote what he told you to write without doing any research of your own.

    Second you accuse me of buying votes when that isn’t what the promotional contest that I had set up is designed to do. In fact there is no way of tracking votes so there is no way to determine what prize would go where even if you were to do that.

    The promotion was set up to allow users to enter a contest by using facebook, twitter, and other means of social networking to encourage people to check out and vote for our our website. No where did it even imply that users would be paid for a vote.

    Third you claim that when a site with very limited viewership takes the lead something screams of foul play. And while this is true, FCB isn’t a site with very limited viewership. Our statistics and reader base are VERY similar to sports card forum and in fact Alexa.com has our traffic rating as stronger than Sports Card Forum. Lots of people look at the 30k number that they boast about all the time and assume that it is larger than every site that does not have 30k members. That simply isn’t true as the metric is misleading depending on how many of those members actually still visit the site.

    At the end of the day all that really matters is what did and didn’t happen. Here is what did happen. I ran a contest that would give users the chance to win an ebay or paypal gift certificate with a link to participation on other social networking outlets. Social networking is at the core of this progam and at FCB we frequently give ebay gift certificates away as we are blessed with the income to do so.

    If I had it to do all over again, I would certainly not have run this contest, as I did not anticipate the backlash over a harmless promotion that never really took off anyway. The contest thread only went 3 pages.

    The poll on my blog that only had my site as a voting option is irrelevant because that was a tool at everyone’s exposure. If you went to a presidential candidates page and saw a vote for me badge, would you expect it to have the other guys name?

    I hope this helped clear a few things up as you now have my side of the story.

  11. ken on said:

    blah blah blah

    so why does tcc not have a zillion votes lol?

  12. Maybe because TCC’s members have not been proactive about voting and promoting TCC?

  13. Tyler Short (bballcardkid) on said:

    Limited viewership? Please. Go crawl back to your man cave where you will remain completely oblivious to the current events in todays hobby. Limited viewership? LMAO. That is too funny.

  14. Bradd Avery on said:

    So you think that just because you say something it’s true? Why don’t you prove that any site cheated the system before making yourself look like a fool by making baseless claims. You know all the sites can vote the very same way, so why are you singling out one site? Sounds like you have a motive.

  15. Josh on said:

    So you back a site that you are a partner and bash a site that you are not. Did you do any research before you wrote you blog entry? Did you go to the other site and read any of the posts? Talk to anyone to check site traffic?

  16. Ken, maybe it’s because TCC gets little to no traffic. I became a member on TCC about a year ago, and can count on 2 hands the amount of times I’ve visited that site. It’s terrible. There is no hobby news, discussion, etc. The trading is mediocre at best. What seperates FCB and SCF from the rest of the online forums is the amount of hobby knowledge and up to date news details on current events that help educate collectors in the overall sports card/memorabilia community. When deciding between the 2, FCB seperates itself from SCF even more so.

    This article reveals the true colors of Tuff Stuff, and they aren’t looking to bright from where I’m standing.

  17. skrip on said:

    Do you have nothing better to write about? Maybe this is why Tuff Stuff is completely irrelevant in the hobby, because of blogs and articles like this. Get a clue.

  18. ken on said:

    lol say what you want about tcc, whatever..so the other sites are way behind you guys and scf cuz they havent been proactive, active, and are terrible too, huh? so what about freaks, the bench, hobby insider, hobby kings? why dont they have anywhere near the votes freedomcardboard and scf do? those are all good sites with loyal member bases

  19. No one has responded to my argument about Alexa traffic ratings. I am not surprised. Check and see where FCB ranks vs other communities and hobby sites. Check and see where FCB ranks vs even this site.

    No, the Alexa ratings aren’t perfect but at least it shows we are in the right ballpark.

  20. Jim on said:

    So somehow FCB gains 300 votes over SCF in the early hours of the morning? I’m on a neutral ground from another site but I think that what FCB has been doing is terrible. These games were meant to be for fun but FCB turned it into a win-at-all-costs game just to get the prizes. That doesn’t maintain the integrity of the contest.

    I have been watching the voting closely and have seen what happened. SCF started out hot but suddenly FCB makes up hundreds of votes in a matter of hours when I was sleeping. Personally, I don’t like either of these sites. SCF has the large membership while FCB is 1/15 of it. Who cares about those numbers! I knew this would be a contest on who could recruit more people who pay no attention to the hobby. That is the main reason this contest has gotten out of hand.

  21. TNP777 on said:

    IMO, the ‘best online community’ category isn’t legit in the first place, and for that matter neither is the ‘best blog’ category – far too many deserving and very well known sites out there got snubbed.

    When UD put the ‘contestants’ out there, they not only excluded themselves, but also CU (PSA), Net54, Topps (yeah, they’re a rival company but still have a community), Blowout and Beckett. Yes, all of those are for-profit companies (except Net54), but all of them have pretty active communities, some are very active. If UD was truly seeking to honor the best community, it should have included all the players. They needn’t have feared that Topps was going to win, either – FCB and SCF are both far better sites than Topps.

    BTW, for the record, I voted for FCB – once. Great site, well run, high participation – nice place to hang out.

  22. ken on said:

    i’d like to see how many different users have logged in on freedomcardboard since this poll went up…..of course we won’t see that ’cause it’d reveal the real truth

  23. Robert on said:

    First off Mr. Gilmore, I am calling BS on you, b/c last night you called for a chat room meeting, and then all of the sudden from around midnight to before noon, you gained over 300 votes. That doesn’t seem a little coincidental does it. Not to mention you told people that they can vote from their iphones over and over. Are you going to deny that one also. Way to give what used to be the old Beckett boards a black eye.

  24. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    I expect nothing less from an SCF supporter. In their own thread, they encouraged members to post the voting link on their social networking sites to try and garner votes. Many members mentioned how they had voted multiple times. There was even a member saying how he was going to try and vote 100 times or more from various computers at his school. Talk about a one-sided opinion fluff piece.

    This is a contest that Upper Deck is running where everyone could win. It would help give publicity to all of the sites and could help everyone gain some new members. At the end of the day, isn’t that what all of the sites are trying to do is expand the hobby? SCF put themselves on an awfully high pedestal and expected that they should win because they have a large amount of members. It doesn’t matter that they aren’t all active, they have a larger registered number, so they feel they should win.

    FCB did nothing that SCF itself didn’t do. For some reason though, so many want to give SCF a pass for these practices, but when FCB does the same thing, it’s a big deal. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If the practices of FCB are unfair or cheating, then that must apply to SCF as well. There should be no double standard.

    I find it funny that people felt the need to run to Upper Deck to try and get FCB removed from the poll. Did these people mention that SCF was doing the same things that they were complaining about FCB doing? I highly doubt it. I know some people at Upper Deck, so maybe I should call some of my contacts and see what they have to say about SCF. Would that be the right thing to do? Exactly, that’s why it’s funny that SCF and their members felt the need to contact Upper Deck about FCB.

    In the future, I would suggest doing some research and not just relying on the biased information fed to you by your friends. FCB is not asking the members of the blogging community that they know to blast SCF. Yet SCF feels compelled enough to try and get their friends to blast FCB. The longer this goes on, the lower and lower my opinion of SCF goes. Obviously they will stop at nothing to try and tarnish the name of FCB because they are not winning by the landslide they thought they would. Maybe instead of trying everything you can to try and make FCB look bad, look at the situation objectively and you would realize that if FCB is in the wrong, then so is SCF.

  25. Robert, use your iphone and try to vote over and over agian. See how far that gets ya.

    And btw, I call a chat room session a few times a week, nothing out of the ordinary.

  26. Thomas on said:

    I dont think people are questioning the social networking on your site as that helps any of the sites on the poll…. I think they are questioning the people voting dozens of times and boasting about it on your website…

  27. Did I do that Thomas? I merely instructed people to vote as many times as the software would let you. And that is once per 24 hours.

  28. Thomas on said:

    I never said it was you or anyone else affiliated with your staff…. I am just saying it is what it is…. And when there are people on your site boasting about it the simple fact of allowing it to go on makes it seem a little shady dont you think? You can talk number all you want fact of the matter is right now there are 1200 people viewing sportscardforum.com right now as i type this on a wednesday night… which is more than double your highest number of people online at one time ever…

  29. Robert on said:

    Gilmore did you or did you not post that on your site, and yes you can vote multiple times on your iphone. All you have to do is go to a Starbucks or walk through a mall and keep logging onto different wifi addresses, but you already know that. Last but not least before I really make you look the fool, I know you chat last night was about the voting.

  30. TNP777 on said:

    Here are the Alexa rankings for each site that Chris Gilmore mentioned. All numbers are for US traffic. As you can see, with the exception of cardboardconnection, FCB has the highest traffic ranking of all nominees. Not too shabby for a relatively new site.

    22,189 Cardboardconnection.com
    no data Cardboardtalk.com
    no data Cardcollectorsworld.com
    106,729 Cardinformant.com
    882,461 Cloutsnchara.com
    24,481 Freedomcardboard.com
    33,405 Hobbyinsider.net
    479,996 Hobbykings.com
    no data Hockeyden.net
    no data Hoopography.com
    966,053 Ozcardtrader.com.au
    29,130 Sportscardforum.com
    432,221 Sportscardfreaks.com
    no data Sportscardhaven.com
    340,910 Sportscollectorsdaily.com
    315,516 Thebenchtrading.com
    132,988 Thetradersarena.com
    231,467 Traderretreat.com
    65,208 Tradingcardcentral.com
    no data ultimatecardboard.com

    Other sites not nominated – these numbers are for the parent site:
    20,394 upperdeck.com
    33,076 topps.com
    24,120 collectors.com (PSA)
    15,318 blowoutcards.com
    5,595 beckett.com
    51,188 net54baseball.com
    73,572 tuffstuff.com

  31. Robert, yes, I did post that. And it is true people can vote from different ip addresses. All I said is that it was possible, something that other site owners have said in criticism of the process.

    That thread is still up unedited, go have a look see and get a direct quote.

  32. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    Everyone can keep throwing up vote totals all they want. SCF can keep talking about the amount of non-collectors that could have voted for FCB all they want. When the members of SCF posted the voting link to their FaceBook/MySpace/Twitter/etc accounts, I can assure you that non-collectors voted for them as well.

    Of course people’s friends and families will probably cast votes when they see that someone they care about posted the link to the poll. It’s total hypocrisy to get up in arms with FCB about it when SCF benefits from the same practice.

  33. Anonomys on said:

    Mr Gilmore,

    Your comment that the link will let you vote every 24 hours seems to be a little skewed. First let me say that I have voted only once and would not vote more than that. Checking the link to try to vote again states that I have already voted.

    So maybe you found another way around that?

    And because the poll as you state "resets itself" makes it OK to send another mass PM out telling everyone that they should be able to vote again?

    Now on UD’s part, they should most definitely have put some rules together to avoid something like this from happening.

  34. Thomas on said:

    Joe – That is not what we are talking about at all…. Social networking is great for all sites involved…. I could care less that grandma betty voted from her computer and isnt sure if Shoeless Joe is a baseball player or a game she played when she was younger. The bigger issue is the multiple votes from the same people and that style being promoted.

  35. Jim on said:

    If you said it’s possible, you are indirectly encouraging people to do it. Of course, since you don’t want anybody quoting you in a way that makes your site’s image go down, you won’t tell them directly to vote from different IPs. Just realize that everyone will look up to their "great" leader.

  36. Anonomys

    The web page where you vote normally resets its IP system every 24 hours. Try clearing your cookies.

  37. Jim

    I can’t control what others do, I just know I didn’t encourage that. No forum has control over their members.

  38. Thomas on said:

    The web page where you vote normally resets its IP system every 24 hours. Try clearing your cookies.

    Or just vote once as the contest is designed

  39. Jim on said:

    Actually don’t admins have control over their members? You can suspend them or ban them, right?

  40. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    Thomas- On SCF, a mod made a big deal about how FCB was getting votes from non-collectors. That is my problem. SCF is really pushing this when they did the same things. Their members mentioned how they were voting multiple times and telling others how they could do the same. The mod in question did not say anything negative about this practice until FCB took the lead. Then it was a big deal and SCF has been exploring every avenue they can to try and make FCB look bad in this while they did the same things. That to me is the overall biggest problem with this entire scenario.

    SCF did the same things they are complaining about. As long as they were in the lead, all was right with the world. Once FCB was able to take the lead, they started complaining and trying to tarnish the appearance of FCB.

  41. Robert on said:

    Glad we cleared that up Gilmore, b/c a few posts earlier you tried to tell me to see how far I can get voting multiple times on an iphone, and now you admit that it is possible. Get your story straight man. You aren’t dealing with the kiddies.

  42. Thomas

    That isn’t how the contest is designed. Am I really going to take the fall for that polling site’s short comings? That’s kinda how it feels to be me right now.

    I try to be as open and honest as I can, but I am not really sure what good it is doing to repeat my stance to people who already have their minds made up.

    I am going to TRY and close this window now, if anyone has any further questions or just wanna hate feel free to email me, cgilmo@gmail.com

  43. Robert, when did I say that it was. All I want you to do is to try it, and then when it fails tell everyone that it fails. My criticism of the polling site was apparently incorrect because I can’t do it either. But I did try.

  44. Jim suspend them for saying they voted multiple times? I prefer not to be oppressive when I can help it.

    FCB has very few suspensions.

  45. Thomas on said:

    You are right Chris… Dangle a carrot (Or an autographed piece of rubber) in front of some people, sit back, and watch it go. But i can promise you one thing, SCF did not give hints to their members on how to get around the system and social networking was encouraged as it should be. That is what the contest was about, drawing in more people both to UDs site as well as all the online communities. I think it worked but unless there is a better explanation of making up over a 200 vote deficit overnight when you claim SCF was cheating right along with you Im all ears….

  46. Thomas
    FCB has a strong group of posters called "The Night Crew" They make up a large percentage of our user base. Our site does not die at midnight as a lot of guys are just getting revved up.

    Attempting to walk away, once more.

  47. Thomas on said:

    night crew of more people than the highest amount of people to ever be on your site at one time? Thats impressive! Ill be sure to check it at 2 or 3AM tomorrow and just check out how big of a night crew logs in

  48. Iggy on said:

    This is interesting from the FCB owner:

    Second you accuse me of buying votes when that isn’t what the promotional contest that I had set up is designed to do. In fact there is no way of tracking votes so there is no way to determine what prize would go where even if you were to do that.

    The promotion was set up to allow users to enter a contest by using facebook, twitter, and other means of social networking to encourage people to check out and vote for our our website. No where did it even imply that users would be paid for a vote.

    Paying members $200 PayPal to post links?

    I’d call that buying this election. I wonder why Upper Deck made you take it down. Hmm…. Interesting how your site doubled its votes after that promotion.

    Voting 25 times? Shameful.

  49. Thomas on said:

    One more thing… may i ask where they are posting? I just went through your forums and there are huge gaps in the overnight hours in all the forums… or did they just take last night off?

  50. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    Direct quotes from SCF members:

    “I think it ends April 5th and you can only vote once per computer. But nobody says you can’t vote from work/school as well or at your girlfriend’s house etc.”

    “Just a heads up. FCB is fronting a massive email/PM marketing campaign. I don’t believe we have much to worry about, considering we have four times the members. We’re currently winning. Voted on my laptop. Iphone is next, then the wife’s laptop, kids computer and the TV computer…..lol”

    “If you use an iPhone, you can get two votes a day. One through your wi-fi IP address then turn you wifi off and can vote again through your service provider.”

    “I am doing something to help the cause out

    I am on a very heavily visited wrestling website (www.wrestlingobserver.com) and I am doing a giveaway there for a Shawn Michaels DVD for anyone that votes for us. So that should add a serious number of voters for us.”

    “ill also get on every public computer at school tomorrow (about 100 LMAO)”

    A member is giving away a DVD(s) to help buy votes for SCF. Chris Gilmore was accused of trying to buy votes, but an SCF is actually doing that. Yet somehow, FCB is the one that keeps getting blasted. Nice objectivity here.

  51. Alexander F. on said:

    Don’t try to run away, you deserve the public embarassment

  52. masonphillip on said:

    FCB’s highest traffic hours are late at night, the fact there was a boost in voting at that point in time is no surprise.

    Frankly, the total votes are about half the user base right now for FCB – its not like they are 20,000 or some crazy number like that.

    The fact that this all came up when the lead evaporated makes things very suspicious.

  53. Alex on said:

    Why is it so hard to believe FCB could gain 200 votes overnight?
    Sportscardforum took a HUGE lead within 3-4 hours of the poll being started.As chris said FCB has loyal members that stay on well into the morning

  54. Thomas on said:

    Alex – Go look at the forums…. There are HUGE gaps in the times between posts overnight last night… And 200 votes isnt hard to believe… Overcoming a 200 vote deficit against a forum 10 times your size and a lot more active is….

  55. Alexander F. on said:

    Giving away physical items is different than money, it is against the law to give away money as prizes. however physical prizes can be given away.

  56. No one on said:

    I love Gilmore knocking down all the haters. I love how Mike brainwashed the whole SCF community, into thinking that FCB is a bunch of cheaters. I think both sites are good, but SCF has been on the decline and FCB has been on the rise.
    -SCF member.

  57. Alexander F. on said:

    "FCB has loyal members that stay on well into the morning"

    so wouldn’t they have already voted if they are so loyal? or are they staying up to find as many ways to vote illegally?

  58. Dave on said:

    I’m shocked that Tuff Stuff is still relevent …

  59. Ken on said:

    Instead of making blind accusations against each other we should all be thankful we have so many options for the hobby we all love. I’ll admit i only use one site and i voted for that site but its great to know there are quite a few other sites to have as an option. Ive read all the threads on FCB and on SCF and it does not appear that anyone is cheating by using a proxy. And who cares if a site is conducting a contest for people who vote. Its not like they are paying each person who voted. Its a great way to be more active. How is it any different than running a contest to bring more people to your site? I dont see why everyone is getting so crazy over this. I love the site im on and i know we have one of the best if not the best community on the internet, i dont need some poll to prove this to me. We’ve all become a bunch of crazy vultures over this contest. I respect what all these forums are doing for the hobby and i think we just need to get back to the hobby. If SCF wins the contest, GREAT and congrats to them, and if FCB wins the contest, thats GREAT too and congrats to them. I will be happy for any of the sites that win any of the contests because in the end its good for the hobby.

    FCB Moderator

  60. Wes on said:

    Who cares if people voted multiple times – the MLB All Star games lets you vote what 25 times!?

    And who cares how many members each site has – the poll says "Best Online Community." Not – "What community has the most members?" or "What community do collectors like the best?" or any of these other silly designations that some of you have mentioned.

    Anyone can vote – it’s a public poll, my opinion is no more impactful than someone who has never torn open a pack of baseball cards.

    Perhaps the funniest thing is that just previous to this post is a post from you Scott, offering incentives if your blog wins. Yet you feel the need to call out a forum for doing THE EXACT SAME THING? Comical.

  61. Alexander F.

    Seriously, what the hell. Against the law to give money as prizes??? What country do YOU live in?

  62. Anonomys on said:

    New contest coming out. It’s called "When will FCB get more votes than members" Contest. I’m betting it is Thursday. Any takers?

  63. Anonomys

    You act is if other communities aren’t voting as many times as they can. I tell people they should vote as many times as the software on that site allows, and won’t back down from that.

  64. Wes on said:

    New contest coming out. It’s called "When will idiots read a poll before they decide that you have to be a member to vote when it doesn’t say that anywhere?"

  65. Anonomys on said:


    I am not interested in clearing my cookies to vote a second time. And I see you didn’t even comment on the 2nd Pm you sent out reminding "your members" to vote again. Or did I read that pm wrong? That was in the same PM with the social links "contest" you claim had no association with this contest.

    Just as Chris stated he cannot control his members actions, neither can SCF or any other site. What should be controlled is the actions of moderators and admins. They should be set to a higher standard and act accordingly.

  66. Alexander F. on said:

    Chris Gilmore,
    it’s called America. but I guess you wouldn’t know since you hire lots of people in China to do work for you!

  67. neutral on said:

    Its a shame this hobby has so many self-righteous morons with nothing better to do then get their panties tied up over a stupid online poll.Get a fresh tampon and go to bed ladies, of course judging by some of your comments in this blog entry you probably aren’t old enough to know what a tampon is.

  68. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    Alexander F- First off, a gift certificate is a physical gift and is not cash. Secondly, it was a contest for members who posted the link to the poll on their social networking sites. It wasn’t a gift that was going to be given for votes like the SCF member is doing with the DVDs.

    Feel free to check FCB to see where anyone offered any kind of gift for votes. Guess what, you won’t find anything because it didn’t happen. Nothing was offered to anyone for a vote, while an SCF member is actually giving away gifts to get people to vote for SCF.

    Somehow FCB is the bad guy in this though.

  69. Whatever Alexander,

    I have 0 paid employees. I also have 0 paid contractors. The site is run by Bouwob and Myself, and we do all our own coding when necessary.

  70. Anonomys on said:

    What’s up with all this Alexa stuff? I just looked at the sites:

    People online:

    FCB: 344
    SCF: 1185

    I think even HI and a few others have more traffic! These ratios are consistent throughout the day.

  71. Anon on said:

    The blog entry makes you sound like a crybaby. Seriously, both forums have had people vote once a day and both forums have had people vote 20 times a day some way some how. I know I voted once a day and I know who I voted for. However, your affiliation with SCF makes this blog post reek of bias. Not to mention you run contests here every week and in this very blog talk of understanding how it helps bring people into the hobby. Yet in the same blog you decry FCB’s use of a give away to drive traffic. Give me a break


  72. Thomas on said:

    Can someone please explain the several hundred votes overnight when there were maybe 20 new posts on the entire site between 12AM and 7 AM?

  73. Alexander F. on said:

    i’m pretty sure that SCF and FCB are doing the same thing here. SCF is dumb by allowing the member to run that contest but FCB’s is run by the site’s owner or something and is giving away money. UD shut down FCB’s because it is buying votes but I guess SCF’s should be taken down as well. however, I still think that using paypal to buy votes isn’t right moreso than a DVD.

  74. Anonomys
    The who is online option can be set with different time outs. I don’t know what SFC’s is but I assume it’s a HUGE number. Mine is set to remove people from that list with 10 mins of inactivity.

    If they have 1185 members on RIGHT NOW (and not just members that have logged on today) then why aren’t they voting?

  75. neutral on said:

    People get their friends,family to vote on facebook,twitter,etc.As you may or may not know some people have more then 1 or 2 friends Thomas.

  76. I can’t explain the late night push. I wasn’t involved in it as I had already voted.

  77. Thomas on said:

    Understandable… but i am confident SCF had at least 10-15 times the amount of people online last night as well and if they are doing the same things as FCB wouldn’t you think they would have grown at the same rate?

  78. Thomas on said:

    FCB has a strong group of posters called "The Night Crew" They make up a large percentage of our user base. Our site does not die at midnight as a lot of guys are just getting revved up.

    you tried to explain it there but failed

  79. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    Alexander F- FCB wasn’t buying votes though. It was a contest for FCB members who posted the link to the poll on social networking sites. There was no guarantee of who was going to win the gift certificate, so it wasn’t buying a vote. Yes it was removed, but it was not encouraging someone to vote for FCB while what the SCF member is doing is encouraging votes. SCF is far from innocent in all of this and to be honest, they have members trying to buy votes. I would say they are just as much as fault as FCB at the very least. Honestly, they appear to be much more at fault. They are just running a smear campaign while FCB is taking the high ground.

  80. Josh on said:

    If SCF has soooooo many members then why don’t they have like 5x the votes and all this bickering would be moot? Pathetic. I was able to vote twice in that poll over 2 days with no clearing off cookies or other trickery. The only way I knew that it was possible was that I went to check the results and it let me vte again. So SCF why isn’t your community voting?

  81. Alexander F. on said:

    I agree that SCF may be trying to buy votes but the are doing it not as a pulling factor to get people to vote. plus it’s not public as far as I can see.

  82. Ken on said:

    Instead of accusing others of cheating i think SCF should ask themselves where are all their 30,000 members? If SCF had 10% of their total members actually vote it would be no contest.

  83. Alexander F. is a tool on said:

    What the hell are you talking about? Think before you type and yell at the computer.

  84. Anonomys on said:

    Alexa is a toolbar voting tool. Easily tricked!


    You install the tool bar and visit your site. The more people with the toolbar that visit your site the higher you rank in Alexa. Funny that FCB would brink up Alexa, yet another easily manipulated tool! All webmasters know this, but usually the ones that manipulate the numbers bring it up. Everyone know Google Analytics are the only true metric for ranking traffic. From Alexa:

    Making a better Internet

    Alexa could not exist without the participation of the Alexa Toolbar community. Each member of the community, in addition to getting a useful tool, is giving back. Simply by using the Firefox and IE toolbars each member contributes valuable information about the web, how it is used, what is important and what is not. This information is returned to the community as Related Links, Traffic Rankings and more.

  85. Anonymouse on said:

    Has anyone bothered to note that this entire argument/hissy fit would not be happening if Beckett hadn’t launched that disaster of a Web site?

    I’m just sayin’ …

  86. Josh on said:

    Heck if SCF had 1/5 of their touted 30000+ members actually vote they would run away with this.

  87. Robert on said:

    I love how Gilmore chimes in and tries to play the innocent man role. You know you would do whatever it took to win, even if it meant having people vote multiple times. You look at this contest as another way of making FCB more popular for your personal gain. You are a joke! You shouldn’t even be allowed to participate, since you are basically a hijacked Beckett board.

  88. Matt S on said:

    To all you SCF guys bashing FCB, what are you so mad about? The fact that you are losing? The fact that you have 15,000 "members" who probably can’t even locate your site? Should we apologize that we have passionate members who want to win? Should the Yankees be banned from MLB because they try harder than the Royals? Get a clue, take your meds, and shut your mouth.

  89. Anon on said:

    I’m a member of SCF, FCB and a few other websites (TR, Freaks, etc). Why hasn’t SCF got full participation from their members?

    SCF didn’t send out two mass private messages in a 12 hour period asking for multiple votes. They didn’t run a PayPal contest. I had no other choice on the FCB front page. I’m sure some SCF members voted for other forums because there was a choice on their link.

    It’s a sad day for the communities when there is so much fighting!

  90. Anon

    I sent out two identical PM’s on Tuesday due to a software glich. I sent a mass email Monday.

    Sue me for promoting events on my site.

  91. From Day 1 I said this wasn’t a "best community" poll, it was a "who can vote the most" poll.

    I told my membership to vote if they wanted to, but not to be surprised if we get slaughtered by SCF due to their membership size. I never personally expected FCB to be so close to their numbers.

    This was supposed to be a FUN poll in a FUN hobby promoting FUN communities. Maybe we should all take a minute and sit back and say "Hey, really does this matter at ALL?!?!" For me, I appreciate UD’s efforts to promote several other sites (some of which I didn’t know existed), blogs and wax breakers. A nice idea, with a nice set of prizes.

    Congratulations to the Australian site, as well. I checked it out today – they’re very similar in size to Hobby Insider. I’ll be signing up to find out about the cricket cards too.

    Good luck to all of you involved… but really, relax people… it’s a HOBBY.

    Bruce Findlay, Owner of Hobby Insider & The Insider’s Edge Magazine

  92. TunaHead on said:

    I think you’re all a bunch of whiny little bitches, seriously, debating which website about sports cards is better?? I think you all need to find more constructive uses of your time, and maybe go get laid.

  93. Chuck on said:

    I think all sites should’ve left members alone + let the contest run…no hounding people through pms, no offering $/prizes, no encouraging members to spam their friends/family/everyone under the sun to vote even though they’ve probably never heard of the sites, etc. I also think the 1 vote rule (per day or simply per person) should’ve been enforced. I understand members being enthused about the contest + site owners wanting to win, but I think lines were crossed.

    The bickering between the message boards + members has made some of the boards/members look immature in my eyes. This is sad and not at all what the contest was meant to showcase. This bad behavior has also made me lose some respect for certain sites and individuals.

    If your only defense is pointing fingers @ others engaging in the same thing, that’s a sign you know your behavior’s not kosher. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

  94. Randy Shields on said:

    The real truth here is this. As Anon eluded to, Beckett ruined they’re site with that disasterous new launch. Up to that point the BMB’s were the best online community, Period.
    As a result most of us relocated to FCB. So putting aside all if this pettiness over this board and that board doing this and that to get votes is pointless.
    We had the Best Boards at Beckett and we’ve relocated to FCB where we still have THEE Best Online Communtiy Boards. This is realized now and will simply be reaffirmed on April 5th.


  95. Since everyones here….Hello. Like to give a shout out to my fallen homies (collectors pulling weak hits)and Yo! G-Wax you have $5 on my box? 88DON Russ here reppin XYZ. Seriously, kinda like it was stated earlier, Chill Homies. I dont want to have to worry about walking across the Convention floor and get hit by stray wax packs. Cuz were all in the same hobby. Nah, just kidding, carry on.

  96. Randy,

    You’re talking about a specific sport I assume. I would think the FCB hockey section is rather limited compared to the one at HI and SCF. Remember there are LOTS of different collectors out there that collect LOTS of different sports (and non-sports). Stating that FCB is THE best community without looking at all aspects of each community is the folly in the logic (not your logic, the whole contest’s logic).

    Each site is different. Each site appeals to a certain collector. Each site has flaws. Each site has great strengths. To each their own.

  97. Nonya on said:

    You know, I find it funny that the only site still actively bashing others a FCB. All the other sites gave up hours ago. Your one quote is this "How about some cold, hard cash?!" Now you want to call it a gift certificate?

    Second, no one cares about the facebook twitter posts. Everyone knew that was going to happen. It’s when you deliberately allow a member of your board to post on how to fake an ip address that is one issue. The other is the regularity of the overnight votes, which were landing on an all too precise timing pattern. Your night crew could not have made that number. Statistically, it is not possible.

    I do not care who wins or who loses. I care about integrity. By allowing anyone on your site to use and teach the practice of deliberately faking an ip address to allow your site to win this contest is absurd.

    Good luck to everyone who is in the vote! May the best site win!

  98. Anonymouse on said:

    Randy grasps it fully.

    Funny how many others don’t.

    The Beckett community, that was built before the charlatans and idiots bought (and ruined) the company from Jim Beckett, was by far the strongest and most informed online group of collectors.

    Give the awards retroactively to Dr. Jim Beckett and the incredible staff he had before the new people cleaned house, as they were real collectors at heart and, most importantly, helped collectors instead of shoving ads down their throats and spamming them. These guys running Beckett now are more interested in cheating people out of a few cents than the hobby.

    You people are fighting over something that you got by default. Everyone, just stop crying, and have fun in the hobby.

  99. Perspective on said:

    It looks like the worst of the bickering is over, thankfully. It went on too long and really never should have occurred. What was ultimately and unfortunately forgotten is how different communities cater to different collecting/trading needs. After all, isn’t collecting/trading the heart of what a community is about in this poll?

    On SCF’s end, the large size makes for more trading opportunities, but it can also be overwhelming. On FCB’s side, the football and baseball communities are really tight-knit, but there isn’t much for basketball, hockey, or racing collectors there. So, neither site is perfect for all occasions; they have their strengths and weaknesses.

    Going further, the Oz site is great for Australian collectors, who are sometimes ostracized on the more American-centric forums (through the years I’ve been amazed at the number of people set against overseas trading). Hobby Insider is good for hockey collectors, Hobby Kings is good for high end basketball collectors, The Bench is good for baseball, etc. I don’t have time to go through all the forums, but you get the picture.

    It’s nice that some recent comments have revealed the light and reminded all why we’re all here in this hobby in the first place: to collect and trade. Most of us are on several sites to get our hobby needs met, and we need to keep that in mind, putting aside the misdirected ardor for our favorite(s) that resulted from this entire contest.

    So, this is my call to end this for good and put things back into perspective.

  100. Thomas on said:

    Of all the people who are b*tching about people voting more than once or asking friends/family to help with voting, I have a scenario for you:

    My child comes home from school with a box of candy bars for a fundraiser that they doing. Even though my friends/family get no benefits from the school, is it wrong for me to ask them to help? Is it wrong for me to buy more than one? What if I wanted to buy a candy bar from a neighbor kid, would that be wrong?

    That is basically what is going on here. I am a member of multiple sites that are on the list. But just because I enjoy and get more use out of one site than another, does that mean that I shouldn’t help out that site?

  101. Anon on said:

    The question was answered. Did FCB offer money to get out the vote? The owner answered yes and said he regretted doing it. This article stands on solid ground.

    The only thing this continuous fighting does is hurt all the communities as a whole. The manufacturers must be looking at this with deep displeasure. Enough with the fighting!

  102. Josh on said:

    I went back and reread the blog post. I feel it reeks of bias agiant a certain site that maybe the author has never visited or posted at. The limited viewership comment by the author shows to me that he potentially clueless to the current landscape of the online collecting community. I go on several sites and there are always widely different numbers of online members. I’ve been on some of the sites that are in this poll and sometimes only have seen a few dozen online members. Also as someone keeps posting about over night votes and posts in the forum being low. The current leadind site has an active chat room that gets used a lot at night. That’s a great reason behind the lack if posts. Both the main players have sour grapes and have acted shamefully.

    For the autor of this blog enjoy the increased traffic for the time being.

  103. Stats don't Lie on said:

    Looking at members to how many votes is interesting. Here are some random boards with their members/votes:

    Cardboardtalk.com: 276 (28 votes) – 10% turnout
    Cardcollectorsworld.com: 2,206 (72 votes)- 3% turnout
    Sportscardfreaks.com: 6,185 (128 votes) – 2% turnout
    Thebenchtrading.com: 8,251 (200 votes)- 2% turnout
    cardcollectorsworld.com: 2,206 (72 votes)- 3% turnout
    sportscardhaven.com: 2,084 (68 votes)- 3% turnout

    Now let’s look at FCB.

    freedomcardboard.com: 2662 (1394 votes) – 52% turnout

    Comparing boards of similar size:

    cardcollectorsworld.com: 2,206 (72 votes)- 3% turnout
    sportscardhaven.com: 2,084 (68 votes)- 3% turnout
    Cardcollectorsworld.com: 2,206 (72 votes)- 3% turnout
    freedomcardboard.com: 2662 (1394 votes) – 52% turnout

    Now SCF:
    sportscardforum.com – 30,941 (1318 votes) – 4% turnout

    I’d say this alone is proof that something is fishy or the guy at FCB should run a presidential campaign!

  104. Josh on said:

    Right now on line as I type this

    FCB: In total there are 138 users online :: 152 users online :: 101 registered, 5 hidden and 46 guests

    Sports card haven: Currently Active Users: 8 (2 members and 6 guests).

    Card Collectors World: 5 members and 3 guests

  105. Anon on said:


    As the CCW owner mentioned that it is up to the admin to dictate that "who’s onine" number. On SCF right now: 655

    Scroll up and read for yourself! Can’t have it both ways bud.

  106. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    Everyone keeps mentioning the contest that Chris ran for members (not for votes) and continue to use that as the major basis for their argument against FCB.

    Well, an SCF Mod was running a contest for SCF Card Cash. In his contest, people needed to post that they had voted for SCF. The winner of the contest would win 300 Card Cash. Isn’t that somewhat similar to a gift certificate? Also, he was giving it directly to someone who voted. It wasn’t a contest for getting the word out. Here’s the link: http://www.sportscardforum.com/showthread.php?p=7676534#post7676534

    You may want to check it out pretty quickly before it gets deleted. After I posted the direct quotes from SCF members about how they were doing things just as bad, if not worse than FCB members, that thread has magically disappeared from SCF.

    Ahh, to be young and naive and be willing to swallow whatever line of bull SCF feeds you.

  107. Josh on said:

    All I see it what it shows when I go to those sites. There so much hate that its laughable. I’m a member of a few of those and when I go to some of them there are almost never anyone on line. So people can tout we have X many members but it doesn’t really matter unless they are active. So you have an older site with a lot of members and a newer site with a fair amount of members.

  108. Anon on said:

    CCW is the newest site on the list.

    cardcollectorsworld.com: 2,206 (72 votes)- 3% turnout

  109. Josh on said:

    Big whoop.

    What nobody is either willing or able to comment on is why SCF with their gazillion members run away with this and voted? If they have 30K+ people on their site why aren’t they voting?

  110. Stats don't Lie on said:


    SCF is getting a 4% turn out which is inline with the rest of the online world. Regardless of member size, the mean average is 3%. The only other high turn out is Oz Trader, which is expected since they are the ONLY Australian collecting site. Do you not find it interesting that FCB got 52% of their members to vote yet the newest site (CCW) can is getting 3% or the community average? That the rest of the world gets 3% turn out and FCB gets 17x the turn out of the mean? At the end of this when FCB gets a 200% turn out while most boards get 10% will you realize that something is up? This seems little to do with contests and more to do with a poll that is easily fooled.

  111. Anonomys on said:

    I found it interesting that FCB was behind 250 plus votes, went ahead 75 and now has maintained that lead for the past 12-18 hours. In a 12 hour window–early morning hours–some 325 votes swung. There were consistent voting trends–before and after this surge–except for that short 8 hour window. It would be interesting to see someone explain how this surge happened during the deadest time of a site? Bringing in the computer or foreign vote? Lot’s of irregularities if you factor in the voter turnout compared to other sites as mentioned above!

  112. Josh on said:

    I just looked at CCW they have a thread talking about the contest with only 31 views. Other site are more active. The poll is flawed in one way. It’s letting most people vote again about every 24hrs.
    Both the leading two vote getters have very active boards.

    I sense sour grapes on SCF that they haven’t run away with it and FCB being the new kid on the scene pushed back. BOTH sites have done things they shouldn’t be proud of.

  113. Numbers don’t lie. I have one for you. an incredible 41% of registered users on FCB check in daily. If each of them actually vote once per day like the system allows, then that is 1092 votes per day. It’s obvious that all of them don’t do that, but to say that all communities are the same and should have the same voter turn out is idiotic. Different user bases have different tendencies and blanket metrics won’t apply to all of them.

  114. clint yeager on said:

    hold on yo! to say that social networking is important then blast fcb for the high percentage of voters to users is speaking from both sides… your head and your butt. through my facebook page i have been responsible for 97 confirmed votes! i myself have voted 2x! this makes me responsible for 99 votes! these other people voting have all voted 1x! each of them is a friend or family member who supports me in things that i ask them to just as i support them when asked. so when one of these people ask me to join their mafia, their farm, their zoo… guess what i do it!

    if we strip the votes down to purely members then you have done nothing more than slot each community based upon their membership! as a non posting member in many sites i can say the number of members don’t mean jack! i have seen sites with 3x the number of members as fcb site idle for days at a time.

    you know when i think of things sitting idle i cant help but think of tuff stuff. while like a majority of the card collecting world i am not overly familiar with your publication i can assure you that hosting a blogger who does a) very little research b)biased bashing of a site he has no familiarity with c)points the finger at greed when blindly taking the side of a community with the larger purchasing base. is awesome!!! great job with all of that and when your magazine aint selling… thats me and my 97 confirmed voters not buying.

  115. Anonomys on said:

    Now we are idiotic if we don’t agree with Chris Gilmore?

    Anyone else find it sad that 20 communities could only garner 5,000 votes in nearly 3 days? Has the internet community been turned off by this award?

  116. Idiotic on said:


    97 votes? So what you are saying is that Chris Gimore is incorrect? Because he is saying it is his members that are the ones voting. You just confirmed that out of the 97 votes you are responsible for, only 1 was a member of CCW. you are confirming what this article is based on. That offering money to get out the vote on Facebook is why FCB is in the lead. You just confirmed that you got out the word on Facebook and got an additional 96 votes. How many others did the same? You just confirmed that this poll is easily manipulated and confirms why FCB has a 52% turnout compared to every other message board.

  117. clint yeager on said:

    really cause i got my idea to use facebook from a post on scf! or maybe you dont read there.

  118. Anonomys on said:

    Here is some obvious analysis:

    FCB = Lots of younger kids, lots of Facebook friends
    SCF = Older site, older collectors less Facebook friends

    Looks like Clint just confirmed where all the FCB votes are coming from (96 votes alone from Facebook). Smart way to win the award, but not a true way to say the are the "best" sports card site. Best at using Facebook maybe!

  119. clint yeager on said:

    clarification by not reading there i mean scf. not that you cannot read.

    also if you think that i would do this for money is insulting! i did not see the thread in question and had i it wouldnt have mattered! i want to be a part in the number one community because i like to be number 1. having several interactions with the top spot in the real world its something i strive for! money or not! as far as what gilmore says i cannot speak for him nor would i. if what i have done is against what is ethical he can take any action he chooses against me! my fcb name is notjomommasclint

    aside from the fact that you know very little about me and that you fail to post with your real name i would assume you are either scared of identifying yourself or you are someone i know.

  120. Anon on said:

    $200 cash contest to get vote on Facebook
    One FCB member admitting 97 votes alone
    52% member turn out compared to 3% average
    UD Award Award? Priceless!

  121. robert on said:

    Clint, some people prefer to remain anonymous, I do not see a problem with that. I am glad that you have such high aspirations as being number one on a baseball card message board, that you do not even own and are just a member of. Maybe you should spend more of that energy on something more productive.

  122. Anonomys on said:

    Also didnt a second fcb member admit to getting 25 votes a day? After three days that is 75 votes. Two fcb members equals 170 plus votes. It looks like the $200 worked. If 10 members did the same thing that’s 1,700 votes alone! Sorry, but this article has a leg to stand on especially since it was the owner that self admitted to putting up the $200. Overall, it’s not fcb’s fault for having a flawed voting system, but they shouldn’t complain when an article points out they they were paying $200 to get themselves promoted.

    Is this award really so important that communities need to tear each other apart?

  123. Perspective on said:

    I notice my post was ignored and not acknowledged by some here. The comment section went quiet for awhile, but that must have been because it was late night.

    Well, I guess it’s my mistake for thinking some people would move on from this in a classy manner. Instead, some people would rather continue to fight about FCB and SCF than admit that different communities cater to different collecting needs and leave it at that.


  124. neutral on said:

    First of all that member said he got 25 votes in THAT ONE DAY, through facebook,AIM,etc, secondly SCF also offered a cash prize(card cash)Neither site should have offered a prize but they did and at-least FCB admitted it was wrong.

  125. my complaint is that the article says that we directly paid for votes. That never happened. I still maintain that there was nothing wrong with my promotion, and I only shut it down because I was asked to.

    Maybe this is a foreign idea to communities out there, but here at FCB we make outstanding money on our advertising system. We have given away MAJOR prizes and big $3-500 ebay gift certificates on several occasions. I had some prize money allocated, and thought it best to run a thread to give it away. What other forum gives money it generates away?

  126. clint yeager on said:

    robert… first off taking shots at people without putting your name on it is chicken scratch! now… by being more productive do you mean being successful at my profession, having a lovely wife, a newborn son, and maintaining many social escapades? if not please explain productive! also taking pride in a community to which you belong is what being a part of a community is all about. i collect nomar garciaparra and i dabble a bit in set building. what is a better way to increase my collecting than to increase the number of people i interact with on a daily basis? oh sure i could go and dig through discount boxes at shows, buy on ebay and other sites, and even frequent some of the very boards in this competition… oh wait i do all of those yet have glaring holes in my collections! so increasing the traffic while not putting money in my pocket does… DOES fulfill a need! the need to acquire cardboard!

    now to get on me about the number of people voting… please! to assume that one site and one site alone is guilty is borderline ignorant! i guess word of mouth and referrals mean very little. each person that votes is now aware of the site. guess what each of those people who looked at the poll is now aware of these communities. so it opens doors for collectors of various genres that they interact with in a social setting. you know probably the same way you found out about your church, dry cleaner, or even car dealership.

    the flawed part of this blog is that it is not just one site voting this way! i guess its only cheating if you are winning!



    if that last thread wont load i wonder why that might be?

  127. Anonomys on said:

    I also find it interesting that some can vote every 24 hours and some can’t. I’ve voted once, but every time I go to the poll it says "You have already voted in this poll." In 3 days I have only been allowed to vote once.

    Looks like some have found a way to clear their cookie to vote once a day. From the poll site;

    "Count each IP only once (be warned that several different people may really have the same IP)"

    "Use Cookies (Normally you do not want to turn it off, unless you intentionally wish same voters to vote many times in the same poll)"

    It does not say "once a day" and it clearly shows that it is expect ONE vote per person. One site is pushing the vote once a day and that appear to be against what this poll is about and against the poll rules UNLESS you clear cookies and vote from separate IPs. But the FCB owner has admitted that he is having his members vote once a day. Interesting …

    Win at all costs I guess!

  128. neutral on said:

    He is having his members vote once a day…

    Are you mentally retarded?Yeah chris gilmore is waterboarding us until we vote each day, god damn your an idiot.A miod cant control what his members do off the site.

  129. robert on said:

    You see my name Clint, just b/c I choose to not post my last name, you have an issue with it? What do you need that for, are you going to look my address up and come over here and try to beat me up? Keep up the good work buddy, maybe Gilmore can promote you to Koolaid drinking moderator. What other forum gives money it makes away? Probably only forums that feel the need to pay to gain members. I didnt know that was a prerequisite in being a good sportscard site. As usual it comes down to a money thing with Gilmore.

  130. neutral on said:

    He was commenting on this
    "Clint, some people prefer to remain anonymous, I do not see a problem with that."

    It wasnt about you not posting your last name it was about anonymous not posting any name

  131. clint yeager on said:

    robert using your name was great i thank you! standing behind your beliefs is something you will learn to do as you mature. you give me way way way to much credit for my internet skills and comprehension. not to mention my schedule is much to busy to inflict physical pain. oh yeah that and to be honest its not really my style. drinking kool aid is marvelous so is being a lurker on multiple sites. i post on the site that fits my needs as a collector best. sorry its not your site just like i am sorry that the bitter bug really crawled out of its hole on your last post. if you got beef with gilmore then you got beef with gilmore. however casting a blind eye to the actions that are being used by everyone in this process isnt going to enhance your stance or better your argument! as far as kool aid moderator i would have to turn that position down because i drink kool aid for the love of kool aid!

  132. robert on said:

    I do not have a beef with Gilmore, I have a beef with him vehemently denying doing anything wrong in ballot stuffing this contest, when it is plain as day that he did something shady. Maybe all sites did it to an extent, but that night FCB carried to another level. Kind of like the person who cheats the IRS of 500 dollars, and one who cheats them for 10000. You cannot lump all infractions into the same category.

  133. clint yeager on said:

    i would disagree that anything shady was done. by fcb or any site. my main displeasure in this has been that only one site was called out! when i would assume that 99% of the sites are guilty of at least one infraction. you are in a contest and that contest from the sites admin staff is there to win. even the head of another site stated he wanted to win! why? benefits!!! some may benefit financially from the increase in traffic. some may benefit by finding the card that they have been chasing. some may benefit from finding a collector right down the street. who knows.

    the point of this contest was to make sites known to other collectors. there are several sites i have joined because of this! bottom line is if i can find the zach(k) daeges superfractor from 06 bowman chrome or a nomar bowman internation refractor and secure them because of joining another site it will be worth all of this hub bub!

  134. robert on said:

    Clint the issue is that FCB gained almost 300 votes between midnight and noon the next day. If you don’t think something shady was done, then you definitely are drinking the Koolaid. That was definitely a voting anomaly that cannot be pure chance. I am sorry, I do not believe it, and any other person in their right mind shouldn’t either. That is the core of this. Either way this is a tainted award, and UD should just can the stupid thing. By the way I am not a member of SCF, but I do frequent FCB, so this is not about sour grapes.

  135. Jim on said:

    This kind of thing happens every time there’s some kind of on-line voting. Someone (or several someones) will ALWAYS find a way to cheat the system.

    My hope would be that UD will recognize the BS from the offending sites and kick them out of the contest.

    I do find it amazing that sites mostly populated with adults would stoop to cheating to win some cardboard. It’s really sad and I hope that FCB and SCF get screwed out of any final prize.


  136. clint yeager on said:

    robert. i am actually a member at several of the sites listed on the poll and at all 3 i have mentioned through the comment section. well at last check i was a member! lmao! as far as a voting anomaly one would assume that if there is a problem with voting ud would step in. since i have yet to hear of them doing that i would assume it falls within the percentage of acceptable growth. the actions and comments of many in this blog and elsewhere(myself included) have probably snuffed the opportunity for this sort of thing to ever happen again.

    however i cannot help but wondering about my question earlier. how can you hold a promotion like this and not expect people to get friends and families involved? if the people we support dont support us then they just need to give everything to the sites, blogs, forum with the most people. lets not forget another thing. this poll has kept ud on the front page of collecting. hell they even brought people to tuff stuff…

  137. robert on said:

    Clint, since when does Upper deck step in and do anything, like honor redemptions timetly, etc.

  138. Anonomys on said:


    Upper Deck did step in. They made FCB take down there one choice poll and their $200 Paypal award for getting out the vote–ask FCB ownership. It took 400 votes later, but they did step in. Did you read this blog? It’s mentioned in it! Apparently FCB got the memo on clearing cookies. Chris mention that here:

    "Did I do that Thomas? I merely instructed people to vote as many times as the software would let you. And that is once per 24 hours."

    The software doesn’t allow you to vote every 24 hours unless you clear your cookies. UD never told people they could vote daily. They set it up so you could vote only once. FCB is voting daily with the help of clearing cookies that were set up to prevent such voting.

  139. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    I’ll say this one last time and I will try to go slowly so that maybe people will finally understand.

    SCF did all of the same things they accused FCB of doing. They had many, many members vote multiple times. Those members also made posts to tell other SCF members how to vote multiple times. I quoted actual posts from the SCF thread where the posts were made. SCF quickly deleted the thread. Mike Silvia posted in that thread many times and never once made a comment or complained about his members voting multiple times until FCB took the lead. Then, all of the sudden, it became a "popularity contest" and he didn’t want to win without "integrity".

    Chris Gilmore had a couple of gift certificates that would be given to members, in a contest and at random, who helped spread the word through social networking sites. THAT IS NOT BUYING A VOTE. I do not understand how some people cannot comprehend that concept. The gift certificates were to go to members, not neccessarily voters. Also, there was no stipulation that it had to lead to votes. All the members had to do was post the link on their networking sites and post a link showing that they had. The winners would be selected using a random number generator. So in all honesty, someone could have posted the link on their FaceBook page and not have a gotten a single vote, but could have won the contest.

    Several SCF members admitted to posting the voting link on their FaceBook/MySpace/Twitter/etc pages. I guarantee that non-members of SCF have voted for them. Also, the big complaint was how non-collectors were probably voting for FCB. Well, through the same links posted by SCF members on their networking sites, I can guarantee some non-collectors voted for them as well. Mike Silvia also told his SCF members to post the link on their social networking sites to help generate votes. Chris Gilmore is getting slaughtered over this and not a word is said about Mike and SCF. Of course, that SCF thread was deleted.

    An SCF member, who I quoted, was giving away "Shawn Michaels DVDs" to people who voted for SCF through the wrestling blog that he linked. So this SCF member was giving a gift directly to people who voted for SCF. That is buying a vote. Yet somehow FCB, who was not giving gift certificates directly to voters, is the bad guy in all of this.

    Next, a Moderator at SCF was running a contest. He told members that voted for SCF to post in a particular thread that they voted for SCF and they would be entered into a contest to win 300 Card Cash. Another Moderator offered to match that so that there could be 2 winners. Card Cash to be paid directly to people who voted for SCF. I posted the link to this thread earlier in these comments. Shortly after, the thread magically disappeared from SCF. Another instance of SCF trying to buy votes, even by SCF Staff members, but FCB is supposedly the one using dirty tactics.

    SCF has done all of same things FCB has when it comes to multiple votes, posting the link on networking sites, and having non-members and non-collectors vote for them. To be honest, most of the sites in this contest probably have also. SCF is the only site that had a member and staff members openly offering gifts directly to voters. FCB did not do that. SCF members were trying to buy votes by offering DVDs and Card Cash. However, FCB keeps getting blasted.

    All of the posts and threads in question about FCB are available for viewing. Anyone can go on the site and find them. To try and cover their tracks, SCF continues to delete all proof of the backhanded, dirty little things they are doing. SCF has 0 integrity. The fact that have done the same things and even worse than they are complaining about FCB doing, then running around trying to smear FCB is deplorable.

    No matter what happens on 5 Apr 2010, FCB will still be the best Online Community, period. No purchased votes, no smear campaigns, no deleting of posts and threads, or anything of the like. FCB did nothing wrong, and win or lose, will be able to hold their head high. The community will still be there, and will still be getting stronger with each passing day.

  140. Saying that clearing cookies is cheating is a LONG reach. I hope you are limber.

  141. Anonomys on said:


    SCF is not clearing cookies and voting every day. The cookies Upper Deck set up to prevent voting every day. This likely explains half your votes or more.

  142. Anon on said:

    Directly from the polling service–

    Use Cookies (Normally you do not want to turn it off, unless you intentionally wish same voters to vote many times in the same poll)

    Why did Upper Deck set up a cookie? Because they wanted one vote per person, not multiple votes. It says it in the poll service!


    Nice that you are admitting to offering cash to get out the vote and now clearing cookies–set up by Upper Deck to avoid daily voting. Makes this article more valid.

  143. Perspective on said:

    Well, I’ll say THIS one last time and I will try to go slowly so that maybe people will finally understand.

    This bickering back and forth between FCB and SCF needs to stop. SOME members on both sites have cheated. NO SITE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER IN THIS RESPECT. I can’t believe this still isn’t clear to some of you. Are you THAT blinded by site loyalty fanboyism? My goodness.

    With that said, both communities are STILL good places for DIFFERENT TYPES of collectors. See, I’m fair, I can actually see that, unlike SOME FCB and SCF members. FCB has a great baseball and football community with a very active membership. SCF is large and caters to fans of all sports. There are members with integrity on both sides, as well as some stubborn mules who don’t want to let this thing die.

    Well, I hereby ask those of you who are CONTINUING to go on about this "my site is better than yours because our cheating wasn’t as bad" business to GIVE IT UP ALREADY AND LET IT DIE ONCE AND FOR ALL. You want to talk about integrity and taking the high ground? Then show it.


  144. Anon on said:

    It appears the cookie clearing makes this more clear now:

    Looking at members to how many votes is interesting. Here are some random boards with their members/votes:

    Cardboardtalk.com: 276 (28 votes) – 10% turnout
    Cardcollectorsworld.com: 2,206 (72 votes)- 3% turnout
    Sportscardfreaks.com: 6,185 (128 votes) – 2% turnout
    Thebenchtrading.com: 8,251 (200 votes)- 2% turnout
    cardcollectorsworld.com: 2,206 (72 votes)- 3% turnout
    sportscardhaven.com: 2,084 (68 votes)- 3% turnout

    Now let’s look at FCB.

    freedomcardboard.com: 2662 (1394 votes) – 52% turnout

    Comparing boards of similar size:

    cardcollectorsworld.com: 2,206 (72 votes)- 3% turnout
    sportscardhaven.com: 2,084 (68 votes)- 3% turnout
    Cardcollectorsworld.com: 2,206 (72 votes)- 3% turnout
    freedomcardboard.com: 2662 (1394 votes) – 52% turnout

    Now SCF:
    sportscardforum.com – 30,941 (1318 votes) – 4% turnout

  145. Anon, I will say this one more time. The size of a board is not determined by how many members have signed up.

    I will put FCB’s traffic VS SCF’s toe to toe any day. The reason these boards have such a low percentage turn out is because they are MUCH older than FCB. We are only a year and a half old, and our members haven’t had time to get pissed off and leave for other forums or quit the hobby.

    Our Baseball board is quite active, you should stop by it some time.

    Oh and by the way, my browser clears cookies every time I close it. Clearing cookies is no method of circumventing anything, and if it’s that easy then the web developer who designed the poll is at fault. Perhaps you should understand basic concepts of web development before you start rattling on about them.

  146. clint yeager on said:

    this was located near the bottom of the blog directly below this one

    "(If the 7th Inning Stretch Blog is voted the winning blog, Tuff Stuff will pass along our winnings to our valued voters by holding a drawing and giving away the 2009 Signed NFL Rookie Photo Shoot ball. If we win, you will too so vote for the 7th Inning Stretch Blog and our partners at Sports Card Forum in the Best Online Community category.)"

    i guess that would help explain why blame was only cast in one direction. also why the deletion of a post would lead to the assumption of guilt in one direction! whats funnier to me than anything is 30,000 members and 1,000 votes! instead of casting stones at those displaying the same behavior maybe you should check out why 29,000+ members dont care enough about your site to vote at all!

  147. Josh on said:

    Great post Clint. Hit the nail on the head.

  148. ken on said:

    perspective your wasting your time, these guys would rather resume their p!ss!ng contests

  149. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    There’s no pissing contest to be had. SCF is at fault and that’s the bottom line. They started using these tactics and when they lost the lead, they started crying foul.

    SCF is continuing to contact Upper Deck (Chris Carlin primarily) to try and get FCB kicked out of the contest. They have members who are still talking about how they’re voting multiple times a day. A member even said he is going to try and vote 50-60 times tonight.

    Mike will read what I posted here (he is Anon) and run back and delete the threads to make it look like it’s not going on there. They have bought votes, members are voting multiple times, and they are trying to eliminate the competition from the poll because they are sore losers. There’s just no 2 ways about it. They are just trying to use what hobby influence they have to try and tarnish the reputation of FCB.

  150. ken on said:

    a pissing contest is a back and forth argument that has no resolution, that pretty much applies here, sorry but your wrong dont get it twisted

  151. Joe Elder (muskiesfan) on said:

    Ken- I’m not getting anything twisted. You are entitled to your opinion. Had SCF not stooped to such levels, there would be no issue. That’s what a lot of people seem to be getting twisted.

  152. ken on said:

    the issue would also die down if you guys didnt have your heads so far up your favorite forum’s asses that you act like your forum’s innocent and keep posting about it all day long lol. i left here last night and come back tonight and there’s 150 posts, wtf? again, anyone who isnt kissing the backside of their favorite forum realizes cheating’s occurred on probably every forum on ud’s list. you wanna anal-ize that all night long and act like its not happening on ur side? go ahead but people are laughing elsewhere

  153. Brent on said:

    I am not a member of either board but i find it very hard to believe anything but what the numbers say. Getting over 50 percent of registered members to do anything is nearly impossible. The site i am part of is one of the 3 percent turnout rates and i feel we have a great little community. All sites have flaws but everything that i have read smells foul towards one board. Plus the fact the owner of that board comes on here and acts childish is a little ridiculous… I think that is one i will stay away from.

  154. Rock the vote. on said:

    I don’t see anywhere in the rules that only members of the communities involved are the only ones to vote.

  155. TRUTH on said:


  156. SCF scumbag. on said:

    SCF is scum.

    I love them contacting Chris Carlin every 5 min bitching. Those members need to get to a shed because they are all tools.

  157. Holy crap people… CHILL OUT.

    Man I long for the days that this was a FUN hobby.

    This contest means NOTHING. The point is to get some communities, blogs & wax breakers known to other collectors. THAT’S IT!

    Come by Hobby Insider and check us out. You can keep the contest & prizes, and just see what a good hobby community is about.

    Our ratio (as I see we weren’t included in Anon’s stats) is hovering over 10%… why? We have a VERY strong hockey contingent who spend a LOT of time on the site and take part in a LOT of different events…

    And Chris Gilmore? Just as a fun point – you say you give away lots of $ in eBay gift certificates from your revenues. HI gives away $ from our members donating it… as we have no advertising 😉

    Good people = good communities. Just all of you chill out and enjoy the communities you’re part of.

    Oh… and check out The Insider’s Edge magazine! (http://www.theinsidersedge.net)

  158. Gilmo on said:

    You are right guys, I wanted to win the contest so bad, I had people put in as many votes as possible. How else would I be able to make money to keep myself fed with cheeseburgers. Anyone want some Razor promo cards?

  159. And thus my involvement ends.

    Later guys. cgilmo@gmail.com if you have any questions. I am sure no one will even bother to email.

  160. Larry Styrene on said:

    Are people seriously getting bent out of shape of this silly poll? Really? Seriously folks, Upper Deck probably won’t send anything to the "winner" within 12 months anyways because it is probably handled by their stellar redemption department.

    In regards to "stacking the votes", isn’t the embarrassing (or scary) part that if there are a lot of "phony" votes…what does that say about our hobby? Looks to me like it’s dead and/or dying.

    Good to see us all splinter apart in our own little nerd worlds that we love.

    – Lar

  161. SCF Member on said:

    I just wanted to thank all the idiots on SCF (including the mods and owner) who started all of this and were accusing FCB of cheating and for making both of the sites look like crap. Just because you are losing or winning doesnt mean the other person has to be cheating. All this nonsense is only hurting both sites and the hobby. I find it funny how SCF is deleting posts where people are admitting to mulitple posting or having friends/family vote. I dont know why because its not wrong. If you win, win with class, if you lose, lose with class. Dont be a whiny little bitch.

  162. Gilmo on said:

    Can’t you guys tell the posts from the classy members of my FCB. You guys are the best!

  163. Anon on said:

    Go HI! One of the best sites out there!

  164. irony on said:

    there is a guy on scf stuffing the ballot openly!

  165. irony on said:

    there is a guy on fcb stuffing the ballot openly too! i guess that means neither site is inherently superior to the other!

  166. I’m the owner of The Cardboard Connection, the site currently in 3rd place in the contest. When the contest was originally announced, I made a decision not to submit my site for contention as I figured it was exclusively for traditional forum based – something my site is not. I didn’t even think to ask Upper Deck if they would let us participate because my attention was elsewhere last week due to some personal issues that took my attention away from the hobby last week. I figured that sitting things out at least gave us the opportunity to present unbiased coverage of the contest. I didn’t even know that my site had been nominated until one of my writers went to cast his vote Thursday afternoon and told me via email. I first heard about the loophole in the polling script that allowed the same IP to vote over and over every 24 hours late Friday afternoon when a couple of my site’s readers emailed me links to threads on SCF and FCB in which these things were mentioned.

    I can honestly say that I haven’t used the 24 hour IP limitation of the script to place multiple votes for my site, nor have I asked anyone else to do so on my behalf. In addition I decided not to mention anything regarding it on my site, as I felt in doing so I would have indirectly been soliciting my site’s supporters to take advantage of the limitations of the polling site in a way that would benefit our standing in the contest.

    With that said, I think it’s ridiculous to say that Chris and FCB are awful, immoral people just because they identified and took advantage of a shortcoming of the polling script to vote multiple times. I totally understand where they are coming from. I’m extremely competitive and passionate about my site, and I know for a fact they are the same way (as is SCF and the other 17 sites featured in the contest). They were the first to identify a flaw in the voting system which has given them a decisive advantage in the contest and was not explicitly prohibited by Upper Deck. I mean, in the excitement of the moment, what competitive person wouldn’t at least consider doing what they did? I can say that when I first found out about what was happening my first inclination was to fight fire with fire and ask my voters to cast as many votes as they possibly could, using different computers and repeatedly voting every 24 hours. After calming down a bit I decided against doing so because doing it just didn’t feel “right” to me. I don’t look down on FCB in any way, nor am I trying to take some sort of moral high ground here. It is just what I felt I needed to do and that is that. I harbor absolutely no grudges against them, SCF, or anyone else for that matter.

    On the same token I think it’s fair to say that every single one of us could agree that Upper Deck’s intention for the poll was to have a person vote only once. I mean seriously, no reasonable person would conduct a popularity poll with the intention of having the results skewed.

    I respect FCB for owning up to what they’ve did. Its comical to see SCF complaining so much when they are doing the exact same thing. I remember reading one of Mike Silva’s posts in which he complained about how unfair it was to SCF that FCB figured out how to cast multiple votes a day before they did. They then proceeded to do the exact same thing, all the while taking the moral high ground by essentially justifying what they were doing as OK because FCB did it first. SCF has a lot of great members and I am in no way trying to diminish that. I’m simply stating my opinion based on what I observed in relation to the overall actions of both sites as it pertains to the contest.

    Furthermore, the Alexa rankings are the most accurate standard for comparing website traffic. Its not perfect, but it is the best measuring stick of its kind that currently exists. As Chris and several others stated above, both FCB and CardboardConnection.com have higher Alexa rankings then SCF. So to say that SCF somehow dwarfs FCB in terms of traffic simply because it publishes a much higher member count is ridiculous.

    At this point me and those who voted for my site stand to lose the most as a result of the voting exploit as we are in 3rd place (and are the only site anywhere near SCF and FCB at this point) and its likely we will lose in large part because we didn’t take advantage of it. However I think it’s up to Upper Deck ultimately to decide whether or not what FCB and SCF did has any effect on whether or not they are awarded the winning prizes. Regardless of what they decide, I think both FCB and SCF are GREAT sports card forums and I am genuinely honored that collectors think enough of my site to have it be anywhere near in contention with them.

    Let’s just all take a step back and get some perspective on the situation. Simply put, “It is what it is.” Every one of the sites nominated has something to offer and is one of the best in the business and that is really saying something considering the huge number of sites out there.

    In closing, I invite everyone to check out The Cardboard Connection if you haven’t already as me and my staff work very hard at making it a dependable, entertaining and comprehensive resource for collectors.

  167. mr truth on said:

    if anything comes from this its the lesson that our once proud hobby has diminished considerably! to have this low of a turnout is truly pathetic. we should all sit back and look at where we want our hobby to be and what we want our sites to resemble in 5 years. i would bet that every site mentioned on the poll would jump at the chance to have 30,000 members. just as i am sure that giant would gladly sacrifice some of its members to have a higher percentage of active posters. what we need to do as a group is spend more time getting kids involved and nurturing the new mature collectors and less time acting like our sites are bigger than the hobby. i can assure you that the items those two group place importance on has nothing to do with fcb and scf measuring their junk.

    lets make sure they enter a hobby with more friends and mentors than enemies and detractors. paving the way for them to have fun might loosen us up and actually inject a little fun back into our hobby and maybe put a grin back on our face when we hear that wax get cracked.

    now i have cast my vote for my favorite and think that no matter what each community regardless of total will win based upon the number of collectors who have been introduced to each site!

  168. Wheels on said:

    Another holier then thou sportscard blogger. Laughable!

  169. Thomas on said:

    wow… FCB just added 70 votes in less than 20 minutes… pretty impressive if you ask me…

  170. Mike on said:

    SCF just added 40 in 18 minutes. Now that is even more impressive. Just visited that site they advised mods to link the vote to their facebook pages in a mod only thread.

  171. NONE YA on said:

    All I have to say is if FCB wins this Upper Deck should put an asterisk beside the result and make a note that they cheated to win…

  172. clinton yeager on said:

    bringing the assumption of cheating is still awesome! beings how all sites have the same technology and all sites used the same techniques to secure votes.

  173. A win is a win, and wins are great. Thank you to all my community members who were relentless campaginers. I still think SCF has a wider range of people checking in and reading the site, but I also know that my guys are a bit more rabid. Passion wins all, and it’s great to see some of that is still left in the hobby.

  174. NONE YA on said:

    Chris, hopefully Upper Deck will look at how your site won and will disqualify your site as there is no way FCB should have won, there is no way you could be losing to SCF by a few votes, then within a few hours be winning by over 200..

    To me that alone shows something shady was being done…

  175. bawahahahaha on said:

    none ya…



  176. None Ya

    Perhaps you over estimate the pull that SCF has and under estimate FCB. We have a lot of traffic, and all metrics have it as comparable to SCF.

    Sorry, but web stats are stats and the two sites are neck and neck.

  177. A Site Admin on said:

    Chris, you are embarrassing yourself brother. That you keep comparing traffic based on Alexa to any site shows how you operate. Alexa’s ranking are skewed based on who has the Toolbar installed. The only true metric is comparing raw server stats or Google Analytics, not a third party system that is manipulated by site admins installing a toolbar.


    Those that manipulate the alexa stats usual point out their rankings compared to others!

  178. A Site Admin on said:

    Oh, and if Chris has had you install the Alexa toolbar to inflate his ratings it is a form of Spyware. Don’t believe me? Run Ad Aware and Spybot and it will come up as Spyware. That’s how the Alexa system works. It is "spying" to see the sites you are visiting and reporting back to Alexa.com to come up with the statistic. It says it on their site. Their numbers could not exist unless people have the toolbar installed.

    Alexa could not exist without the participation of the Alexa Toolbar community. Each member of the community, in addition to getting a useful tool, is giving back. Simply by using the Firefox and IE toolbars each member contributes valuable information about the web, how it is used, what is important and what is not. This information is returned to the community as Related Links, Traffic Rankings and more.

    A small site with a high percentage of Alexa toobar users can inflate your rating. Most people don’t know this, but site admins that use Alexa as their main source of rankings do. Read the article in my last reply and you will see what I’m talking about.

  179. A Site Admin on said:

    I did a FCB search and it looks like Alexa is mentioned a lot. I found this on FCB and thought it was interesting.


    Based on Alexa data, Beckett.com is worth $70,000.


    Does anyone think Beckett would sell for even 100 times that? Third party traffic estimators and "web worth" tools are simply worthless because they are based on tool bars and inaccurate information. Beckett wouldn’t use that tool to get a selling price and no one should use Alexa as a serious tool to estimate traffic.

    I rest my case your honor.

  180. A SITE ADMIN on said:

    hey guy i like your name

  181. A SITE ADMIN on said:

    hey guy mine appears to be bigger…

  182. A Site Admin

    No third party traffic rating is perfect. However to alexa’s credit their trends match follow my google analytics report pretty closely showing valleys where there should be valleys and spikes where there should be spikes.

    Remember, we are only looking for a ball park and the figures don’t have to be perfect. The fact that we are in the same range as these other sites does show that we are comparable at least by that one metric alone.

    I never claimed it was exact.

    Oh and yes, the alexa toolbar has had its share of bad press. I use it currently, and it’s adware free.

  183. For those of you that doubt the traffic at FCB, come on over and chat it up a bit. You will see how active the community really is.

  184. Another thing, I never refrenced any "web worth" program. Website outlook and the like cannot possibly assign a correct value to any website, as there are so many things not reflected by a simple traffic rating.

  185. Person. on said:

    Why are we giving tuff stuff un needed attention. Tuff stuff is a pile of crap. I could get more hobby news and information from a tree than tuff stuff. Quit posting here

  186. A Site Admin on said:


    Both Ad Aware and Spybot see it as Spyware. Technically, since you are installing the spyware by using the Alexa toolbar, it is not unsolicited spyware.Again, it is spyware and the main way Alexa get’s their rating. For years webmasters have installed Alexa, and had other site admins as well, in an effort to spike their Alexa rating.

    This should help as well:

    Alexa ranks sites based on tracking information of users of its Alexa Toolbar for Internet Explorer and from integrated sidebars in Mozilla and Netscape.[15][16]

    There is some controversy over how representative Alexa’s user base is of typical Internet behavior,[17] especially for less trafficked sites.[16] In 2007 Michael Arrington provided a few examples of relative Alexa ranking known to contradict data from comScore, including ranking YouTube ahead of Google.[18]

    And this is interesting:

    The Alexa toolbar is regarded by many vendors, such as Symantec and McAfee, as spyware. Symantec classifies the toolbar as trackware.[23] McAfee classifies it as Adware, a "Potentially Unwanted Program."[24] McAfee Site Advisor rates the Alexa website as yellow, with the warning:

    "In our tests, we found downloads on this site that some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs".[25]

    Alexa is Spyware and their stats are bogus. Webmaster’s convince staff and friends to install the toolbar to get their Alexa rating higher. A key indicator is unusually high numbers for "users staying on a site." Since site admins and friends stay on a site 5 hours a day with the toolbar that number explodes. Then the site admins go around claiming their site well trafficked, when in honesty it is well trafficked by a small group with the Alexa toolbar installed.

    Let’s keep it real!