Confirmed Rigged: Pokernews Presenter Vote

[fluffer]

SS= youtube view bot manipulator =sarah= maybe

[neveragain39]

In my opinion, the fact that Sarah's video wasn't even her own creation should disqualify her from consideration.

:real talk.

Sorry Thomas.

[Hockey Guy]

Who said we aren't interested in Sarah? We will be getting in touch with her as well as a
number of other presenters who all did a great job.

So tell us why you don't want Sarah, bitch. Girls got a great personality and a nice rack. What more can you ask for?

A radio appearance to explain the situation seems to be in order.

[JSTAT]

Since I have a lot of respect for this forum and all of the folks who took lots of time to put together videos Ill comment.

We didn't rig anything -- as there would be absolutely no point to do so. The voting mechanism of the presenter audition was simply to add a fun, engaging component for our readers to be involved in the process. We will be now reaching out to those who we are interested in learning more about to see if they might be good fits to join our team. I apologize on behalf of PokerNews if there was any confusion when the submissions closed, but the intention was to always leave the voting open past the submission process. What sense would it be to close the voting on the same day as closing the submissions? That system would clearly favor those who submitted well in advance. So any miscommunication in regards to that factor, was just that, miscommunication.

We loved all the videos that came in. The creativity was really amazing. I look forward to speaking with candidates in person in the coming weeks. Below is a screenshot from our back-end showing exactly how many votes the top 10 received.

Matthew Parvis
PokerNews

First of all Matthew Parvis, thanks for putting your feet to the fire on this forum. The PokerNews Presenter vote deadline was October 30th. This was confirmed by Chad Holloway and @PokerNews on Twitter. The blame is on the PokerNews staff who didn't get the memo, not us in the general public! It's confusing because the rules of the contest seems to change daily.

[rickastley]

In my opinion, the fact that Sarah's video wasn't even her own creation should disqualify her from consideration.

:real talk.

Sorry Thomas.

finally someone says it like it is. not very original to use her partner to knock up a vid that the 2+2 fags (and it seems some of you lot) would get an erection over. the role is for poker news presenting, not video editing.

VOTE FOR EQUALITY, VOTE FOR THE BLACK CHICKS!

http://www.pokernews.com/pokernews-p...nt/video/5.htm
http://www.pokernews.com/pokernews-p...t/video/26.htm
http://www.pokernews.com/pokernews-p...t/video/28.htm
http://www.pokernews.com/pokernews-p...t/video/31.htm

[SrslySirius]

Sarah just made that video for the fun of it. I don't think she really expected to have any chance at winning.

I also don't think the voting was rigged, but clearly something went wrong with the system. Pretty cool of Parvis to post the results when he didn't have to, though.

[fluffer]

Since I have a lot of respect for this forum and all of the folks who took lots of time to put together videos Ill comment.

obvious dupe account

[fluffer]

In my opinion, the fact that Sarah's video wasn't even her own creation should disqualify her from consideration.

:real talk.

Sorry Thomas.

who cares who helped produce the video

Sarah just made that video for the fun of it. I don't think she really expected to have any chance at winning.

I also don't think the voting was rigged, but clearly something went wrong with the system. Pretty cool of Parvis to post the results when he didn't have to, though.

its obvious your infamy had an obvious affect on the outcome

lol @ sarah having to pleasure SS and pretend she enjoyed it all for nothing

[Texter]

who the hell reads pokernews? this isn't 2003.

site has sucked for a decade.

[BetCheckBet]

Pokernews has sucked ever since they bought NWP. Druff should have followed through with his emergency "I Quit Radio" but sadly Micon convinced him to stay.

[MatthewParvis]

Agreed there. I take responsibility for not being clear enough with Chad and the staff. He made a mistake in his post, and we clarified it pretty quickly. What I've learned? Don't have a voting component to this process in the future. Lol.

The whole idea is suppose to be fun, and I hope some of you have had some fun with it. Even if the fun comes with calling me a loser of whatever.

I look forward to chatting with some of the candidates on person, and seeing if we can find someone to join out Pokernews family.

Thanks to all who check out the site -- even the ones who haven't done so since 2003.

Since I have a lot of respect for this forum and all of the folks who took lots of time to put together videos Ill comment.

We didn't rig anything -- as there would be absolutely no point to do so. The voting mechanism of the presenter audition was simply to add a fun, engaging component for our readers to be involved in the process. We will be now reaching out to those who we are interested in learning more about to see if they might be good fits to join our team. I apologize on behalf of PokerNews if there was any confusion when the submissions closed, but the intention was to always leave the voting open past the submission process. What sense would it be to close the voting on the same day as closing the submissions? That system would clearly favor those who submitted well in advance. So any miscommunication in regards to that factor, was just that, miscommunication.

We loved all the videos that came in. The creativity was really amazing. I look forward to speaking with candidates in person in the coming weeks. Below is a screenshot from our back-end showing exactly how many votes the top 10 received.

Matthew Parvis
PokerNews

First of all Matthew Parvis, thanks for putting your feet to the fire on this forum. The PokerNews Presenter vote deadline was October 30th. This was confirmed by Chad Holloway and @PokerNews on Twitter. The blame is on the PokerNews staff who didn't get the memo, not us in the general public! It's confusing because the rules of the contest seems to change daily.

[fluffer]

this thread should be moved to the ''Scams, Scandals, and Shadiness'' section

[Dan Druff]

Matthew, thank you for taking the time to respond to these allegations, and I apologize for some of the nasty remarks you're getting here. That's simply par for the course on this forum -- at least this section of it.

Let me present an alternate viewpoint to the "vote is rigged" allegation, to where I feel Pokernews should investigate if they really care about the voting results.

I joked on radio (when interviewing Sarah) that you don't have to log in to vote for someone, and "that's good for our listeners, because they're all lazy, and none would vote if it required any effort."

But while I was saying that, I quietly realized there was a big flaw to that method of collecting votes.

Simply put, anyone could cheat repeatedly by clicking vote, clearing cookies, refreshing the page, and voting again. I just tried it right now and it worked.

This makes me wonder if some of the high-finishing candidates did exactly that -- voted multiple times for themselves.

Perhaps you should have dadis (or any other Lithuanian programmer of chioce) examine the IP addresses submitting the votes, and throw out the duplicate IPs.

Indeed, it makes little sense that certain people received more than double the votes than they did video views. Even if you want to say they recruited friends to vote for them on social media, it's likely that these friends would at least be curious enough to watch their video while there. I don't believe, for example, that more than 50% of Gabriela Hill's voters never clicked once on her video.

Perhaps nothing was rigged at all, but some of the candidates just cheated? Or perhaps some over-exuberant friends decided to cheat for them?

[Dan Druff]

Also, yes, having a vote is a mistake if there isn't going to be some kind of "payoff" for the winner (and I don't mean monetary payoff).

It just makes people disappointed when their candidate of choice wins and subsequently gets nothing.

I know you guys meant well, and you have the right to hire whom you want, but I would really advise against any future "votes" like this unless there is something meaningful for the winner. But it seems like you've already realized this, so I doubt we'll be seeing any more of these in the future.

[fluffer]

i am sure sarah would have bolted in if SS didnt suddenly decide to go straight *shaking head*

[shortbuspoker]

The voting mechanism of the presenter audition was simply to add a fun, engaging component for our readers to be involved in the process. We will be now reaching out to those who we are interested in learning more about to see if they might be good fits to join our team. I apologize on behalf of PokerNews if there was any confusion when the submissions closed, but the intention was to always leave the voting open past the submission process. What sense would it be to close the voting on the same day as closing the submissions? That system would clearly favor those who submitted well in advance. So any miscommunication in regards to that factor, was just that, miscommunication.



Matthew Parvis
PokerNews

confirmed Obama speech writer?

[VaughnP]

I just voted for Sarah based solely on the fact that I want to have sex with her. And how old is that girl 19ish??

[BeerAndPoker]

Agreed there. I take responsibility for not being clear enough with Chad and the staff. He made a mistake in his post, and we clarified it pretty quickly. What I've learned? Don't have a voting component to this process in the future. Lol.

The whole idea is suppose to be fun, and I hope some of you have had some fun with it. Even if the fun comes with calling me a loser of whatever.

I look forward to chatting with some of the candidates on person, and seeing if we can find someone to join out Pokernews family.

Thanks to all who check out the site -- even the ones who haven't done so since 2003.

A vote is a bad idea if Pokernews isn't going to go off of what the people decide. Why make the people feel their time was wasted by doing this without stating it clearly that their will be other criteria that Pokernews will go off of in making their decision to hire someone?

Pokernews opened the door for a public out cry when clearly people in the forums can tell who had the most votes in this little contest which regardless of how Sarah got them the fact is Pokernews set themselves up for that kind of result by running such a contest in the first place in the manner they did.

[TMMLK]

:donotwant

[Belly Buster]