The autocomplete API allows us to retrieve lists of all countries, regions, and locales by leaving out the query string and setting the result limit to a large number, but this feature isn't available at the city level.
Is there a way that we can retrieve a full list of all targetable cities and their IDs? If not, can we cache the autocomplete data for cities to build up such a list?
That functionality is probably not supported because of the massive amount of return data that would result in fetching all the cities in the world, even with paging. Although limiting the response data by country (by using country_list=["ca"]) and then fetching all cities doesn't sound too far-fetched, however, it is not implemented either.
To me, it sounds like you have two options.
Create a bug report using our bug tool to request a wishlist feature (doesn't guarantee anything, but at least we can track it if we choose to implement it and can serve as a way to gauge interest in the feature)
IANAL, but according to the FB Platform Policies part 2 of section 2 states
You may cache data you receive through use of the Facebook API in order to improve your application’s user experience, but you should try to keep the data up to date. This permission does not give you any rights to such data.
Which sounds like you can cache the autocomplete data since it will better improve the UX of your app, however, just remember that you do not have the rights to the data. I would be cautious about this as it would really suck if you worked really hard to get all the caching functionality built in only to have FB say that it's not allowed. I would advise with some experts some more before pursuing this path.
we want to do something that's relatively common among mobile games. We want to reset our Facebook scoreboard every week. I am surprised to find that - looking around - there is no automatic way to do this.
Is it in the plans to offer this functionality? A probably easier thing on Facebook's end that would work for us is if when we ask for friends scores, we get the date of each score, so we can then filter out the scores that are too old.
Other than that, it seems that we'd have to write a Windows Service or Cron task to call the Facebook every week and do this (or do it manually from Putty or other tool), neither of which seem accceptable for this small task.
Thank you and let us know!
-Brian Hunsaker
Technical Director # DarkTonic Games
There's no way to tell Facebook to wipe your app's Scores automatically, but you only need to make a single API call to wipe all scores:
https://graph.facebook.com/[APP ID]?access_token=[APP ACCESS TOKEN]&method=delete
This is mentioned here:
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/score/
The call to delete all the scores from your facebook App is as follows (may have changed):
https://graph.facebook.com/[APP ID]/scores?access_token=[APP TOKEN]&method=delete
it should return true.
I'm creating a django website with Apache2 as the server. I need a way to determine the number of unique visitors to my website (specifically to every page in particular) in a full proof way. Unfortunately users will have high incentives to try to "game" the tracking systems so I'm trying to make it full proof.
Is there any way of doing this?
Currently I'm trying to use IP & Cookies to determine unique visitors, but this system can be easily fooled with a headless browser.
Unless it's necessary that the data be integrated into your Django database, I'd strongly recommend "outsourcing" your traffic to another provider. I'm very happy with Google Analytics.
Failing that, there's really little you can do to keep someone from gaming the system. You could limit based on IP address but then of course you run into the problem that often many unique visitors share IPs (say, via a university, organization, or work site). Cookies are very easy to clear out, so if you go that route then it's very easy to game.
One thing that's harder to get rid of is files stored in the appcache, so one possible solution that would work on modern browsers is to store a file in the appcache. You'd count the first time it was loaded in as the unique visit, and after that since it's cached they don't get counted again.
Of course, since you presumably need this to be backwards compatible then of course it leaves it open to exactly the sorts of tools which are most likely to be used for gaming the system, such as curl.
You can certainly block non-browserlike user agents, which makes it slightly more difficult if some gamers don't know about spoofing browser agent strings (which most will quickly learn).
Really, the best solution might be -- what is the outcome from a visit to a page? If it is, for example, selling a product, then don't award people who have the most page views; award the people whose hits generate the most sales. Or whatever time-consuming action someone might take at the page.
Possible solution:
If you're willing to ignore people with JavaScript disabled, you could choose to count only people who access the page and then stay on that page for a given window of time (say, 1 minute). After a given period of time, do an Ajax request back to the server. So if they tried to game by changing their cookie and loading multiple tabs at once, it wouldn't work because they'd need to have the same cookie in order to register that they'd been on that page long enough. I actually think this might work; I can't honestly see a way to game that. Basically on the server side you store a dictionary called stay_until in request.session with keys for each unique page and after 1 minute or so you run an Ajax call back to the server. If the value for stay_until[page_id] is less than or equal to the current time, then they're an active user, otherwise they're not. This means that it will take someone at least 20 minutes to generate 20 unique visitors, and so long as you make the payoff worth less than the time consumed that will be a strong disincentive.
I'd even make it more explicit: on the bottom of the page in a noscript tag, put "Your access was not counted. Turn on JavaScript to be counted" with a page that lays out the tracking process.
As HTML Requests are stateless and you have no control over the users behavior on his clientside, there is no bulletproof way.
The only way you're going to be able to track "unique" visitors in a fool-proof way is to make it contingent on some controlled factor such as a login. Anything else can and will fail to be completely accurate.
I am running an anonymous voting contest. We are using cookies as the sole deterrant of multiple voting, but also tracking IP addresses and looking for suspiciously high numbers of votes from the same IP. Is there any way to prove that someone is cheating by IP rotation?
only statistically, which is not a 100% proof
but you can easily put the statistical terms in your contest terms - for example (just an example, don't know your traffic exactly) - no more than 1 vote per hour from same class B network for same candidate
a good way to filter out based on cookies is to require cookie before contest starts. i.e. only allow previous visitors of the site to vote. place cookie on their computers before they know about the contest. well, and of course require registration for votes, but that's a little more involved.
There is no way to identify the human sitting at the keyboard. So there's no 100% reliable way to prevent or detect multiple votes.
But, you could use some other means to identify the browser. Some useful links:
Browser info: http://panopticlick.eff.org/
Flash cookies: http://www.google.com/search?q=flash+cookies
List of various "offline storage" APIs: https://labs.isecpartners.com/breadcrumbs/breadcrumbs.html
Also, you can check the "User Agent". E.g. Wget and Curl are only used by ballot-stuffers, they're not normal browsers.
Short of watching over their shoulder as they do it you're not going to prove it. There are a few things you could potentially do though to try and catch this out.
The most obvious seems to be requiring email confirmation of voting (e.g. give us your email and click the link we send), you an enforce uniqueness on the emails sensibly and "disposable" addresses would be reasonably easy to spot I suspect. This could be taken a step further to "only registered users can vote" or like stackoverflow "only users with rep > X can vote" even.
See also this question
Problem
At work we have a department wiki (running Mediawiki). Unfortunately several
persons edit without logging in, and that makes it very difficult to track
down editors to ask questions about the content.
There are two strategies to improve this
encourage logged in editing
discourage anonymous editing.
Encouraging
For this part, any tips are welcome. But of course there is always risks involved
in rewarding behaviours.
Discourage
I know that this must be kept low or else it will discourage any editing.
But something just slightly annoying would be nice to have.
[update]
I know it is possible to just disallow anonymous editing, but that will put a high barrier to any first time contribution (especially for people outside our department!), so I do not think that is an option.
[/update]
[update2]
Using LDAP or Active Directory does not solve the problem since the wiki is also accessible and used by external contractors.
[/update2]
[update3]
I am no longer working for this company. That does not mean that I completely have lost interest in this question, but from my current interest point the most valuable part is the "Did you forget to log in?" part below, and I will accept answers based on this part of the question.
[/update3]
Confirmation
One thought was to have an additional confirmation step for anonymous users -
"Are you really sure you want to submit this anonymously?", although with
such a question there is a risk that people will give up or resist editing. However,
if that question is re-phrased in a more diplomatic way as "Did you forget
to log in?" I think it will appear as much more acceptable. And besides that
will also capture those situations where the author did in fact forget to
log in, but actually would want to have his/her contributions credited
his/her user. This last point is by itself a good enough reason for wanting it.
Is this possible?
Delay
Another thought for something to be slightly annoying is to add an extra
forced delay after "save page" displaying something like "If you had logged
in you would not have to wait x seconds". Selecting a right x is difficult
because if it is to high it will be a barrier and if it too low might not
make any difference. But then I started thinking, what about starting at
zero and then add one second delay for each anonymous edit by a given IP
address in a given time frame? That way there will be no barrier for
starting to use the wiki, and by the time the delay is getting significant
the user has already contributed a lot so I think the outcome is much
more likely to be that the editor eventually creates a user rather than
giving up. This assumes IP addresses are rather static, but that is very
typically is the case in a business network.
Is this possible?
You can Turn off Anonymous Editing in Mediawiki like so:
Edit LocalSettings.php and add the following setting:
$wgDisableAnonEdit = true;
Edit includes/SkinTemplate.php, find $fname-edit and change the code to look like this (i.e., basically wrap the following code between the wfProfileIn() and wfProfileOut() functions):
wfProfileIn( "$fname-edit" );
global $wgDisableAnonEdit;
if ( $wgUser->mId || !$wgDisableAnonEdit) {
// Leave this as is
}
wfProfileOut( "$fname-edit" );
Next, you may want to disable the [Edit] links on sections. To do this, open includes/Skin.php and search for editsection. You will see something like:
if (!$wgUser->getOption( 'editsection' ) ) {
Change that to:
global $wgDisableAnonEdit;
if (!$wgUser->getOption( 'editsection' ) || !$wgDisableAnonEdit ) {
Section editing is now blocked for anonymous users.
Forbid anonymous editing and let people log in using their domain logins (LDAP). Often the threshold is the registering of a new user and making up username and password and such.
I think you should discourage anonymous edits by forbidding them - it's an internal wiki, after all.
The flipside is you must make the login process as easy as possible. Hopefully you can configure the login cookie to have a decent length (like 1 month) so they only need to login once per month.
Play to the people's egos, and add a rep system kind of like here. Just make a widget for the home page that shows the number of edits made by the top 5 users or something. Give the top 1 or 2 users a MVP reward at regular (monthly?) intervals.
Well, I doubt that this solution will be valuable for hlovdal, given that this question is now two months old, but maybe somebody else will find it useful:
The optimum solution to this problem is to enable automatic logins. This requires two steps. First, you need to add automatic authentication to your web service. Right now, we're using Apache with the Debian usn-libapache2-authenntlm-perl package on our internal application server*. (Our network is Active Directory and, obviously, the server runs on Debian Linux.) Second, you need a MediaWiki extension that makes MediaWiki aware of the web service's authentication. I've used the Automatic REMOTE_USER Authentication module successfully on an Apache web server that was tied into our network via an NTLM authentication module, but I do recall that it required a bit of massaging the code to make it work:
I had to follow the "horrid hacks" given on the extension's page, changing the setPassword() and addUser() functions to always return true instead of always returning false.
Since Active Directory is case-insensitive and MediaWiki isn't, I replaced both instances of the statement $username = $_SERVER['REMOTE_USER'] with $username = getCanonicalName($_SERVER['REMOTE_USER']).
Since I wanted to only allow certain people within the company to use our wiki, I set autoCreate() to always return false. It doesn't sound as if you need to worry about this, so you should leave autoCreate() at always returning true, which means that anybody on your company network will be able to access the wiki.
The nifty thing about this solution is that nobody has to log in into the wiki, ever; they simply go to a wiki page and they are logged in under their network ID.
* We just switched to this from a Red Hat server that was using mod_ntlm. Unfortunately, mod_ntlm hasn't been updated in a while and it's been starting to sporadically fail. I mention this because I've started to stumble on a performance issue with our current MediaWiki configuration that may require further code massaging....
Make sure users don't get logged out if they look away from the screen or sneeze or scratch their head. You want long, persistent, sessions. Once logged in, stay logged in.
That's the problem with the MediaWiki our company is using internally - you log in, do stuff, then come back later and it logged you out, but the notification of not being logged in anymore is so insignificant on the screen that the user never notices.
If this runs within an internal network, you could pull Active Directory information so that no one has to log in, ever. That's how I do it at work. That is, if they are logged into their windows machine, then my webapps can pick up their username and associate that (or their userid) with their edits.
I don't know if this would be easy to add to MediaWiki, though.
I'd recommend checking out wikipatterns.org - a great site about the social aspects of wikis
Explicitly using some form of directory service (LDAP) would probably be a good idea, so that your users are always fully identified. On the other hand, wikis are subject to their own dynamics, in fact some wikis are so successful because they can be anonymously edited, so that's another thing to keep in mind.
Apart from that, personally I'd try to create some sort of incentive for users to contribute openly and identifiable: this could be based on a point/score system so that there are stats shown for all users who have contributed to the wiki each day, this could possibly even create some sort of competition.
Likewise, the wiki could by default not show any anonymously contributed contents without them being reviewed first, which would be another incentive for users to contribute openly.
SO has an extremely low barrier for posting. You could allow people to specify their name when making an edit. When they are ready, they can finally log in to avoid having to type their name all the time.
You said this is in a departmental situation. Can't you add a feature to the wiki where it makes an educated guess as to who is editing based on the IP address, and annotates the edit accordingly?
I agree absolutely with everyone who recommends carefully researching the effects of anonymity in your application before you start "forbidding" it. In a great many cases people prefer anonymous editing because they DO NOT WANT TO BE ASKED ABOUT IT, IDENTIFIED WITH IT, OR SUFFER SOME PROBLEM FOR POINTING IT OUT. You need to be VERY sure these factors are not driving users to prefer anonymous edits, and frankly you should continue to allow anonymized edits with a generic credential login like "anonymous_employee" or "anonymous_contractor", in case someone wants to point out an issue without becoming identified with it.
Re the "thought... to have an additional confirmation step for anonymous users- "Are you really sure you want to submit this anonymously?", it's a good idea, but do not "re-phrase" in a way that suggests it is wrong to not be logged in as yourself, i.e. don't say "Did you forget to log in?" I'd instead note it this way:
"Your edit will appear as an IP number - it may be attributed to 'anonymous_employee' or 'anonymous_contractor' or 'anonymous_contributor' for your privacy protection. You will not be notified of any answer or response to it. If you prefer to have this contribution credited, then [log in right now]."
That leaves it absolutely clear what will happen, doesn't pressure anyone to do it either way, and does not bias what is being contributed with some "rewards".
You can also, alternately, force a login via LDAP / cookies, and then ask them if they prefer this edit to be anonymous. That is the approach taken on some blog platforms. In an intranet the abuse potential for this is basically zero, so you would presumably only have situations where someone didn't want 'how they knew' or 'why they raised this' to be the question rather than the data itself... IBM has shown in some careful research that anonymized feedback is very much more useful than attributed in correcting groupthink & management blind sides.