Scammish: MtGA still rigged... un-retirement

Saw a new update and wanted to try it out.

Some cool new features... experience is still poor.

MTGA random stats?

There are lot of pages discussing the RNG of MtGA and how it is well distributed or even slightly biased. None seems to be close to my playing experience.

All the studies are based on numbers by WotC, so I am just going to say BS on whatever they publish. I do not believe the people who are saying good things about the MTGA RNG. Do not belittle the posters that the negative outcomes are due to the sheer number of games that we play or that our memory only remembers negative events more prevalently.

Rigged opponents

I have been playing black for a couple days. 60+ games and a couple red aggros. Lots of white aggros. Still lots of droughts and floods with a 24/60 land ratio.

Today went back to my red aggro deck. 20+ Suddenly half of my opponents are red aggros. No white aggros.

RNG? Cheating?

3 games in a row. I play against someone who had at least two Wandering Emperor.

1 game with 2 four-of-a-kind cards within 8 rounds

There are pairs of cards that I always see with opponents like Djinn / Tolarian Terror, Sheoldred / Obliterator, etc. Do I ever just see one? Nope. Do I ever get both? Nope. I will concede that it is likely that a mono-blue deck have a higher chance due to the amount of cards that it draws... but the consistency is still too high. 

Opponent rarely floods or droughts

Ever notice that the opponent never gets stuck on two lands? I have seen that maybe twice in the last half year. Maybe if you include everyone that quits without playing, that is maybe once a day.

Ever notice that opponent multi-color deck always has the right lands? I've played against many 5-color decks and they have all 5 colors with their first 5 lands. With duress, I even saw one that only had 2 of the same land then drew 4 lands of each other color and play Jodah by round 5.

Yet when I play 2-color deck, I consistently only get one color. I even mulligan 3 times in a row and drew only one color.

I have droughted several times up to rounds 9 and 10... always stuck with 2 initial lands.

1. 7 draws no lands, (20/60 = 1/3) which is 0.04% or 1:2187. So even if my memory is inflated, I should have seen this once since I started playing. Yet, I see get this daily which is far less than a hundred games. Even if you want to argue weekly, this is a very far cry from expected value.
2. When I flood, half my cards are land. This almost always happen right after I break out of a series of drought.

Bots? Suspicious

Are the bots really bots? Do they leave without playing a card? Do they leave because you kill one creature? Do they chat? Do their cards highlight as if they are looking at the cards?

I guess you could program that... but why? Particularly when there are so many other issues...

Toxic opponents

And for real players, why even have a limited chat options? Why is there no option to auto-mute? "Oops" after I play a card is clearly sarcasm. As much as I do not take it to heart, it still decreases my liking of this game and makes me regret the times that I forget to mute the opponents. Half the "Good games" is un-sportsman where I am afraid to even say Good Game because I do not know if they have something up their sleeve. I also have a hard time responding to people saying Hello but at he same time thankful they reminded me to mute the chat.

Game still crashing

Game still continuously crashing. Every time the phone goes to sleep or locks, the game has to reconnect to the server. No other games I played has this "feature". Also it takes longer for the game to reconnect than to just shut it off and start it up again. So..........

Scammish: (Opinion) MtGA rigged... eventually leading to quitting the game

This may come from me being triggered but it won't change the fact that I am quitting this game. I just lost the last 6 games. Each game the opponents had exactly the mana they needed and the cards they needed to counter my deck.

Again, I played another multi-color deck with Jodah, the Unifier. Guess when it played each and everytime? On the fifth round. One of each color. I barely can get two different lands with a two color deck. I barely even get three lands by the third round. Yet, every multi color deck is able to not only get one of each color but 5 lands.

I played a black deck which always seem to be able to play a Sheoldred by round 4. Then always followed by a Phyrexian Obliterator. If not Sheoldred by round 4, then Obliterator by round 4. I have a black deck with 4 Sheoldred. I barely even get a Sheoldred in a game. So, not only that I have to face this card occasionally but  every mono-black deck.

Then you play a blue counter deck. Play a creature? Create counter. Early game? Counter unless you pay extra obviously no one has extra mana in early game. Play sorcery? Counter that. Play a mix? Exactly the counter they need for it.

Play a Djinn deck? Always by round 4. I have played it so many times that I can tell when I play against one. Basically, if it is not a pure counter deck, it's a Djinn deck.

Cannot leave out that MtGA also loves to play mono-red aggro deck against my own mono-red aggro deck. Yet each time, I either drought or flood.

Prior dry run included 3 games in a row with only 2 lands from a 21 land / 60 deck with at least 11+ draws. Then followed by 3 floods where I drop more than 50% lands in 15+ draws from the same 21 land / 60 decks. If random, this is the crappiest RNG engine. Ending with 3 lands after 17 draws....

That's it. I'm triggered. I'm done with this game. In my opinion, this is a scam. I was happy to pay to play, and I have but now sad that I did. I was happy to play Magic online. But this supposed "RNG" is too ridiculous. If this is a case of just being bad luck, then... well... still quitting.

Some posters say losers don't know how to build a deck and say others don't know what randomness is. I think they are paid "opinions". This sort of randomness is almost on the scale of Zynga's "randomness" which is designed only to feed on people's addictions which in my opinion is a scam. Which makes this scammish but nearly a scam.

#MagicTheGatheringArena

Buggish: MtGA RNG Land Pulls (Droughts, Floods)

The random number generator or whatever algorithm MtGA is too unrealistic. Also the opponent decks that you play against is definitely some sort of algorithm dependent on the deck you play.

RNG

Majority of the time, I play a 20-land 60-card aggro deck. In the latest expansion, ONE, this has been much less successful. The reason I still play it is because I lose quickly and win quickly. My other decks are also performing worse across the board.

With 20 of the 60 cards being land, I expect to draw about 1 land and 2 non-land cards. Overall, I may average out to that. But the amount of droughts or floods is unbelievable.

Droughts

Majority of the time, I start with one or two lands and more on the two-land side. When I start with 1 land, I draw a land about a third of the time as expected. This odd is totally not worth it because I have lost every game where I do not draw a land within two draws.

Majority of the games are with two lands. And there have been several games where I reach rounds 7-8 rounds with no more land. This means that I have my initial 7 cards plus another 7 cards. With 14-15 cards, I have only 2 lands where I expect to be around 5 lands.

I have been able to win a minority of the games with two lands due it being an aggro deck. The other decks with more lands never wins with two lands.

The odds of this happening should be around 6%. At 45 games a day, I should expect this about 2-3 times a day. I see this about a third of my games.

Floods

And the other half of the time, I just get round after round after round of lands. The funny part is that this also tends to happen when I draw an initial 3 lands which should DECREASE the odds of pulling another land due to there being more non-land cards remaining.

In the last game which triggered this post, I reached round 6 with 6 lands plus two more in my hand then drew another land. I have gone through 13 cards and have 7 lands. That is over 50% land. And this happens quite frequently in a single day. The odds that this should happen should be way below 1%.

At 45 games a day, I should see this maybe once a week. I see this about a third of my games.

Opponents

I do not understand this part but it ALWAYS seem like my opponents are able to drop a land every, single round. The frequency of my opponents not drawing more than 3 lands in the first 3 rounds is extremely low. I have maybe 2-3 quitters, which if I assume are due to lack of land, per day. I play over 30+ games per day, probably more like 45+ games. I have played with nearly half land decks, and I still cannot pull that kind of stats.

Also with how quickly the game can find me an opponent is extremely good. I suspect several of my games are not human players or at least not normal players. By that, I mean that some may be hired players. Although the game says they'll have special highlight in the player name, I have never met one.

One that almost seems definitely rigged is the blue counter-decks if you play a red-deck. The game-play is almost always identical: two considers, an impulse, and 2-3 negates. Djinn never on round 3; always on round 4 or later. The one mana is always for Slip out the Back if you have a burn card or some sort of single-blue counter spell. And the rare chance that I manage past round 4, it is followed by not just 1 that already can kill me but 2 or 3 Tolarian Terrors.

Then when you are tired of losing to that deck which I face multiple times a day, I play a white or black deck. And BEHOLD, I never see a blue-counter deck.

I do not even have to note it, but there is definitely a set of opponents when I play certain decks. I have played so much that I notice it almost immediately when I switch decks. It is not just color, it is the content of the deck. Even between my red burn deck and my red aggro deck, there is a definitely a pre-set type of decks it plays against.

In the latest expansion, the red aggro has been seeing a lot of black annoying decks where it seems EVERY SINGLE OPPONENT has not just one but 3 Cut Downs.

Cards

Which leads me to the odds of getting a three of a kind with a smaller deck is 4.83% in the initial draw. I do not know how many times I have seen 3-4 of the same cards. 

Cut Down, Consider, Phoenix Chick, etc.

But for myself, I saw 3 Phoenix Chick for the first time since I built the deck a few months ago.

#MagicTheGatheringArena

Scammish: MtGA suspiciously manipulating matches

I run a primarily mono-red burn deck. Major weakness is enchantments. I play against a lot of enchantment decks. So much that I put in a single disenchant. I already had a dual land with white for a kicker.

Suddenly, I stopped facing any enchantment decks. I hold onto a disenchent card and never used it over 50+ games. I was losing even more often. I removed it, and instantly I played against enchantment decks.

Not just immediately, but for the next several games as if the system was queueing it up. I put my disenchant back in and no more enchantment decks.

Also suddenly, I was playing against (suspiciously different people yet seems almost exactly the same decks) were what appeared to be multi-colored shrine decks. I have to face several spirits that come out of nowhere. Also nowhere to find are my 5 burn down the house cards. Yet I always seem to manage to get my lone single strangle card each game.

I also seem to never get the End of Festivities (1 damage to all creatures) whenever I play against a small aggro create deck.

I always seem to play against black decks that have all 4 cut down (or whatever it is called).

I always seem to play against counters that have the right counter non-creature or counter creature through several rounds of single-card hands (ie they have no other cards in hand).

I always seem to play against single-color decks who happen to have 3-4 (probably 4 because I cannot survive past 3) of the largest anti-burn creatures. I just played against a player who played 3 Totalarian Terrors by round 6. Fine that he was able to cast one by round 5, then he plays 2 more right the next round. I barely have 4 mountains in a 60-card deck with 24 mountains. And he is able to pull 3 Totalarian Terrors in the same amount of time. I don't even own a single Totalarian Terror.

I always seem to play against a white deck that has the just the right amount of exile cards. No exile cards when I have no creatures, exiles up the wazoo when I have several creatures, etc. How do I know because they run out of cards. And I then suddenly get flooded with lands.

Speaking of land floods, they always seem to occur at the most critical points of the game. I am winning 20 to low single-digit. Then suddenly, 8 to 10 lands in a row. I have the red cards where I can cast 2 exile cards (which will turn up two lands) and the one where I discard one to get two cards with two treasures (ie mana) which would also turn up more lands. I would have a hand of lands. Odds? I have a 60-card deck. So my deck is 40% land yet after counting my lands with remaining cards, I have about 70% of my played cards are lands. 

The deck builder crashes all the time!! This was added because I had to restart the game several times just to look up some of the card names. You can see where I gave up above.

Sooooooo..........

Could I have been so randomly bad? maybe

Did I somehow upset lady luck? maybe

But for this simple-minded player, these odds seem terribly suspicious.

Scammish: Magic the Gathering Arena Mobile App RNG (MtGA)

This may be more broken RNG than it is a scam, although according to other netizen's anecdotes could be scammish favoring P2W. P2W is too difficult for me to analyze. I do not have any suspicions of it but I do not think I could tell. Definitely, there are players with cards that completely trump any of my decks but it is not like those cards are inaccessible to me... and I can see F2P players potentially grinding to have those cards. Those decks are pretty rare to play against, and I suppose I am fine with it once in a while. It is kind of cool to see some rarer cards. 

A mono-color red deck with 25 lands of a 60 card deck

• 80% of my starting hands have two lands.
• With more than 33% of my deck being land, I should on average 2-3 two lands on equal ratios
• On very rare occasions I have one land. Maybe once in a hundred games (~about once a week while playing around 30 games a day)
• Many of my starting hands that more than two lands come only after multiple losses
• Several hands where I have all the same non-land cards
• several games where opponent has all 4 of the same non-land cards within 3-5 rounds
• For poker fans, the odds of getting a four of a kind 0.02% chance in 5 cards and 0.1% chance in 7 cards. So the odds of getting all four with a 60 card deck vs 52 card deck is lower. 
• Each day, I may get what seems like two normal games where the opponent and I get a normal distribution of lands
• Majority of games, the opponent always has the right amount of lands and correct land to play multi-color decks
• I have faced several multi-color decks that have been able to get play lands each round and has one of each color to play very rare legend cards at exactly five rounds while I almost always struggle to get more than two of a single color.
• I have faced several games where I go on a drought pulling 10+ cards multiple times
• With 33% lands, 5 non-land cards in a row would be a 13.5% chance.
• I have also faced several games where I get 10+ lands within the first 20 cards
• I get nearly half my lands after 13 pulls which typically starts with 2 lands
• With 33% lands, 5 land cards in a row would be 0.3% and 7 in a row would be 0.04%
• I have also played games where I draw 6-8 consecutive lands
• Opponent always seem to have land. On very, very, very rare case I will see an opponent have any sort of drought. I have several games with only 2-3 lands the entire game. My opponents always have at least 4, and reach 8 lands on a very regular basis and always has spells.
• Opponent very rarely has land drought. I have maybe seen this 5 times after hundreds of games. Maybe once a day, I'll have
• Deck contains about 6 cards pertaining to creating creatures or creature spells. On many occasions, I will get all creature spells at the start of the game. 

Occasionally, I play multiple colors

• There have been many games where I would get 3 lands of one type and 4 cards of the other type. For example, there have been several games I would get 3 plains with 4 green spells or 3 forests with 4 white spells
• This is also a good number of games when only looking at only starting with 3 land hands which in itself is already rare
• With nearly half the deck with lands (28 lands in a 60 card deck), majority of the time I only see two lands.
• Not only is two lands the norm, several times I will not see another land for another 5 or 6 cards.
• Many of the times I go on a drought, I also face very low odd decks where they run 3-5 colors. And they have always get the lands that they need while I barely get two colors on equal frequency as my opponents.

Matchups

• I am always able to find opponents at any time of day. With absolutely no evidence, I suspect most of my opponents are not real players (ie bots, employees, not actual random people, etc).

EDIT 2011-11-14

After this post, my land distributions seem to have improved a bit. I will have about 3-4 lands after 20 cards. This at least is playable and have been able to win on rare occasions. 

Scammish: Canon all-in-one printers/scanner/fax (imo, just do not buy)

Scanner is completely useless without ink. Why? I have absolutely no idea either. This clearly an intended feature by Canon. Because of this alone, I say this is completely useless. If you want to go with just the Canon printer, see my other article where Canon printer uses cyan ink even though I have only printed black and white documents with both the app and the printer settings set to black and white. Supposedly, Canon claims this makes the black, blacker. I just need a print; I don't need a professional black color. It could be a light grey-scale for all I care to save more ink. But of course, there are no settings at all for this. Additionally, this is for any ink that is empty not all of them. For example, once cyan is out the entire printer (including printing) is useless even if you are printing black and white with full black ink cartridge.

JUST STAY AWAY FROM CANON

What is more scammish, is that I cannot even buy ink for my printer anymore... so... what a total electronic waste on the planet.

SAY NO TO CANON

What a crappy business model? If I had known this was the reason for the lower price, I would have just paid more for another device.

Summary

I would be embarrassed as an engineer if I had worked for Canon. I am already a bit ashamed as engineer that such a product exists. 

Reference

https://douglastclee.blogspot.com/2021/03/scammish-printers-using-cyan-when.html

Scammish: Employee Engagement Survey Anonymity / Confidentiality and Why I Rather Not

Every year or some companies are twice a year, I have to fill an employee engagement survey. Every time I fill it in I cringe in the information that I have to share. I have been on teams of 5-10.

I Can Tell With Some Uncertainty From the Results

Most bosses will share the results. From the different graphs, I can usually tell which data point is which person. It does require that I am a bit familiar with each person. The easy data points are the people who have issues/problems. But not any issues/problems, these are typically the people who really, really, really want to help the group. Because most people will just lie on the survey.

I Tried But...

I have randomly been extra truthful on the survey. I even filled out the open ended response on extra this to say.

I also have routine meetings with all my bosses. If they did not, I set up the meeting. So they should already know my positions on certain topics. 

Even Ideally... Surveys Are Totally Useless

5+ companies, multiple more bosses (due to reorgs), they all have the same results... nothing. I was part of one group that actually did try harder. Still all "improvements" barely last the one call discussing the results.

Sure the boss may appear excited for the change, animated, hoo rah rah, booya, etc, I have only seen one get past the meeting . That one time lasted maybe half a year (but COVID happened... so........)

Survey Answer Is Always Perfect or Near Perfect With One Exception

If you are not confident in your workplace and you just want to stay in the the status quo, the the answer is ALWAYS, ALWAYS the happy answer. If the question is negative, then the answer is the negative of that negative.

For example, do you hate your work? Answer is fully disagree.

For example, do you love your work? Answer is full agree.

ALWAYS

Why? Because everyone else is. And if you disagree, the boss will know. And most bosses will cut you because it is easier to deal with than dealing with the real problem.

What if you have a good relationship with your boss? Then the answer would naturally be the same anyways.

What if the question is on the corporate level? Still the happy answer.

Exception?

You really hate your job and you really want to tell the company about it. But why would you want to help at the end? The answer is still the same.

Unless you really, really want to screw over your boss and you plan on never leaving. Because that sore spot will forever stay on his employee engagement score. But likely, he'll identify you anyways and get you fired. Then his score will go up the next year and it'll look like he did something............

Sooooo...... for me, if I were to analyze the results... I would expect everyone to either say they are happy or lie that they are happy. Anything less is more of a sign to what I consider my real answer...

REAL ANSWER for company if possible

Hire or promote good managers if you want to improve. Train managers? I have not seen a single manager ever change the way they manage their team. It seems to be a natural soft skill that people either have or don't have. Jerk managers will continue to be jerk managers. They may pretend for a short period of time. I am even tempted to say that even if you incentive the preferred behavior (if that is even possible), I think they still wouldn't change (or change back). Even for mediocre managers, lazy managers, hands-on managers, etc.

Maybe, maybe.... change the incentives on how teams should work. The biggest problem I see even for good managers is that the "real" demand is to deliver quickly with good enough QA that defects can go undetected. "Real" because the demand that managers deal with is usually different than what their managers say the demands are.

For example, lvl2 manager will say the demand is to upgrade the system to the next system but in reality is stressing lvl1 manager to manage current fires which is not related to upgrade. Lvl3 manager is telling lvl2 to modernize but escalating fires to lvl2. This is my dubiousness on modifying the incentives.

Scammish: Fake Christians

My issues with majority of the Christians that I have met are that they seem to be almost the worst kind of selfish people. They hide it in such subtle ways and rarely return any kindness. They pretend to be nice but they seemed very, very forced.

Fake Kindness or Pseudo-Kindness

If you do not like me, just ignore me. Don't go out of your way to have to greet me and ask questions you do not care about. Or just ask what the person's name is again. There is no need to prepend it with "I know we've met before, but I forgot your name... blah, blah, blah." The longer you go, the more you just seem to be a jerk because you do not care to remember if it really bothers you that much. So now you are just lying about something you do not even care to remember the first few times. I understand many people cannot remember, but most people do remember after the 5th or 10th time. Or just talk without knowing my name.

I know doing kindness should not expect anything in return, but Christians seem to be the worst at returning anything at all. And if it something that is returned, it usually has no consideration to the person receiving the gift. Giving a gospel verse to a non-Christian is not a return on kindness. Giving a gift that the recipient clearly does not use or cannot use is not a return on kindness. AND, I do not know if that is any worse than not even trying to be kind in return. Is maybe kindness only allowed to other Christians? Do Christians give each other gospel verses?

I have lost count on the number of times I have helped Christians that was out-of-my-way and never to hear from them again. Currently, I am pleasantly surprised to just get a genuine thank you. Mostly I just get the fakest thanks. I also do not know if it is worse to get a "I am the unluckiest person" thank you or a "so over the top" thank you. 

Don't ask for favors when you will not make any time to return the favor!! Just say you need help. Why do Fake Christians have a need to feel good about themselves? Do not promise things you do not plan to keep. Yes, there is the usual "plan the next event" that never happens. But if I invite you over, don't promise to invite us over if you never plan to. Sometimes I don't even think they even try. Here, I prefer you just give a stupid fake thank you and just leave. Don't say that you will return the favor. Don't tell me when I am free to go over. 

Why would I basically invite myself over? How about you invite me over and I tell you if I am free? Or? Ask when I am free? I will never bring this up on a whim (does anyone?). If I invite you over, I invite first then ask when you are available. If you tell me you are free and want to come over, I am going to think you (not a personal friend) are a bit creepy. 

And when we do plan something, don't say you are always free when you contradict it within minutes with "sorry, I have small group during that time" or mass or another church event or a church gathering and basically you end that you promise to let me know then never call... every single time. 

Summary

I know my experience is very anecdotal so I do give the benefit of the doubt to new people that I meet. I also reserve that it may be possible that my sample size may be too small. They are still currently one of the worst types of people I meet. 

Scammish: C.P.S. Letter/Mail for Annual Report Instruction Form

Just received a letter addressed to my company that looked like an official letter to submit an annual report. By looking official, I just mean that it looks professional. It does not look like the one that you get from the state. 

Be careful. They do not provide any additional service because the information you provide them is essentially the same information that you submit to the state. For me, they charged way more than filing myself. The state filing is pretty simple and this form already looks more work.

This is not a scam per se, but I almost mistaken it for the actual annual report. It can still be potentially a scam as I do not know if they do submit on your behalf. I imagine they do because why take the risk for easy money already? I wouldn't be surprised if this is still legit with all the crazy stupid law stuff that can happen.

Any case, if you run a simple business, this is not worth the extra cost. I also assume that you will not get your money back if you already sent it. They'll claim they do and they will likely claim that it is in the mail. Be additionally careful if they request more information for them to return your money, as there is a scam for that too. 

The return money scam basically has you pay more money to get your money back.

Scammish: Microsoft listening into personal conversations finding its way in ads (Personal Experience)

On my work laptop, I just saw ads for two items that I have never searched or ordered before on any of my work devices. Both of them suddenly came up on several ads on msn 

I rarely use my work phone. It basically just sits on my desk. I have taken maybe one call in the last month. I use my laptop on a very regular basis.

I am logged into all devices with work identifications, none related to any of my personal identifications.

The scary part is that these were things my wife was talking about just recently. Talking! She never messaged these things to me through text, email, etc. 

I have absolutely no idea which device or app even listened in on this.

Dear Microsoft, stay out of my life!!

There should be some law to force advertisers to publish where they received our personal information!

Scammish: Samsung S20 FE wifi calling is so faulty

I don't know if this is a Samsung phones thing as I had similar experience with Samsung S7 and S8. For whatever reason, I've always had issues with sending out text messages over wifi calling. For another stupid reason, I always live in a unit that has 0 cell reception so I am forced to use wifi calling.

After I send a text message, the progress circle just keeps spinning. I can even receive text messages while it is spinning over several minutes. I can also surf the internet. Eventually, the message will even get sent with maybe 80% success rate. The other 20%, I just resend and it'll attempt again with about the same success rate.

What is even worse is if I send multiple messages to the same person, the order of the messages is maybe in the correct order about 50% of the time. So the more messages I send, the more likely messages will be out of order.

Not only is it sometimes out of order, the history display of messages of both incoming and outgoing is not the same as the receivers. I've had friends send me screenshots and our messages do not match.

I doubt it is the carrier as I've had this issue with Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. I've restarted my phone, restarted wifi (over multiple phones and multiple places), and other online attempts. My friends' phones (iphones and non-samsung) appear to work fine.

Once I connect to normal cell reception data, the messages are nearly instantly completed.

Scammish: Job boards and Company Online Jobs Listings (based on my personal experience and thoughts)

To be fully honest, I am not a fan of the current HR (Human Resource) industry/practice today.

I have used glassdoor, indeed, monster, linkedin, and a couple others in the past. And my experience is that I rarely ever get any response from any online applications (including directly on the company websites). All my work opportunities (nine different employments, eleven if you count contract to hire) have come through a physical person whether that is a friend, acquaintance, or even a recruiter.

Yet when I interview through traditional means, my success rates to get offers are extremely high, nearly 100%. And usually with a day or two of my interview (which makes me think my salary request is on the low end, and never has a company offered more than my ask). So this makes me think there are a couple things I am doing incorrectly with online applications.

The easier and within my control is not using the proper keywords or catchphrases that will get me past the automatic filtering system. I have so many variants of my resume. I tailor my resume to the job positions. So I like to think that I should have been accidentally correct at some point.

The other reason is a bit scammish. I have seen a few of these practices myself.

The simplest one is that some companies are require to post positions publicly even though they already have someone in mind. This typically is with larger corporations and most definitely for contract-to-hire positions. As mentioned above, I have had a couple of these. This transition took time, and part of the reason is that HR has to post the job publicly and it needs to be up for a certain period of time. They will field the minimum candidates with the minimum amount of work. I may have been focused on my work, and I am not one to keep an eye out for what my managers do, but I am pretty sure they did not interview anyone. Eventually, I get transitioned to full-time employee status. Therefore, people saw the post, applied, and most likely never heard back.

Technically, this is not the job boards fault but it kind of is if they scrape these positions from the company websites which most of them do.

A more scammish practice is companies that are not real. They just post jobs to just collect data. I have worked for a marketing group, and there is a lot of bartering for personal information (especially behind the scenes). One of the biggest values to data is how much of their data is legit data. Job applicants on job boards are one of the best and easiest sources of data to be collected. I use a separate email and phone for my job search. After applying to certain unknown companies, I get sudden spikes of spam. Sometimes all it takes is just to publish your resume on the board which I typically get smaller spikes and more sporadic.

A similar practice but more borderline scammish is corporations doing similar practice but only to populate their HR system of records. Because they purchase bulk amounts of job postings, companies that have remaining posts will just use them to post non-existent positions. This has all sorts of implications. The simplest is just to have a queue of available candidates. Second, they can see how desperate the candidates are which can be used to set their expectations on how much they pay their current employees. Last, they can also use that on low-balling other or future candidates.

Suspiciously, even the job boards ads and site metrics seem to avoid how effective they really are. Many states number of users but they don't state how successful they are. Maybe it is also due to users abusing the system too. But if they claim number of users then they must take responsibility that number is somewhat accurate, thus they should have the ability to give some estimate on how successful users are. Otherwise, they should not market how many users they have.


References
https://zerista.s3.amazonaws.com/item_files/ab2f/attachments/458970/original/source_of_hire_2018_pdf.pdf

Scammish: Printers using cyan when printing black and white, and B200 error

I remembered watching a TouYube video on this while watching videos on Rights to Repair. I had a very, very large print job so I took note of the Cyan level. After printing about 100 pages, the cyan color became low. After another 100 pages and the cyan color was empty. The printer showed an error that cyan is out and stopped printing. Fortunately, I was able to just confirm the error and the printer will continue printing.

I searched online for some references, there was one that claimed the printers use cyan to provide a better black print. If it is, it is not noticeable to the human eye. My next 200 pages look to be the same quality as the first 200 pages.

I have options for only black and white enabled because there are 3 random mono-chrome non-black pages. Those pages were grey colored. So, I do not understand why cyan would have been needed for that either.

I think this is a scam. Not only did it use cyan, but it used half the cartridge (checked visually with the printer application tool and on the printer itself). I currently used a Canon MX922. I also bought an HP Envy Pro 6400 series which only printed maybe 100 pages before running out of ink before I even started this print job.

On side note

I also ran into a B200 error. This video helped me bypass the error.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keDjpGBlrOc&ab_channel=303Electronics

Reference

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-printer-need-cyan-to-print-in-black-and-white

https://www.1ink.com/blog/why-does-my-printer-need-color-ink-to-print-black/

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1190200

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHX6tHdQGiQ&ab_channel=AustinMcConnell

Scammish: Robinhood liquidity issue or not?

 I am not a regular trader and cannot follow all the news... but this sounds kind of fishy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuCcchMOsKE&ab_channel=CNBCTelevision

In this video, CEO says directly that there is no liquidity problem.

But then I got this email from Robinhood that leads to their blog: https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/2/1/a-letter-to-our-robinhood-community

In this blog, they said it was due to regulations that seem to be tied with not having enough cash which to me sounds like a liquidity problem.

I kind of followed the short squeeze news, and know the bare minimum of sock investments. This is all beyond my knowledge but this still sounds suspicious.

Scammish: Modern-day cable news (my apologies to real journalism)

When did "news" become Entertainment Tonight? I am very disappointed in whoever is in charge of regulating the information that is broadcasted to the public. The government should ban the term 'news' when fundamental checks are not employed by certain organizations. My biggest beef are with Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. They should not be allowed to use the term news in their names. 

My apologies to Entertainment Tonight, but I feel they even do more background checks than today's cable news. Also my apologies to journalists that put the hard work even putting their lives at risk at times.

Sorry for the lack of references to my claims. I do not watch them daily, nor do I really follow... but when such a viewer can catch news that are incorrect, bending the truth, or even easily checked on the untrusted internet... something is definitely wrong.

Besides the blatant bias of information, "anchors" of these channels are so biased. It is way too obvious, and this should not be allowed as news. They should also not be allowed to put "statements" in the form of a question, like "how can we allow them to do that?" They try to make a point but what is the seemingly obvious answer but at the same time removing their liability that they may be incorrect. No! If you cannot accept liability for your information, it should not be allowed to be broadcasted.

Breaking news! In professional world, there is a say "if all issues are critical, then none of them are". I really, really hated this about CNN. How do you have the same breaking news for an entire day much less than entire week? After that horrendous month of break news, honestly, I do not believe in any CNN breaking news since then. Even if someone mentions CNN and breaking news, I no longer care anytime.

Guests! How can you do a proper interview in 2 minutes (exaggerated)? Especially when you spend the 1.5 minutes just introducing them, asking them a question, and interrupting (especially counter-points)? Do a proper interview where they can answer all questions, and summarize their responses... THEN let us decide what that information means! Or at the very least... let them talk (but do cut them off when they don't answer... stop doing it live so you don't waste our time watching you floundering with cutting them off)!

Work! He lied, he played too much golf, this, and that. I don't follow their every step, give some numbers! He lied this amount, compared that amount. I get more news from the Daily Show and Last Week Tonight than MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN combined... and they cover way less information (LWT only covers one topic a week). And they don't even use the term news...

After re-reading this, I made this sound like things that cable news need to fix but I know they won't change because they make money from this. My suggestion is to have them stop using the word news, ban them from having a format that looks like news, and anything else that misleads their viewers to think they are news. News should be 100% news, not 10% pretending to be 100%. Government regulations should ban this. Stop them from discrediting real news by saturating the industry with non-real news.

Scammish: MSNBC and other poor so-called journalism in mainstream media

Maybe not fake, but definitely not fair journalism... Coverage of Andrew Yang on MSNBC.

Since 2015, I have felt something felt odd about "news" coverage of MSNBC. This is a bit too blatant.

Reference

https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/andrew-yang-msnbc/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/18/msnbc-excludes-andrew-yang-from-media-coverage-despite-polling-above-other-candidates/

https://nwasianweekly.com/2019/09/editorial-yang-media-blackout/

https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/comments/jz1zwg/msnbc_yangmediablackout_confirmed/

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3819305

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvIiZXzDgm0&ab_channel=NerdsforHumanity

https://vocal.media/theSwamp/a-visual-history-of-the-yang-media-blackout

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMOTBj9Rbgg&ab_channel=ClaytonFilpo

https://twitter.com/scottsantens?lang=en

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=yang+media+blackout#id=2&vid=a4372f74583ea069b649201e84de7a86&action=click

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewynnahRxUQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Kd7VqnvtY

Scammish Pseudo Professional Blog Posts

I am like many people who get suckered by click-bait articles. But unlike most, I like to do some due diligence when an occasional post strikes my fascination. Recently I have been doing some research for a project that I hope to work on, I have found that a lot of these articles have no references... not even the author.

I can understand a personal blog (like this) not following all the rules, but our default disclaimer is basically take our advice with a grain of salt because we have no credentials. I dislike these blogs that are in the name of a company especially a seemingly legit companly like glassdoor, monster, and indeed (yes, I have been researching online job hires).

My Hates

In general as far as I can remember, I absolutely hate articles with no dates! 

https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/big-lies-recruiters-tell

https://www.nbrii.com/employee-survey-white-papers/10-things-employees-dislike-most-about-their-employers/

How hard is it to post a date? Not hard at all! So something is suspicious. In the best case, the company is just not legit because they are not putting the reader's concern in mind. This should be the first "readers beware" especially if you want to source the material or use their services.

Next, I hate lists that have absolutely no sources or references. And if there are no sources or references, then there should be some description of the author.

https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/author/emilymoore/

Yes, her articles are interesting reads but there are no backings. Where is she getting the information from? If from her personal experience, what is her experience? This is also not hard at all. It is the internet. The author can just as easily just make up a description.

And the author's title (Monster Staff) in the article from monster? They seriously could not come up with a more useless title to add some sort of legitimacy to the post? Might as well just signed, "some bum from the street" or anonymous.

Here's an example that does a good job of the above items:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/auditory-processing-disorder/

What irks me even more is that even reddit posts are more legit than the professional-looking blogs and articles. Even in reddit, at least some of the users will list their sources even to the point of admitting not only that it is from personal experience but that it is super biased.

So it just saddens me that many corporations are nothing like people. They put on a good face to make us forget that they will scam you if they can in as legal a method that they can.

On a Side Note

Would be nice if there was a way to rate blogs, articles, or whatever based purely on how they do certain things. I personally use the above method to rank how trust-worthy a company or site is.

See also

A good article with dates, references, and a good bio. Adds a lot of trust and believability to the article.

https://business.dailypay.com/blog/employee-turnover

Scammish: Verizon Wireless Fraudulent Charges

I noticed that I received a fraudulent charge on my credit card for Verizon Wireless for what appears to be a prepaid phone (or something related to prepaid). I could call my credit card first, but decided to call Verizon first.

First, the number on the charge is completely useless because you require a Verizon number to get through the automated system. There is no way around this. If you hit # or 0, you eventually just get kicked out the system. There is no way to get through the system if you are not a Verizon wireless customer which I am not.

So, I then looked up online for Verizon fraud department. This was not difficult (888-483-7200). This still asked for a number but does go to an agent eventually. I stated my problem and the operator easily responds that there is nothing he can do to track the charge. He says that I have to call my bank to dispute the charge.

Of all the data that Verizon collects, they are telling me that they cannot track a charge? Yet if I do not pay, they will go to the ends of the world to collect the payment. What a joke! And why do I need to go to my bank/CC when it was charged to them? I do not have any other fraud charges. Even returning products to any other store, the store can reverse the charge.

Just for this one charge, I have to get a new credit card which means I have to update all my auto payments. So yea, Verizon... I am going to give you hate for this. Not that you allowed the transaction because there is little that can be done on that front, but to tell me not only that you cannot track the fraudster, you cannot even tell me how it was charged or the phone it is attached to or EVEN CARE THAT IT HAPPENED... That's right, you do not even ask for any sort of information (my credit card, the charge amount, when it happened, etc)....... nothing.

Clearly the reason to me for not having this process is because this is part of your business revenue in hopes that people do not check so that you can collect the amount yet if someone catches it, you just blame the fraudster. I do not stand for this practice.

This perhaps may occur to other providers, but if you claim to be #1... well then it seems that you're just a better scammer.

Reference

https://community.verizonwireless.com/t5/My-Verizon/Fraudulent-charges-on-Verizon-bill/td-p/1110983

Scammish: TurboTax discount has not worked for multiple years

Every year and through different channels (Robinhood, Fidelity, StateFarm, etc.), the discount is never applied for me. The site states that you have to go through the affiliated site, which I do. Clear cache, clear cookies, restart browser, the whole same BS. If you go to their support page, it points to the same page or the suggested link is broken.

This year, I even tried all the data clearing and link clicking multiple times. From my personal recommendation, if you are trying out TT because of the discount... try another service. HR Block sounds like they have done a decent job catching up to TT. I may strongly consider them for next year.

There is even a user post that says he was told this problem is not common (https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/3984616) (also assuming the link does not break or deleted). Yet, if you search online on "turbotax discount not working," you'll get a ton of pages over the span of several years.

A technology company that does provide codes nor allow agents to apply discounts. Users have been credited by affiliated site or on a single post by TurboTax. In the TT post, went through support which had them submit the form and was told he would be credited. Who knows if the credit was ever applied. Clearly, TT has no interest in making this any better.

Scammish: Alternate Utility Companies Providing Discounts 8626211032 PWR

I received a call from what sounded like my electricity provider stating that there was an error to my billing that I should be getting a 10 cent discount. They then asked to confirm if I was a customer. When I confirmed they then requested for my account number. I didn't have that information handy so I asked a few questions. The caller tried to get the account number again, eventually she just hung up.

I called my provider to ask what that call was about. My provider said that there are companies that provide discounted energy. They need the account number to transfer to the third party. She added that it could be legit and one of the questions you should ask is how long that discount is for as they are likely to change after a future date.

First, electricity is only more than 10 cents during the day. Second, they asked for my account number first. Third, they hung up on me after some questions. Fourth, they did not identify themselves and hiding behind your provider's name. This may not be technically a scam, but this surely is a very fishy scheme in the most optimistic light. Because of the order of information, I think this is likely a scam to switch you even without your consent. I'd stay away from this either way.

Reference

(862) 621-1032
caller id - PWR