Dan,
On #3 and #4 would it be possible to change to answers to Sometimes/Always/Never
On #11 and #12 could it be possible to add the numbers 0 and 1
Just throwing in my two cents worth.
Noleman
Would be nice to have a question something like:
Did you meet via:� o Agency/personals/� � o Other non-marriage venue
hi just did this test
was totaly honest,concider whoever designed this test knows nothing
my wife of 3 years came up as a possible
what a crock
the only thing i can see was the age difference & thats only matters to couple concerned
QuoteQuote from: BC on Yesterday at 23:41:22BC, what impact would that have on assessing the FSUW as honest vs. scammer ?
Would be nice to have a question something like:
Did you meet via:�� o Agency/personals/�� �� o Other non-marriage venue
I tested it and it didn't work... it said "probably a scammer" on a lady whom I trust... It's a little too harsh I think and the scoring needs to be adjusted.
I tested it and it didn't work... it said "probably a scammer" on a lady whom I trust...One could always counter : "Do you REALLY know her, and for how long have you known her ?". Surprises may always happen (fortunately AND unfortunately).
It's a little too harsh I think and the scoring needs to be adjusted.This was rather deliberate, since it's preferable to err on the side of caution than in the opposite direction, and an unexpected harsh verdict usually makes people stop and think, and possibly reconsider some earlier, too optimistic conclusions, many cases of which we have seen all too often on this board.
I am thinking about doing some statistical analysis to correct the card itself.Excellent, please let us know (not just the results, but also how you obtained them ;)).
Will do. In fact, I am thinking about conducting a statistical analysis of Russian blacklist for repeated phrases and words and conducting a frequency analysis. In fact, I really think that certain choice phrases will be seen again and again.
This is called linguistic blueprinting. In fact, it's used to verify the authenticity of literary documents (forgeries, etc.) for scholarship. I use statistical software to do similar analysis on health care data (my day job) and so applying it to scamming letters is no different from a scientific standpoint.
I think that if I can devise a program to feed a letter that you receive into a web browser and then it can spit out whether or not it is likely to be fake, that would be more useful than determining the options yourself. It is hard to deceive a linguistic analysis because people have certain pattern in their speech they can't avoid.
Will do. In fact, I am thinking about conducting a statistical analysis of Russian blacklist...OK. If you go to http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?pid=3, you will find a list of several anti-scam sites which keep copies of reported scam letters. A good source of data to feed to your intended program.
I think that if I can devise a program to feed a letter that you receive into a web browser and then it can spit out whether or not it is likely to be fake, that would be more useful than determining the options yourself.I think we could call it a Scam Chewer :D, and it could represent a valuable ADDITIONAL tool.
I am thinking about doing some statistical analysis to correct the card itself.What you intend to do would not influence the Scam Card at all, in my opinion : if you step back a moment and consider the questions in the Scam Card, you may notice that they are aimed at evidencing BEHAVIOURAL and SITUATIONAL patterns typical of a scam scenario.
Is it possible to ... substantively improve the test? :DAny suggestions ?
I'm sure it gives absolutely false resultats in absolutely geniune cases.Don't tell me you tried it on yourself, and the verdict was not to your liking ;).
Don't tell me you tried it on yourself, and the verdict was not to your liking ;).
Hi Dan,
I just checked out this system and found a few things. I know for a fact that the girl i'm in touch with is not a scammer. She is a single mum who is one year older than me and she doesn't send long winded messages about herself... in fact sometimes I find them too short :) She is obviously very practical in her approach in getting to know me. She has kept her word about everything so far.
I filled it in and the result was she is probably a scammer. I filled it in taking into account the possible errors being made by it and she is still probably a scammer. I then filled it in and tried to give perfect answers for each question and it still came up she is possibly a scammer.
#1 Should have no bearing as FSU women seem to go after what they want including the good girls
#2 There is no "she is older" options
#3 There should be a "mostly" option because she sometimes forgets to answer a question and so do I
#4 Same as #3 sometimes we forget if there is a few in the same e-mail
#5 There should be an option of "not yet" or "no"
#6 I don't understand this question (she uses my name at the start and I do the same. Not many, if any people I know use their name several times in the same letter.
#7 Sometimes we change the re line and sometimes we don't so don't think this has much bearing
#8 I agree with this one. She has never done this except the first letter. I've heard from other posts that sometimes these intro letters will continue for up to 2-3 letters but after that it's a major red flag
#9 Don't understand this question. What is it getting at? I think a lot of girls will choose just "Elena's models" for example because it's got a good reputation
#10 I think this is fine as is
#11 Should be an option for just 1 or "not applicable"
#12 Should be an option for just 1 or "not applicable"
#13 Cool
#14 Ok
#15 Ok
#16 I think this is N/A. hers has 4 letters in it and a number which I don't know what it means but seems to be just a simple abrieviation with 1 number. The scam ones I've seen are things like cutegirl4you@... hers doesn't look anything like that
#17 Not up to that stage yet. Also her english needs some more work before she would feel comfortable to try the phone. So should have a "not applicable" or something there
#18 Should have a Not Applicable option due to lower english level
#19 Should have a Not Applicable option due to lower english level
#20 Not at that stage yet
#21 Not at that stage yet
#22 seems fine
#23 fine
#24 fine
#25 fine
#26 fine
#27 fine
#28 fine
I think if there are no obvious signs of scammer the message should read "there are no signs of scamming". The women should be given the benefit of the doubt on minor things since a guy could go paranoid if he reads she may be a scammer.
I hope that helps.
#1 Should have no bearing as FSU women seem to go after what they want including the good girlsYES weighs just 1 : a "good" girl may initiate contact, scammers usually always do.
#2 There is no "she is older" optionsSee above on "bonus" points.
#3 There should be a "mostly" option because she sometimes forgets to answer a question and so do IAgreed, we could specify "Always/mostly" as a "blue" answer (we're out of clearly-visible colours for an extra, intermediate answer ;)).
#4 Same as #3 sometimes we forget if there is a few in the same e-mail
#5 There should be an option of "not yet" or "no"No answer, no weight.
#6 I don't understand this question (she uses my name at the start and I do the same. Not many, if any people I know use their name several times in the same letter.Scammers seldom personalise their letters (too much work), and will often address you as "Dear Friend", "My Darling", etc.
#7 Sometimes we change the re line and sometimes we don't so don't think this has much bearingScammers often use the same "Re:" line over and over again.
#9 Don't understand this question. What is it getting at? I think a lot of girls will choose just "Elena's models" for example because it's got a good reputationCorresponding only through agencies is a safeguard against traceability.
#11 Should be an option for just 1 or "not applicable"No answer, no weight.
#12 Should be an option for just 1 or "not applicable"
#16 I think this is N/A. hers has 4 letters in it and a number which I don't know what it means but seems to be just a simple abrieviation with 1 number. The scam ones I've seen are things like cutegirl4you@... hers doesn't look anything like thatLittle weight (1).
#17 Not up to that stage yet. Also her english needs some more work before she would feel comfortable to try the phone. So should have a "not applicable" or something thereNo answer, no weight.
#18 Should have a Not Applicable option due to lower english level
#19 Should have a Not Applicable option due to lower english level
I think if there are no obvious signs of scammer the message should read "there are no signs of scamming".The message is "She is not a scammer".
I hope that helps.It does ;).
I got:Thank you for your contribution, Maxxum, your score was just 9 shy of "She may be a scammer" ;). Can you remember what answer may have weighed more heavily on it ? Age difference, maybe ?
Perhaps she is not a scammer
score: 91
I answered honestly. I did not answer the questions that don't apply. (11,12, and 19)
I think she should have scored "probably not a scammer"
This card is totally stupid! I have known a woman from Ukraine for over a year, answered 23 of 28 questions, and met and spent 5 weeks with her recently. For example, when asked she immediately gave me her telephone and home address, both which checked out and answers any question i ask although sometimes there are misunderstandings. The end result is that "she is probably a scammer"!You don't specify what answers to the other 19 questions gave your G/F a bad score :noidea:. All unquestionably blameless as the 4 you cite ?
I am so happy I did not see this in the first week after meeting her because this card does a real disservice to people that are seriously searching.No harm done in your case, then. Anyway, perhaps you did not read what is prominently displayed on a yellow background at the top of the Card:
- - - D I S C L A I M E R - - -
This tool is NOT intended as a fail-safe method for detecting scammers, but only as an aid to noticing SUSPICIOUS aspects in a relationship with an FSU woman, particularly for members with little or no experience in this area. The higher the resulting score, the more careful you should be in your dealings with her.
The final decision if she is a scammer or not can ONLY be YOURS !
Really, what woman anywhere would ever not hint that she likes gifts (mine asked for a small stuffed elephant souvEnIr).You must not have read the "Tip" for Question 28, either:
Scammers often use these hints to feel the ground for their subsequent requests for hard cash. Honest women may indicate they wish not overly expensive signs of your affection, such as flowers or perfume, when they feel comfortable with you.
I wonder - has anyone has ever applied these same questions to North American women dated - hhmmmm ... it seems we have a much bigger scam problem right here!!!!You're quite free to use the Card with women/scammers of whatever other nationality you desire, however this was not the original intent for an aid in a Forum devoted to FSUW (or Russian women, as the name implies).
Seriously, get rid of this card. If people want to take meaningless pop relationship quizzes they can read CosmoWhy did you take it, then 8)?
if you are serious, go meet her!"Meeting her" is undisputably a better way of knowing her, but what about signs that, judiciously and not hurriedly considered, might save a wasted trip ?
I checked myself and it came out as "She is probably not a scammer"Nastya, thank you for taking the time to check yourself and provide comments.
2. Need one more option about the age: 1-10 yearsCurrently it says: "10 years or less".
5. What about option No? (when a woman doesn't say in her letters or phone calls before the meeting that she is in love with you, only after she sees you)The point here is to identify a "premature" disclosure ;).
8.Again, the point is to identify typical scammer behaviour (the tip explains: "Scammers often use sets of pre-written letters. Since their targets are often multiple, and therefore variable, what they write about can only cover what is non-variable, i.e. themselves"), and not "normal" behaviour.
a. Long letters talking just about her
b. Long letters talking about both her and him
c. Short letters about both of them
d. Short letters about herself
Short letter - 2 paragraphs
Long letter - more than 1 page
11-13. Appears on one dating site under the same nameDitto. Unless you meant "repeat" posters, who enter a new profile year after year to reawaken interest in a site's audience through its newsletter announcing new entries ? This is a practice some FSUW use, some being scammers and some not, therefore it would be difficult to decide if it constitutes a real red flag, or not.
23. Her partner should be successful and this is all she talks aboutGranted, however these were offered as alternative synonyms to "well off", and the tip explains: "LOW DANGER: Scammers always seek a well-provided victim. Honest women often seek financial security". This is in the part on HER PARTNER/RELATIONSHIP PRE-REQUISITES, and intended as something prominently affirmed, either in her profile(s) or letters.
Because there is nothing wrong with wanting a man who is successful and financially secure. I am married to one of them.
24, 25. The type of relationship she offers - option - true love and marriageDitto (scammer vs. normal).
Well just for the fun of it I decided to try it out and VWRW came out with a score of 161 "probably a scammer" with the only negative answers the fact we have an age difference and that she was willing to accept an age difference.Turbo, we all know that you are the exception that confirms the rule ;). Maybe I should add a new question:
Both the first woman I visited and my fiancee are probable scammers. But that is not the idea of the card. ;)
I decided to have this test for myself, I imagined what the man I am correspong with now would write.Serebro (and Turbo), you must have used the previous version (3.0) of the Card, I entered your answers in the new version (3.1), and obtained:
... and where she intiated contact from needs to be on there or weighted heaver. For example I think a gal who contacts a guy on Elenas would not seem like a scammer to me but one who inititiates contact from Match.com is almost 100% going to be one.True, Turbo, but that is rather hard to incorporate in the Card, I would have to maintain a list of "dubious" sites which would be subjectively debatable ;).
Her score-132
She may be a scammer.
After changing the first point:
1/she initiated the first contact-yes
into no changes the situation into:
Her score:92
Perhaps she is not a scammer.
So writing a letter to the man whose profile I liked increases my score in 40 points and automatically brings me into the dangerous category.
Serebro (and Turbo), you must have used the previous version (3.0) of the Card, I entered your answers in the new version (3.1), and obtained:I didn't understand that question 100%...
- 51 : Perhaps she is not a scammer
with 50 contributed by Question 7 (Show SUBJECT:'s/Re:'s corresponding to those in your preceding letters).
I didn't understand that question 100%...
Does this mean that I click reply and the subject of the message has "re:Hello,...." in it, meaning that I don't write my own subject or does it mean that I leave the previous letters answering this letter and the whole letter is long because you can read the whole correspondance in one letter?!
I answered yes as sometimes I don't write my own subject but just leave "Re:"the subject of the person I am corresponding with"."but I don't think I understand what exactly they meant with this question...
Now Sandro said that it's one of the main scammers recognising questions so I am qurious about its real meaning :D
QUESTION 7
MILD DANGER
Scammers often use sets of pre-written letters. Inserting personalized information slows down their act, and may involve additional costs.
TIP
If your answer is NO: Keep changing SUBJECTs/Res in your future letters and watch if she changes hers."
Would it be a good idea to include questions about:Not very significant, see our RWDpedia (http://russianwomendiscussion.com/mwiki/index.php/IP_Addresses_%26_All_That_Stuff).
Does the IP address match the womans location? (get sender IP from email header and trace in ripe.net database)
Do the photo's look to good to be true?Non-scammers also use good photos ;). Not a meaningful discriminant, IMO.
Do the photo's look as if made by a professional?
Are the photo's numbered or do they show a sequence?1st question: I've never seen photo numbers, at most dates.
Does she send photos with every email?This could be useful ::).
Did she delete her profile from the dating site, after she established contact?Not damning in itself, only until after having established a sort of relationship for some time, I'd say.
One thing that I am not certain about which may or may not be good to include is: Does she mention that she is using a translation agency? Often this is the prelude for a translation agency costs notification. I think that if a woman mentions this, then its wise to seek alternative contact methods.I've never see that mentioned beforehand. Have you?
Thank you for your comments, Mander, long time since we received any :D.Indeed. Since it has been a long time and its nice to have such list of flags, I considered to throw in some ideas.
Not very significant, see our RWDpedia (http://russianwomendiscussion.com/mwiki/index.php/IP_Addresses_%26_All_That_Stuff).A mismatch between the IP location and the location given by the woman does not mean that she is a scammer. However, the chance certainly goes up. For example: I received an email today from an Ukrainian woman said to be from Kherson. Her IP is not dynamic and shows a company in Amsterdam. I think this is a reason to flag the message as suspect.
1st question: I've never seen photo numbers, at most dates.I read a discussion about this here. And found that all photo's coming from confirmed scammers, start either with 1_ or are in sequence like:
This could be useful ::).Not damning in itself, only until after having established a sort of relationship for some time, I'd say.Yes, you are right. It should be worded better like you indicate:
I've never see that mentioned beforehand. Have you?Two ladies have mentioned that they do not know English and use a commercial translation agency. I may be wrong, but after reading about the common translation agency scam, it feels funny to me. But since communication is still fresh in both cases, I'm considering is as something that could be wrong. i.e. a flag, not a discriminant.
I received an email today from an Ukrainian woman said to be from Kherson. Her IP is not dynamic and shows a company in Amsterdam. I think this is a reason to flag the message as suspect.I agree with you here. Normal 'Net users are assigned dynamic IP addresses by their providers, whereas a static IP address denotes a permanent entity such as an agency, and is therefore suspect at least of being 'agency-sponsored', or of mass mailing ;).
My guess because I have met Katarina I think the tool is more useful in the very early stage of communication.Yes, and to inexperienced WM: what is more helpful are its questions and related help, rather than its final score, because they may draw attention to aspects not previously considered or known ;).
How did your FSUW score?
Bill, is this the score sheet you are referring to ?