Scammer Scorecard - Released

[prince_alfie]

Indeed but I did all of the background checks and it worked out that the system needs to be adjusted. Does anyone have the formula? I am thinking about doing some statistical analysis to correct the card itself.

[SANDRO43]

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 ).

[prince_alfie]

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.

[Admin]

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.

What problems will machine translation (such as ProMT) introduce into the recognition of patterns? I should think it would complicate it dramatically.

- Dan

[prince_alfie]

Ironically, the PROMT translator which is pretty standard for most Russian-English translations simplifies the process of analyzing considerably. Because select phrases can be "canned" into patterns which PROMT will use on a typical basis, then scammers will use a different set of phrases than what a typically person will use in everyday speak. For example, use of pet expression or flowery language may indicate something which is suspicious behavior. The question is now "What" and "How"...

I know that by experience people will say certain things to watch out (Tablets of Stone, 10 rules) and I hope to find something that is more systematic. After all, scammers are getting more sophiscated...

On the other hand, there are limitations, linguistic analysis can't read matters of the heart, particularly GCG. In fact, there's where the good intuition will come in handy.

[SANDRO43]

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 , and it could represent a valuable ADDITIONAL tool.
You said previously :

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.

Let me use the last and most crucial question (28.  She asks for money) as an extreme example :  you do not need a tailor-made program to discover that. What your program might tell, based on your outlined intentions, would be : this is Tatyana's rather than Olga's or Svetlana's way of asking for money. Interesting, but rather irrelevant. LANGUAGE is a PART of human behaviour, not all of it. Personally, I would be much more interested in a program that could analyse BODY language from a webcam feed and tell me if that pretty, smiling FSUW is a scammer or not .

But I do not mean to discourage you from developing what MIGHT become an early-warning tool, I just want to point out that what you are suggesting NOW is definitely NOT what you implied initially (your last quote above).

[BillyB]

Prince Alfie,

Before trying to figure out whats wrong with the scammer scorecard, which I think is well put together, what was it that you answered on questions that set off red or yellow flags to give the woman you're corresponding with a "Probably a scammer" rating?

[Zmejka]

Is it possible to remove or substantively improve the test? I'm sure it gives absolutely false resultats in absolutely geniune cases.
Or may be place it in humor section?

[SANDRO43]

Is it possible to ... substantively improve the test?

Any 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 .

[Zmejka]

Don't tell me you tried it on yourself, and the verdict was not to your liking .

You knew that
Unfortunately the only suggestion i can think about is just to remove it - always the simplest and doesn't take any mental efforts

[Dave24]

 :-\I recently took the Scammer Scorecard,  it says she is "probably"  a scammer.  " Probably"  just doesn't do it for me!
Anyways, it 's a pretty cool tool (heehee!)

[batman]

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.

[Admin]

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.

Excellent feedback - THANKS!

- Dan

[SANDRO43]

Batman, thanks for detailed comments, which I'll take up after a preliminary explanation on how the Card works. As you probably noticed, each answer is colour-coded, reflecting the negative "weight" it will produce in the final score:

Blue = none/little weight (safe)
Orange = little/intermediate weight (pink flag)
RED = heavy weight (red flag)

No answer(s) will produce no weight(s). No "bonus" mechanism is included, i.e. answers that will decrease the final score.

Here's the rationale on the questions/answers you quoted:

#1 Should have no bearing as FSU women seem to go after what they want including the good girls

YES weighs just 1 : a "good" girl may initiate contact, scammers usually always do.

#2 There is no "she is older" options

See above on "bonus" points.

#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

Agreed, we could specify "Always/mostly" as a "blue" answer (we're out of clearly-visible colours for an extra, intermediate answer ).

#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 bearing

Scammers 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 reputation

Corresponding only through agencies is a safeguard against traceability.

#11 Should be an option for just 1 or "not applicable"
#12 Should be an option for just 1 or "not applicable"

No answer, no weight.

#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

Little 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 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

No answer, no weight.

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 .

[MaxxumUSA]

I got:

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"

[SANDRO43]

I got:
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"

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 ?

[catzenmouse]

Sandro,

 I believe that it is less than 10 years difference. In just taking a quick look I see that there is no choice between 10 or less and 20 or more. Also we may need to add that if something does not apply then do not answer it as there is nothing about how it works now.

Ken

[Turboguy]

Well, I just took it and it said that she was ok but I was a scammer.   Humm

Actually it showed she may be a scammer with 23 of my 26 answers in the blue section.  two yellow answers for e-mail not containing part of her name  (mine doesn't either) and accepting an age difference.   One red for our age difference and one yellow for her accepting age differences that were not small.   

I think the weighting might need some fine tuning.   One red and two yellow seems a little severe to me.

[jjen]

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"!

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. Really, what woman anywhere would ever not hint that she likes gifts (mine asked for a small stuffed elephant souviner). 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!!!!

Seriously, get rid of this card. If people want to take meaningless pop relationship quizzes they can read Cosmo; if you are serious, go meet her! At the very least, you will see a wonderful country with hospitable and generous people.

[AnastassiaAsh]

I checked myself and it came out as "She is probably not a scammer"

I think it is a great tool.

Some input:

2. Need one more option about the age: 1-10 years

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)

8.
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 name

23. Her partner should be successful and this is all she talks about
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 marriage

[SANDRO43]

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.

Though, admittedly, no mention is made of "small stuffed elephants", a serious omission for which we deeply apologise .

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 Cosmo

Why did you take it, then ?

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 ? 

Incidentally, since this was your 1st post, welcome to RWD .

[SANDRO43]

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.

Let me explain a possible reason for your resulting score. Each answer provides a numeric value that is accumulated for the final score, with "red" answers contributing heavily. Any final score between 1 and 50 yields "She is probably not a scammer". Blue answers usually contribute 0, except for questions 2 and 11 which give a 1. These could also be reduced to 0 (particularly no. 2), or the 1-50 range raised higher. As said upthread, it was preferred to err on the side of pessimism, rather than optimism, to stimulate a scorer's thoughts rather than blithely give a reassuring pat on the back .

Now, regarding your detailed observations:

2. Need one more option about the age: 1-10 years

Currently 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.
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

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.

11-13.  Appears on one dating site under the same name

Ditto. 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 about
Because there is nothing wrong with wanting a man who is successful and financially secure. I am married to one of them.

Granted, 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.

24, 25. The type of relationship she offers - option - true love and marriage

Ditto (scammer vs. normal). 

Quoting the Disclaimer again: ... as an aid to noticing SUSPICIOUS aspects in a relationship with an FSU woman ...

[Turboguy]

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. 

[SANDRO43]

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:

"Are you perchance Turbo or Ken C ?"

with answer "Yes" expunging any negative scores .

[SANDRO43]

New version just released, including:

- Question on Googling for portions of letter text.
- Lighter "weights" assigned to some answers.
- New central column ("question mark" icon) to remind users of the availability od explanations/tips, since some apparently failed to notice/remember this facility.