Blue Dot Clicker

Actually, there are easier ways to spam the site... I wrote a greenfoot program that accessed scenarios every act cycle to boost the view count. Greenfoot.org doesn't have a good way of testing whether it is a human or just a robot trying to access the page (google sites like youtube do though). Anyway, I only used it on two of my scenarios before I felt like I was cheating: everything except cube runner and textured cube are entirely legitimate counts. Besides, I don't think anyone can really put too much credibility into the number of views as a measure of popularity: voting is much more accurrate.

@MatheMagician, I do not think that view is a reliable measure of popularity either. But the ratio of votes per views is altered by illegitimate view counts. Oh, and I had always thought that you had some web-presence that brought people in to boost your view count on those scenarios.

@danpost, I am not promoting it at all. I was just trying to point out that there is a weakness in the system (as a warning for people). I am sorry I did add those views. As a note though, on cuberunner, I only added a small fraction of those hits at the end. I believe what happened was that because I called it "Cube Runner" (the title of a somewhat popular game on the apple store) anytime someone searched for "cuberunner", my scenario came up in the top ten. I have since changed the title and the views stopped coming in.

@MatheMagician, I am neither for or against the spamming of views on one's own scenarios. You can do what you please with your own. I guess that boosting views would put your scenario illegitimately high on the 'Most views' or 'Most views (this week)' search results. But, I doubt that those options are used that much. It is the blatant disregard that one displays toward things that are not theirs that I oppose (and as far as I know, of this, you are not a culprit).