Ashishgup's blog

Is Plagiarism checker dead?
By Ashishgup, history, 6 years ago, In English

These days, cases of cheating (reported or otherwise) go un-handled as can be seen from this blog. However, this is a cheating case that needs to be handled separately, so it is still somewhat understandable

But what about:

1) This case where the code is literally copy-pasted letter to letter with the difference being 2 spaces in the entire code?

2) These two submissions from yesterday's contest: 40441960 and 40428475 where there is not even a single character difference. Their codes for C are copied too, albeit with some modification of spaces.

In both of those cases, no-one was disqualified and I'm sure there must be more such cases.

Can we have some way of reporting these cheating cases that are then handled (rather than commenting on blogs or creating new blogs) and a better plagiarism checker?

  • Vote: I like it
  • +127
  • Vote: I do not like it

Comments Comments (15)
| Write comment?
»
6 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +63 Vote: I do not like it

How about implementing something along the lines of codechef style plagiarism crackdown wherein rating is decreased by a big enough factor and that factor will increase on further defaults. Codeforces can implement something like -

1st offence -- Warning / -250 rating points (depending on the level of offence.)

2nd Offence -- -500 rating points (with a mention on their profile.)

3rd Offence -- Permanent ban.

I guess plagiarism has really become a nuisance here and people are somewhat abusing the system and finding loopholes to their own personal gains. It's about time that codeforces really comes down hard on such people.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    6 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +57 Vote: I do not like it

    Incase you want to take such harsh(good) measures. Precision must be 1(even 0.99 is very bad).

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      6 years ago, # ^ |
      ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it -21 Vote: I do not like it

      Yeah but OP wants to increase the recall, which is very low right now.

      → Reply
  • »
    »
    6 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -40 Vote: I do not like it

    60000 dollars raised for the eighth anniversary and 8 years of codeforces, but the site still doesn't care about cheaters.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    6 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +21 Vote: I do not like it

    Sure, so they will be praised to the sky for gaining 300 points in their next contest.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it -7 Vote: I do not like it

    I guess Permanent Ban is not a solution due to the fact that if one is banned they will make another ID and continue the practice again... Rather like Codechef decreasing their rating a lot maybe 0 and giving a verdict due to Cheating/Plagiarism. (because again if they make another ID their Ratings will start from 0 only)

    Also, plagiarism checkers should be updated as if the plagiarism level is more than 50% than it should be reported as plagiarised. Also, while checking Plagiarism comments or #include or #define keywords should be omitted becuase many cheaters just change one/two lines or just type rubbish in comments //dsfsdfsdfs like this and escape being caught.

    I think this could reduce cheater to a bit.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +19 Vote: I do not like it

      I guess Rather like Codeforces decreasing their rating a lot maybe 0 and giving a verdict due to Cheating/Plagiarism. is not a solution due to the fact that they will make another ID and continue the practice again.

      → Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -17 Vote: I do not like it

Plag Checker is dead !

[Proof] 92607281 92620817

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +30 Vote: I do not like it

    Just search on internet before spamming

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it -10 Vote: I do not like it

      Umnik if a sol. is available on net and is copied, it comes under plagariasm or not?

      Spoiler
      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        4 years ago, # ^ |
        ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

        Nope, you can read this, it clear states that the code which you copied should have been published before start of the contest(although it's good to mention the source). Many coders use libraries of Grandmasters/Legendary Grandmasters, that doesn't mean you will plagiarize them.

        → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Even the main function is same, including the indendation, I don't think, that's from gfg. If it's not plagiarism, then it's crazy amount of coincidence, they both have used even the same variable "ar" for array, both have declared loop variable "i" outside the loop.

      Though the first user,always does that 91401293

      The second user doesn't 89691454

      First user recently started using fast i/o in all of his submissions, but second doesn't. And as expected both are from the same college

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        4 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        It might be possible that they have cheated but this question was anyway copied, the author also apologized for that. So it's possible that they won't have used plagiarism detector for this problem.

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          4 years ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          Lol, it's funny to think that the user plagiarized a solution freely available on the internet, which can be obtained by just "googling"

          → Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Rule could be made to restrict those cheaters from participating for next some contests (around 10-20 contests) or some decrease in rating points for them (around 100-200).

→ Reply