FaeMinx
Rainbow Liberation Instigation
Inconceivable!
Sent from my GT-S7580 using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-S7580 using Tapatalk
Forum spam management?
- Thread starter Wally
- Start date
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
But the gestation is often two months++
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
Yes, but they're not clickable. I'm not sure what that gets them to be honest. Maybe even non links help google ratings.
Maybe the spambots have developed their own consciousness and we are witnessing the birth of Skynet in a different way than anticipated.
ClockworkCoder
Chaotic Neutral
"It's life Jim, but not as we know it."
Neelix
Insecticidal Maniac
Just a thought, but a system I've seen used very effectively elsewhere, is to make it so that every user's first message must be approved by a moderator. Once a user has posted a non-spam message they are allowed to post directly.
-Neelix
-Neelix
Or the other way round:
AR is required to for many things and you'll get spam everywhere you walk and use AR.
ClockworkCoder
Chaotic Neutral
I just had a thought on this. Bit late I know.
But, in addition, of users' posts are not visible to the general public, just logged-in members, until they were verified (perhaps by a reply), then would that also block any potential benefit from attempting to spam?
Having said that, there does seem a little less spam lately, that I've noticed...
Wally
I am a banana!
Nah we're just tackling it quicker.
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
I have been trying to check a little more often during peak spam hours, and kill then before I read new posts. If that is helping out I will try to keep it up.
WizardStan
Mega GP Mania
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16,731
In addition to the "no URL in your first post", is there a "no poll as your first post" rule that can be put in place? That'd probably take care of a lot of them, too. And "no URL in your profile" would kill a few more.
Caine
Hardcore Member
Maybe we should hide first posts and forbid further posts until given approval by moderators.
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
Yes, that would capture the few that I've seen in the past few months while you mods have been temporarily away I guess. They either had:
- URL in title of post
- URL in body of post
- URL in poll question
- URL in profile homepage
- URL in profile location
- URL in profile status
URL in profile homepage is pretty much what it's designed for though, so that'd be tricky to automate.
Whenever it did prevent anyone from changing their profile or posting a spam thread, it should clearly tell them what test they've failed. That will give spammers an idea how to circumvent those protections, but I'd consider it essential for any newbies accidentally caught up in these protections. Security throught obscurity is always less than ideal, at least in security algorithms (my passwords are only ever protected by being obscure).
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
It could just say username or post it unavailable or not permitted. No need to explain why.
I wish we could keep out everyone with 19 in their name.
I wish we could keep out everyone with 19 in their name.
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
It could so, but I'm arguing that that's a bad idea; it will likely frustrate genuinely new registrations from time to time, and the more we can minimise that frustration the better, even if it gives spammers a clue of what we're doing and therefore they can think of a way around it.
Wally
I am a banana!
Like we have time anymore.. We will need a bunch more moderators otherwise we'd be tempted to just flag every jdtay / klapse / SONY post as spam
JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
I heard that.
Not that Wally even cares.
Not that Wally even cares.
Wally
I am a banana!
I heard that.
Not that Wally even cares.
I do m8, you just need to start responding positively instead of sticking to your negative trends.
