21 hours ago, Ghideon said:

@iNow on my computer and phone browser (both Safari) I click my avatar picture close to the top right corner of the forum, and the Mark all read is in the menu that opens:

Indeed, you’re right! I genuflect in your general direction, my good man. Thank you

It appears that the LaTex code between the "math" tags (I only use "math" tags) has to be all on the same line. This appears to be different to the original forum which iirc allowed code to be split across multiple lines (between a single pair of tags). Usually, I use a pair of tags for each line, but some code (eg matrices) requires everything to be between a single pair of tags. However, the use of "\\" does allow rendered text to be on multiple lines.

The board software is automatically creating links, which can be quite annoying when there’s a typo where no space is entered after a full stop.So ⬅️ you get an attempt at a link, even though it may not go to a valid address, or goes to a questionable one. (that link address is currently for sale, BTW)

Can we please disable this “feature”?

Amen.To that!

Unfortunately I don't see a setting to control it. Ideally it would only auto-recognize links starting with https://, but there's no setting for that.

Any way to stem the tide of spammers? Slow down the CAPTCHA/registration process a touch?

Does the software have this option?:

Honeypot Fields:

Creating hidden fields on registration forms that are invisible to humans but are easily filled by bots can trap spammers.

@swansont What would slowing down captcha and registration do? You mean if the inputs are entered sooner than a certain time because machines are quicker?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

@swansont What would slowing down captcha and registration do? You mean if the inputs are entered sooner than a certain time because machines are quicker?

I’m assuming these are people, so slowing down the process makes then less efficient. e.g. it takes 5 minutes to spam us instead of 2. We become a less-attractive target

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m assuming these are people, so slowing down the process makes then less efficient. e.g. it takes 5 minutes to spam us instead of 2. We become a less-attractive target

Right.

I just logged in to look at the spam settings and saw there was an update available. Coincidentally, the update has a new CAPTCHA option (Cloudflare Turnstile). I switched to that, so let's see if it makes any difference.

On 7/12/2025 at 2:56 PM, Cap'n Refsmmat said:

I just logged in to look at the spam settings and saw there was an update available. Coincidentally, the update has a new CAPTCHA option (Cloudflare Turnstile). I switched to that, so let's see if it makes any difference.

Apparently not.

Even something super simple, like spamban if links are posted in the first 5 posts would help a LOT. All of these are so obvious, it's hard to believe the software can't figure them out.

Just now, Phi for All said:

Even something super simple, like spamban if links are posted in the first 5 posts would help a LOT. All of these are so obvious, it's hard to believe the software can't figure them out.

Get an AI on the job.

😄😁☹️

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Get an AI on the job.

😄😁☹️

We shouldn't hire the ratcatcher who snuck all these rats in here in the first place.

Just now, Phi for All said:

We shouldn't hire the ratcatcher who snuck all these rats in here in the first place.

I think you guys do a great job and definitely deserve a chocolate biscuit.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think you guys do a great job and definitely deserve a chocolate biscuit.

Excellent, thanks! We stopped buying Cheese Nips since orange cheesiness got such a bad name, and we need a new staff snack.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Even something super simple, like spamban if links are posted in the first 5 posts would help a LOT. All of these are so obvious, it's hard to believe the software can't figure them out.

Or if two accounts are registered from the same IP address within 24 hours.

55 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Excellent, thanks! We stopped buying Cheese Nips since orange cheesiness got such a bad name, and we need a new staff snack.

It’s the cheese dust getting all over the keyboard and into the cracks.

(I use chopsticks on the occasions I eat Jax/Cheetos. Not kidding. Saw it on Criminal Minds last year. Genius.)

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or if two accounts are registered from the same IP address within 24 hours.

It’s the cheese dust getting all over the keyboard and into the cracks.

(I use chopsticks on the occasions I eat Jax/Cheetos. Not kidding. Saw it on Criminal Minds last year. Genius.)

They work on chocolate biscuits too! I love anything that reduces my compulsive thumb and forefinger rinsing.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

I think you guys do a great job and definitely deserve a chocolate biscuit.

I agree!

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

We shouldn't hire the ratcatcher who snuck all these rats in here in the first place.

The comment triggered my curiosity (even if not directly related): Can moderators see if forum software blocked any spam associated with the same burst of activity? I'm wondering if the reason for the spam is to stress the forum software, for instance

Reverse engineer thresholds: tweak link count, pictures vs text to see what just slips through.
Leverage shared platforms: a bypass on one forum could works unchanged on others.
ML probing: make tiny edits to find variants that evade the same spam filter model.

Just now, Ghideon said:

The comment triggered my curiosity (even if not directly related): Can moderators see if forum software blocked any spam associated with the same burst of activity? I'm wondering if the reason for the spam is to stress the forum software, for instance

Considering the nature of the spam, I was wondering if it was not directed at SF at all.

I wondered if it was simply to increase the mentions of certain organisations referred to and thereby increase the web footprint of those organisations.

Somebody paid those spammers.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I wondered if it was simply to increase the mentions of certain organisations referred to and thereby increase the web footprint of those organisations.

That is absolutely a possibility!

@swansont commented on that and a similar scenario in a recent thread

https://scienceforums.net/topic/136269-flood-of-spam-12th-july-2025-why-would-someone-do-that/#findComment-1293102

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

The comment triggered my curiosity (even if not directly related): Can moderators see if forum software blocked any spam associated with the same burst of activity?

We don’t see accounts that fail to get registered for whatever reason. If that info is available, it would be for an Admin

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I'm wondering if the reason for the spam is to stress the forum software, for instance

They’re getting through, but as Ghideon pointed out, I think I figured out the scam

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Considering the nature of the spam, I was wondering if it was not directed at SF at all.

I wondered if it was simply to increase the mentions of certain organisations referred to and thereby increase the web footprint of those organisations.

Somebody paid those spammers.

The phone numbers are bogus, AFAICT, so they’ll likely try and get your credit card or banking info.

I just found a "Spam Analysis" feature that oddly didn't turn up the last time I searched for "spam" in the admin panel. I've turned it on, and allegedly "any content submissions made by a user with less than 5 posts, or dormant users who have not posted in 6 months, will be analyzed for potential spam". Highly likely spam will be blocked and possible spam will be held in the mod queue.

There's another page with spam statistics, and it claims to have blocked 54 known spammers from registering so far this month. That includes 29 marked "known spammer" just yesterday. But it seems very inconsistent from day to day.

One might think that a phone number showing up more than once in a post would qualify as possible spam.

I've discovered a benefit in the forum software not automatically rendering LaTex code under some circumstances: If one is quoting posts that contain LaTex, it is better to quote such posts while the LaTex is not rendered because quoting rendered LaTex can be problematic. The same is true for editing one's own post that contains LaTex - it is better to edit the post while the LaTex is not rendered because it is easier to edit the LaTex code of such posts, as well as editing posts with rendered LaTex can be problematic.