There been a lot of misleading spam post lately. May I, if you're not considering this option, recommend that you consider limiting new member's ability to post links until some minimum number of pristine posts are made. This could limit the number of single spam posters and their malware content.

Or put new members posts to mod queue until reviewing by any mod, and approving it.

I endorse these ideas.

There been a lot of misleading spam post lately. May I, if you're not considering this option, recommend that you consider limiting new member's ability to post links until some minimum number of pristine posts are made. This could limit the number of single spam posters and their malware content.

It's been discussed. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be an option.

Or put new members posts to mod queue until reviewing by any mod, and approving it.

No, that's probably not going to happen.

---

 

I should also point out that responding to spam undermines the process. Responses suggest to a mod that's looking at a list of posts that the thread is legitimate

Would it be rude of me to enquire as to why the option of automatically mod-queuing a new member's 1st post was dismissed as a potential course of action?

Edited August 7, 20169 yr by Daecon

Probably bc it will turn away more potential new members than it will eliminate temporarily annoying spammers on net.

Probably bc it will turn away more potential new members than it will eliminate temporarily annoying spammers on net.

This and more work for the volunteer staff.

 

Please report spam when you see it especially when the title might look legit.

Please report spam when you see it especially when the title might look legit.

 

I am doing it. And probably others too.

This way you are flooded by reports from normal members..

One spam post, ends up, perhaps in dozen reports to mods..

(maybe info "This post has been reported to mods for review"? This would eliminate duplicate report)

 

While accepting/rejecting 1st post from somebody newly registered is much less work.

How many new members register per day, and write new 1st post?

Probably bc it will turn away more potential new members than it will eliminate temporarily annoying spammers on net.

 

Isn't looking at forum and seeing flood of spam all sections turning away potential new members as well.. ?

Edited August 8, 20169 yr by Sensei

 

I am doing it. And probably others too.

This way you are flooded by reports from normal members..

Is that the case?

We all know Cap'n Refsmat and the mods are smart people. They know what's best for the forum, what can be done and how. Spam is a fact of life. We only see it when there isn't a mod around and gone when there is. I don't report obvious spam anymore because it's obvious but I do the more subtle ones. Let them get on with it the way they want to and have time for.

 

I am doing it. And probably others too.

This way you are flooded by reports from normal members..

One spam post, ends up, perhaps in dozen reports to mods..

(maybe info "This post has been reported to mods for review"? This would eliminate duplicate report)

 

 

 

This is not a problem. Multiple reports of the same post are automatically merged by the software. We only have to close 1 report.

Would it be rude of me to enquire as to why the option of automatically mod-queuing a new member's 1st post was dismissed as a potential course of action?

 

As iNow said — we don't want legitimate contributors to have to wait to begin participating. That's a higher priority than the minor annoyance of spam. And as Klaynos said — the staff wants to be efficient about this.

 

A lot of the spam is pretty obvious. It shouldn't be a big deal to not click on it for the short time it takes before a mod can delete it.

A lot of the spam is pretty obvious. It shouldn't be a big deal to not click on it for the short time it takes before a mod can delete it.

It's usually in the UK morning when the spam seems to pile up (maybe 10 in a row on the New Content list) and most of the US is asleep; It's not a big deal really.

Edited August 8, 20169 yr by StringJunky

How about recruiting a few deputies from the trusted membership and giving them powers to remove spam?

Would a hide post button be helpful that is programmed to operate if, say, three people press it to avoid abuse.

Would a hide post button be helpful that is programmed to operate if, say, three people press it to avoid abuse.

 

 

We are limited by the capabilities of the forum software. I don't know if that's an option, or if it's a good idea. (Sockpuppet abuse, for example.)

 

 

We are limited by the capabilities of the forum software. I don't know if that's an option, or if it's a good idea. (Sockpuppet abuse, for example.)

I have been on a forum where this operates but, as you say, it needs to be a native option. With three different people having to do it isn't that problem negated?

Edited August 8, 20169 yr by StringJunky

I have been on a forum where this operates but, as you say, it needs to be a native option. With three different people having to do it isn't that problem negated?

With the example I gave it would be one person with three accounts. We've had vindictive sockpuppets before. This would be one more avenue they could exploit.

With the example I gave it would be one person with three accounts. We've had vindictive sockpuppets before. This would be one more avenue they could exploit.

Right.

Isn't looking at forum and seeing flood of spam all sections turning away potential new members as well.. ?

Do you believe that's what's happening here?

Are they registering via one route more than another?

Are they registering via one route more than another?

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

 

In the last 24 hours, we've has about two dozen people register accounts who have not been culled owing to being spammers. That's not to say that some won't — sometimes spammers register and let an account lie fallow for a time. I imagine because of posting restrictions that some fora have related to membership time. But it's not possible to tell who these are until they actually post spam. If it's someone here because they want to post a question, we don't want to have additional barriers to them doing so.

 

We've had some show up and post innocuous things to get around the post count restrictions on putting a link in your signature. Of course, these 'bots have rubber skin — they're easy to spot. Others try some more elaborate ruses. The bottom line is that they are always going to try and game the system.

Mean are the bots logging in more with FB, Twitter accounts or setting up accounts here directly.

If we can find where/if the human authentication has broken down, we can look at possible remedies.

Edited August 8, 20169 yr by Endy0816

It's usually in the UK morning when the spam seems to pile up (maybe 10 in a row on the New Content list) and most of the US is asleep; It's not a big deal really.

I often nuke a few when I log in first thing in the morning. The must annoying thing for me is that I don't get time to read any proper threads.

If only Jupiter were a second Sun...

 

 

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?iso=20160809T0424

 

Sleeping and daily activities can create gaps in the coverage depending on how moderators are spread out. I've seen recruiting moderators from a variety of time zones work as well(Pacific, Indian Ocean regions). May be worth exploring here.

Edited August 9, 20169 yr by Endy0816