Hey Mods, Spampost clean up needed in the OT Department!

33 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
I'm not sure if they're bots or people but they both are active participants in the current OT spamathon!

Help, please.


Terra
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    I reported one of them when he had 9 posts - now he has about double that. The bots are taking over today with several actively spamming in multiple sections. I have yet to see one of them removed this morning so I'm off to do something else for a while.
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
    that's why there are so many of us.
    ...jane goodall
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761108].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      They seem to have calmed down, however the droppings they left are still littering the place.


      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761312].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    This bot attack is as bad as the one when they first bought the site. They are deleting them almost as fast as I report them and finding some others, but the sheer numbers is ridiculous. They need a filter to eliminate this type of attack. This is all pharma, porn and casino spam.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761313].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      This bot attack is as bad as the one when they first bought the site. They are deleting them almost as fast as I report them and finding some others, but the sheer numbers is ridiculous. They need a filter to eliminate this type of attack. This is all pharma, porn and casino spam.
      I agree that a filter would make their job a lot easier and perhaps a way to delete all their posts at the same time would be beneficial to them and us as well.

      Crap! I spoke too soon. Here comes the foreign language spam now.


      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761331].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        They could also make it much easier for us, collectively, to remove these things by soft-deletion.

        All they need to do, to achieve that, is simply to reduce the reports flood interval from 60 to 5 or 10 seconds. But so many people have been asking them to do that for so many months, that it seems unlikely, at this stage. Hard to understand (especially when they don't even reply at all, to most suggestions?).

        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761347].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          They could also make it much easier for us, collectively, to remove these things by soft-deletion.

          All they need to do, to achieve that, is simply to reduce the reports flood interval from 60 to 5 or 10 seconds. But so many people have been asking them to do that for so many months, that it seems unlikely, at this stage. Hard to understand (especially when they don't even reply at all, to most suggestions?).

          .
          Very hard to comprehend, indeed. As a matter of fact, it's the exact reason I posted this thread. I reported one then went to report the other but was told I had to try again in another 40 seconds.

          I didn't feel I should have to wait as they certainly don't have to. That within itself gives them an extreme advantage over us, the ones who do care.

          I'm quite perplexed over that one.

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761368].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            I'm not going to wait 60 seconds - I'll report ONE and the mods can find the rest.

            We still have people here who report threads they "don't like" or posts they don't agree with...and they often know how to get threads locked or deleted.

            For that reason, I wouldn't reduce the wait time.

            My view: If the spam gets bad enough to hurt visitor counts and profits, the owners will do something about it.

            The current focus on "increasing member numbers" is an invitation to spammers.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
            that's why there are so many of us.
            ...jane goodall
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761548].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      They need a filter to eliminate this type of attack.
      The filter is called a dollar bill signup.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9762624].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        The filter is called a dollar bill signup.
        Exactly.

        There's any number of solutions, starting with rejecting any posts with foreign characters.

        Next, have the captcha on the "verification page", not the sign up page. No auto link spam tools I'm aware of are set up to deal with this.

        Or no www or http allowed in posts until you have at least 25 posts and/or 10 thanks including at least 2 from Warriors with a minimum of 1000 thanks. This eliminates clickable links in posts until the basic criteria is met.

        Or have paid for any of the private forums or a WSO/classified ad.

        Or if someone pays 98 cents. If you can't afford the 98 cents, contribute until you get 10 thanks with at least two from established Warriors, or you simply can't make posts with clickable links.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9762851].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Cali16
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          Or no www or http allowed in posts until you have at least 25 posts and/or 10 thanks including at least 2 from Warriors with a minimum of 1000 thanks. This eliminates clickable links in posts until the basic criteria is met.
          One of the problems with requiring a certain number of posts is that it encourages people to post a bunch of meaningless one-liners or otherwise useless posts so they quickly reach the required number. I do like the idea of needing X number of thanks from Warriors who meet certain criteria, though.

          Another option is to not allow anyone to have signature links or links in any posts until they've been a member for at least 6 months (or some other designated minimum), and received a certain number of thanks from Warriors on top of that.
          Signature
          If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9763006].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

            One of the problems with requiring a certain number of posts is that it encourages people to post a bunch of meaningless one-liners or otherwise useless posts so they quickly reach the required number. I do like the idea of needing X number of thanks from Warriors who meet certain criteria, though.

            Another option is to not allow anyone to have signature links or links in any posts until they've been a member for at least 6 months (or some other designated minimum), and received a certain number of thanks from Warriors on top of that.
            How about something like a 5*5*5 or $5 criteria? You need to have 5 thanks by 5 different Warriors with at least 500 thanks...or you can pay $5 to be able to post links?

            New people could still post, but they can't have links in their posts or sigs until they fulfill the 5*5*5 or $5 criteria. Any posts by folks containing links that don't meet the criteria won't be accepted and given instructions to remove their links from the post.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9763029].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Cali16
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              How about something like a 5*5*5 or $5 criteria? You need to have 5 thanks by 5 different Warriors with at least 500 thanks...or you can pay $5 to be able to post links?
              That's not a bad idea, Kurt. I'm sure it would drastically cut down the garbage that's being posted on a daily basis.

              (Now I have that old $5 Subway commercial jingle in my head - thanks for that! )
              Signature
              If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9763045].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

                That's not a bad idea, Kurt. I'm sure it would drastically cut down the garbage that's being posted on a daily basis.

                (Now I have that old $5 Subway commercial jingle in my head - thanks for that! )
                I think it would also encourage people to try to make quality posts as well as give established members input as to which new members deserve some extra privileges.

                It would also be pretty hard to fake. Creating 5 dummy accounts and getting 500 likes each wouldn't be easy.

                5
                $5
                $5 criteria (with extra cheese please)
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9763095].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        The filter is called a dollar bill signup.
        While that worked well for WF when it was in place, Allen also had a filter in place that worked remarkably well and it was removed when Freelancer took over with obvious results.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9762982].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
    Can I start blowing taps now?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761358].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author laurencewins
    I agree with everyone. I end up only reporting a fraction of what I could because I hate this 60 second wait time.
    Signature

    Cheers, Laurence.
    Writer/Editor/Proofreader.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761902].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by laurencewins View Post

      I agree with everyone. I end up only reporting a fraction of what I could because I hate this 60 second wait time.
      The 60 second wait time is a vbulletin feature to prevent email flooding of the system should a lot of people report a lot of posts at the same time.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761972].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        The 60 second wait time is a vbulletin feature to prevent email flooding of the system should a lot of people report a lot of posts at the same time.
        Sure, but that can be modified (and has been, in many forums, including one of which I'm a member).

        We were told some weeks ago that it may be reduced to 10 seconds, here.

        Since when - silence.

        Even if someone has looked into that and decided for some reason that it won't be done, after all, it would still be nice to be told that rather than just feeling - yet again - that we're being completely ignored, perhaps especially since the primary motivation for so many people having raised this issue so repeatedly over such a long period of time is that we're all actually trying to be helpful!

        It would just be "common politeness", surely, to let us know one way or the other, after all this time?


        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761985].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    I'm not a tech person, but isn't there software that could weed out some of the worst spam automatically, similar to the way email filters work? A lot of the worst posts are in foreign languages or even alphabets.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9761941].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    The moderators here are paid for moderating. I go as far as reporting the spam that is integrated into the end of a thread - but I figure if these people are getting paid - they can click on the new posts to make sure they are good to go themselves. If they can't do that without help at the current low rate of new threads being posted, then I'm not sure what the heck their job is. I don't get paid for it, so I don't consider it obligatory on my part to do shyte from shinola about it.

    As far as the bots? I've had a site now online for close to 10 years. It was leveled 5 years ago by a hack of some sort that forced me to have to move servers and have the whole php system redone, and other than that I've had about two or three spammers in during its whole existence. -- until about two weekends ago. We had to change out our registration questions, and I was deleting accounts for the better part of the day.

    All these politicians and countries want to "control the Internet" when they can't even catch up criminals who are spambotting everything on the net? Really?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9762469].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      If they can't do that without help at the current low rate of new threads being posted, then I'm not sure what the heck their job is. I don't get paid for it, so I don't consider it obligatory on my part to do shyte from shinola about it.
      I still spend as much time reporting as I did with previous administration. I like the moderators I've met. Of course I miss the old ones, but I also like the new ones and don't really mind helping out in the reporting dept. It doesn't matter to me whether they are paid or not. What I don't particularly like is the far too lenient policies on bad actors here, and that's not the fault of moderators. That's the responsibility of those who make those policies.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9762989].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        I still spend as much time reporting as I did with previous administration. I like the moderators I've met. Of course I miss the old ones, but I also like the new ones and don't really mind helping out in the reporting dept. It doesn't matter to me whether they are paid or not. What I don't particularly like is the far too lenient policies on bad actors here, and that's not the fault of moderators. That's the responsibility of those who make those policies.
        I like the mods just fine. I just figure that they don't need help with the spam threads posted - but do with the stuff inside the threads. It only takes a couple of seconds to click on a post and see that it's spam - it takes a long time to read through a thread to make sure nothing is embedded in a thread.

        Kurt seems to have some really good ideas in here about how to solve a lot of spam....and to possibly get some decent material rolling through here again.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9764435].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
    Like Kurt's idea. Hate those posts asking for Thanks, though. I don't think I have ever responded to that even if I did like the post. This would encourage more of that kind of thing.

    You might also eliminate thanks from the OT forum (like how they eliminated post counts). Do we really want to count as quality thanks some of the nonsense (in a fun way) that's posted here?

    Mark
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9763109].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cali16
      Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

      Like Kurt's idea. Hate those posts asking for Thanks, though. I don't think I have ever responded to that even if I did like the post. This would encourage more of that kind of thing.
      I never "thank" a post if someone asks it to be thanked either. I would suggest that asking for "thanks" would automatically disqualify them from getting any, although I doubt senior members would fall for that anyway.

      As for thanking silly or funny posts - I see that in the other forums as well, not just in the OT, although I'm sure it occurs more frequently here.
      Signature
      If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9763129].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

      Like Kurt's idea. Hate those posts asking for Thanks, though. I don't think I have ever responded to that even if I did like the post. This would encourage more of that kind of thing.

      You might also eliminate thanks from the OT forum (like how they eliminated post counts). Do we really want to count as quality thanks some of the nonsense (in a fun way) that's posted here?

      Mark
      I thought there used to be a rule against asking for Thanks? I don't thank people that ask for them either. But I can tolerate that more than the spam.

      If other members appreciate a post here in the OT, why shouldn't it count? Who cares if the post helped someone or made someone laugh. It should be up to other members who and what they want to thank. Building a community is pretty important too. New members are lucky I didn't suggest getting likes from people with more than 8,710 thanks.

      There's plenty of "non sense" going on in many threads on other boards here...Not to mention, there's a couple of other boards where if you told them the meaning of life and gave them a map to El Dorado, they still wouldn't thank you. If someone can get 5 thanks from 5 different people with 500+ thanks in the OT, let that person post links and have a sig.

      But for some reason, I have a feeling it really won't matter what we think...
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9763154].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alast
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        But for some reason, I have a feeling it really won't matter what we think...
        1 Thank = 1 Prayer
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9763172].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          I thought there used to be a rule against asking for Thanks?
          I don't know if the rule was written or not - but mods used to slap down anyone asking for thanks - or making personal attacks on other members - or calling people names - posting one liners over and over or posting total nonsense in threads ...and all of those things seem to be business as usual on the WF now.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
          that's why there are so many of us.
          ...jane goodall
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9763673].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author discrat
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        If other members appreciate a post here in the OT, why shouldn't it count? Who cares if the post helped someone or made someone laugh. It should be up to other members who and what they want to thank. Building a community is pretty important too. New members are lucky I didn't suggest getting likes from people with more than 8,710 thanks.
        Because these figures can be way over inflated by Cronyism. As a result , is really fails to serve as any kind of 'baramoter' for others to look at and decide whether this person has added some real, true, genuine value to the WF as a whole.

        Maybe I am over stepping here and making some feel very uncomfortable when I say this but I will
        say it regardless :
        ... There are a certain number of people who I see in the OT who have NO business, absolutely NO business having the amount of Thanks that they do in fact have. Now you can say, 'Rob lighten up you shouldn't be analysing Thanks, and people have the right to give Thanks to anyone they want etc..etc..'

        That is skirting the issue. Because the people who have these over inflated 'Thanks' can actually go 'upstairs' start Posting and to many uninitiated newbies they see these individuals who they think have really contributed and are somewhat Authoritative when it comes to IM ( because the vote of confidence they see with the Thanks) and it is just actually a false image. Many of these people have not 'rightfully' earned any kind of vote of confidence from peers as it relates to business contribution to WF.

        They have gotten hundreds if not thousands of Thanks next to their Username because good ole Billy Bob wanted to slap them on the back for telling us how their Aunt Myrtle slept with alien Midgets for 400 days in a row.

        Lets face it 'Thanks' matter.

        You all can laugh, shake your head or whatever and say you don't even think about it.
        But you do.

        And God knows the Newbie surely thinks about it when he see 5,000 Thanks next to your username

        I say totally do away with the 'Thanks' when posting in OT. Just like Post count. Totally do away with it. No need to have it. Or set up a separate 'Thanks' next to the Username so the cronies can still get a rush by high fiving their buddies on the back for silly one liners.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9764081].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by discrat View Post

          Because these figures can be way over inflated by Cronyism. As a result , is really fails to serve as any kind of 'baramoter' for others to look at and decide whether this person has added some real, true, genuine value to the WF as a whole.

          Maybe I am over stepping here and making some feel very uncomfortable when I say this but I will
          say it regardless :
          ... There are a certain number of people who I see in the OT who have NO business, absolutely NO business having the amount of Thanks that they do in fact have. Now you can see, 'Rob lighten up you shouldn't be analysing Thanks, and people have the right to give Thanks to anyone they want etc..etc..'

          That is skirting the issue. Because the people who have these over inflated 'Thanks' can actually go 'upstairs' start Posting and to many uninitiated newbies they see these individuals who they think have really contributed and are somewhat Authoritative when it comes to IM ( because the vote of confidence they see with the Thanks) and it is just actually a false image. Many of these people have not 'rightfully' earned any kind of vote of confidence from peers as it relates to business contribution to WF.

          They have gotten hundreds if not thousands of Thanks next to their Username because good ole Billy Bob wanted to slap them on the back for telling us how their Aunt Myrtle slept with alien Midgets for 400 days in a row.
          While there may be some that have received their thanks largely in the OT forum, there are numerous ones that received those thanks "upstairs" ... I'm one of them. I've only started posting in OT when the quality of conversation upstairs became unbearable, and that would be less than a year. I know of several others who now take refuge here that earned their thanks in the main forums, giving advice and guidance to newbies and answering questions.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9764124].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author discrat
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            While there may be some that have received their thanks largely in the OT forum, there are numerous ones that received those thanks "upstairs" ... I'm one of them. I've only started posting in OT when the quality of conversation upstairs became unbearable, and that would be less than a year. I know of several others who now take refuge here that earned their thanks in the main forums, giving advice and guidance to newbies and answering questions.

            I have definitely made that observation about you Suzy and know there are many others as well

            But for some when you have 50 Posts and 7,000 Thanks something just does not add up
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9764131].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by discrat View Post

          Because these figures can be way over inflated by Cronyism. As a result , is really fails to serve as any kind of 'baramoter' for others to look at and decide whether this person has added some real, true, genuine value to the WF as a whole.

          Maybe I am over stepping here and making some feel very uncomfortable when I say this but I will
          say it regardless :
          ... There are a certain number of people who I see in the OT who have NO business, absolutely NO business having the amount of Thanks that they do in fact have. Now you can say, 'Rob lighten up you shouldn't be analysing Thanks, and people have the right to give Thanks to anyone they want etc..etc..'

          That is skirting the issue. Because the people who have these over inflated 'Thanks' can actually go 'upstairs' start Posting and to many uninitiated newbies they see these individuals who they think have really contributed and are somewhat Authoritative when it comes to IM ( because the vote of confidence they see with the Thanks) and it is just actually a false image. Many of these people have not 'rightfully' earned any kind of vote of confidence from peers as it relates to business contribution to WF.

          They have gotten hundreds if not thousands of Thanks next to their Username because good ole Billy Bob wanted to slap them on the back for telling us how their Aunt Myrtle slept with alien Midgets for 400 days in a row.

          Lets face it 'Thanks' matter.

          You all can laugh, shake your head or whatever and say you don't even think about it.
          But you do.

          And God knows the Newbie surely thinks about it when he see 5,000 Thanks next to your username

          I say totally do away with the 'Thanks' when posting in OT. Just like Post count. Totally do away with it. No need to have it. Or set up a separate 'Thanks' next to the Username so the cronies can still get a rush by high fiving their buddies on the back for silly one liners.
          What's your perfect solution then?

          We're not talking about giving someone the PIN to your ATM. We're talking about screening people so they can post links and sigs in a way that's easy and automated to do as a means to reduce spam. This isn't a security check for the NSA. It's a way to reduce spam.

          If a person can get 5 different "cronies" with over 500 thanks to give them a thanks, they've probably made some type of contribution to even have "cronies" here and proven they aren't a spam bot. That's the goal.

          And like it or not, even thanks in the OT show that another member appreciated a post for whatever reason. The ironic thing is you just thanked a post in the OT just above. Why did you do that?

          Not to mention, there's some of us, me included, that made posts here for a number of years before there was an OT or a thanks feature.

          BTW, some of those "inflated" thanks are from someone making a contribution in the War Room and getting 100s of Thanks from a single post.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9764422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
    Interesting that not all people that are on the surface "unwanted" are really unwanted.

    Someone that many people claim is a troll because of some of the things he (or she) says about certain members, certain topics, and the forum "culture", DubDubDubDot, has been thanked 380 times. On quick examination, of those thanks 3 would pass the 500 test and 2 are at 400+- (didn't go farther than this).

    He/she isn't likely to start posting Viagra spam but is likely to continue posting some things, that to some, seem to be trollish. Many members say the second type of poster is worse than the first.

    Mark
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9764115].message }}

Trending Topics