18 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
18 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

How about this to put down spammers?

by Kay King
13 replies
Several years ago, if you put the word "black hat" into a WF post...what would show to readers of your post was "blue fart". It was funny - but also effectively got the message across that black hat discussions were not welcome here.

Why can people sign up as new members and immediately post "live stream" links - or links to spam or illegal products?

Why not disable live links for new members for the first 60 days - and not allow signatures until after 30 days. Most spammers have the attention span of a gnat - that alone would stop many of them.

If nothing else - maybe the words "live link" could be auto-replaced with "spammer here" (my own choice would be "dumb a@@" but I know that's rude).
#put #spammers
  • Profile picture of the author Star Man
    If you are sick of seeing 20 threads started by the same person, just make it so that the new members can only start one thread per day. May not keep away the spammers that use bots and can register a new account in a matter of seconds.

    Add a little code to the software so that it will instantly ban a new account if the user posts a link.

    Or make it so that ALL new threads started by new members will be only visible to respected members and invisible to the rest of the crowd and Goolebot. Make it so that if such a thread is flagged by 2 or 3 members it will be automatically deleted, no need to wait until a mod deletes it manually. On the other hand, if the thread is genuine let 2 or 3 members flag it as useful and it will become visible to everyone.
    Signature

    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10365179].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      It's not "20 threads" - it's "20 SPAM threads"...such as the ever present 'live link" spam.

      Used to be if a few trusted members (2-3, I think) flagged a thread, the thread disappeared. Then a mod would look at it after the fact to verify. Doesn't seem to work that way now so either the "member mod" functions have changed or "member mods" have stopped reporting.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
      January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
      So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10365224].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    They don't care.

    They're literally targeting India traffic to prop up the Freelancer site & WSOs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10365237].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    I agree, it seems they really don't care. So I have stopped caring too.

    I just stopped in to support you because I love the phrase "put down spammers"

    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10365260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author agmccall
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


    Why not disable live links for new members for the first 60 days - and not allow signatures until after 30 days. Most spammers have the attention span of a gnat - that alone would stop many of them.

    If nothing else - maybe the words "live link" could be auto-replaced with "spammer here" (my own choice would be "dumb a@@" but I know that's rude).
    60 days and 60 posts for links and signatures. But, once the 60 days and 60 posts is reached the account goes to moderation and then mods can delete any useless posts and then tell the new account to keep trying.

    Many say that these actions would be too much of a burden on the mods. I don't think so. most of the spammers would just quit after a few posts realizing they are not getting to post links and signatures and the rest would be caught at moderation.

    Just my thoughts

    al
    Signature

    "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10381854].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cali16
      Originally Posted by agmccall View Post

      60 days and 60 posts for links and signatures.
      I would say 6 months before sig links are allowed, and ONLY if they've actually contributed anything of value to the forum. (Yes, I realize the "value" aspect is subjective, but members could send a request (to add a sig link after 6 months or later) and a mod (or a group of respected volunteer members or something) could quickly review some of their posts to see if they're actually contributing anything worthwhile to the forum. It really takes only a quick glance at someone's post history to see if the person is adding value vs. posting a bunch of useless stuff (at least if you know what to look for...and qualified mods should know).

      The problem with "rewarding" reaching a certain post count is that it encourages people to post a bunch of useless one liners just to increase their post count. IMO, post count number should never be rewarded in any way. I'll take one quality post from a member over 50 useless ones any day.

      @Kay - love the "put down spammers" concept!
      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[10383012].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Star Man
        Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

        The problem with "rewarding" reaching a certain post count is that it encourages people to post a bunch of useless one liners just to increase their post count. IMO, post count number should never be rewarded in any way. I'll take one quality post from a member over 50 useless ones any day.
        What about the old members, with 6 year and older accounts, posting useless one liners just to get their 5 line bold big font signature out there?

        Which brings me to another idea. No signatures for one line posts no matter when the account was registered. The signature will only appear if the post is a few hundred words long (AND has got a few thanks). This will result in another problem - a syndicate that will "thank" each other posts no matter how valuable they are.

        The cure for this... No signature if you have given more thanks than received. So people will think before thanking a completely useless post that only ridicules or insults another member. I see those are pretty popular here.
        Signature

        A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10383051].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Star Man View Post

          What about the old members, with 6 year and older accounts, posting useless one liners just to get their 5 line bold big font signature out there?
          Years ago there was an unwritten rule:
          If your sig file is longer than your post it gets deleted.
          Would certainly clean up a lot of junk if applied now.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10383814].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Les - I had forgotten that rule but it was a good one!


            Starman - If you never bother to thank anyone else...why should they thank you? That 'thanks' has nothing to do with anything except perhaps credibility over the long term.


            The only people who seem to resent older members with lots of time/posts/thanks - are members who are new and trying to build a rep here fast. It gets funny because those people put down long time members and brag "I'm too busy to be here posting" - but then they come back their second week after joining to run their little MMO WSO for $5.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
            January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
            So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10383842].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author art72
    Couldn't agree more. The only 'downside' to raising the posting quota would be, a massive flood of one liners, and useless responses on valid threads.

    I sincerely think a 'nuke it' before it grows mentality needs to be the priority of the mods, but... the new moderators seem much more lax than I recall.

    If given a choice, I'd rather skim through 'thin' responses, than see both 'spam' posters who blatantly sign up & throw down as many threads as they can until mods axe their account -or- see 50 new threads a week asking redundant questions "How can I make $47 a minute everyday?"

    But, with nothing stopping them from creating a new account everyday, and slinging links... Is NOT acceptable!

    Personally, I think any thread beginning with 'How can I make 'x' dollars?' should be considered SPAM.

    If someone contributes an actual 'case study' as to how they attained X result, that is beneficial to the whole.

    If something doesn't get done soon, one of two things is going to happen... Either I am likely going to get banned, or I'm gonna stop coming here and supporting what's becoming of the main thread...

    Clearly, I have gained a ton of kbowledge from contributors like KayKing, and several other members here, and that reason, and that reason alone is the only reason I try to maintain some restraint to the flood of useless posts appearing daily.

    I dont think I'm the only one feeling we need to 'tighten up' what constitutes benefit and value... Or this forum will fail, as would any website that doesn't offer benefit to it's readers/followers.

    Thanks Kay... It goes without saying; the spam and useless threads being started (and tolerated) are causing severe damage to the integrity of the whole.
    Signature
    Atop a tree with Buddha ain't a bad place to take rest!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10383365].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JC Web
    Well, I came over to this part of the forum to post a thread about this but then I saw this thread, which has been unanswered by any admins for the last month.

    This is the only forum I've ever been on that allows new accounts to post active links. It's also the only forum I've been on that allows users to copy and paste the same post over and over. Then there is also the cookie stuffing.

    Well I could on with all the things that are allowed only on this forum that need to be fixed, but it looks like the owners and admins don't care. They are doing everything they can to invite spammers and trying to make it as easy as possible for them and their bots.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10409773].message }}

Trending Topics