Ok, it's time for Logos to institute some kind of spam control. Maybe a 3-day delay on posting, or first 5 posts must be approved or captchas. There's been a rash of annoying spam lately.
I've not looked into this software to see if it's available - but oftimes forums disable link posting until (X) posts have been made. This is often high enough, such as 20 to ensure quality rather than spam and low enough to not be an impossible level to reach.
Sounds good, Thomas. The spam has gotten ridiculous lately.
Yes & AMEN!
I would concur.
or captchas
Don't hold your breath; I saw a tweet from Bob the other day noting his frustration with these measures at other sites. While I agree with him on the Dali-esque captchas, there's bound to be some middle-ground anti-spam measure that isn't quite so annoying.
One possibility would be that a "report spam" function would temporarily lock the post and poster. Then Logos could release or delete at a later time.
[Y][Y]
Good idea, but Bob's aversion to any form of control may cause him to veto this proposal also.
Or give Forum MVP's some level of administration so that they can block them.
Horrors!
I don't want to be a forum admin. I only want to provide helpful answers to "how do I....?" whenever I can.
Besides I wouldn't be able to hijack threads and say something silly from time to time.
Such as: For some reason this thread reminds me of vikings.
I can't imagine why [:D]
[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8huXkSaL7o:550:0]
but Bob's aversion to any form of control may cause him to veto this proposal also.
He doesn't seem to mind getting spam out ASAP ... but you are correct that if people abused it to report postings they considered offensive but that were not really spam, it would get nixed fast.
Been suggested before, and I do not believe any of us want that responsibility
This will not stop the bots from posting. What is needed (and this is very standard) is that the email address needs to be verified.
I don't think this will work because the spam is posted by bots. And the bots use a different email address/name.
One possibility would be that a "report spam" function would temporarily lock the post and poster. Then Logos could release or delete at a later time. I don't think this will work because the spam is posted by bots. And the bots use a different email address/name.
The point of such a solution is that the spam gets invisible when locked (basically the same what a Logos forum admin does anyway when he/she reacts to the abuse messages), regardless whether posted from a human being or a bot. This makes it unattractive for spammers to post, since they seek the visibility of their post which generates the clicks.
This makes it unattractive for spammers to post, since they seek the visibility of their post which generates the clicks.
My (mostly unpleasant) experience is that spam tends to change IP's more rapidly than names. The spam that is currently making it through Logos filters leans towards 3-4 posts under the same name per spam hit. And we don't seem to have multiple spam hits at the same time all that often. The sad statistics on spam are available at http://spamlinks.net/stats.htm#received If Logos were to release their statistics perhaps we could devise a better system.
Logos, please do something to sort out this spam issue.
This is what I faced when I logged on this am UK-time and looked at the list of most recently updated threads on the forums:
Straight after making the above post, the situation just got a little worse, and the spam now outnumbers the genuine posts on the recently updated list at the forum homepage. [:S]
uAgreed! I'm in India, so get to see all the spam while most of you guys are sleeping cozily in your beds :P
This is still not going to stop them from posting. This is because they do not verify how their post shows up. The bots just post.
They're back. This is unacceptable.
I agree. We should all email Bob with our displeasure.[:(]
We should all email Bob with our displeasure.
Wouldn't that be Spamming Bob???? [:O]
We should all email Bob with our displeasure. Wouldn't that be Spamming Bob????
Wouldn't that be Spamming Bob????
I hadn't thought of it that way. At least he would then feel some of our frustration. [:D]
If would only be spam if we offered to enlarge his... library. [6]
The problem is that a lot of the recent spam posts were placed by humans. For example, someone posted a link to The Dark Knight Rises trailer. A user replied that he had reported the posts as spam and the OP replied, "Not spam. Helpful information" (or something very similar). The forum already has limitations on new members, e.g., new members can't post images and I assume links as well.
Perhaps the only solution is that legit users remain diligent in reporting spam posts. I'm not sure what other solution there might be.
The problem is that a lot of the recent spam posts were placed by humans
someone posted a link to The Dark Knight Rises trailer. A user replied that he had reported the posts as spam and the OP replied, "Not spam. Helpful information" (or something very similar
I have seen this for software to convert pdf to word, but not to download and watch illegal movies.
The point was that the spammer replied. Bots don't reply. And it isn't at all uncommon for humans to post spam. Believing spam is placed by bots only is naïve.
The point was that the spammer replied.
I get all posts from most forums as e-mails and I can't remember ever seeing a spammer reply -- though it has happened once or twice that someone's suspected that a legitimate post was spam, and then, naturally, the suspected spammer has come back and disagreed.
Just being 'naive' But programming against sites is recreation. The primary challenge is not the text or 'answers'. It's the images and pattern matching them decently. I'd assume click-volume is just icing on the cake.
