When did they start moderating messages in this forum?
I've never seen this before.
It seems: today. I suspect it's an attempt to counter then spam. I don't like it (the should at least excempt users with >100 posts or so from moderation), because it kills the communication. And maybe the moderator will now relase a dozen posts telling you all the same thing.
When did they start moderating messages in this forum? I've never seen this before.
This is the result of the spam controls talked about earlier. If you were caught by the moderator message, you may just have to wait for your message to be reviewed before being posted. Since we don't know how the spam filter works, we can only guess that it either catches certain words or phrases, or external links, or maybe the number of external links.
Since we don't know how the spam filter works, we can only guess that it either catches certain words or phrases, or external links, or maybe the number of external links.
this makes sense: another posting of mine awaits moderation, because there are links in it, while my reply to DocB above was posted immediately.
EDIT: it seems when a post without links is online, one may edit it and put links into it without being caught by the filter.
One of my earlier messages was moderated when I tried to confirm that I'd reported spam!
I think this is a different filter, because it happened to me also.
In the past, they had a filter that prevented one to post exactly the same text that was posted ago (such as "reported as spam") - but this could be circumvented by minimal text changes, what I did (and the spammers did as well if they used their account more than once). Today it just didn't post my messages with respect to reporting abuse for the offer to watch a new movie which is very popular due to very tragic circumstances.
But: messages that contain links (even to Logos-sites) receive a pop-up that they are under moderation and I expect someone to release them for posting. That's how it looks:
(I posted a test-post to generate this - should the moderator release it, I'll delete it afterwards)
at least excempt users with >100 posts or so from moderation),
Great idea! +1 [Y]
I don't like it (the should at least excempt users with >100 posts or so from moderation),
That would let me out. [:)]
I don't like it (the should at least excempt users with >100 posts or so from moderation), That would let me out.
That would let me out.
Since the filter currently captures only posts with links, hopefully this wouldn't be too hard. Every such threshold is to some extent arbitrary and 100 was just a nice round number. If they were to set it to 42, I'd be okay as well - and at least they'd have an answer...
Maybe what they should do is simply approve known/registered customers. The spam is likely generated by people who aren't Logos customers. A numerical count only delays helping new users.
If we have to wait for a posting it really will kill the conversations. I left one other unrealted forum for that reason. I doubt Logos has a dedicated monitor to this too, I wouldn't expect them to, which will mean we have to wait until someone has time.
I think I'd rather deal with the spam.
If we have to wait for a posting it really will kill the conversations.
Currently we don't have to wait - unless we put links into it. Now that we know, we can act accordingly.
If this is the way it's going to be in the future, then there needs to be information for first-time and low-frequency posters - especially to allow people to report critical errors over the weekend or outside the Bellingham office hours.
I think it reached a level of nuisance this month that many users are not prepared to live with (currently we can't really deal with it) and thus, left unchecked, it could kill the conversations in the forums as well. That's what no one wants.
NB ... are you sure about 'any links, even to Logos' being moderated?
I've posted several this morning with links with no issues (blog, logos.com). Maybe community.logos.com?
NB ... are you sure about 'any links, even to Logos' being moderated? I've posted several this morning with links with no issues (blog, logos.com). Maybe community.logos.com?
If my interpretation is correct, the link that broke it in my post was to bible study magazine which is a Logos website, but hasn't logos in its name.
Test: http://www.logos.com/product/23901/word-of-god-t-shirts (a product)
Test2: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/52674.aspx (this forum thread)
EDIT: I think I was wrong above (or David tweaked a positive-list in the filter, since http://biblestudymagazine.com/about/ now works in a new post) - I forgot that I had linked to John Barry's private website as well. So possibly it's now "all links, with exception of Logos sites" that activate moderation - and maybe other things as well.
These are exactly the reasons why we have never moderated posts before.
I wish it was incredibly simple to just exempt long time accounts or established customers from moderation but those aren't built in filters. I'll try to find some time to create a filter that does something like this, but it will be a couple of days until I can do that.
We are trying to keep the filters as light as possible, but we are catching spam at about a 2 spam to 1 valid post rate. And about half the posts that get caught are replies saying spam reports have been reported. (Keep doing that, just don't quote the spam text in your reply!)
While I'd love to detail exactly what is likely to get a post flagged as spam that doesn't make sense to do on a public forum for fear of providing a guide to spammers.
If we can go for a long while without getting any spam, I might be able to remove the filters until spammers reappear, but for now, it's a really quick answer to a long-standing problem. Thanks for your patience as fine-tuning filtering will probably take a few weeks. And we will certainly still get some spam as I try to keep the filters as light as possible.
We are trying to keep the filters as light as possible, but we are catching spam at about a 2 spam to 1 valid post rate.
Thanks a lot, David, for your work and for trying to keep the forum as spam-free as possible without placing too much of a burden on legitimate users. I think we can appreciate that's often a trade-off and I'm glad that you act on this. Thumbs up! [Y]
Interesting, we had multiple threads complaining that Logos was not doing anything about SPAM. Now that something is being done, how many threads will be generated complaining about the SPAM filtering?
Give Logos a chance to get this adjusted.
EDIT: I see David responded while I was typing. Thanks, David, for you efforts. The SPAM did not bother me as it was easy to spot them in the thread list, but I can understand the anguish of those who receive the forum by email.
I would rather be moderated than spammed!
Anyway, filters should make the weekend interesting...
The spam filter is a good idea. [Y]
I think I'd rather deal with the spam. Give Logos a chance to get this adjusted. EDIT: I see David responded while I was typing. Thanks, David, for you efforts. The SPAM did not bother me as it was easy to spot them in the thread list, but I can understand the anguish of those who receive the forum by email.
I understand those who languish over spam and the validity of them doing so. It seems i overreacted to the first bit of moderating, easy enough to do from my previous experience. I don't post much here, but I do read nearly everything.
It would be good if you could filter out all the whiners [:#]
You mean require moderation for all non-Logos Employees with less than 300 posts? [:)]
I don't like it (the should at least excempt users with >100 posts or so from moderation), because it kills the communication.
And with the wisdom of this forum, it should be dissseminated without any delay. The world is waiting.[H]
It would be good if you could filter out all the whiners
I would say [8-|], but that filter might get some of my posts [:$]
You mean require moderation for all non-Logos Employees with less than 300 posts?
Or over 300.... cut down fluff like mine. [:D]
[Y]
You mean require moderation for all non-Logos Employees with less than 300 posts? Or over 300.... cut down fluff like mine.
Or over 300.... cut down fluff like mine.
Once you get over 10K posts, Logos should just automatically make posts for you...
I would think, that if Christians need a moderator then we are doing something wrong. But then are we missing something that we need moderated?
The moderation is not caused by the regular forum users. There has been a rash of SPAM post which caused many to cry out for some sort of control (moderation). Now, we have many crying out against moderation. [8-|]
I would think, that if Christians need a moderator then we are doing something wrong. But then are we missing something that we need moderated? The moderation is not caused by the regular forum users. There has been a rash of SPAM post which caused many to cry out for some sort of control (moderation). Now, we have many crying out against moderation.
The moderation is not caused by the regular forum users. There has been a rash of SPAM post which caused many to cry out for some sort of control (moderation). Now, we have many crying out against moderation.
I remember reading that passage, wasn't it somewhere around the foot of Mt.Sinai/?
There has been a rash of SPAM post which caused many to cry out for some sort of control (moderation). Now, we have many crying out against moderation. I remember reading that passage, wasn't it somewhere around the foot of Mt.Sinai/?
There has been a rash of SPAM post which caused many to cry out for some sort of control (moderation). Now, we have many crying out against moderation.
[:D]
Now, we have many crying out against moderation.
I hope I'm not lumped in with that group. If you look back at my question (which started this thread), it was about when moderation started. I gave no outcry.
I'd much rather be moderated than spammed (as someone else has said). I was just surprised when the 'moderated' window popped up, as I'd never seen it before.
Couldn't we just have some moderate moderation? [:P]
Couldn't we just have some moderate moderation?
Believe that is the goal, except it was stated as "light moderation" [8-|]
Doc B: My comment was not aimed at anyone in particular, just a comment on how difficult it must be to be a forum administrator.
Just mark it as a pathetic attempt at humor [:$]
David, something's still a bit off with this moderation. I've made lots of posts since this started, including ones with links, and have never gotten the 'moderation' message. Until now, when I got it for this post, which doesn't include any link at all -- or anything even remotely suspicious -- in the parts I've written. The links that are there are all a) quoted from an earlier, already approved, post, b) Bible references turned into links by you, and c) leading to your very own site biblia.com. Not exactly the characteristics of a spam post. [;)]
The spam filters aren't meant to be incredibly intelligent. The filtering doesn't think about where the links go, mainly that they are present. Whether you are created them or quoted them isn't something the filter is looking at.
The filtering doesn't think about where the links go
It should. If we can't include as many Bible references and links to Logos, Vyrso, Biblia, the Wiki, the forums, the blogs, Uservoice and so on as the posts require, without them ending up in the spam filter, the forums become unusable. Posts need to turn up in the order they're posted to be useful.
I'm all for moderate moderation, but it needs to be more intelligent than this.
Perhaps they could use a captcha instead of a moderation.
In Him,
Jim
The filtering doesn't think about where the links go It should. If we can't include as many Bible references and links to Logos, Vyrso, Biblia, the Wiki, the forums, the blogs, Uservoice and so on as the posts require, without them ending up in the spam filter, the forums become unusable. Posts need to turn up in the order they're posted to be useful. I'm all for moderate moderation, but it needs to be more intelligent than this.
I agree - I encountered this for the first time yesterday and share the concern that this could have a real impact on the usefulness of the forums
So....how are those improvements to the filters coming? I'm still seeing junk messages and I just posted a message with three links - all to Logos.com resources and got caught in the filter... Ah well I guess I'm guaranteed someone from Logos will read my message
Any update on this?
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
