Rational suggestions on spammers

Topic: Rational suggestions on spammers (Read 4079 times) previous topic - next topic

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #15 – June 24, 2006, 05:21:41 PM

I think that the admins should choose a few people to allow the first couple of post of someone. Like how it was in the cat jam section. I guess give someone who is almost always online to validate the first 5-10 post that a newbe has. Or only the first 5-10 threads that a newbie starts. They havent started spamming other peoples threads yet as far as I know.
Would this be possible, eric or carmen?

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #16 – June 24, 2006, 06:45:20 PM

I have already set the valid email thing, and as you all can see, it didn't work. The spammers likely have some kind of "bot" or script that automatically completes the registration process (I say this because since most forums have email validation the spammers likely would have developed something).

Having new users' first few post moderated would be out of the question as this would create a whole lot of work for Eric, Baxo and myself. Remember, we run this forum for the same reason you guys visit it - for fun. It's not a full time job for any of us. Also, having every new user's posts moderated would very likely discourage many legit users from ever returning.

Banning email domains such as hotmail, yahoo and gmail would also eliminate many legit users.

Ben's idea of restricting new users to certain areas has more merit, however, and at the risk of sounding like I wish I thought of it first, well, I thought of it first :D Seriously, I have been considering doing just this: Restricting new users to a "new user" section for the first 5-10 posts. On the surface this seems like a great idea, and I have been debating this in my mind for better than a week. My only fear is that we would scare new users away using that method as well, and being such a small "community", we really can't afford to do that. Still, of the available options I can think of this is the best, and if the spamming gets much worse I'll discuss it with Eric and Baxo.

In the meantime, just ignore the spam. I'm sure this goes without saying, but never, ever click on a link within spam - every click earns the spammer points (or money) and shows them that their spamming works. I can't be bothered coming up with entertaining edits for each one anymore (that and I'm just not creative enough) so I'm just gonna start deleting 'em. If you feel so inclined to reply to their threads go ahead, but as soon as I come across 'em, they're gone

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #17 – June 24, 2006, 06:51:57 PM

What about the possibility of a few (2-3) volunteer moderators who only have the power to suspend the posting ability of a new (10 posts or less) account that spams, until one of the admins can come along and deal with them more permanently? As I mentioned above, it could be on the order of 8-12 hours. That avoids some of the possible pitfalls of increasing the moderating pool, because their powers could not be used on established members. (such as in the heat of an argument)

And yes, I do realize that would probably take some custom coding at some point.

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #18 – June 24, 2006, 07:03:31 PM

What about the visual verification or whatever the "type in the alphanumeric gibberish in the box there" thing is?

Also, require authentication before posting.

We do both on our site, and while spammers can get in, most get nuked before they post.

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #19 – June 24, 2006, 07:07:10 PM

A Turing test/captcha?

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #20 – June 24, 2006, 07:28:52 PM

Quote from: 5.0willgo

we can't tell...

*innocent whistling*

:D :D :D :D

And BTW, Notice that new spammers are repliying to old spam posts. Go look for yourself.

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #21 – June 24, 2006, 08:49:18 PM

Its very disgusting to see some spam at the forum. Still not much to get crazy, but still enough to start to get my nerves. This community is very clean, and i dont want to wait to the moment when the forum is infeested with junk threads...

I aggre with the "type what the box says" or even an audible registering method, would be a good idea. On other hand, i guess that is not very easy.

The "low level admin" is OK, but we`ll need some people , connected at all time, and willing to do that job....

(the selection method for the guys; check who is online at 2:00 am, and these would be selected...hehehe)

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #22 – June 24, 2006, 09:48:50 PM

Hmm, I dont really wanna have to do that, regularly. But you could make a couple of temp mods just until we find a problem. Can you just make it so that you can only edit text? That would be an easy fix, but could suck if it got into the wrong hands.

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #23 – June 24, 2006, 10:55:37 PM

Quote from: Chuck W

What about the visual verification or whatever the "type in the alphanumeric gibberish in the box there" thing is?

Also, require authentication before posting.

We do both on our site, and while spammers can get in, most get nuked before they post.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Something that a bot or script can't do due to the randomness factor. I would something like that would be the easiest solution.

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #24 – June 24, 2006, 11:04:44 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha

Many captchas *can* be defeated by bots. There's only one sure-fire (for now) captcha I've heard about so far, and it's one that was recently created. The test involves pictures of animals (among other options) that a computer can't pick out, but a human can. For example, the question could be "pick the cat".. and it could have 9 pictures, only one of them being a cat. Then it's down to a random guess on the bot's part.

http://www.kittenauth.com/

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #25 – June 25, 2006, 12:12:43 AM

Maybe a test "pick the XR7 at the photo" should do the work or "how many litres are a 302 CID?"
4 or 5 questions and the signup wouldnt make hard to identify humans...

Nobody who dont knows that dont deserve to be in this forum, hehe...

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #26 – June 25, 2006, 09:40:40 AM

We've already got the "captcha" thing - it's been in effect for over a year. Bots can get by it, though.

Giving people moderation powers to delete threads really wouldn't do anything more that what we've got now. Between Eric, Baxo and myself, a spam thread shouldn't last more than a few hours at the most.

The problem is we want to prevent these pen 15s from posting to begin with. Using logic (you know, the logic that states that if people are going out of their way to try to prevent you from posting, chances are they're not gonna be really receptive to your offer if you get by the preventions) obviously won't work on them, so we have to use our own logic, and the first thing we have to do until we get this sorted out is ignore the spammers. That means no replying to their threads, no matter how tempting it may be (their bots may subscribe to those threads and get notified every time there's a reply, showing the spammer that his scheme is working). We moderators will delete the threads as soon as we see 'em.

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #27 – June 25, 2006, 12:48:56 PM

I'll try to hold it in :D But MexCougar's idea was REALLY good...

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #28 – June 25, 2006, 08:31:20 PM

First question is do you charge or upgrade anything type accounts. you know like a premium membership?

Well here is thought, though it might not be good. But do kinda of a payed membership like 5 dollars pay pal or something. and make a free and pay member site. So that newbies can only post in one area and payed members can enjoy unhibitied enjoy.

I mean just a thought. I paid for Ranger Station.com and I think this site with its technical advise could warent something like that.

Daniel
Don't :flame: me, Just bringing it up.

Rational suggestions on spammers

Reply #29 – June 27, 2006, 12:58:23 AM

I would hate that. Specially being jobless for the moment.