Spam threads

[Jules_S]

I notice over the last couple of weeks that there's a number of spam threads popping up in 2-channel, posted by newly-registered users. I've brought it to the mods attention at least once, and they definitely seem to be on top of this but it occurs to me that now it's started, this sort of thing is going to continue to happen.

To try and wheedle this sort of thing out, I was going to suggest that the first x posts made, or perhaps more appropriately, the first x new threads opened by a newly-registered user needs to be manually reviewed and approved before they appear on the forum. I've seen similar controls applied in the past on other forums so it's not a new concept.

Appreciated that this creates a manual overhead for someone (or a group of people) and I have no idea how many new forum users register on a weekly basis so it may not be practical, but might be a way to help prevent this sort of unwanted content continually appearing.

 

[Tony_J]

I'm sure I would have been banned if I'd put words/phrases like that in a new post after recently registering my username. But you can tell from the info you already have about me that I've been here for nearly 2 years, and have contributed to a few technical discussions - conclusion = this is not new spam posted by some con-artist who has only recently registered a username for the purposes of posting said spam.

Yes, we can indeed tell, but that's exactly the current situation. Rabski's point is that automating that determination in a foolproof way is non-trivial.

 

[audio_PHIL_e]

Yes, we can indeed tell, but that's exactly the current situation. Rabski's point is that automating that determination in a foolproof way is non-trivial.

I hear you (and him). I agree it's non-trivial but IMO worth it. Adding some SQL (or the equivalent) into a new-thread post is also likely to make it run slower but I think most of us would tolerate that

 

[rabski]

I hear you (and him). I agree it's non-trivial but IMO worth it. Adding some SQL (or the equivalent) into a new-thread post is also likely to make it run slower but I think most of us would tolerate that

I was, of course, partly joking. My point was that too much experience suggests automating tasks that require somedegree of assessment is never as simple as it first appears.

Also, experience suggests that the 'most of us would tolerate' when it comes to the forum running slow is a bit hopeful

 

[Andy Stephenson]

If the post is ignored it soon falls off the bottom of the page. That is, surely, the easiest way to deal with spam.

Automation is fine as far as it goes but may end up banning some genuine posts or queries.

Andy

 

[audio_PHIL_e]

If the post is ignored it soon falls off the bottom of the page. That is, surely, the easiest way to deal with spam.

Automation is fine as far as it goes but may end up banning some genuine posts or queries.

Andy

But, just ignoring the post doesn't ban the spammer. However spammers are inventive: a few years ago they sussed that email users were adding the spammer's email address to a blocked list, so they added 1 to the last character of the spammer's email address each time they sent a spam email. That just resulted in users like me blocking the whole domain.

 

[orbscure]

If a spam post is ignored, it'll attract more of the same... I ran an IPB software based forum for nigh on 20 years and there are tools available under the bonnet/hood/lid that can more or less eliminate them. However, as I know only too well myself and as Richard has eluded to previously in this thread, it's a job that needs constant monitoring and fettling and cannot simply be left. Its also worth remembering that the admins and moderators here are volunteers, all with jobs and lives away from the WAM...

 

[audio_PHIL_e]

Its also worth remembering that the admins and moderators here are volunteers, all with jobs and lives away from the WAM...

That's why I thought automation might help: some spam is obviously spam and can be handled automatically, thus freeing the modmins for the (hopefully lesser amount of) non-obvious stuff.

 

[Rockchild]

I’ve been a member of the HUG forum for 8 years and my posts still get administrative block until read.. probably because I don’t agree with anything Alan Shaw says

 

[rabski]

If the post is ignored it soon falls off the bottom of the page. That is, surely, the easiest way to deal with spam.

Automation is fine as far as it goes but may end up banning some genuine posts or queries.

Andy

Nope. The spam posts usually contain outward links, which will damage the forum one way or another. They need to go, permanently.

 

[Andy Stephenson]

Nope. The spam posts usually contain outward links, which will damage the forum one way or another. They need to go, permanently.

Obviously more to it than I knew.

When I still worked I just ignored spam and blocked whenever it cropped up. I found it not to be a huge problem, having said that I didn't run a forum so not quite the same thing!

Andy

 

[StingRay]

If the post is ignored it soon falls off the bottom of the page. That is, surely, the easiest way to deal with spam.

Automation is fine as far as it goes but may end up banning some genuine posts or queries.

Andy

Does not work because they will just send more, if they are not stopped, you could get flooded with spam, was it on here there was over 100 spam posts one day from the same source?

If you block spammers then you will get less spam.

 

[StingRay]

More spam arriving everyday now. All seems to be from the US and similar posts, probably same person.

Maybe some restrictions need to be applied to new members, many forums have vetting on new members.

If this is not tackled it could become a major problem.

I have seen other sites get 100s of posts before the mods can remove them.

 

[hylander]

Just reported two posts in the 2 Channel section a few minutes ago and they’re both gone now - system seems to work OK !

 

[Tony_J]

More spam arriving everyday now. All seems to be from the US and similar posts, probably same person.

Maybe some restrictions need to be applied to new members, many forums have vetting on new members.

If this is not tackled it could become a major problem.

I have seen other sites get 100s of posts before the mods can remove them.

It is on the list of things we are tackling.

 

[StingRay]

It is on the list of things we are tackling.

Lots more spam today. As all are in the trade, how about charging them a fee £10 before they can post on the forum? I think posting links should be banned for new members, that may stop a lot of this spamming.

 

[Tony_J]

Lots more spam today. As all are in the trade, how about charging them a fee £10 before they can post on the forum? I think posting links should be banned for new members, that may stop a lot of this spamming.

It is on the list of things we are tackling.

 

[bencat]

So long as spam continues to be reported by users when we see it this makes it easier for the Mods as they can go straight to the post and do not have to read new posts and perhaps miss one . So do not presume that any spam has been reported but report it yourself when you see it as this gets it noticed and dealt with early .

 

[audio_PHIL_e]

Most of this crap is posted by a "newbie" whose website address begins "www.indiaoutlook.com". Why not just delete (without warning) any newbie who puts that as their website address?

 

[Tony_J]

Most of this crap is posted by a "newbie" whose website address begins "www.indiaoutlook.com". Why not just delete (without warning) any newbie who puts that as their website address?

Gosh. We hadn't noticed that. NOT.

We do. Regularly.

I repeat (for the third time)

"It is on the list of things we are tackling."

As this thread has clearly run its course, this will be its last post (cue bugle).