No links in the first 2-10 posts? Or 24 hrs?

[CaptainPanic]

Personally, I make a lot of use of the "View new content" button. Unfortunately, that also means that I notice all the spam, which I always report.

 

Wouldn't it be a good idea to ask new members to wait a small number of posts before they can include a link, or 24 hrs? Or both? In other words, would it be an idea to disallow linking to any external website in the 1st post? This would possibly prevent a lot of spam, both from the professional spam bots and from people who just want to promote their blogs and have no interest in a discussion.

 

In my opinion, the large majority of new members have a question that they are capable of explaining without the use of links... and it's often in the answers that external links are used by experienced members. In another way of putting it, I think that if you look at all the posts by new members (those with just 1 post), and make a sub-selection of all posts with links, then 99 out of 100 will be spam.

 

I don't know if spammers have a way around this? They might deliberately screw up their own URL/link to dodge my proposed check.

 

Of course we should consider whether the cure is worse than the disease... but although I still need more coffee, I see few disadvantages at this moment. Maybe someone else can point out the obvious.

[Spyman]

I think it would be resonable to have a limit of 10 posts before allowing members to post links. But I don't know if the spambots would care, they probably would continue to spam without noticing the failure with links. Although in a longer perspective their creators might notice and turn their effort to easier targets or at least we would defeat their purpouse instantly.

[StringJunky]

That might be an idea worth trying and if a person who has just joined really needs to post a link in their first post they will complain...this means they have passed the spambot test and they can be allowed! It won't get them all though: some are capable of making a few posts until the botmaster sets them to start spamming and post a link.

Edited March 8, 2011 by StringJunky

[michel123456]

I am not sure having seen spambot on this forum. Most are spammers, I mean there is an individual behind the post, no robot. If it is the case, no matter what you do, they will always find a way to annoy. That's their job.

[Spyman]

I am not sure having seen spambot on this forum. Most are spammers, I mean there is an individual behind the post, no robot. If it is the case, no matter what you do, they will always find a way to annoy. That's their job.

How about this post then:

Thank you for posting such useful information on this forum. I was just seeking for some info on this topic.

It was made in the thread: Hey people in Astronomy and Cosmology.

 

Do you really think an individual who has this 'profession' to be so stupid and not better at concealing their handywork?

 

Secondly I don't think their purpouse is to annoy, they are advertising and improving search hits & internet traffic.

[swansont]

How about this post then:

 

It was made in the thread: Hey people in Astronomy and Cosmology.

 

Do you really think an individual who has this 'profession' to be so stupid and not better at concealing their handywork?

 

Secondly I don't think their purpouse is to annoy, they are advertising and improving search hits & internet traffic.

 

(FYI, The link won't work anymore since the user has been flagged as a spammer.)

 

I think the tactic there is to go back and edit the post to add a link. That's one reason for allowing editing ability to expire.

 

I'll let Cap'n address the technical issues. Not everything can be filtered and/or scripted; some tactics we used under the old software don't work anymore. I'd be happy to reject anything cyrillic out of hand, but I don't know if that's something that can be implemented.

[Spyman]

(FYI, The link won't work anymore since the user has been flagged as a spammer.)

I guessed it would happen, thats why I quoted it here and said where I found it.

 

 

I think the tactic there is to go back and edit the post to add a link.

Let's compare my previously quote with this one:

eyes allow us to view everything. this is because the light is focussed in to the retina and the signal is carried on by the optics nerve.

From the thread eye in Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience.

 

This is made by a real person but with 10 similar and short posts in 19 minutes it's hard to tell if it's made by an excited young new member or an experienced spammer.

 

If it's made by a spammer then the tactics are the same but this one is much much more likely to pass unnoticed and remain until a later return.

 

 

That's one reason for allowing editing ability to expire.

How long is the editing ability open?

 

I tested in one random old thread from February and was still able to edit my old post:

[EDIT]

This has nothing to do with the thread just testing the editing expiring time.

 

This post has been edited by Spyman: Today, 12:45 PM

[timo]

There's a related idea that I had for some time, though I don't know how feasible it is to implement:

Give a large group of members (say everyone with >200 posts) a "this is spam" button. The threads marked this way do not appear until approved by a mod. The idea is that obvious spam disappears quickly, but that no actual content is destroyed (since they can be restored with a simple "approved: no spam" click). As far as I see, no extra work for the mods would be needed, since instead of working throguh the reported posts, they'd work through the spam list.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So far, I've restricted members to having signatures only after 10 posts. Particularly devious spammers would make a completely innocuous post, wait a couple weeks, and then add links to their signature, so that nobody would notice the links and they could sit for months.

 

I've also restricted the number of PMs sent by new members, since some spammers just PMed spam to everyone.

 

It's also possible to do a flood limit and limit them to a certain number of posts per day; that would slow down the ones that want to make as many spam posts as possible, but it's not particularly helpful as we can delete all of the posts with one "Flag As Spammer" button.

 

I could, hypothetically, ban new members from using links altogether, although that would be trickier, and would be very inconvenient for the non-spammer members.

 

How long is the editing ability open?

 

I tested in one random old thread from February and was still able to edit my old post:

Looks like this only applies to members with less than thirty posts. I'm not sure that's intentional.

[swansont]

Let's compare my previously quote with this one:

 

From the thread eye in Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience.

 

This is made by a real person but with 10 similar and short posts in 19 minutes it's hard to tell if it's made by an excited young new member or an experienced spammer.

 

If it's made by a spammer then the tactics are the same but this one is much much more likely to pass unnoticed and remain until a later return.

 

Yeah, I saw those, and it's hard to tell the difference between spam and an exuberant adolescent. I try and err on the side of caution regarding spam-banning. We don't want to get rid of someone who wants to make legitimate contributions.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have, very rarely, gotten confused emails from someone who posted a link in their first post and got spam-banned. It can be very difficult to tell the difference, unless they're linking to sites selling Viagra and porn.

[CaptainPanic]

Oh well, I just wished to bring this up. I am glad to see that this idea has reached the mods. That's the purpose of the Suggestions, Comments and Support... so I consider this mission accomplished.

 

Perhaps, as I mentioned earlier, the cure I proposed is worse than the disease. I think it's wise to leave that to those who remove all the spam.

 

In the meantime, I will happily report any spam I encounter. Cheers.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Pro tip: If you see one person making multiple spam posts, you only need to report the first one, perhaps with a comment saying "there's a bunch more." We have a button that deletes all of them simultaneously, so reporting multiples just makes us read more reports.

[CaptainPanic]

Pro tip: If you see one person making multiple spam posts, you only need to report the first one, perhaps with a comment saying "there's a bunch more." We have a button that deletes all of them simultaneously, so reporting multiples just makes us read more reports.

yes sir!