WARNING! Do not post to spam threads - Page 3

TheRealJuliane · #31 Mar 20, '12, 10:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmundus1581

Thanks for the support, Julian!

All the best from Oz!

Right back atcha' mate!

DeniseNY · #32 Mar 21, '12, 3:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corki

AMEN!!!

Agreed.

This morning, every single new topic listed was a spam thread.

MissRose73 · #33 Mar 21, '12, 4:39 am

I still think new members should not be able to start new posts until they have gotten to 5 posts or more with replies being moderated, perhaps wait a week or so to approve new memberships may be even better. Several other forums I belong to do one or both of those, and have no issues with spammers.

TheRealJuliane · #34 Mar 21, '12, 4:41 am

In another thread, one of the mods said they are working on some things that will help. I don't know what the changes will be, but they can only improve things.

Edmundus1581 · #35 Mar 21, '12, 4:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissRose73

I still think new members should not be able to start new posts until they have gotten to 5 posts or more with replies being moderated, perhaps wait a week or so to approve new memberships may be even better. Several other forums I belong to do one or both of those, and have no issues with spammers.

Sorry, MissRose, but I disagree. Many of our threads are started by genuine first-posters who have come here because they want help on a specific problem. Often they are quite desperate for advice. Sometimes they have also been "lurkers" for a while.

I hope that we can find a solution to the spam problem without turning away the genuine first-posters.

Edmundus1581 · #36 Mar 21, '12, 5:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corki

AMEN!!!

Thanks to you also, Corki. Apologies for missing your post

Inego de Loyola · #37 Mar 21, '12, 4:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmundus1581

This problem could be solved automatically by preventing new users from posting links. The spams are easily identified as they come from a user who has just signed up, and then posts a link to an external site.

If users were prevented from posting links until they had, say 5 posts and 1 week membership, then there would be no spam.

I've seen this in stackoverflow.com - and it hasn't prevented millions of users from signing up and partcipating.

But, surely I'm not the first person to think of that?

IDK how easy it might be to implement but it seems like a good idea.

TheRealJuliane · #38 Apr 7, '12, 9:16 am

Is there any word as to the spam prevention features? There's another attack of them this morning.

grasscutter · #39 Apr 7, '12, 2:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmundus1581

Sorry, MissRose, but I disagree. Many of our threads are started by genuine first-posters who have come here because they want help on a specific problem. Often they are quite desperate for advice. Sometimes they have also been "lurkers" for a while.

I hope that we can find a solution to the spam problem without turning away the genuine first-posters.

Actually, that's a good point. I lurked on this site for many months before I actually registered. Maybe I had nothing worthwhile to say... maybe I still don't...

Earnest Bunbury · #40 Apr 7, '12, 7:14 pm

Honestly, there is no reason to place a post at THIS thread, but there is now almost 4 pages of replies to something that, too, needed no comment. It seems a little much to say one "reported" creates more work. Adding silly comments to a spam post should definitely be discouraged but I would think a myriad of reports on one spam would be more work than one report and one post stating "reported". Heck, there was a thread started by someone who was testing something out and wrote "please ignore", which went on for hundreds of posts and spawned various "Dare you to ignore this" threads. Inanity has many faces.

I have commented to spam prior but will stop, but much like this thread and those mentioned above, you won't stop people from posting unnecessary or inane comments, or spam, or replies to spam unless you just have had enough with posting in general and ban that.

grasscutter · #41 Apr 8, '12, 10:58 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earnest Bunbury

Honestly, there is no reason to place a post at THIS thread, but there is now almost 4 pages of replies to something that, too, needed no comment. It seems a little much to say one "reported" creates more work. Adding silly comments to a spam post should definitely be discouraged but I would think a myriad of reports on one spam would be more work than one report and one post stating "reported". Heck, there was a thread started by someone who was testing something out and wrote "please ignore", which went on for hundreds of posts and spawned various "Dare you to ignore this" threads. Inanity has many faces.

I have commented to spam prior but will stop, but much like this thread and those mentioned above, you won't stop people from posting unnecessary or inane comments, or spam, or replies to spam unless you just have had enough with posting in general and ban that.

Well, I'm glad to know that what I assumed to be an informative exchange of ideas was merely inane and unnecessary. I shall immediately engage in a more productive activity.

HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE! CHRIST IS RISEN!!!