Operational changes for spam
In recent weeks the spam problem has been getting worse and worse. At this point, more accounts are started for spamming than for legitimate purposes. Most of these accounts are started from third-world or near, using every single free email domain they can find. They are almost certainly paid some tiny amount per post.
I have been quietly fighting them by deleting the really obvious ones, such as those coming from Russia or China with usernames like "viagraseller" or "freexbox".
Unfortunately we can't prevent people from using BB codes to create links on a per-user basis.
So, I'd like to put in the following changes:
1) Prevent all new registered users from creating their own new threads. Whatever set of instructions the paid spammers are using, tells them to create a new thread when they manage to get in. At the very least, this would stop this set.
2) All current users are promoted to a new usergroup "Confirmed". This group is allowed to post new threads.
3) When a new user writes 5 posts of any kind, they are automatically promoted to "Confirmed" by the forum software.
4) Merely-registered users can also be prevented from using Private Messaging, just for safety's sake.
what say you
Aye sir
and thank you for keeping this place as spam-free as it is
Good idea. I'm sure I've never seen a spammer make 5 pre-spam, non-thread posts.
When a new user tries to post a thread, he'll see the message explaining this pop up? I assume?
(Of course, at this point he already hasn't read the rules where you'll have explained this to begin with...)
[COLOR="Silver"][SIZE="1"]Also, you could have their user title set as "fucking spamming piece of shit" until their 5th post...and then it changes to "just kidding"...[/SIZE][/COLOR]
Sounds very reasonable.
I wouldn't mind seeing a time limit as well for starting new threads. In theory, 5 posts can be made in a couple minutes and then the spammer could jump in with a new spam thread. How about a 24 hour waiting period before being able to start a new thread? Is that going too far?
That's a good point, glatt.
If he tried the 5-post thing first, and it worked (the spammers move on when confronted by this obstacle) then he could leave it at that, the minimum required to do the job.
Next, I'd say a 24-hour waiting period isn't that bad an idea, doesn't seem too restrictive, but then again what if you were maybe a lurker who suddenly had something very important to say? We would probably end up with a variety of "Welcome Threads" for new users to arrive in. Not a bad idea either. The "Welcome To The Cellar Thread" sounds like fun, huh?
There are a lot of registered lurkers ... they do so to take advantage of the new post settings. Most of the longer term folks wouldn't be impacted by the change ... and it doesn't restrict all posting, just making new threads.
let me administer the quiz
let me administer the quiz
You have questions to answer in the mysmartmouth thread first young man...
UT:
I am in favor of the changes you propose. I don't think they amount to a unreasonable burden on a real poster.
Question: Do you think the spam threads and associated accounts are being created by people or bots?
A non-Confirmed user would get a message like
"You do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons..."
We should not give them a guide to how they get to start a new thread, or they'll just follow it and spam us when they get access.
In the worst case, it may just move the spam problem into existing threads, but we have to try something to push back against these fuckers.
Biggie, the registration system requires you to fill out a
CAPTCHA to prevent bots from creating accounts.
We should not give them a guide to how they get to start a new thread, or they'll just follow it and spam us when they get access.
Understanding that "them" means #1 spammers
and #2 legitimate new users, are you sure you don't want people to understand why the site isn't letting them post a thread? It's a delicate balance, but how can you inform new users how the site works, without also informing spammers how the site works? That's the question.
True Well, I could just put a note into the New User Registration bit, where the rules are, that says new users can't post new threads until they are shown to be actual people.
True Well, I could just put a note into the New User Registration bit, where the rules are, that says new users can't post new threads until they are shown to be actual people.
You can word the agreement to register to include this, sure. Right there you'd have real people actually reading it, and busy-bee spammers probably glossing right over it.
Do you have any control over the "You do not have permission to access this page..." page? (I don't know what you'd do if you did, just curious)
Again, how many new users want to start a new thread? The answer is obviously here on the forum, but by asking I'm hoping someone else will look :)
If we had a Say Hello thread, most legitimate posters wouldn't even notice they couldn't start a new thread - they'd just be settling in and saying hello with their first posts.
I don't like Newbie threads personally - pages and pages of people you'll never see again saying inane things. Or worse - if you are a lurker on a site, being asked to "Step by and say something about yourself first!" when you have a legitimate comment on an existing post.
But it does act as a containment chamber - you don't have to hang out there unless you want to after all.
And perhaps we can spank new users into using things like capital letters. Not mentioning any names.
Aren't there 2 issues to deal with - one being people and the other being "bots" People will understand and deal with the captcha. Bots will be refused access. As far as people spamming, after 24 hours or five posts, not sure anything other than that can be done. Start with that and see what happens to the level of spamming.
Do brand new users typically post their own threads or just join into existing ones?
Thanks for the confirmation, UT. It's been a while and I had forgotten.
I have a couple of ideas to refine your original proposals.
1 -- Permit these new users to create threads, but only in a section of the cellar named "Spam" or "Sewage" or anything, which the rest of the community may ignore with impunity, or read and mock. The thread, I mean section, could even be hidden. Continue the five post probation threshold. Having a honeypot of sorts like this further eliminates the chance that the spammers will tip to the fact that they're not reaching their intended audience. I also think this will have the beneficial effect of providing a "safe" place to put the spam so that it doesn't spill into the existing threads.
We all have a certain amount of waste in our living spaces, but it makes more sense to put it in the proper place than it does to try and "hold it" for ever. Better the poo should go in the toilet where it belongs than on the couch or the table.
2 -- hmmm.. drawing a blank. maybe later.
Do brand new users typically post their own threads or just jooin into existing ones?
Here's one. I mean, this just happened today. Of course it wouldn't have been a problem if this user had been required to post 5 things in a welcome thread, if the user was aware that this was required.
BigV's idea, a holding cell, would prevent new users from writing big posts and then "losing them" when they hit the post button. Maybe after they get confirmed, the thread could jump back where it belongs. If that's even possible.
They'd get rejected right away when they hit the "new thread" button, so they won't lose a long post.
The solution shouldn't be more difficult than the problem here.
Hey, another possibility is that new users' threads AND posts go into a moderation queue which actually requires a moderator to OK the post/thread before it goes up.
If we go that direction, we should probably add more moderators!
what say you
Aye, keptain. Aye.
Plus, I think all new members must post that they promise not to post any spam or the armpits of one thousand camels will infest their fleas or something like that. Or, if they spew spam after promising not to we could send slang some provisions, a map and a fake passport and let Darwin's theory validate itself. :cool:
If we go that direction, we should probably add more moderators!
I know another group of people who thought more moderators were needed. Maybe you've heard of them: The Nazis!
Or, if they spew spam after promising not to we could send slang some provisions, a map and a fake passport and let Darwin's theory validate itself. :cool:
Oh crikey - if you're going down that route you should send the girls in. We can be UT's Angels.
Load me, Bri, Shawnee, Ducks, Ali (apologies if I've missed any party girls out) up with duty free booze, a couple of non-prescription prescriptions, a bag of feathers and a chicken tandoori and turn us loose on the right continent. We might not get the spammer, but we sure as hell will send back holiday snaps that make your eyes water.
The solution shouldn't be more difficult than the problem here
Agreed.
How do other boards solve this problem? More moderators?
I think that putting the burden of human labor into the equation is necessary, and should be shifted to the user wherever possible and away from the moderators.
The reason spam works at all is because the sending cost is zero or nearly so. Increasing that cost will have a direct inverse effect on the amount of spam. As to the balance point of costing so much that it drives away new users, an increased cost is not always a negative. Consider the truth of behind the strategy of adding value instead of reducing price (the salespeople in the audience will certainly understand this).
There is *much* value here, and consequently much potential room for some "cost". Putting some of that cost at the beginning, especially for such a legitimate cause, is something I heartily support.
Most spam that I've seen...and there has been a lot lately, and thanks to our mods for nailing them quickly...is inserted into existing threads, especially Entertainment.
I say it is a good idea. The 24 hour restriction is a great idea too. I just hope that spammers don't find that out and register just so they can come back the next day and create a new thread for the sole purpose of spamming.
Sounds like a good idea to me ,helps filter out the trash with out being to restrictive
Hey, another possibility is that new users' threads AND posts go into a moderation queue which actually requires a moderator to OK the post/thread before it goes up.
This is probably the best solution - I'm very new at this but logically, it would be very easy to distinguish between spam & a real thread. The only drawback is that there thread has to wait till it is reviewed to be seen by others. Then again this is only a temporary measure for "new users" anyway. Seems to make the most sense to me, but then again I don't really count.
Sounds very reasonable.
I wouldn't mind seeing a time limit as well for starting new threads. In theory, 5 posts can be made in a couple minutes and then the spammer could jump in with a new spam thread. How about a 24 hour waiting period before being able to start a new thread? Is that going too far?
I was thinking the same thing. I assume you mean 24 hours before posting the 1st new thread and not each new thread.
Thanks for keeping out the viagra and Xbox scammers. If nothing else, it's a dangerous combination.;)
Seriously, thanks for keeping the Cellar functional.
UT, you do what you have to do to keep the spammers down. 5 "good post" limit before new threads seems fair.
I will say that we seem to have gotten some real interesting legit posts from unregistered lurkers who just have to de-cloak to rebut some argument or the other. If there's a time-based waiting period before all posts, this will stifle their input.:2cents:
Flint: godwin.
I agree, Pie. We've had a number of lurkers that finally couldn't take it any more and had to respond. They are usually excellent posts, too.
That said, I doubt if there many who have an Epiphany and just have to start a new thread, right now.
So, not being able to make a posting in an existing thread would deter the urgent desire to respond. But the 24hr wait to start a thread shouldn't be a problem.
Not responding to spam threads, and definitely not clicking the links, would be a help. I doubt if they really give a shit about your smartass insults, they crave attention not praise. :cool:
Not responding to spam threads, and definitely not clicking the links, would be a help. I doubt if they really give a shit about your smartass insults, they crave attention not praise. :cool:
:sniff: but its fun... and you're right
Flint: godwin.
You remind me of a guy I read about. His name was [SIZE="4"]
Adolph !!![/SIZE]
You remind me of a guy I read about. His name was [SIZE="4"]Adolph !!![/SIZE]
Flint, if you haven't already, you must read Jon Stewart's "Naked Pictures of Famous People" where he wrote an "interview" with the surprisingly not dead Hitler and Larry King. It's freaking hilarious!
Oh crikey - if you're going down that route you should send the girls in. We can be UT's Angels.
Load me, Bri, Shawnee, Ducks, Ali (apologies if I've missed any party girls out) up with duty free booze, a couple of non-prescription prescriptions, a bag of feathers and a chicken tandoori and turn us loose on the right continent. We might not get the spammer, but we sure as hell will send back holiday snaps that make your eyes water.
I like the way you think. ;)
Why not use some creative license and shoot those holiday snaps right there in your apartment/flat.
Damn, I wish I had a camera, a video, internet at home. This could be SO fun.
Sorry to get back on track, but whats the concensus at this point?
Oooooooh, dig Mr Stay-on-track Man! ;)
Y'know, they always post links, so... we could just hack the shit out of those sites? Fuck them up so bad they'll run away with their tail between their legs and go tell all their spammer buddies that hang out at spammer hangouts... and... then... they'll tell the head honcho of the spammers gang... and then he'll come here and butt-fuck UT... okay nevermind.
Why do the spam posts have that little piece of paper next to them?
A lot of them are using some specific set of instructions, I'm sure; which include the advice to put an icon on their post to make it stand out more.
A lot of them are using some specific set of instructions, I'm sure; which include the advice to put an icon on their post to make it stand out more.
one of us should get a job doing it and figure out what methods they employ
I'm game - I'll be the scout if needed. Where do I apply? Then again I am not real savvy with computers so that could be a problem.
This isn't going to be used against me now is it?
If there were a temporarily invisible "holding tank" for new threads/posts from just registered folk why not give a large number of regulars the ability to view it and either promote posts to visible or delete as appropriate. I would certainly be willing to dip into the tank and clean it out each time I visit the Cellar (or once a day at least!!) in the interests of public hygeine. A sort of mass moderator status in one area?
I like UT's original suggestions, with changes noted in blue.
1) All current users are promoted to a new usergroup "Confirmed". This group is allowed to post new threads.
2) When a new user writes 5 posts of any kind, [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]and at least 1 week has passed from their registration[/COLOR]they are automatically promoted to "Confirmed" by the forum software, [COLOR="royalblue"]and thus allowed to post a new thread.[/COLOR].
3) Merely-registered users can also be prevented from using Private Messaging, just for safety's sake.
4) [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Their info under their name should be "On Probation" or something until comfirmed, when They can make it what they want it to be. [/COLOR]
No new moderators are needed. A week gives 'us' a chance to check 'them' out.
I notice a lot (relatively) of spammers registering, then going away, to slink back from a few hours to a day or two, then post a spam thread.
When I see a new member, if I have time, I find out where there IP is and look hard at the name. I've banned two before they ever posted once.
Lurkers....If you want to join the Cellar and you're from Korea, India or Eastern Europe.... do not, again, do not, register with the name MrCheapViagra. :rolleyes:
Okay, the way it's set up right now, new users cannot post new threads until they post four posts and last four days. Let's see how it goes.
Okay, the way it's set up right now, new users cannot post new threads until they post four posts and last four days. Let's see how it goes.
Four days since the first post, or since registering?
It's toilet paper.
Doofus. :p
A look at the "Entertainment" forum, where the spammers are for some reason directed, shows that they are at least temporarily confused by the situation. There has been nothing for the last few days, which is unusual.
I hasn't been four days yet... ;)
Actually, for the past few days, spam has made it past both my Internet providers spam filter and Thunderbird's junk filter to land in my Inbox. I guess it all had to go somewhere.
A look at the "Entertainment" forum, where the spammers are for some reason directed, shows that they are at least temporarily confused by the situation. There has been nothing for the last few days, which is unusual.
I'd say "temporary" confusion is very promising, for several reasons... possibly the spammers are like migrant workers, drifting through, with no orgazational structure from which to "learn" from their "experiences" - they meet a dead-end and just move on,
or if there is a "central control" of some kind, for some faction of them, issuing orders, or at least a network of mutual advice/strategy or something, then you might just get on a "no call list" for being not worth the effort. The best way to leverage this, I'd imagine, is by having a unique strategy. Whatever ability to adapt they have, by whatever mechanism, would be, I'm sure, applied towards common, widespread anti-spam techniques, not local anomolies devised by one web site. Then again, maybe each spammer works out his own game plan. But I think "temporrary confusion" is probably not likely to resolve itself, unless the blood here is particularly tasty compared to easier marks.
Actually, for the past few days, spam has made it past both my Internet providers spam filter and Thunderbird's junk filter to land in my Inbox. I guess it all had to go somewhere.
Same here, Rich. After months of being virtually spam free. I'm betting it was someone emailing me NYE pictures from a Kodak Gallery account.
Is the spam you're getting from "etools S R L" in Romania?
Okay, the way it's set up right now, new users cannot post new threads until they post four posts and last four days. Let's see how it goes.
It's been over 5 days, and things are looking good. A few random posts here and there by new users, but no new spam threads that I've seen. Looks promising.
Okay, the way it's set up right now, new users cannot post new threads until they post four posts and last four days. Let's see how it goes.
Um, based on
a new thread started today, it seems to be set up to be 4 posts OR 4 days, not 4 posts AND 4 days.
I validate users who are proven to not be spammers.
That explains it. Thanks.
It just occurred to me that I hadn't seen any spam in a long time.
It appears that the new system is working well.
:beer:
I validate users who are proven to not be spammers.
It feels good to be validated by someone.
