|
|
Post by mgoetze on Sept 13, 2014 9:21:25 GMT -5
I just clicked a thread in the main forum and all I got was a picture saying "Post By New Member is Pending Approval". Quite a waste of time... may I suggest that if I click on a spam thread, then the damage has already been done, and this measure won't really help much of anything? If you want to put limits on new members, then perhaps stop them from creating new threads instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 13, 2014 9:28:09 GMT -5
The tool that was just installed does just that-- members with less than five posts will have any threads they start "quarantined" and show that message. Members with less than five posts will still be able to reply regularly, but any new threads they start will have that message attached unless/until they are approved by a mod. You should just assume that any threads with that message are spam threads and you should not click on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Sept 13, 2014 10:36:11 GMT -5
But there's no way for me to tell from the SP Discussion forum page that "jamesmcgillstatue" only has 5 posts, so I clicked on it anyway. If I've already clicked on it, you might as well show me what he wrote. If the thread is titled "Quick to throw pills at her", I'm not clicking on it anyway, and thus will never see the "waiting for approval" message.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 14, 2014 12:09:06 GMT -5
Hopefully it will stop the spammer(s?). Good work.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 14, 2014 12:12:57 GMT -5
I don't think it's a huge deal either way, but would suggest just taking away the right to create threads completely (no pending approvals) until you reply to other threads 5 times. Most new threads created by new members usually get merged with other threads anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 14, 2014 13:36:22 GMT -5
I don't think it's a huge deal either way, but would suggest just taking away the right to create threads completely (no pending approvals) until you reply to other threads 5 times. Most new threads created by new members usually get merged with other threads anyway. Yeah, that's what we ended up doing. Hopefully it'll shut down a lot of the spam. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 14, 2014 16:44:53 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what we were basically trying to do in the first place.
Thanks to everyone for their patience.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 15, 2014 22:37:43 GMT -5
I saw that one of the obnoxious posters posted into a game thread as an alternative to starting a thread. I'm guessing that it's likely just one or two people doing this and just starting new name accounts. There is also likely a methodology for banning specific IP address ranges which would limit their abilities further. Usually these people get paid not from what you buy but from the clicks on their provided link.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 16, 2014 5:55:40 GMT -5
I saw that one of the obnoxious posters posted into a game thread as an alternative to starting a thread. I'm guessing that it's likely just one or two people doing this and just starting new name accounts. There is also likely a methodology for banning specific IP address ranges which would limit their abilities further. Usually these people get paid not from what you buy but from the clicks on their provided link. No, they're spam bots. We ban the ip address every time too. |
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979 
|
Post by dd on Sept 16, 2014 20:54:31 GMT -5
I saw that one of the obnoxious posters posted into a game thread as an alternative to starting a thread. I'm guessing that it's likely just one or two people doing this and just starting new name accounts. There is also likely a methodology for banning specific IP address ranges which would limit their abilities further. Usually these people get paid not from what you buy but from the clicks on their provided link. No, they're spam bots. We ban the ip address every time too. Does that really work? If they're going through a normal ISP, isn't their IP address subject to change pretty frequently? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 16, 2014 22:42:15 GMT -5
Exactly.
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Sept 17, 2014 11:42:15 GMT -5
In which case you've permanently banned the next poor slob who happens to be assigned that address. :-) I guess the odds are low though because this doesn't get traffic like Google.
Is there any chance you could go to the ISP and give them the IP and the date/time? An ethical ISP would then remove the account I'd think.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 17, 2014 12:44:17 GMT -5
There are all kinds of ip anonymizers and vpns. You ban one and there are thousands more to choose from. I bet the bots already change their ip every time they put up a post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 17, 2014 13:30:40 GMT -5
That's true. IP spoofing is the coin of the realm for those bots. That's why it's better to develop policy at this end. Might take a few iterations to get it where it should be, but trying to ban all the suspected IP addresses is nothing but a finger in the dike.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 17, 2014 23:17:47 GMT -5
That's true. IP spoofing is the coin of the realm for those bots. That's why it's better to develop policy at this end. Might take a few iterations to get it where it should be, but trying to ban all the suspected IP addresses is nothing but a finger in the dike. What about not being able to post a link until 5 posts. Don't most of these spam posts have links? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 18, 2014 8:55:52 GMT -5
I think I see where you're coming from. Using the links to find bad actors?
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 18, 2014 10:29:31 GMT -5
I think I see where you're coming from. Using the links to find bad actors? I think. But I thought most of these spam bots are spamming a link to whatever site they are advertising? Having a minimum number of posts needed to post a link should be able to stop those type of posts. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Sept 18, 2014 13:55:53 GMT -5
5 posts accepted rather than just 5 posts, right? Otherwise they could just hit the board 20 times and get 15 of them visible.
|
|
