You mean... for new registrations, right?Originally Posted by HAWK
| SitePoint Sponsor |
You mean... for new registrations, right?
Right, and when, hypothetically, the state of Michigan would be the source of an intense spam flow, I guess you would also have no problem then
In the end, this measure will only "shrink" SPF, which, I believe, is the first step towards obliteration.
One word. Content. Filters.
I was a member of a forum with this implemented. I wasn't as active as I am here, I found that even though my replies got thanks that solved my problem, my karma was 0, however members who were slightly more active seemed to get karma added for even cheeky replies.
These 3 sound like a good idea to me.
# No signatures at all in problem areas (like the SEO forum)
# No company or product names in usernames
# Block open proxy registrants
Not so sure about the Karma system though, like someone else already mentioned. New users might have a good SEO question, and I for one would never bother to reach a certain karma limit before I'm allowed to ask a question. I would just go somewhere else instead. I also think that the IP banning of whole areas should be the very last option to use.
It would be a bit weird if they would ban / block users from India that have proven to be valid usersYou mean... for new registrations, right?
IP banning the majority of a country is extreme, even if it is identified as a source of the problem it seems rather discriminatroy to me.
Are they bots or real humans? If they're bots they probably behave differently to normal humans, e.g. posting very quickly. Couldnt any posts where the person was on the new topic/reply page for under 5 seconds go into a moderation queue?
I remember there being a karma-type system on here, although it wasn't put to much use.
The only way I can see us truly getting rid of spammers is to moderate ALL posts from the beginning. After ten posts, if the posts are of a reasonable quality and the user is actively looking to participate in discussion then they should be granted karma, with each forum requiring a certain amount of karma. Karma should be given by moderators and other users in a position of power.
This would require a herculean effort from the moderators, but it would definitely stop spammers, and would give the community an opportunity to grow and produce a good level of discussion.
»» My Articles: Putting your users' trust in Facebook Connect, Why Email is not broken
Like most of the others, I agree with Rudy's suggestions.
I find it distressing that you would even consider blocking a whole country. Like mentioned above, if you block India one month then the next month you can also close the road to China. Get a couple of spammers from the US (a couple? That's a dream) and block the US in the next month.
The Internet is global and that is the beauty of it. Much of that beauty transcends to places like SitePoint. Don't censor someone because they were born "on the wrong side of the tracks". I would much rather see us continue to deport and exile the lawless who come here to pillage.
Linda Jenkinson: Content Team Leader
Creative Web Content
"Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown
March Photo Challenge. "Blue" Poll is open. Vote NOW!
April Photo Challenge - "A Piece of Paper"
Both, but it is the humans that I am referring to in this post. See more below...
Fair call Rudy. I should have made that distinction and you are correct in your supposition.hawk, i wish you had made a distinction between
1. actual spam (links in the body of the post)
2. fluff and the signature links issue
see, i don't think actual spam has ever been a problem -- it gets noticed immediately, reported, deleted, and the perp is permabanned...
you know how we have "no sig for 90 days" right now? change it to "no sig until vouched for"
who would do the vouching -- all staff from mentors up...
want a signature at sitepoint? earn it
Furthermore, I really like this idea. I'll give it some thought. Thanks.
Thanks, I'll look into it
DefinitelyYou mean... for new registrations, right?
I personally think signatures should be point based. IE You can't have one until reaching 100 posts or something.
IP bans sound like the answer initially before you consider the consequences of blocking half the planet from connecting. Clearly they work if you have a very serious problem with a few IPs which continue to abuse the site but if its a drive by hit then the next user of that IP could be genuine.
I'll do anything to avoid working on my own code
Are you using: if (isset($_POST['submit'])) ?
IE has a bug and does not always send the value.
The problems with point systems are that you either get a bunch of "buddies" that beef each-others' point counts up or you get two people that don't like each other and use the point system to keep each other down. SitePoint used to have a point system and they did away with it. I'm glad they did.
Linda Jenkinson: Content Team Leader
Creative Web Content
"Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown
March Photo Challenge. "Blue" Poll is open. Vote NOW!
April Photo Challenge - "A Piece of Paper"
I personally do not see much spam myself. That's because Sitepoint did a good job of weeding them out before I even notice them. So I would vote to keep the status quo. Some of the proposed measures sounds kind of drastic to me.
I think we need to sort this out at source. There are guys just promoting their business and skills which I think is legitimate and potentially useful if they do it by providing information. Then there are the posters putting up to get inward links to rubbish websites.
I don't believe you can stop that at the forum level. As a development community we need to talk to Google about the algorithm. It's not good for them either because I am finding that the first page of a search is rarely useful. Incoming links are just no longer an indicator of popularity or a good site.
The Google guys are smart - if they downgrade any links off forums and comments (as opposed to text body), people will stop doing it?
On a more practical note, I am finding www.stopforumspam.com very useful.
I've addressed this in my previous post. My idea is that points should be awarded by users with power (e.g. moderators, advisors, admins, etc). This way, those with a vested interest in the forum being a great place for discussion will get their wish.
My idea goes a lot further than just signatures though, in that ALL posts should be moderated and judged on quality before they are shown. If a user can prove themselves to be a worthy member then they can have restrictions removed.
99% of these links are never useful, and this isn't the place to promote your business. If your site/business is reliant on low-quality links from forums then you're doing it wrong.
I don't understand what you mean.
Regardless, Google ARE changing their algorithm to cut out the same spammers that litter this forum with their terrible websites.
Forums are a legitimate way of sharing links to solve problems, and as a result they are most likely important to Google.
We shouldn't have to give in to these scum who ruin forums. The point of this is to find the most effective way of getting rid of them.
On a similar note, would it be possible to implement Akismet or a similar service on a forum? It works fairly well for some WordPress blogs, and it may be applicable to forums.
»» My Articles: Putting your users' trust in Facebook Connect, Why Email is not broken
I agree that a country IP ban would be bad - can't people in the "know" fake their IP address anyway?
People using poxy servers always give me the impression they have something to hide so could be prevented.
On this sort of forum I would have thought that all users have a website so deny people signing up with hotmail, yahoo and gmail type accounts? They can hide their email address from everybody except admin so they should not be worried about it being abused - opening a can of worms with this statement ?
I do not see a lot of spam on the sections I visit and the moderators are quick to remove any. If users find any report it.
Points systems seem a waste of time as who would bother leaving feedback - I must have nearly a hundred people on my ignore list that have not said that my answer to their question was any good or not.
There is already a "points" system in action with the amount of user posts although I can not belive some users have hundreds of questions but have never helped another user with a problem - another thing that anoys me.
Whenever I build a site that has any kind of comment or forum, I ban Romania, Malaysia and China before I even launch the site. Those countries don't ever buy products, don't contribute and take advantage continually. As entire communities they need to deal with their own issues - by punishing everyone perhaps they will have the will to do something about it.
The rest of Eastern Europe I wait for the first registration from a listed spam IP address or email. They are getting very clever by registering and waiting about a week before posting the first comment. Then you suddenly realise that you have 30-40 members already registered that come from similar IP addresses. I ban the country as soon as the first one registers. If you wait about a month, you get off their list for 1 year. They seem to have an annual cycle before trying again.
The real problem is that I get a lot of fake registrations from the Netherlands and the US, but one can't really block the entire country.
Please don't block gmail. I use my gmail account for forums :-)
Not all forums are trustworthy!
Yes, but anything that takes an extra step of time and effort and slows their connection is worthwhile. If the site recorded location of all posts deleted, it would be interesting to see what the ratio of nonsense to real posts is for many countries.
The country can be another factor (along with many others e.g does post contain link, how many user posts, email address vendor, post length,user posts deleted) that can contribute to a scoring system used in a moderation queue filter. These posts would still be visible to the logged in user that made them so they aren't immediately aware their post has been filtered to make it harder for users to react against the filter.
Sure. I'd have no problem with that. I don't live in Michigan either.Right, and when, hypothetically, the state of Michigan would be the source of an intense spam flow, I guess you would also have no problem then
In the end, this measure will only "shrink" SPF, which, I believe, is the first step towards obliteration.
One word. Content. Filters.
Twitter-@Ryan_Reese09
http://www.ryanreese.us -Always looking for web design/development work
It's not the WORLD WIDE WEB if you start banning countries.
»» My Articles: Putting your users' trust in Facebook Connect, Why Email is not broken
Liking thisyou know how we have "no sig for 90 days" right now? change it to "no sig until vouched for"
who would do the vouching -- all staff from mentors up
there are lots of new members who not only make positive contributions, but also identify themselves clearly, and these are the people we want
those who want to hide behind anonymity, and/or who can never do more than post mindless, over-generalized pap, should never get a signature
want a signature at sitepoint? earn it
Before asking, do a search... if you don't find the answer, then ask
The purpose of this forum is to help others in the community, that's why it's called Sitepoint and not Linkpoint.
SP Guidelines - No fluff.
Thinking Web: Voices of the Community - The Community Book
I'm also liking this idea.hawk, i wish you had made a distinction between
1. actual spam (links in the body of the post)
2. fluff and the signature links issue
see, i don't think actual spam has ever been a problem -- it gets noticed immediately, reported, deleted, and the perp is permabanned
while i believe real spam will always be with us, i'm confident we will continue to deal with is as effectively as we have been doing for years, with a team of responsive moderators around the various time zones
it's the fluff and signature issues that, as far as i can tell from your post, represent the more troublesome area
i have a suggestion that might sound like it's coming from left field but i'd like you to give it some thought
you know how we have "no sig for 90 days" right now? change it to "no sig until vouched for"
who would do the vouching -- all staff from mentors up
there are lots of new members who not only make positive contributions, but also identify themselves clearly, and these are the people we want
those who want to hide behind anonymity, and/or who can never do more than post mindless, over-generalized pap, should never get a signature
want a signature at sitepoint? earn it
— Alex Stanford @alexstanford tumblog about.me in fb G+ K
TechTalkin — The Premier Community for Technology Enthusiasts and Professionals
Full Ambit Media — Zero Sacrifice Web Design & Development; Made in the USA @fullambit in fb G+ K
We have lots of the too kinds. Humans don't read the rules so they don't care if their posts are removed or not. Bots, of course, are even more annoying for the amount of posts they get to post but sometimes they're smarter than that... right now, we have a list of 3520 members that we need to confirm if they're real or bots...
Regarding your question, I don't know if a post written in less than 5 secs can go into the moderation queue. Right now, the moderation queue filters certain terms used by spammers, or any post that need to be previously checked for certain conditions.
Before asking, do a search... if you don't find the answer, then ask
The purpose of this forum is to help others in the community, that's why it's called Sitepoint and not Linkpoint.
SP Guidelines - No fluff.
Thinking Web: Voices of the Community - The Community Book
thanks
the best part is, we already have a full staff of mentors, whose job is to, um, mentor the members, and who, in doing so, are required to read and monitor all new posts in their areas, so they are the ones best suited to making the decision to allow good members to have signatures
I think r937's idea (along with my own =p).
We don't want to punish all new people outright for something because there are a lot of people that have been doing this stuff for years that just happen upon this site.
When I joined years ago I definitely wasn't as experienced as I am now, but I did have a few good things to say here and there. If I couldn't have said them because I was "new", I probably wouldn't still be here.
Xazure.Net - My Blog - About Programming and Web Development
Follow Me on Twitter!
Christian Snodgrass
Thanks guys, lots of valuable stuff has come out of this thread. I appreciate you taking the time.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks