Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Tired of reporting spam

Tired of reporting spam

Pages: 1 2 3 4 .. 7

bfesser - 10-10-2013 at 15:05

What on Earth are you rambling on about, bismuthate?

And 160 posts in a little under two weeks... you're approaching spammer status yourself!

ElectroWin - 10-10-2013 at 18:20

does stuff automatically get deleted if it is reported more than once in short succession?
perhaps it should

Dariusrussell - 11-10-2013 at 02:54

Electrowin makes a good point, but I think the system in place now is working fine IMO.
Is it just me, or does it seem like there's been an increase in spam this past week?

gsd - 13-10-2013 at 21:02

A cursory look at recent spam posts reveals that most of them are for:
Louis vuiton, Nike, Adidas, iPhone etc. Is it possible to modify forum software so that any new post having these "key-words" will be automatically deleated and the member be barred immediately?

Gsd

Pyro - 14-10-2013 at 03:12

and cheap kitchens.
that's actually a very good idea, but only for members with less than 10 posts,
if a known member posts a long time consuming article and says''sorry for the picture quality, My IPhone camera sucks''

bfesser - 14-10-2013 at 07:10

gsd: yes, it's possible. But it's not really necessary.
Pyro: you are also correct. Writing a spam-killing script has many such caveats.

As I've been writing elsewhere, many of our current annoyances will be lessened when we <a href="viewthread.php?tid=18651">migrate to new board software</a>. Please don't take this as me saying not to continue with suggestions, though. Feedback on how to improve the software is always a good thing, whether it's implemented or not. Ultimately, it's up to Polverone, and if he has time and motivation to put more work into the de-spamming script.

[Edited on 14.10.13 by bfesser]

Semmelweis - 14-10-2013 at 09:31

The fun thing about gsd's post, is that it would have itself triggered the hypothetical script...

bismuthate - 14-10-2013 at 10:33

We jut got spam that is slightly relevent by anna h! Does SM usualy recive relevent spam?
bfesser my intention was never to spam SM I will try not to post as frequently. My apologies.

elementcollector1 - 14-10-2013 at 11:47

Quote: Originally posted by Semmelweis

The fun thing about gsd's post, is that it would have itself triggered the hypothetical script...

Could be remedied by only applying the code to the title...

bfesser - 14-10-2013 at 13:30

Quote: Originally posted by bismuthate

Does SM usualy recive relevent spam?
bfesser my intention was never to spam SM I will try not to post as frequently. My apologies.

Hey, bismuthate, no worries. Just try to take it easy on opening new topics. Try to find existing threads on what you wish to discuss.

As for relevant spam, it's rare, but it does happen. I recall one <a href="viewthread.php?tid=25435">instance</a> in particular that now resides in Detritus.

bismuthate - 14-10-2013 at 13:53

I read that post just yesterday. If only we got spam advertising cheap glassware.

Once I got random pop up that advertised CuSO4 root killer at lowes.

Nike spamming

chemrox - 8-11-2013 at 23:46

We're getting a lot of nasty bandwidth from Nike salesbrats. Is there a way to screen these jerks out? Could someone write a subroutine to search and destroy these pests before they take up space here? I will never buy a Nike product for as long as I live and I'm embarrassed they started in my state before they moved to China.

watson.fawkes - 2-12-2013 at 07:41

Quote: Originally posted by kmno4

is it possible

Possible? Yes. Will it happen soon? That depends. As with all such suggestions, there are software issues. Please see call for participation: modernizing SM forum software.
<hr>bfesser moderator expellendus est

kmno4 - 2-12-2013 at 09:38

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Possible? Yes. Will it happen soon? That depends. As with all such suggestions, there are software issues.

This is an idea for administration ,not for you. You do not have to bother with commenting it.

bfesser - 2-12-2013 at 10:39

kmno4, did you delete your post? Anyway, watson.fawkes' response is correct; but it's ultimately up to Polverone. I'll add it to the wish list for the software upgrade.

watson.fawkes - 2-12-2013 at 11:52

Quote: Originally posted by kmno4

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Possible? Yes. Will it happen soon? That depends. As with all such suggestions, there are software issues.

This is an idea for administration ,not for you. You do not have to bother with commenting it.

Don't ask questions in public without expecting answers from the public.

You deleted your original post, which means you go on my personal list of cowards whose posts I must remember to quote in their entirety. I have quoted the entirety of your post above, accordingly, including the otherwise-superfluous quotation of my own words.

The original post, for the record, was yet another suggestion for a spam reduction algorithm.
<hr>bfesser moderator expellendus est

New spam behaviour idea?

Eddygp - 21-12-2013 at 07:36

I've got this idea for a new recommendable policy towards spammers, which is not to post in any spammer's thread, even if it's a "SPAM REPORTED" message. This avoids getting the topic unnecessarily bumped and deters people from going in, driving less attention towards it until a moderator destroys it.
This mass effect, when you see a topic with new replies, you go in to see what it is, maybe post "REPORTED" while you report it, the posts increase and so on... it would all be prevented by this policy.

By the way, AFAIK, there are no written Forum Rules anywhere, so I would suggest creating a (closed) topic with a list of basic rules for members to see.
Ideas.

Eddygp.

TheChemiKid - 21-12-2013 at 07:45

This is a great idea, I think it would help to not feed the fire.
On the topic of the rules, there are the forum guidelines. These could be given a more prominent position, though.

Pyro - 21-12-2013 at 07:57

what spam are you taking about? trolls or ads?

but if I see a spam post with a reply I know it's been reported and don't even need to look, but if there were no replies one wouldn't know if it had been reported yet

cyanureeves - 21-12-2013 at 08:23

oftentimes posters add links highlighted in blue to quote references much like spammers.by the way do spam bots also register their user names or is it done by actual people? the member who posted "spam not reported" in the spam with the semi nude ad had me laughing for days and days.

IrC - 21-12-2013 at 12:16

I have said it before on this topic and I'll say it again. Configure the software to block link posting until a new account has made a certain number of posts. Being seen as useless information posted a mod can kill the account. Therefore they must come in and create yet a new account which also cannot post links. I have seen other sites do this and rapidly the number of spam posts came down.

One could also not allow posting links if mods had time to see each new topic which was posted to determine useful information, meaning not a spambot rather than a number (say 3 to 7 posts) of posts before links are allowed. In effect a new member can only posts links after a mod gives permission to the account to post links which then can go on it's own able to post links.

I saw this work well on a site getting riddled by spammers. If a new member complains they cannot post a link the answer is you will be able to after you have made 3 (or whatever number) relevant useful posts.

Random - 25-12-2013 at 13:45

This can be added easily to the source code. On pressing the post button a php command can be added to check mysql database for the user posting and compare if its less than ten then if it is show "must have 10 posts" or else proceed.

Zyklon-A - 26-12-2013 at 08:36

Quote: Originally posted by chemrox

We're getting a lot of nasty bandwidth from Nike salesbrats. Is there a way to screen these jerks out? Could someone write a subroutine to search and destroy these pests before they take up space here? I will never buy a Nike product for as long as I live and I'm embarrassed they started in my state before they moved to China.

I like Nike products, of course I don't agree with their spamming.

bfesser - 26-12-2013 at 12:48

Zyklonb, the spam isn't for genuine Nike products. Are you really that thick?

Random, it's easy for you to say that something's easily added to the source, especially if you haven't see it. The minor benefit of reduced spam wouldn't be worth the effort; in addition, what you propose would prevent newbies from posting legitimate links to references.

[edit] Personally, I find the posts complaining about spam to be as annoying as the spam itself. It's really not that big of a deal and we seem to have it fairly well controlled for the time being.

[Edited on 26.12.13 by bfesser]

Random - 27-12-2013 at 14:55

Actually bfesser even though my knowledge about php and mysql is quite rusty (last time I was doing something with it was when I was 12) I still remember something to see how it could be done. It can be done in few lines of php code with one or two mysql database requests which will compare postcount with if else command. Not that complicated.

Now if it would be a good idea as you said thats entirely different story.

Kitchens in England Spammer

TheChemiKid - 26-2-2014 at 18:10

Have you guys noticed that a lot of spam is about kitchens in England?
I feel like if admins could ban the guy's IP, spam might reduce.

So much spam!

thesmug - 27-2-2014 at 22:22

Have you guys seen this:
http://i.imgur.com/AUJSXtF.png
It's so crazy and it happens almost every day. (This question mainly for the moderators) Do you know of any spam filters for this kind of message? As far as I know, they're always the same. Either about stilhaus kitchens or about nike shoes.

elementcollector1 - 27-2-2014 at 22:46

I always thought this could be easily rectified by something like the following at the registration screen:
"Type the second and sixth letters in: Hydrogen"
or
"What liquid covers 3/4 of the Earth's surface, and freezes into ice?"
These are questions that 99.99% of these spammers would not be able to answer, and most humans over the age of 5 can answer. I seriously cannot see a downside to doing that...

Zephyr - 27-2-2014 at 23:27

That is a good idea, but they already have the one where you have to type the jumbled letters, how do the spammers get around that?

Oscilllator - 28-2-2014 at 03:17

I understand that the captchas were originally designed to collect data to improve character-recognition software. Perhaps the programs are just good enough to get past them now.
Those easy science questions sound like a good idea though!

Zyklon-A - 28-2-2014 at 07:34

Quote: Originally posted by Pinkhippo11

That is a good idea, but they already have the one where you have to type the jumbled letters, how do the spammers get around that?

If the spammers are real people, then they could get past it just as easily as you could, it's only made to stop non-humans.
A chemistry-specific question, however, could stop some people who are just advertising, but with the internet, ignorance is inexcusable, they could still look up nearly any question, and have the answer within 20 seconds....

Mailinmypocket - 28-2-2014 at 07:51

What if the first post a new user makes does not get displayed on the forum until a mod gives it the OK(if it relates to chemistry and otherwise non kitchen counter related crap)? At that point the account would become active as normal... Like a one post probationary period.

BromicAcid - 15-3-2014 at 19:32

Is there anything else that can be done? I just clicked the "Who's online" button, you will notice there are 7 pages of 'people' online. I use the term loosely because when I went through them, 85% of them were registering at the time. I assume they are all spam bots trying to auto-register. Yes, it's great that we're not getting flooded considering how many spam bots are beating on our door but it's a frightening prospect that the flood gates might open with just a step or two forward in spam bot programing.

Texium - 24-3-2014 at 08:31

I'm rather confused, as it seems that this thread never came to a real consensus on how to properly report spam.
I've been reporting it and then posting a "spam reported" post. Is that the preferred way of reporting, or are we doing something else? It seems that there are a lot of good ideas on this thread, but many of them are conflicting with each other, and none of them seem to be unanimously agreed on.

Polverone - 24-3-2014 at 13:11

Please just send a spam report with "spam" in the body, but don't post in the spam-thread.

Please DO continue to report spam! I check the reports periodically and add people who make consistently good report to a special spam-handling script. If two trusted users report a post as spam, the spammer, all his posts, and the reports are all automatically eliminated. Reporting spam so that it is auto-deleted makes the job of the moderators a lot easier, since ordinary users can effectively run the spam patrol even if there are no mods online at the time.

violet sin - 24-3-2014 at 13:20

nice. I use to type reported as well, but haven't for a while as no one else was. are we still only reporting the first spam post from a bot if they make multiples? if we need 2 trusted members to report, and they pick diff posts by the guy, then it wont be eliminated right off.

Texium - 24-3-2014 at 15:41

Alright, thanks. I will do that from now on.

froot - 25-3-2014 at 01:23

I would suggest reporting the oldest post by the spam bot- that is the first post, that increases the chances of more approved reporters seeing it and making it's visibility as short as possible.

Suggestions. Would it help if the board was only visible and browsable to logged in users? The way I see it, spam spiders search available text in forums for keywords in order to select which ads to spam the board with. If they cannot see any text surely they would move on? The downside to this is promoting the board itself but then again there are some topics here that we'd rather not have indexed in Google search.

Also, it might help to change the 'login' and 'register' links to something else like 'in' and 'get in' (for lack of something appropriately unusual) which would throw the bot software. Maybe have an index page where one would see at least 4 links namely: Login, Register, In, Get in, where the login and register links would send bots and humans to a page where bots would attempt to register for the rest of eternity and get nowhere but a piece of text appears explaining to humans which link they should've used. Or if the bots succeed to register through the 'register' link they post in a section that's invisible to humans and setup to auto delete every 24 hours.

Change the login and register url's to something non-standard.

[Edited on 25-3-2014 by froot]

Texium - 26-3-2014 at 08:01

That sounds good in theory, but also like it may be slightly confusing to real people who want to register. For instance the "in" and "get in" should fix the problem somewhat, but will probably also throw off or inconvenience some people, not to mention that it also sounds kind of sketchy.

Chemosynthesis - 28-3-2014 at 23:43

I just report all of them still on the forum. That way if I am added to the script, there is a greater chance of any of the posts triggering elimination of the offender with just one additional vote. Probably too much effort to try to get the script to integrate a ratio of reported posts to total posts, and it may be questionable to set an arbitrary threshold on non-trusted reports to eliminate someone.

WGTR - 29-3-2014 at 07:34

I tend to report all of them too. That way there's no confusion about which post to report. Also, like Polverone said, don't post anything in the spam thread. I could be
mistaken, but that may confuse the auto-deletion script.

S.C. Wack - 29-3-2014 at 08:25

Quote: Originally posted by froot

The way I see it, spam spiders search available text in forums for keywords in order to select which ads to spam the board with. If they cannot see any text surely they would move on? The downside to this is promoting the board itself but then again there are some topics here that we'd rather not have indexed in Google search.

No need to promote the site at this point. If only there was a way to get the spammer to click on ads...

Chemosynthesis - 29-3-2014 at 10:05

Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack

If only there was a way to get the spammer to click on ads...

I like the way you think!

Töilet Plünger - 7-4-2014 at 14:03

Who is TessaMist? I keep seeing this bot logged in and changing its biography. It doesn't seem to be doing anything else, but it is promoting a Twitter "robofollower" site - the kind celebrities use to make themselves more popular.

Nicodem - 8-4-2014 at 07:53

Quote: Originally posted by Töilet Plünger

Who is TessaMist? I keep seeing this bot logged in and changing its biography. It doesn't seem to be doing anything else, but it is promoting a Twitter "robofollower" site - the kind celebrities use to make themselves more popular.

It is just a new type of spammers that exploit the fact that google and other searching engines index the member profile as well. If you check the recently registered members list that have a WWW link in their profile, you will see that almost all of them are spammer accounts. They need not to post anything, because their goal is to promote the URL of the site that pays them by increasing the google rating through spam indexation. At the same time they are less intrusive than the old spambots, which means that they are less easily detectable and that their removal would require a manual intervention (the antispam script cannot be used on them unless they post something). Their spamming is still parasiting the forum, but at least it is not interfering with the forum quality.

Zyklon-A - 8-4-2014 at 08:07

By the way, I have been reporting all spam I see, but am I on the "list", because they still survive long afterwards?

froot - 9-4-2014 at 01:31

Quote:

If you check the recently registered members list that have a WWW link in their profile

Can the forum software disallow url's in profiles of members in the 'harmless' group?

Texium - 9-4-2014 at 19:47

I agree with froot. People should be able to stand waiting until they've gone past harmless to post their website in their profile.
They could still have it in their signature if they wanted to, whether they're allowed to have it on the profile page or not. It shouldn't actually hurt real members at all.

thesmug - 9-4-2014 at 20:53

Sorry to go off topic, but have any of you ever tried going to the links in these spam posts? The whole website (which is legitimate) is filled with 0/10 reviews and comments like "this store shouldn't even let you rate above 0/10!" It's actually quite funny.

Töilet Plünger - 11-4-2014 at 09:20

Why not have a separate group, for those with <10 posts, with a name like "Potential Spambot?" The "Harmless" group is too large to disallow links for them (case in point: me).

froot - 6-5-2014 at 00:14

It appears the spam problem has been solved. Urged by curiosity I must ask, what happened?

Zyklon-A - 6-5-2014 at 11:32

I have been meaning to ask this too. I haven't seen any spam here for a while. Perhaps they realized that none of the ~10 people who might see their add, (before it's deleted) don't need a new kitchen.
And if they did need a new one, they wouldn't buy from them.

thesmug - 6-5-2014 at 13:17

The sites they advertise aren't actually good either. All the reviews say things like "Never buy from them. They do a terrible job" or "Worst kitchen fitters in the UK." Maybe they shouldn't have that on the main page for all to see! That's also probably why they spam like that.

elementcollector1 - 7-5-2014 at 09:34

*Sigh*
I guess it was just a slow month, huh?

Etaoin Shrdlu - 7-5-2014 at 09:57

Can we just kick anyone whose first post contains the words "kitchens" or "shoes" along with a link into a group that can't post? Moderators could free the one-in-a-million person who just wanted to talk about vulcanized rubber.

Texium - 9-5-2014 at 21:29

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

Can we just kick anyone whose first post contains the words "kitchens" or "shoes" along with a link into a group that can't post? Moderators could free the one-in-a-million person who just wanted to talk about vulcanized rubber.

I second that, but it appears that the problem has vanished anyway, so nothing more may be needed.

Edit: Never mind that, I just reported a new kitchen problem. I guess I spoke too soon.

[Edited on 5-10-2014 by zts16]

bismuthate - 8-6-2014 at 13:02

Ummmm... Is anybody else seeing this? I haven't seen much spam in a while and then this happens. :mad:

Come to think of it why has spam decreased?

Zyklon-A - 8-6-2014 at 13:05

What the fuck is this? This is the worst spam bot I've ever seen.
Alright it's fixed.

[Edited on 8-6-2014 by Zyklonb]

Texium - 9-6-2014 at 14:02

Just out of curiosity… what was it? I wasn't around when it happened.

bismuthate - 9-6-2014 at 14:05

Well, a spam bot took up the entire today's posts first page.

The Volatile Chemist - 9-6-2014 at 14:18

LOL, who's for DDOSing the people who spam our forum? Even if it IS just a proxy

Texium - 9-6-2014 at 14:26

Quote: Originally posted by bismuthate

Well, a spam bot took up the entire today's posts first page.

Oh my, that's pretty awful indeed...

Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist

LOL, who's for DDOSing the people who spam our forum? Even if it IS just a proxy

I'm all for it! Although somehow, I don't think the admins would be very approving of that.

The Volatile Chemist - 9-6-2014 at 14:35

Quote: Originally posted by zts16

Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist

LOL, who's for DDOSing the people who spam our forum? Even if it IS just a proxy

I'm all for it! Although somehow, I don't think the admins would be very approving of that.

We don't have to tell them...(I'm serious here)...RIGHT ADMINS?

bismuthate - 9-6-2014 at 16:38

https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=30...
what is with spam nowadays? This is just crazed rambling!

The Volatile Chemist - 9-6-2014 at 19:13

"Please welcome our newest member yd5xh6j3b1w9."
Oh, we'll welcome HIM alright.... :\

numos - 11-6-2014 at 18:05

WTF! There's more spam than posts being submitted, can we make a policy to accept members based on interview, or they have to submit a short autobiography about themselves, along with a picture?

The Volatile Chemist - 11-6-2014 at 18:54

I think that would be a BIT cruel, but it might be a good idea. Admins, can you post the spammer's IPs someplace? Mebbe we can have some fun... :cool:

Etaoin Shrdlu - 12-6-2014 at 09:40

Quote: Originally posted by numos

WTF! There's more spam than posts being submitted, can we make a policy to accept members based on interview, or they have to submit a short autobiography about themselves, along with a picture?

The last suggestion defeats the purpose of even pretending to support anonymity. I would be down for the first, except it means someone who needed pressing information might not be able to get it in time.

I still say anyone who in their first post posts both a link and one of certain trigger words (shoes, nike, kitchen, etcetera) should be temporarily suspended. The odd person who genuinely wanted to discuss vulcanized rubber or something could be removed from suspension more easily than actually going through the effort of pre-accepting every single new contributor.

[Edited on 6-12-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

pichoro - 12-6-2014 at 10:50

Is IP banning not possible? Or not taking place? On the forums I've admined, IP banning didn't catch 100% of spambots, but it did have a pretty good effect.

Texium - 12-6-2014 at 18:46

Yeah, I think the forcing to submit a picture thing would be creepy and weird. I probably wouldn't have joined if I had to do that. I am still strongly for the idea of asking a few chemistry questions, and additionally incorporating spammer prevention measures like those suggested by Etaoin Shrdlu. Anyone who actually wants to join this forum would probably enjoy taking a quick chemistry quiz in the registration process.

Polverone - 12-6-2014 at 19:45

I'm not going to make people take a chemistry quiz to join. I'm not going to require every new member to get manual approval before posting. This has been suggested many times before and I'm not going to do it.

Temporary IP banning is already incorporated in the ban script and it makes little difference. There are a lot of IP addresses in the world and most of them are dynamically assigned to clients. Even when a big clump of spammers register all at once they usually have different IP addresses.

I have disabled captchas for registration because legitimate members or would-be members found them frustrating to solve. You still need a working email address to register. Anti-bot tricks do not stop spammers because many spammers are human beings, though they behave with all the intelligence of bots.

Just keep reporting the spam. If two independent reports tag the same post as spam, that post and all of the spammer's other posts, plus the spammer's account, will all be deleted automatically within 2 minutes. Posting about spam in this thread will not cause spam to be deleted.

Zyklon-A - 12-6-2014 at 19:53

So, am I on the list? I've reported plenty of spam, generally it's still there within two minutes. Of course maybe that's because no one else reported it, but I'd like to know.

Polverone - 12-6-2014 at 22:53

Yes, you're on the list.

froot - 12-6-2014 at 22:59

How difficult would it be to add a 'spam' button at the top right of each post? When clicked by one of 2 members on the spam report list a small pop-up responds with 'Thanks, reported!' and self closes thereby minimizing interruption in the website experience - or the button simply changes colour and says 'reported'. This button can be made visible only by members on the spam report list.

Polverone - 13-6-2014 at 00:24

Froot, that is a good idea. I have already written something similar for use by moderators only, for getting rid of new members who aren't posting but have spam links in their profile. I don't have time to add it now but I will put it on my to-do list.

froot - 17-6-2014 at 22:41

Even better would be to have the button in each topic listing in the topic index, 99/100 one can identify spam by the alias and the topic title. This way a spam report event won't count as a topic view and it will be even less interrupting. You can restrict the button's functionality to users with less than say 10 posts safeguarding valid members and true contributions.

That will have spammers on the back foot, just a few clicks on the 'today's posts' page and they're dealt with without boasting even a single pageview.

Brain&Force - 18-6-2014 at 18:08

What is the goal of these spambots anyway? They're just putting up nonsensical text probably copy and pasted from random sources on the internet. It's not just link spam.

elementcollector1 - 18-6-2014 at 18:45

Quote: Originally posted by Brain&Force

What is the goal of these spambots anyway? They're just putting up nonsensical text probably copy and pasted from random sources on the internet. It's not just link spam.

See earlier in the thread - it's essentially Google-based advertisement exploitation. The more times they're mentioned on various websites, the more Google bumps them up in related searches. Therefore, spam = marketing. Unfortunately, Google caught wind of this recently, and are undertaking some anti-spam measures. So, these are now essentially pointless, though not quite as random as you might think.

Texium - 19-6-2014 at 16:48

Not quite as random as you'd think? Here's my most recent catch:

Screen Shot 2014-06-19 at 7.43.39 PM.png - 205kB

Seems pretty random to me. Of course, there's links thrown in there too, but for the most part it's incessant babble and broken sentences. Actually kind of funny if you read it. "Pregnant boy mansion" WTF?

Mailinmypocket - 19-6-2014 at 17:06

Weeeeeeeird. Apparently we are suffering from another wave of this spam shit. Hasn't been happening for a while but now? Odd alphanumeric usernames galore and god awful posts with content so erratic and dumb you would pretty much have to be that erratic and dumb to click on its links!

Etaoin Shrdlu - 20-6-2014 at 10:09

They're still not random even though they look so; they're calculated to shift search engine results. I don't understand why coherent text wouldn't work better, but maybe they're mathematically optimized.

Texium - 20-6-2014 at 11:35

Yeah, mathematically optimized to look like insane babbling...

elementcollector1 - 21-6-2014 at 21:40

Okay: Enough is enough.
Nearly every single subforum just got attacked by more of this stupid spam. There has to be a way to stop this. Maybe even implement some emergency precautionary measures (harking back to some of the earlier posts about simple chemistry questions or even just simple questions)? Maybe use a Captcha Code on the signup screen? There are way too many measures to prevent anything but humans getting on this board, and we're using none of them, and the forum looks annoying as a result.

violet sin - 21-6-2014 at 22:02

one thing that could be cool, perhaps extend the power to report posts for auto deletion by two or more trusted members, could be extended to even the newest members, but only good on posts say up to an hour old??? that way no one can get together and report a bunch of older and valuable threads for termination. but at the same time this stuff wouldn't sit here for days until the right people deleted/reported it? just a though.

I say this because I have noticed some times I have reported things to see them gone when I refreshed to the daily posts, and some times they are still lingering around for hours. not sure if my reports are of the damning nature and just need another trusted member, or just heads-up msg to mods ya know. but if it's a recent thread of babbel and gibberish, any one should be able to strike it down as an obvious trash post.

To be clear, I can't say I'm 100% sure how the report --> auto delete feature works, so I am just going from memory. sorry if I am mistaken.

Polverone - 22-6-2014 at 14:22

I have tweaked the reporting process, somewhat inspired by violet sin. Before spam had to be reported by two trusted members or one moderator before it was auto-deleted. Now it will be auto-deleted if it is reported by one trusted member and one 'semi-trusted' member. Everyone who has been registered at least 60 days and has at least 50 posts automatically becomes a member of the 'semi-trusted' group. This should reduce the waiting time for spam deletion, and means that any frequent user of the site can help stamp out spam.

Oh, and elementcollector1, this has been pointed out before, but: the spammers are human. Captchas do not work because these are not bots. IP banning doesn't work because they use different IP addresses. The only solution that stops the spammers and does not discourage genuine prospective members is to be vigilant about deleting spam when it appears.

elementcollector1 - 22-6-2014 at 21:20

Ah. That would tend to put a damper on things.

Texium - 23-6-2014 at 11:58

Just filed seven spam reports, although it appears that the spammer that posted them made 20 in one sitting… Sooner or later these spammers are going to start being credited with Hazard to Self.

Brain&Force - 27-6-2014 at 18:38

If you make a "spam" button, can you place it somewhere away from the "report" button? I always hit the "quote" button instead.

The Volatile Chemist - 1-7-2014 at 06:56

And we DON'T want to be quoting spammers

I've noticed that most spam takes place at (my) nighttime. Messed up.

Stortulling - 4-7-2014 at 00:15

Real spam!! http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=31258

The Volatile Chemist - 7-7-2014 at 06:56

The Ad-Hoc Commitee for the betterment of the sciencemadness forum and protection from spam attacks is now in session.....
If you see spam, report it. No matter what. It only takes 5 seconds.
Am I a trusted member? I've reported a lot of spam recently...?

violet sin - 7-7-2014 at 08:31

I have been reporting the $hit outta spam lately. even used my ipod touch to do so while the computer was in use. they have been brazen lately not even waiting for late night to post it. I did notice however, they have moved away from the annoying -throw it at the end of an old thread- mentality to starting a new one each time. makes it easier to find at least

Gearhead_Shem_Tov - 8-7-2014 at 03:51

I've reported dozens just today. One bloke sent something like seventeen messages—all in Chinese—in about as many minutes.

Seems to me it would be helpful if first time posters weren't allowed more than one post, say, an hour for their first few posts. Or maybe just one post per 24 hour interval. That would discourage the more persistant spammers.

-Bobby

hyfalcon - 8-7-2014 at 05:07

Now it's Russian. I'm beginning to wear the letters the s,p,a and m keys.

Burner - 8-7-2014 at 05:28

Quote: Originally posted by Gearhead_Shem_Tov

Seems to me it would be helpful if first time posters weren't allowed more than one post, say, an hour for their first few posts. Or maybe just one post per 24 hour interval. That would discourage the more persistant spammers.

That is a clever idea that would probably not impact legitimate new users.

The Volatile Chemist - 8-7-2014 at 10:50

Quote: Originally posted by Burner

Quote: Originally posted by Gearhead_Shem_Tov

That is a clever idea that would probably not impact legitimate new users.

So, they only get 1 post per username, that's all. They'll just make more accounts.

Texium - 8-7-2014 at 12:03

It makes it take a lot longer for them though. It's well worth it. I saw one one time that had posted in every sub-forum during the first ten minutes since it registered. That would be essentially impossible with this, and they would likely be caught and banned after their first post.

Töilet Plünger - 8-7-2014 at 22:37

This is the most aggressive spammer I have ever seen.

Screenshot_2014-07-08-23-29-50.png - 82kB

Thank you, Bert, for killing the thing.

[Edited on 2014-7-9 by Töilet Plünger]

Bert - 8-7-2014 at 22:43

I think we need a more pro-active method. Reacting to spammers? Screw that. Let's HUNT these varmints... To extinction.

The Volatile Chemist - 9-7-2014 at 11:04

Quote: Originally posted by Bert

I think we need a more pro-active method. Reacting to spammers? Screw that. Let's HUNT these varmints... To extinction.

Indeed! We need a spam squad with ranks

You can be our leader and admiral for killing the thing above

[Edited on 7-9-2014 by The Volatile Chemist]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 .. 7