Operational changes for spam

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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)

[Sundae]

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.

[yesman065]

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?

[BigV]

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.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by yesman065

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.

[Undertoad]

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!

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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!

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Beestie

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.

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.

[BigV]

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.

[Elspode]

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.

[Iggy]

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.

[zippyt]

Sounds like a good idea to me ,helps filter out the trash with out being to restrictive

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.