After Hours
Do you suppose that the score ultimately will be settled with spammers, their cries lost during initial confusion, pandemonium, and death?
.
by hal 9000
We are just the bit players here at TR now the spammers are the main posters. ;)
Col
by ansugisalas
If I am on their side, they win hands down.
If I am on our side, we tie.
by magic8ball
by ansugisalas
and even if there are, I've noticed that some of these bots (for they are bots), first post 50 posts without the link, then edit in the link later, trying to fool back-end systems.
No, I think the only thing that could work would be the have moderators be able to kill all posts of a poster (and engage an 1-hour IP ban for that IP), from a single mod-only button on the spammer's profile.
by magic8ball
2 weeks would be better. I agree that the moderators should be able to kill all the posts that a spamer make.
Other than having the moderators approve each post there may be no way to get rid of the spam entirely. Post by post approval would be way too time consuming.
by ansugisalas
by ansugisalas
Problem with an IP ban is that it can hurt innocents, and can be circumvented easily.
So a very short ban can make sense, as an inconvenience - a signal to go seek lower hanging fruit, but a long ban doesn't make any sense.
by ansugisalas
Just enough to potentially be a nuisance, after all, there are other places they can bog up.
If they have to go out of their way even a little, they might forgo it completely.
by magic8ball
by seanferd
Say, at least as good as the crappiest email filter, would be a start.
Actually deleting reported spam within, say, a month, would be another plus.
by ansugisalas
They want their botware to be able to fire off a gazillion posts in no time, and after that they want the posts to remain up for long enough to make a difference to the webcrawlers.
So if those two parameters could be targeted, they'd go sniffing for more victimizable places.
One thing could be a timeout between posts long enough to inconvenience the bot, but not long enough to even be noticed by a human poster.
*ahem* - that means not very long (I actually make my posts in short bursts between work, I get my brain all revved up while working, and then I need to let it stretch out once in a while, otherwise I go crazy). 15 seconds?
The IP ban is more serious, even if they just have to reset their connection, that's going to take minutes of their cash-getting-time.
And instantly taking out all posts of a spammer would be very effective too... they won't bother if they have nothing to show for it at the end of the day.
by Wizard57M-TR
or at least validation by email prior to allowing a post. I feel for anyone that
is in a "moderator" status at any site. I went through those pains with my own
very small group. The time a moderator sometimes has to spend can easily
run into several hours per day, and that was with a small group of only about
100 members! Once I had a handle on the membership, I did set some of the
flags to automate the process more. However, any new member would first
have to have their return email address validated, and all new posts were
moderated until it was judged that the member was "legitimate".
I recommend using email address validation, as it usually trips up all but the
most sophisticated bots. Couple this with first XX number of posts must be
moderated, and the spam level would drop.
Thing is, I sometimes think CNET sites are now being reimbursed for all "click
through" visits, even by spam bots. It appears to the PTB at CNET that traffic
at TR, ZDNet, etc are increasing, therefore advertising dollars increase...
but that's just my hypothetical idea, no way of proving it.
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending