PDA

View Full Version : MR spammers


Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 09:54 AM
Sorry if I was too lay to do a search. :)

But why is that threads that are spam are sent to the Wasteland, rather than being deleted totally? Are we not feeding the spammers by allowing their posts to live on?

It is one thing for this post to be sent to Wasteland. But when the result was clear cut, should the message not be available at all? In fact there was a recent thread to this forum (I think) that showed up as thread not found.

grapes911
Jan 6, 2005, 10:04 AM
I'm pretty sure that wasteland posts don't count toward your post total. think of it as a forum of what not to do. allow people to learn my seeing mistakes so they don't get repeated.

PlaceofDis
Jan 6, 2005, 10:20 AM
I'm pretty sure that wasteland posts don't count toward your post total. think of it as a forum of what not to do. allow people to learn my seeing mistakes so they don't get repeated.

yes as far as i know anything in the Wasteland does not count toward your post total, and it is a place to see what should not be done, and its a place to look and laugh at people as well

edesignuk
Jan 6, 2005, 10:21 AM
Wasteland posts 100% do not count towards post count. That's why somethimes people will see their count go backwards! :eek: :p

jsw
Jan 6, 2005, 10:23 AM
I think the point, though, was that some of the posts contain inappropriate material and shouldn't stay on the site.

However, I'm pretty sure that the mods delete those posts.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 10:42 AM
I think the point, though, was that some of the posts contain inappropriate material and shouldn't stay on the site.

However, I'm pretty sure that the mods delete those posts.

Thanks, I was not referring to post counts here. It doesn't matter when the poster is banned. I am talking about these spammers being able to get their message across till the software kicks them out of the top 10 threads on the homepage. And even living longer in the forums that they posted in.

The spammers should be banned, and their posts deleted entirely IMO.

PlaceofDis
Jan 6, 2005, 11:20 AM
Thanks, I was not referring to post counts here. It doesn't matter when the poster is banned. I am talking about these spammers being able to get their message across till the software kicks them out of the top 10 threads on the homepage. And even living longer in the forums that they posted in.

The spammers should be banned, and their posts deleted entirely IMO.

ok well i can agree with that.....their message/ads whatever should be rendered ineffective by having them deleted....makes sense, i wonder why this isnt in practice already though

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 11:24 AM
ok well i can agree with that.....their message/ads whatever should be rendered ineffective by having them deleted....makes sense, i wonder why this isnt in practice already though

I guess that is why I posted my question. I may not be the best at getting the meat of the matter... sorry.

Rower_CPU
Jan 6, 2005, 11:38 AM
Most of the time we'll delete the URLs they post, rather than the whole thread. It's a judgment call.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 11:46 AM
Most of the time we'll delete the URLs they post, rather than the whole thread. It's a judgment call.

Can you comment in this particular case? I personally see this all too often. And in most cases it is a newbie posting. I hope that a warning would be in place for the regular contributing members for errors in judgment.

Rower_CPU
Jan 6, 2005, 12:54 PM
Can you comment in this particular case? I personally see this all too often. And in most cases it is a newbie posting. I hope that a warning would be in place for the regular contributing members for errors in judgment.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

We wasteland the threads (usually removing any content that would benefit the spammer) so that others can see what not to do. Sort of like putting heads on pikes to say "abandon hope all ye who enter here" or "no trespassing: violators will be shot". ;)

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 01:35 PM
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

We wasteland the threads (usually removing any content that would benefit the spammer) so that others can see what not to do. Sort of like putting heads on pikes to say "abandon hope all ye who enter here" or "no trespassing: violators will be shot". ;)

Sorry if I was not clearer.

These were the posts that prompted my post here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=103635

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1196297#post1196297

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=103637

There are others, and some member informed and posted.

The point being, it all well and good to putting heads on pikes to say "abandon hope all ye who enter here" or "no trespassing: violators will be shot". But if these people are given the light of day, for appearing in the top ten of each category; are we not giving them the "props" they are looking for.

For would we not be better not listing their links, but an edesignuk graphic that said that we don't allow for spammers?

In particular to "newbie" posts? For some latitude could be given to those that are contributing members. It was just a thought.

grapes911
Jan 6, 2005, 01:48 PM
Sorry if I was not clearer . . .

For would we not be better not listing their links, but an edesignuk graphic that said that we don't allow for spammers? . . .

Did you try clicking on one of those links? Try it, you may like it. :)

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 04:06 PM
Did you try clicking on one of those links? Try it, you may like it. :)

When I saw the original post, it lead to the link that spammer wanted.
NMot sure if the "links" were edited by our mods or not.

In the end I think postings like this should be deleted, if reported and found in violation.

Rower_CPU
Jan 6, 2005, 04:20 PM
When I saw the original post, it lead to the link that spammer wanted.
NMot sure if the "links" were edited by our mods or not.

In the end I think postings like this should be deleted, if reported and found in violation.

The links were edited by the mod who wastelanded the thread (note the Last edited by ... under the message. Like I said we outright remove the URLs or edit them to make it so the spammer gets no benefit from them.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 04:26 PM
The links were edited by the mod who wastelanded the thread (note the Last edited by ... under the message. Like I said we outright remove the URLs or edit them to make it so the spammer gets no benefit from them.

I understand your previous post; but why not delete out right those post that go against policy; rather than give them "false hope"?

Rower_CPU
Jan 6, 2005, 04:35 PM
Not sure I see the false hope in that - and like I said before it serves as a warning/record of the spammer/spam.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 05:16 PM
Not sure I see the false hope in that - and like I said before it serves as a warning/record of the spammer/spam.

Been here long enough to wonder how many heads you have to hang in the road. Or would it be better to edesignuk to come up with a graphic that you could post for threads that should no have ever been?

Rower_CPU
Jan 6, 2005, 05:21 PM
Been here long enough to wonder how many heads you have to hang in the road. Or would it be better to edesignuk to come up with a graphic that you could post for threads that should no have ever been?

Thing is, the wasteland gets archived every so often, so leaving a few threads in perpetuity doesn't work.

As for edesign's macros: they're the crowd throwing tomatoes and we mods are the giant hook. ;)

Sun Baked
Jan 6, 2005, 05:31 PM
The point being, it all well and good to putting heads on pikes to say "abandon hope all ye who enter here" or "no trespassing: violators will be shot". But if these people are given the light of day, for appearing in the top ten of each category; are we not giving them the "props" they are looking for.

For would we not be better not listing their links, but an edesignuk graphic that said that we don't allow for spammers?

In particular to "newbie" posts? For some latitude could be given to those that are contributing members. It was just a thought.I think some latitude is generally given to members who have been around awhile, the referrer number is generally edited out and the member isn't usually banned outright.

Like...

How To Make Money Selling Your Photos! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=102621)

If it was a newbie, he would have probably been killed because it would have looked like an attempt to advertise a site.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 05:34 PM
Cool, the above posts were just a sampling that of what I saw that caused me to write this thread.

I have done moderation in my past life. So I know what it takes. I just don't want spammers to have any better opps to get their message across.

Rower_CPU
Jan 6, 2005, 05:46 PM
We appreciate the concern and feedback. It's good to know other folks care about keeping MR a nice place as much as we do. :)

I think we're pretty satisfied with the way it's working now, but we'll keep your suggestions in mind if it stops being effective.

grapes911
Jan 6, 2005, 06:15 PM
Cool, the above posts were just a sampling that of what I saw that caused me to write this thread.

I have done moderation in my past life. So I know what it takes. I just don't want spammers to have any better opps to get their message across.

If the url is removed and the post is moved away from the general forum, then how are they getting their message across? Sorry to keep this thread going, but I think we are all missing a point (whether it is right or wrong) that you are trying to convey.

Mechcozmo
Jan 6, 2005, 06:55 PM
Sometimes they are funny to read. And I like edesignuk's macros.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 6, 2005, 07:00 PM
If the url is removed and the post is moved away from the general forum, then how are they getting their message across? Sorry to keep this thread going, but I think we are all missing a point (whether it is right or wrong) that you are trying to convey.

It is the timing of things. When I first saw the posts they were still in the "top ten" listing. A few other members had made remarks and referred the thread for action. By then it was waste-landed. i guess I was questioning why these threads would not have been deleted right away. By keeping them in the "top ten" we were just giving them the exposure they wanted. Even in the short term.

When I was mod, these posts would have been deleted and their personal info banned from further posts.

Doctor Q
Jan 6, 2005, 07:05 PM
The links were edited by the mod who wastelanded the thread (note the Last edited by ... under the message. Like I said we outright remove the URLs or edit them to make it so the spammer gets no benefit from them.Actually, that wasn't so in this particular case, but it usually is.

Some threads are clearly inappropriate or useless to keep around, such as those with no content, duplicate threads, or links to (or images from) completely inappropriate sites. They are quickly deleted. When the worst of these appear, they are quickly reported and almost as quickly removed, so very few members see them.

For threads that are violations of advertising/spam rules, the Wasteland is usually the destination used. If you check the forum display, you often find a few people in there "dumpster diving". Maybe a few people find it interesting, and maybe a few people learn what's not allowed by example. I don't remember any problem that resulted from keeping such threads in the Wasteland.

We disable links when we have time, to keep "spamvertisers" from benefitting from their short-lived threads.

Mechcozmo
Jan 7, 2005, 06:10 PM
If you check the forum display, you often find a few people in there "dumpster diving". Maybe a few people find it interesting, and maybe a few people learn what's not allowed by example. I don't remember any problem that resulted from keeping such threads in the Wasteland.

We disable links when we have time, to keep "spamvertisers" from benefitting from their short-lived threads.

I posted a thread on this one time, Linkety (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=97333). Its pretty funny seeing what is actually in that giant, vast, wasteland of a wasteland. :)

jimjiminyjim
Jan 7, 2005, 07:21 PM
Sometimes they are funny to read. And I like edesignuk's macros.

Agreed!!

While I see the point of altogether deleting posts that point to inappropriate sites, I'd rather see them stay just in case there are some really funny ones that I end up missing!

Duff-Man
Jan 22, 2005, 11:31 AM
Duff-Man says....perhaps newbies should have to have a minimum number of posts before being able to start new threads...even something as low as 5 or 10...then those that sign up just to spam won't be able to do so. Banning them doesn't help, they just make another account and spam again.

Another benefit is that the real new users will learn to read and respond to posts already active instead of starting new ones all the time (duplicate threads is another forum problem).

Of course there is a downside too, a legit new member will have to wait before they can post their for sale item in the marketplace and it seems we do have members that only use that particular forum....

Maybe it is worth thinking about...anybody have anything to add about this.......oh yeah!

Doctor Q
Jan 22, 2005, 12:16 PM
Duff-Man says....perhaps newbies should have to have a minimum number of posts before being able to start new threads...even something as low as 5 or 10...then those that sign up just to spam won't be able to do so.That could help, but it could also hurt, and I'm not sure which would be the case in practice. The downsides are that (1) a newbie who came to the site to ask a question would be unable to do so initially, and (2) both spammers and legitimate newbies with a question might make worthless posts simply to get to the required minimum.

Blue Velvet
Jan 22, 2005, 12:21 PM
Duff-Man says....perhaps newbies should have to have a minimum number of posts before being able to start new threads...even something as low as 5 or 10...then those that sign up just to spam won't be able to do so. Banning them doesn't help, they just make another account and spam again.

Another benefit is that the real new users will learn to read and respond to posts already active instead of starting new ones all the time (duplicate threads is another forum problem).

Of course there is a downside too, a legit new member will have to wait before they can post their for sale item in the marketplace and it seems we do have members that only use that particular forum....

Maybe it is worth thinking about...anybody have anything to add about this.......oh yeah!

Over on macosxhints.com they have a policy where your first 2 posts as a user are checked & passed by a moderator before even appearing.

While some may argue that this represents an additional workload, it would greatly reduce the workload of deleting/wastelanding spam...

It may sound a harsh policy, but represents one approach to the problem.

Sun Baked
Jan 22, 2005, 12:46 PM
Over on macosxhints.com they have a policy where your first 2 posts as a user are checked & passed by a moderator before even appearing.

While some may argue that this represents an additional workload, it would greatly reduce the workload of deleting/wastelanding spam...

It may sound a harsh policy, but represents one approach to the problem.Now that would be a pain for the moderators with the number of newbies that tend to stop by.

It was simpler for them to just add the worst of the "spamvertisers" usual sites (free-minimac/ipod/flash/etc.) to the bad word filter and kill their ability to add a link to the spam sites.

Savage Henry
Jan 22, 2005, 01:52 PM
Over on macosxhints.com they have a policy where your first 2 posts as a user are checked & passed by a moderator before even appearing.

While some may argue that this represents an additional workload, it would greatly reduce the workload of deleting/wastelanding spam...

It may sound a harsh policy, but represents one approach to the problem.

But I can't think it'll take too much for a spammer to initially say something intelligable on a subject that would be deemed appropriate for the discussion, and then sell them free Mac minis etc soon after.

Good on paper, but I'd hate to be a Mod to have to enforce it. I just think it would eat into their time than prevent spamming.

Just mho.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 24, 2005, 10:19 AM
I like the idea of having the Wasteland; It's kind of an online equivalent to historic Tyburn - "executed" threads are hung up for all to see.

When I first joined, it was a quicker introduction for what not to do than the FAQ was, and it made me laugh.