Spam reduction: restricting hyperlinks to a minimum post count?

[Blue Velvet]

I've seen it implemented on other forums where you need 5 or 10 posts to put a link into your post, along with other restrictions.

Is this possible? Is it worth doing? Just a thought.

[mkrishnan]

It seems like a good idea. Either that or vB needs a Bayesian spam filter? :D

If there are concerns, is an alternate possibility to require the account to be active for a time period? Like no link posting in the first 24 hours, etc? That also seems like it would deter a lot of bot or spammer types.

[OwlsAndApples]

Sounds like a good idea to me, notably as there is spam currently in the Apple Industry Discussion forum at the moment...

[mkrishnan]

Sounds like a good idea to me, notably as there is spam currently in the Apple Industry Discussion forum at the moment...

Nice pwn'ing en français, by the way. :D

[skunk]

Nice pwn'ing en français, by the way. :DOnce you get the hang of the accent grave...;)


(It's just above the Alt key, if you didn't know)

[OwlsAndApples]

Nice pwn'ing en français, by the way. :D

Haha thanks! :D

Once you get the hang of the accent grave...;)


(It's just above the Alt key, if you didn't know)

Aha! Thanks, couldn't work out how to do it! I knew 'très' was like that just didn't know about the mac symbols system, thank Jobs for not needing those keycodes anymore...;)

[mkrishnan]

(It's just above the Alt key, if you didn't know)

It's always interesting how this gets garbled across key layouts. I guess it is technically above the Alt key on a US keyboard, although there are four or five keys in between the two. :D

[devilot]

I've seen it implemented on other forums where you need 5 or 10 posts to put a link into your post, along with other restrictions.Yeah! There's another forum I've poked around on and they have an annoying (but purposeful) dialogue box (asking you to read and follow the forum rules, do a search, etc.) any time you try to start a thread or post a reply-- for the first ten times.

[WildCowboy]

So much of these forums is dedicated to helping folks with problems that I would be hesitant to employ any restrictions on newbies that would hamper their ability to get the help they come here for in the first place. I can easily see newbies wanting to post links to suggestions they tried before coming here for help, etc.

I don't think the spam here is bad at all, and it gets cleaned up very quickly when reported. I'm not saying we shouldn't implement restrictions like this suggestion, but we do need to carefully think through their impact on folks for whom this will be their first experience with MR and who might not be in the best of moods to begin with from dealing with their problem.

[someguy]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I think 5 or 10 posts is a little low, though. Maybe 20-25?

[redeye be]

I tend to agree with WildCowboy.
Some first time posters might like to post a link when asking a question.

They could of course post the url in plain text... Which would solve their problem of not being able to post a link.
Select, right-click, Go To Address

Also, to keep out spammerbots I would say 5 posts is more than enough as a limit.

[Doctor Q]

I was gonna say "So much of these forums is dedicated to helping folks with problems that I would be hesitant to employ any restrictions on newbies that would hamper their ability to get the help they come here for in the first place. I can easily see newbies wanting to post links to suggestions they tried before coming here for help, etc." but it seems somebody already said that! :)

The people who spend 90% of their waking hours at MacRumors (you know who you are) tend to see the spam more than the general public does, because most spam is removed fairly promptly. So I think it's best to keep things open/friendly/easy for newbies despite the opportunity it leaves for (temporary) spam.

[Blue Velvet]

The people who spend 90% of their waking hours at MacRumors (you know who you are)...

:D

Some of us are on leave and happen to be doing other things on the Mac at the same time. ;)

Point taken though.

[runplaysleeprun]

I can just imagine the first 5 replies to the newb who didn't put in a link to some article or another in a thread they start.

"link please"

"source?"

etc...

[yellow]

On the forums on Macosxhints.com (vBulletin), a new user's first 2 posts must be approved by mods before they will appear. This does a great job in reducing the spam (with the exception that some spammers are now savvy enough to wait until 3rd post before spamming). After 2 posts, users can post as normal.

Unfortunately it makes a lot of work for the mods, since every post has to be quickly skimmed for content. Of course, the traffic there is significantly lower than here, so it would be much more of a mod headache (here), but there's also significantly more active mods here than there.

But if arn is interested, I'm sure Rob will be more than happy to discuss it.

[WildCowboy]

I feel like that makes a heck of a lot more work for the mods than simply deleting the spam. I guess I just don't find the spam all that prevalent and bothersome...maybe it's because I only spend 89% of my waking hours here.

[yellow]

It would.. but I thought I'd throw it out as an effective solution to the spam problem.

[Doctor Q]

Unfortunately it makes a lot of work for the mods, since every post has to be quickly skimmed for content. Of course, the traffic there is significantly lower than here, so it would be much more of a mod headache (here), but there's also significantly more active mods here than there.If we decided to adopt that system here, we would create "moderator nano" positions and recruit volunteers for the post approval team. However, that would be a lot of work simply to stop spam; deleting it after the fact is a lot less total work. Even though we have many dedicated members who would likely help us out by reviewing posts, I'd rather see them spend their time helping other people with problemsolving.

[skoker]

I'm sure Rob will be more than happy to discuss it.

Rob?

[WildCowboy]

Rob?

Rob Griffiths, the arn of MacOSXHints...

[MacNut]

The "Nano Mod" sounds like a good idea but rather then for spam control why not have them scattered throughout the forums and patrol a designated thread. The ones that the Mods might not have time to get to. This could also be handy during big events when site traffic would be high.

Don't give them full power but just the ability to tidy up a thread.

[skoker]

Rob Griffiths, the arn of MacOSXHints...

Ah. I thought I had found a leaked Doctor Q name.


</excited> :o

If we decided to adopt that system here, we would create "moderator nano" positions and recruit volunteers for the post approval team. However, that would be a lot of work simply to stop spam; deleting it after the fact is a lot less total work. Even though we have many dedicated members who would likely help us out by reviewing posts, I'd rather see them spend their time helping other people with problemsolving.

Wouldn't it be macrumors moderator (shuffle) then? ;)

[Doctor Q]

The "Nano Mod" sounds like a good idea but rather then for spam control why not have them scattered throughout the forums and patrol a designated thread. The ones that the Mods might not have time to get to. This could also be handy during big events when site traffic would be high.

Don't give them full power but just the ability to tidy up a thread.Do you mean designated forums, not designated threads? There would be advantages to that (we've had a few suggestions about having a Games moderator). But if we really wanted some forums patrolled separately by "specialists", we'd have to have multiple Mod nanos for each forum, because each of them might want to sleep now and then, and maybe even go to school or work!

That won't matter for spam, however, which can appear anywhere anytime and is one reason we try to have moderators around almost all hours of the day.

Ah. I thought I had found a leaked Doctor Q name.Of course, there's no proof that I don't run MacOSXHints (in my spare time) so it could be me! :)

[mad jew]

Spam doesn't seem that bad and I agree that limiting first posts could be either more work for the moderators, or less user-friendly for the newbies (or both). Just out of interest though, would preventing hyperlinks mean that when people post a link, their entire post doesn't get submitted, or is the hyperlink merely un-linked but shown as regular text?

[MacNut]

Do you mean designated forums, not designated threads? There would be advantages to that (we've had a few suggestions about having a Games moderator). But if we really wanted some forums patrolled separately by "specialists", we'd have to have multiple Mod nanos for each forum, because each of them might want to sleep now and then, and maybe even go to school or work!Something like a floating mod, the only power would be to edit or delete posts. they can be assigned to a specific forum or can be just roamers of the whole site that just look for things that don't belong during their daily surfing.

[amacgenius]

If we decided to adopt that system here, we would create "moderator nano" positions and recruit volunteers for the post approval team. However, that would be a lot of work simply to stop spam; deleting it after the fact is a lot less total work. Even though we have many dedicated members who would likely help us out by reviewing posts, I'd rather see them spend their time helping other people with problemsolving.

I fully support this idea, I think it would help alot and I'd be glad to volunteer in my spare time :).

[MacNut]

You can never have to many volunteers.:)

[Eraserhead]

The only other thing you could do, which may not be a great idea, is to give "Moderator Nano" positions, to those who could be trusted so they could delete spam posts themselves as they appeared, they would only be able to delete posts belonging to people with under 5 posts or something...

[yellow]

One of the problems encountered on MacOSXHints.com with this system is the typical problem of people not RTFMing. At least 20% of the time people post their thread/responses and then follow up with posts of "why aren't my posts showing up?". No one ever reads the rules. :)

[840quadra]

One of the problems encountered on MacOSXHints.com with this system is the typical problem of people not RTFMing. At least 20&#37; of the time people post their thread/responses and then follow up with posts of "why aren't my posts showing up?". No one ever reads the rules. :)

Yeah I almost did that myself.. Actually, I almost gave up on that site entirely when I posted my 2nd post, and it didn't show up. I didn't read the rules close enough ;) .

I run a VB forum too, I have thought about implementing SPAM reduction tactics in the past prior to VB, but so far I have less SPAM attempts than before !

[Doctor Q]

You can never have to many volunteers.:)... until the overhead of coordinating a team effort outweighs the benefits. That's the reason we've kept the number of moderators pretty stable, with only slow growth over the years.

Taking best advantage of volunteer moderators across multiple time zones takes a bit of coordination. If done right, it's equivalent to having one single moderator on duty 24/7, with no time off for eating, sleeping, work, school, or holidays!

[MacNut]

Would it be feasible to have security guard type moderator that only have editing power of posts but don't have the ability to ban or close threads. That way the Moderators do the police work and have the guards just patrol the halls. Would that ever be considered to take some of the load off the Mods while still not stepping on their toes.

[WildCowboy]

I guess I just still don't see what all the fuss is about. I don't notice much of a moderation problem at all, and the mods are always fantastic about responding to the few minor issues I do come across. It would be one thing to consider a change in the moderation procedures if there were a lot of problems, but I'm just not seeing. And if the current mod load was too high, I'd imagine the mods would be the ones who would recognize it and would start to think about adding a new mod or two.

[Aniej]

mod nano.... i would feel so diminished!;)

I really have not seen that much spam on here aside from a few instances. For the most part, newbie questions tend to be: MB v.s. MBP, convince me that iTV is really worth it, and the ever classic soooo there is this noise that I hear.... I have actually not seen many newbie posts with links, let alone spam. But, I clearly recognize the point here. Two possible ideas, that I have been meaning to bring up anyway, that build off of the macosxhints suggestion.

1. it would be a nice addition to forumspy to have either the actual post count or the user post title of the person posting listed right under their name. I recognize that the forum structure might not be able to do this, but if it is possible it would be a nice addition.

1a. is there a way to add the first few lines of someone's reply under the title of the thread when viewing forumspy, this could be something users can opt into if they have an interest?

2. is there any interest in reworking the post title designation levels. specifically, the difference between 100-500 i think is too large to cover one title, and the jump from 68010 => 2000 posts, 68020 => 2005 post, 68030 => 2500 posts is odd in light of the fact that a five post jump results in "apparently" the same suffix change as the 495 posts required to get to 68030. Also, I am guessing the answer is no to this latter question, but any interest in really revamping these titles so they are better understood by new and regular users alike. Perhaps something that is relevant to a broader set of forum posters and a bit more fun? the reason i note this is because one of the goals of this site is to attract and sustain a strong user base. remember the convo many of us had about how many users are really still on here and reasons we would want to keep or clean out the database?

Just some of my thoughts to try and improve upon a website that I love.

[MacNut]

specifically, the difference between 100-500 i think is too large to cover one title, and the jump from 68010 => 2000 posts, 68020 => 2005 post, 68030 => 2500 posts is odd in light of the fact that a five post jump results in "apparently" the same suffix change as the 495 posts required to get to 68030. Also, I am guessing the answer is no to this latter question, but any interest in really revamping these titles so they are better understood by new and regular users alike. Perhaps something that is relevant to a broader set of forum posters and a bit more fun? the reason i note this is because one of the goals of this site is to attract and sustain a strong user base. remember the convo many of us had about how many users are really still on here and reasons we would want to keep or clean out the database?

Just some of my thoughts to try and improve upon a website that I love.I don't think you will see any changes to the titles as those have been there since the beginning and it brings character to the site.

[Doctor Q]

If Apple didn't keep changing its product line, we could switch to products instead of processors, e.g., new members would be iPod shuffle, then iPod nano, then iPod, then Mac mini, iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, and maybe then an Xserve.

Then again, if Apple didn't keep changing its product line, they'd wouldn't stay competitive!

[Aniej]

MacNut: I don't think you will see any changes to the titles as those have been there since the beginning and it brings character to the site.

I mean I don't dispute the character adding component, but that does not mean other options could not similarly add character without diminishing the overall feel. The point is a change is not antithetical to maintaining the great quality of this site. All I am saying is I think this is an important conversation to have for all the reasons I listed above and tend to be resistant to arguments based upon "that's the way it's always been." I'm a lawyer and it brings me back to first year law school where we explored the constitutional rationales provided for segregation. Anyway back on point, I hope it is a discussion we engage in, along with some of the ideas I and others have posed here.

[kalisphoenix]

LOL @ "iMod Nano". Best idea ever.

[MacNut]

I think this is a question we should ask Arn as he can better answer it.

The problem I see with it is that over the past 6 years people have agreed to the post counts and I wonder if some would get upset if the stats change and it becomes easier.

edit:I dunno if this thread might help.http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=47493

[Aniej]

I don't think you will see any changes to the titles as those have been there since the beginning and it brings character to the site.

I think this is a question we should ask Arn as he can better answer it.

The problem I see with it is that over the past 6 years people have agreed to the post counts and I wonder if some would get upset if the stats change and it becomes easier.

I agree we should ask arn and others who are interested such as all of those who have posted to this thread.

Your point about it "getting easier" does not make any sense as the raw number of posts has always determined what title you hold. Now, different from this is the inclusion of additional titles that recognize milestones in some places that currently remain commingled such as the between 100-500 example. This does not make it easier if you recognize the fact that the raw post count is the source of this title. Rather it simply provides an additional title or recognition, but this is not easier. Furthermore, remember the point about incentives for people to stay on here and keep posting.The problem is that to get from 100-500 is a lot and people can lose interest. I also recognize the importance of balancing this concern against the desire, one which I share, to reflect the contributions of longtime members with numerous posts.

(in relation to conveying to arn and whomever else, I think until we decide or hear otherwise it would be beneficial to maintain a public discussion so other points of view and suggestions can be included.)

[MacNut]

What I mean by easier is that right now there is a gap of about 500-1000 posts between changes, If we add to many titles it might take away from the achievement. The further up the chain you go the longer it takes, so I wonder if adding more goals will somewhat add to the spam count to reach those new titles so fast.

[Aniej]

What I mean by easier is that right now there is a gap of about 500-1000 posts between changes, If we add to many titles it might take away from the achievement. The further up the chain you go the longer it takes, so I wonder if adding more goals will somewhat add to the spam count to reach those new titles so fast.

1. Thanks for the link you added of the old school convo. How awesome was that to see by the way? hilarious and interesting. I will note though it is just a general discussion, no one at all posed any opposition to title changes.

2. I am not talking about making it something like you get a title for every 50 or 100 posts, but more in the couple areas we have already noted.

3. In terms of spam, that depends on how you define spam. Specifically, I thought we were referring to spam, for purposes of this thread, as people posting links that are wither scams, bogus, or just don't belong for any one of many reasons. I did not think we were calling people simply posting, even posting for the sake of getting numbers up, spam.

4. I purposefully bifurcated the "number it takes to get to the next title issue" and the "should we update the titles issue." Lets try and keep them separated so that it is clear what people are interested or opposed to.

5. I am a lawyer and cannot help but number things;)

6....

oh yea, and in relation to the convo in the link you posted, notice how our convo is having the same post count consequence as the one noted in the thread haha:D kinda funny how things repeat themselves.

[arn]

2. is there any interest in reworking the post title designation levels. specifically, the difference between 100-500 i think is too large to cover one title, and the jump from 68010 => 2000 posts, 68020 => 2005 post, 68030 => 2500 posts is odd in light of the fact that a five post jump results in "apparently" the same suffix change as the 495 posts required to get to 68030. Also, I am guessing the answer is no to this latter question, but any interest in really revamping these titles so they are better understood by new and regular users alike.


It's funny how a 10 second decision 5 years ago becomes such a topic of discussion.

The odd 68010 (and 65832) progression is discussed in this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=919677#post919677) from 2004. Specificly this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=919677&postcount=27) touches on it best.

As for changing the titles/progression, I'm not sure I see the benefit, and not sure I understand what exactly you want to be changed.

arn

[MacNut]

Yes lovely 5 years, It is 5 years to the day that I stepped foot onto planet MacRumors.:)

[MacNut]

As for changing the titles/progression, I'm not sure I see the benefit, and not sure I understand what exactly you want to be changed.

arnOk just curious why G3 is a title and not 750?

[mad jew]

...Because G3 looks sexier?

[Blue Velvet]

Furthermore, remember the point about incentives for people to stay on here and keep posting.


The incentive for people to stay here are that it's a great community with lots of interesting people with interesting things to say, nothing more.

Anyway, I have nothing further to contribute to this thread as it's wandered from the original topic which was merely a suggestion thrown out there to help reduce the effectiveness of spam (particularly in the early hours), not intended as a springboard for unnecessarily nitpicking about titles and post-counts.

[eluk]

The incentive for people to stay here are that it's a great community with lots of interesting people with interesting things to say, nothing more.


Agreed it's the content rather than the labels that are of interest.

[dextertangocci]

It seems like a good idea. Either that or vB needs a Bayesian spam filter? :D

I read the meaning of "Bayesian" about 10 times, and I still do't understand what it means:confused: :o

Anyway, I think it's a good idea, although those types of threads get deleted very quickly. As soon as I click on one of those "original leather handbag" threads, it just says "you have followed an invalid link" or something like that.