Recent prolific spammer

[flopticalcube]

As the mods are well aware, there has been a spammer recently that is rather prolific and is, in fact, spamming the forum as I write this. It got me thinking about the procedures used by the mods. Do you ban the SOB first and then clean up his posts or the other way around? Would it be possible to change the board software to give newbies (particularly those with less than 10 posts) more restrictive posting rules like only being able to start a new thread once an hour? Just a thought.

[flopticalcube]

LOL! He even spammed this forum! That's one busy spambot.

[OllyW]

Would it be possible to change the board software to give newbies (particularly those with less than 10 posts) more restrictive posting rules like only being able to start a new thread once an hour? Just a thought.

I like this idea, it shouldn't be much of an inconvenience to genuine new members.

[Consultant]

I like this idea, it shouldn't be much of an inconvenience to genuine new members.

The spammer would just create more accounts?

What about automatic rules that searches for certain text and don't even post those posts.

I have it installed on my site, so any posts with spam don't even show up.

[dukebound85]

As the mods are well aware, there has been a spammer recently that is rather prolific and is, in fact, spamming the forum as I write this. It got me thinking about the procedures used by the mods. Do you ban the SOB first and then clean up his posts or the other way around? Would it be possible to change the board software to give newbies (particularly those with less than 10 posts) more restrictive posting rules like only being able to start a new thread once an hour? Just a thought.

you can ban the ip address

i am against the 1 thread an hr as sometimes i create multiple threads within an hr at times

maybe the 1 thread per hr for newbies only? as all spammers are newbies obviously

[GGJstudios]

I agree something should be done. Our moderators do a great job, but I know they're also overwhelmed. Plus, these spammers seem to pick times when there are no mods online. I know there are times I wish I could nuke a spammer and every computer they own. Maybe someday we'll have that technology. :D

i am against the 1 thread an hr as sometimes i create multiple threads within an hr at times
maybe the 1 thread per hr for newbies only? as all spammers are newbies obviously
Re-read his post:
... Would it be possible to change the board software to give newbies (particularly those with less than 10 posts) more restrictive posting rules like only being able to start a new thread once an hour? Just a thought.

[flopticalcube]

you can ban the ip address

i am against the 1 thread an hr as sometimes i create multiple threads within an hr at times

But you are not a newb. 1 thread an hour for those with a postcount of 10 or less. I suspect our spamming chum is posting through multiple ip addresses.

[dukebound85]

But you are not a newb. 1 thread an hour for those with a postcount of 10 or less. I suspect or spamming chum is posting through multiple ip addresses.

sorry, my oversight:o

[flopticalcube]

Surprise of surprises, he's back. One thing that should be done is stop the ability to post links until at least 10 posts.

[-aggie-]

Surprise of surprises, he's back. One thing that should be done is stop the ability to post links until at least 10 posts.

I don't think it would slow them down that much. They'd just make a bunch of quick posts with "+1" or some other variant, and then be off to spamming.

[dukebound85]

I don't think it would slow them down that much. They'd just make a bunch of quick posts with "+1" or some other variant, and then be off to spamming.

maybe noobs should only be allowed 1 post per 10 min lol

[GGJstudios]

I know this would probably never fly, but one approach would be to limit newbies to only posting in existing threads, rather than starting new ones, until they reach some post limit. That wouldn't prevent a spammer from adding spam posts in existing threads, but it would stop new threads from being started. It would have the added benefit of forcing newbies to search for existing threads, rather than posting repetitive threads like "OMG! I have a VIRUS!" or "Buy now or wait?" or "MBP or MacBook" or a few dozen other repetitive threads.

Of course, it might be easier for mods to delete threads than specific posts in existing threads.

I certainly agree with limiting the frequency that a newbie can post.

[flopticalcube]

Not sure if I'd rather have the spammer start a new thread or have the mods have to edit existing ones. Your idea does have merit vis-a-vis the lack of searching, however. That would be welcome.

[alphaod]

MR really needs to use recaptcha. It take like 10 minutes to install and doesn't even require turning off the forums.

[angelwatt]

MR really needs to use recaptcha. It take like 10 minutes to install and doesn't even require turning off the forums.

Eww. I'm against that. They're totally un-user-friendly and lack accessibility most of the time. Also, spambots have ways to solve re/CAPTCHA so it's going to annoy real users more than spambots. If you've ever watched a spambot application at work you'd know that there are no current automated ways to stop them. From the spam I've seen on MR it's a combination of spambots and actual humans submitting spam. Even if you could stop the spambots, you wouldn't be able to prevent the human spammers.

[thegoldenmackid]

Eww. I'm against that. They're totally un-user-friendly and lack accessibility most of the time. Also, spambots have ways to solve re/CAPTCHA so it's going to annoy real users more than spambots. If you've ever watched a spambot application at work you'd know that there are no current automated ways to stop them. From the spam I've seen on MR it's a combination of spambots and actual humans submitting spam. Even if you could stop the spambots, you wouldn't be able to prevent the human spammers.
Exactly, particularly that lattermost inference, much of it is humans. The rule regarding posting the exact same thing really makes it much less inhabitable to machines.

[iBlue]

It's really getting ridiculous. We have some very clever minds behind the scenes at this forum, I can't believe no one has come up with a solution.

I suggested this in a post report but I'll say it again here.
Since the spamtwunts seem to post the same crappy text and same image, is there a way to filter any new threads started by newbies that use those terms? Then put those threads into a moderation queue?

[jessica.]

Maybe I missed the part where someone recommended to use a captcha that actually asked a question instead of those ones where normal people **** with the letters and computers can decode that crap in seconds. Why isn't that being implemented?

I'm thinking at the rate this is coming even if all of the mods were around they couldn't keep up. Something needs to be done server side.

[designgeek]

I just hope that something is done soon since the last few mornings I've been on here this happens. I like the idea of limiting n00bs and blocking repetitive content, there has to be a way. I remember a while ago we talked about links in the sigs or something like that. :confused:

[AdeFowler]

Would it not be a good idea to give contributors who've been around for a while the ability to delete these obvious spam threads? It's clear that the mods are overwhelmed, and whilst I haven't got the time to moderate, I'd be happy to zap a thread rather than report it.

[RKO]

Would it not be a good idea to give contributors who've been around for a while the ability to delete these obvious spam threads? It's clear that the mods are overwhelmed, and whilst I haven't got the time to moderate, I'd be happy to zap a thread rather than report it.

I think there are plenty of volunteers for the job. It appears the process is not as easy as we wish. See following thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=685099&page=3

[jessica.]

Would it not be a good idea to give contributors who've been around for a while the ability to delete these obvious spam threads? It's clear that the mods are overwhelmed, and whilst I haven't got the time to moderate, I'd be happy to zap a thread rather than report it.

Is that even possible? Just wondering as I have little knowledge of the capabilities of vBulletin.

[Unspoken Demise]

Would it not be a good idea to give contributors who've been around for a while the ability to delete these obvious spam threads? It's clear that the mods are overwhelmed, and whilst I haven't got the time to moderate, I'd be happy to zap a thread rather than report it.

I can think of many abuses for that power.
TheSpaz's threads are obvious spam, correct?

[AdeFowler]

I can think of many abuses for that power.
TheSpaz's threads are obvious spam, correct?

By spam, I mean threads that are selling products and services. We're all adult enough to know the difference between spammers and trolls ;)

[Unspoken Demise]

By spam, I mean threads that are selling products and services. We're all adult enough to know the difference between spammers and trolls ;)

Well played, sir.
And I knew what you meant. I was remarking I can see someone deleting a non-spam thread just because they can. RE: Me. :p

[designgeek]

Well played, sir.
And I knew what you meant. I was remarking I can see someone deleting a non-spam thread just because they can. RE: Me. :p

Perhaps they could be wastelanded or put somewhere similar to the spam folder on Gmail where people could request that a full blown Mod (not just anyone) reinstate the thread, otherwise after a few days or however long they're automatically deleted. I doubt a spammer is going to spend the time to request that his ads be reposted. Just a thought.

[Unspoken Demise]

Perhaps they could be wastelanded or put somewhere similar to the spam folder on Gmail where people could request that a full blown Mod (not just anyone) reinstate the thread, otherwise after a few days or however long they're automatically deleted. I doubt a spammer is going to spend the time to request that his ads be reposted. Just a thought.
Its a good thought. So you're saying remove them from Spy and new posts, to a que for deletion? This way threads deleted vengefully mistakenly can be reinstated, while spam will be deleted as mods do normally?

[jessica.]

Its a good thought. So you're saying remove them from Spy and new posts, to a que for deletion? This way threads deleted vengefully mistakenly can be reinstated, while spam will be deleted as mods do normally?

I would not worry too much about this to be honest. We are in similar boats and I believe mod privileges, even small ones, will never be granted to us on these forums. If I am wrong then I implore an admin to prove it. ;)

[Unspoken Demise]

I would not worry too much about this to be honest. We are in similar boats and I believe mod privileges, even small ones, will never be granted to us on these forums. If I am wrong then I implore an admin to prove it. ;)

But I would come down on TheSpaz/ InTheNet/Full of Fail spam with an iron fist!
*waits patiently for post deletion*

[-aggie-]

I think the mods know which demis not to give deletion privileges (for example, starts with U, ends with e). ;)

[edesignuk]

I think the mods know which demis not to give deletion privileges (for example, starts with U, ends with e). ;)yeah, nightmare.

[Unspoken Demise]

I think the mods know which demis not to give deletion privileges (for example, starts with U, ends with e). ;)

yeah, nightmare.

You guys are mean.
(You will be the first ones to go).

[edesignuk]

You guys are mean.
(You will be the first ones to go).I knew it! :p

[designgeek]

You guys are mean.
(You will be the first ones to go).

See, then you could delete this thread out of anger and it would be sent to "Death Row" (working title) and then someone with sense like Blue Velvet or Silent Panda could correct your folly and all would be well.;)

[Unspoken Demise]

I knew it! :p

You are on the way to destruction.
You have no chance to survive make your time.

See, then you could delete this thread out of anger and it would be sent to "Death Row" (working title) and then someone with sense like Blue Velvet or Silent Panda could correct your folly and all would be well.;)

Not if they are the 3rd and 4th to go. ;)
MAUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[-aggie-]

See, then you could delete this thread out of anger and it would be sent to "Death Row" (working title) and then someone with sense like Blue Velvet or Silent Panda could correct your folly and all would be well.;)

And then the "deleter" (or should I say "demiser") would get a TO and all would be well. :)

[Unspoken Demise]

And then the "deleter" (or should I say "demiser") would get a TO and all would be well. :)

:middlefingeremoticon:

[GGJstudios]

I'm sure that if this was implemented, anyone who abused their privileges would be subject to Time-Out or banning.

[thejadedmonkey]

What if you just made it so that any newbie who posts the same message twice is automatically blocked from posting anything else for a little while.

*thinks a minute* Then the spammer will get another account. Maybe it's better to just let them spam the board, then click their username, and delete everything they've done. Hmmm....

[-aggie-]

I think there are plenty of volunteers for the job. It appears the process is not as easy as we wish. See following thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=685099&page=3

I got tired of reading through the linked thread, but it looked like e made some observations and a mod shot down everything that was said by others due to a supposed long process to pick a mod. Note the dates of that thread are from April 2009. Nothing's changed.

[Gav2k]

There is a quick and simple way to stop the bots and that's manual user authenticition. That way every new user has to be vetted first. New users will offen search whilst there waiting and bots stand out like a sore thumb.

[flopticalcube]

I don't think more moderation is the key. When there are sufficient mods available, this bot gets shutdown very quickly. Its when there are no/few mods around the bot runs amok. A few rule changes might work without much disruption to genuine users while discouraging or at least slowing down the bots.

[WildCowboy]

I've missed a lot of the flurry of spammer activity since I'm not nearly as active in the forums as I used to be, but we're certainly aware of the issue and taking steps to deal with it. It hasn't been any fun dealing with it from our side either.

Our goal as always is to keep the forums as clean as possible while also putting as few barriers as possible in front of legitimate users looking to join the community. Restricting new threads pushes spammers into existing threads whether their mess is harder to clean-up. Manual approval of new accounts and/or moderation queues would certainly be a daunting task (and an everyday one instead of temporary bursts of spam activity) for our mods given the level of activity on the forums. So there's downside to everything.

We've already taken a couple of steps to address the issue, and while they certainly won't put a stop to it entirely, they should help. We'll continue to monitor things and do what we can to keep on top of it.

[flopticalcube]

Thanks for the reply WildCowboy. I know placing a greater burden on the mods is probably not the answer. Looking forward to your solutions in staying one step ahead of the spambots.

[MacNut]

Manually activating accounts won't always work, some spammers will make a post or 2 that are normal and then a week later start spamming.

[flopticalcube]

Whatever you a doing appears to be highly effective. Congrats! One post and they are gone.

[iBlue]

Yes, the mods are on top of it today. http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/thumbup.png

[Unspoken Demise]

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/thumbup.png
Is this where I bend over?

(Nice job on reducing spam Mods. Keep up the great work.)

[yg17]

Maybe I missed the part where someone recommended to use a captcha that actually asked a question instead of those ones where normal people **** with the letters and computers can decode that crap in seconds. Why isn't that being implemented?

I'm thinking at the rate this is coming even if all of the mods were around they couldn't keep up. Something needs to be done server side.

I think that's the best idea. I've seen it implemented on other forums and it works very well. All you do is create a few extremely easy questions that any human can answer, and on the registration form, one of those will be randomly selected and they'll have to provide the correct answer.

[xUKHCx]

It is still an issue and one that is being worked on, thanks for all the reports and helping us with this issue.

[miles01110]

He's back :-(

[iBlue]

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/gifs/NooooSPAM.gif

[flopticalcube]

He actually made it to 30 posts and is now a member. At this rate, he'll qualify for the Marketplace soon. :D

[r.j.s]

He actually made it to 30 posts and is now a member. At this rate, he'll qualify for the Marketplace soon. :D

There was one the other day that made it to 51 posts.

[Unspoken Demise]

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/gifs/NooooSPAM.gif

Oh my god thank you for that. Could you make that the size appropriate for a 'tar and send it to me via PM? :o

[thegoldenmackid]

He actually made it to 30 posts and is now a member. At this rate, he'll qualify for the Marketplace soon. :D

While I can't wait for the spam to start coming there.

[jessica.]

While I can't wait for the spam to start coming there.

Want to try that one again?

[iBlue]

Oh my god thank you for that. Could you make that the size appropriate for a 'tar and send it to me via PM? :o

It'll never get down to the file size limits without looking awful.

I've sent it in a few post reports the last couple days but decided to share with the group instead of just the mods. :p

[Unspoken Demise]

It'll never get down to the file size limits without looking awful.

I've sent it in a few post reports the last couple days but decided to share with the group instead of just the mods. :p

Regardless, its still incredibly awesome. This is one of those few times I would say "epic" if I didnt hate that word with passion. :D

Thanks for trying! :)

I usually just rhyme things with spam.
In report:
"Spam rhymes with ham"
"Lamb o' spam o' ding dong"

[Eraserhead]

Back again.

Maybe limiting new threads to 1/day for members with less than 100 posts would be a good idea...

[iBlue]

(thanks Unspoken Demise) :)

Back again.

Maybe limiting new threads to 1/day for members with less than 100 posts would be a good idea...

Not a bad idea. I would think even limiting it to one thread every 15 minutes would be helpful. Though the downside of that is the bots can just wait and the spam might not be caught by members if it's not as obvious. Seeing the forum spy blow up with spam means it's not going to go unnoticed and unreported. I digress.

edit: and what was just said below.

[flopticalcube]

Back again.

Maybe limiting new threads to 1/day for members with less than 100 posts would be a good idea...
This could drive the bots to post in existing threads however, which is more difficult to catch.

[Eraserhead]

Not a bad idea. I would think even limiting it to one thread every 15 minutes would be helpful.

True, that wouldn't be too bad even if it applied to all members.

Though the downside of that is the bots can just wait and the spam might not be caught by members if it's not as obvious. Seeing the forum spy blow up with spam means it's not going to go unnoticed and unreported. I digress.

True, but I expect most blatant spam does get caught pretty quickly - even if its only one post. Only the mods know for sure ;).

[Unspoken Demise]

What if one of us just took a hit for the team and bought one of their products? Maybe then they'd leave us alone? :o

[dmmcintyre3]

He's taken over almost the whole special intrests section. At least post the camera ad in the photography section that's two forums up from the one he posted the spam in

[Eraserhead]

What if one of us just took a hit for the team and bought one of their products? Maybe then they'd leave us alone? :o

That would make things worse :eek:.

Is this you trying to tell us you've bought v!Ag@ra from spam email?

[Unspoken Demise]

That would make things worse :eek:.

Is this you trying to tell us you've bought v!Ag@ra from spam email?

NO! ¬.¬

I actually have seen less spam in my email, more spam on here. Its like they migrated.

[Consultant]

Problem 1: they broke the captcha

Problem 2: there is no live spam filter at this time on MR

[Compile 'em all]

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/gifs/NooooSPAM.gif

This is genius!

[r.j.s]

They're really hitting hard this morning ...

[rhett7660]

I like the idea of giving a select few a delete button. I think we would know who is abusing the delete button by the amount of complaints etc generated. I think this would also elevate some of the strain put on the mods. I know I have been reporting like mad lately.

[dejo]

Perhaps. But a Delete button deals more with the symptom and less with the disease. There needs to be a solution to preventing these threads from popping up in the first place. That may be a more long-term prospect though.

[WildCowboy]

Apologies for the continued annoyances...we're still working on ideas for dealing with the issue with a minimum of disruption to legitimate users.

We have been and will probably continue to be testing some things out, so don't panic if forum behavior changes a bit from the usual as we tweak things here and there.

[rhett7660]

Perhaps. But a Delete button deals more with the symptom and less with the disease. There needs to be a solution to preventing these threads from popping up in the first place. That may be a more long-term prospect though.

I agree completely. However as an interm this might be a viable solution until the powers to be figure out a way to combat this.

[jav6454]

you can ban the ip address

i am against the 1 thread an hr as sometimes i create multiple threads within an hr at times

maybe the 1 thread per hr for newbies only? as all spammers are newbies obviously

I pretty much like this. Newbies are here to either:

1. Stay with us and post according to the rules
2. Spam.

Hence, restricting them is a good thing at first, then if they behave, they can all join us.

[Eraserhead]

Maybe limiting links to 1 per post for new members (the only time you really need more is when you're proving multiple points in PRSI :p) and maybe also restricting links in signatures to established members, so stuff like:

204790

Doesn't happen.

[gnasher729]

I pretty much like this. Newbies are here to either:

1. Stay with us and post according to the rules
2. Spam.

Hence, restricting them is a good thing at first, then if they behave, they can all join us.

Suggestion:

1. Newcomers can't post working links - they still can post links that I can read and manually type in, but no working links (if possible, the software that would normally detect links should insert a space somewhere so the links can't be just copied and pasted).

2. When a newcomer _replies_ to a post, add a button that allows every reader to rate the post as "likely human", or "no opinion", or "likely not human". With enough positive ratings, the newcomer is put into "normal" users. With enough negative ratings, the newcomer is thrown out.

(A reply like "I totally agree with what you said" which could equally be human or bot, should be rated "no opinion". Too many of those stop you from being elevated to the next level).

[Eraserhead]

Yeah because even my one link rule wouldn't prevent spam like this:

204848

[RKO]

Yeah because even my one link rule wouldn't prevent spam like this:

204848

And poor Shirly was a Demi too. What the!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flopticalcube]

And poor Shirly was a Demi too. What the!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I saw that one go by (and reported a few of her posts). Why do people pay and then spam? Not a very wise businessperson.

[GGJstudios]

I, too, have noticed that the spammers have now started showing up as "Demi-Gods." How did they manage that, since I'm sure they haven't contributed to the site!?

Also, another issue is that a spammer can post a new thread every 5-10 seconds, but we're restricted to 30 seconds between posts. They shouldn't have the ability to post faster than we can report.

I would agree with a policy that would limit someone with fewer than 30 posts to one post every 5 or 10 minutes. That would still allow newbies to post, but would be restrictive enough to prevent floods of spam before mods can intervene.

[arn]

yeah,

there was a configuration issue on our side regarding them appearing as Demi's. Should be fixed.

arn

[flopticalcube]

yeah,

there was a configuration issue on our side regarding them appearing as Demi's. Should be fixed.

arn
Interesting...

As long as they don't start appearing as mods, I'll keep reportin' 'em.

[SilentPanda]

Interesting...

As long as they don't start appearing as mods, I'll keep reportin' 'em.

If they start appearing as mods, call 911!

[rdowns]

yeah,

there was a configuration issue on our side regarding them appearing as Demi's. Should be fixed.

arn


Ah, I just assumed you put demis on the level of spammers. :p

[r.j.s]

Ah, I just assumed you put demis on the level of spammers. :p

Most of us are, aren't we?

[stridemat]

All demi's are basically spammers anyway :p

[jessica.]

yeah,

there was a configuration issue on our side regarding them appearing as Demi's. Should be fixed.

arnThis is good news, in that it's a system issue and not an issue of them actually paying cash to spam.

[dmr727]

Demis can deal with spam like the rest of us. $25 suddenly makes them special?

Whatever.

[dmmcintyre3]

yeah,

there was a configuration issue on our side regarding them appearing as Demi's. Should be fixed.

arn
How was that possible?

[redwarrior]

How was that possible?
Sounds pretty simple to me, but either way, I doubt very seriously that Arn will explain it any further.

[dejo]

$25 suddenly makes them special?
Actually it does, but since you aren't one I can't tell you why. :)

[Peterkro]

Actually it does, but since you aren't one I can't tell you why. :)

Elitist swine.:)

[sushi]

All demi's are basically spammers anyway :p
But we spam with content! :p :D

[Compile 'em all]

How was that possible?

Probably some dropdown list in which you select the users status on the forums. Wrong item selected.

BOOM...demigod!

[-aggie-]

Actually it does, but since you aren't one I can't tell you why. :)

Come on, tell us!

[jav6454]

Or it could simply be the vBulletin software showing its age. Seriously, we need to update it.

[trainguy77]

Come on, tell us!

I will tell you for a small donation of $25 to macrumors. :) Then you get to see for yourself.

[arn]

Or it could simply be the vBulletin software showing its age. Seriously, we need to update it.

updating vbulletin isn't going to fix this spam problem.

arn

[jav6454]

updating vbulletin isn't going to fix this spam problem.

arn

True, but it would give you more tools to help out wouldn't it?

[Unspoken Demise]

But we spam with content! :p :D

And passion! :)
Oh, and I luv yew ninja demis. <3

[miles01110]

How about restricting the posting of links until an account is x days old? That would solve a lot of problems re: spam. They do this on the xkcd forums, although I think you need 5 posts approved by a moderator before you can post links. Someone probably mentioned this already but I don't feel like going back 4 pages.