Minimum posts to make a thread....

yg17

macrumors G5
Original poster
Aug 1, 2004
14,910
2,515
St. Louis, MO
In light of what seems to be an increasing amount of spam being posted...whether it's paypal scams, referral links for the free___.com sites, or just any other sort of advertisement, I think it might be a good idea to implement a minimum number of posts required before you can make a new thread. I realize many people here sign up to post a question for help, so make the minimum something small, like 5 posts. They can easily achieve that, either by helping others or participating in the community chat. But the people registering just to spam us probably won't waste their time.
 

thedude110

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2005
2,478
2
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't like it.

Better to have a bit of spam than to ask someone who needs help with their machine to have to spam their way to that help!
 

Kernow

macrumors 65816
Sep 30, 2005
1,438
0
Kingston-Upon-Thames
I tend to agree with thedude110. I feel that this could alienate people who come here to look for help. It could also lead to an increase in thread hijacking as people who don't want to wait to exceed the limit just jump on someone else's thread to get their question answered.
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,922
169
Some forums I have posted on have the first two posts by a newcomer cleared by a moderator before appearing about 12 hours later. :eek:

Somehow, I don't think the resources are here for that kind of scrutiny... but one can still wish.
 

Applespider

macrumors G4
or spammers just post in other threads rather than starting their own - which make it much harder to clean up.

The mods are usually pretty much fast off the blocks in wastelanding spam so much so that if you go and look in the Wasteland, there's usually more than you ever saw in the first place. But perhaps all the boys have had busy weekends so there's been more around for slightly longer this weekend...

It's those who keep bumping the spam back up the board despite someone already saying that it's been reported that get me. One report will be enough; it doesn't need multiple reports with multiple comments to say it's been done.
 

Felldownthewell

macrumors 65816
Feb 10, 2006
1,053
0
Portland
I think that something could be done about the spam (not sure what- I honestly haven't noticed it that much) but not this. A lot of newcomers come here not to join the community but to ask questions- in new threads. I think if we put a post limit we'd see a huge number of hijacked threads-

"Hey, yah, you should wait for Merom. But I'm new here and I'm wondering if anyone knows how much RAM the MBP can handle?!"

-simply because people could not post their own questions...
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,922
169
Applespider said:
It's those who keep bumping the spam back up the board despite someone already saying that it's been reported that get me. One report will be enough; it doesn't need multiple reports with multiple comments to say it's been done.
Exactly. No. 1 pet hate of mine. I can just imagine the OP being pleased to see his/her pile of droppings being constantly bumped by people who think they're being helpful, funny or clever. :rolleyes:
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
13,979
3
Gone but not forgotten.
Applespider said:
or spammers just post in other threads rather than starting their own - which make it much harder to clean up.

The mods are usually pretty much fast off the blocks in wastelanding spam so much so that if you go and look in the Wasteland, there's usually more than you ever saw in the first place. But perhaps all the boys have had busy weekends so there's been more around for slightly longer this weekend...

It's those who keep bumping the spam back up the board despite someone already saying that it's been reported that get me. One report will be enough; it doesn't need multiple reports with multiple comments to say it's been done.
It doesn't need the comments about being reported. It just needs to be reported. Far too often, it seems to me, things aren't reported.

I don't think it matters when someone is able to start a thread, you're not going to be able to keep that person from spamming--only that person can do it.
 
L

Lau

Guest
I wouls imagine as well that it would be useful for the mods if the first person to get to a spam thread said 'reported' in their post, so everyone knows it has been. I don't know how the reporting system works, but I imagine it's a giant PM/post style list, and 30 duplicate reportings must get annoying. When a spam thread has a big list of "SPAM!" and "Wasteland this!" posts after it, I'm never sure whether any of those people have actually reported it or not, and therefore not sure whether to report it myself.
 

eva01

macrumors 601
Feb 22, 2005
4,714
0
Gah! Plymouth
What i have liked is the ability of a modification to not let a member post a URL until they have hit a certain number of posts

It wouldn't let the post go through it would give an error


There was also a modification a while back that would change referral URLs to the administrators referral number :p (kinda useless but i found it funny)
 

Jaffa Cake

macrumors Core
Aug 1, 2004
19,802
6
The City of Culture, Englandshire
My first ever post on these forums was in a thread of my own starting, asking for some technical advice. Had I needed to have reached a certain post count before I was able to start that thread, I probably wouldn't have bothered and thus wouldn't be here today (anyone who says this would have been a good reason to have the rule in place gets a slap ;)).

I think potential new members who are wanting to post a legitimate new thread would either feel the same way, or just spam away until they reach the required number of posts which is defeating the object of the restriction in the first place. Granted, it may discourage the odd spammer or trouble causer, but it might also dissuade people who may well become regular and valuable members.

And I don't think it would discourage commercial spammers selling their wares, either – it would just move the problem. Rather than starting their own thread they'd just post their spam in other ones. You do see it on some other forums – you start reading a thread and halfway through you start seeing links to acquire medications, download saucy images or buy dodgy watches. Not what you want to see as you read a thread.
 

Jaffa Cake

macrumors Core
Aug 1, 2004
19,802
6
The City of Culture, Englandshire
eva01 said:
What i have liked is the ability of a modification to not let a member post a URL until they have hit a certain number of posts
Once again, I can see the pros and cons of this one – I think it would be great in so far as it would stop spammers posting dodgy links, while allowing people with legitimate questions the ability to start a new thread about their problem. On the other hand, are we ready for the avalanche of 'why cant i post a link????OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!' threads that would spring up?
 

eva01

macrumors 601
Feb 22, 2005
4,714
0
Gah! Plymouth
Jaffa Cake said:
Once again, I can see the pros and cons of this one – I think it would be great in so far as it would stop spammers posting dodgy links, while allowing people with legitimate questions the ability to start a new thread about their problem. On the other hand, are we ready for the avalanche of 'why cant i post a link????OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!' threads that would spring up?
I would just make the limit for not posting URLs be one post. If they make the post and state in the post they can't make a URL in it, then that is fine they can then go back after making a second post and edit the first one to make a URL.

I would prefer having one post without a URL stopping spam URLs than having them.

For me the pros outweigh the cons in this situation.
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
13,979
3
Gone but not forgotten.
Lau said:
I wouls imagine as well that it would be useful for the mods if the first person to get to a spam thread said 'reported' in their post, so everyone knows it has been. I don't know how the reporting system works, but I imagine it's a giant PM/post style list, and 30 duplicate reportings must get annoying. When a spam thread has a big list of "SPAM!" and "Wasteland this!" posts after it, I'm never sure whether any of those people have actually reported it or not, and therefore not sure whether to report it myself.
During my year as a moderator, I never saw 30 reports on any one thing, even the pyramid schemes.

Besides, as untrusting and cynical as I am, someone posting "reported" doesn't mean that they've reported it. They might just be padding their post count.
 
L

Lau

Guest
bousozoku said:
During my year as a moderator, I never saw 30 reports on any one thing, even the pyramid schemes.

Besides, as untrusting and cynical as I am, someone posting "reported" doesn't mean that they've reported it. They might just be padding their post count.
Ooh, that's good to know. I'll start flexing my 'reporting' finger then. :p
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
37,549
3,625
Los Angeles
Sometimes we get a dozen Bad Post Reports about a spammer's thread before we can jump on it, because the moderators had the nerve to sleep, eat, work, or do something else unproductive instead of staying on duty, but that's unusual and we don't mind getting multi-reports nevertheless. The minor disadvantage of posting in spammer threads, even to post jeers, is that they pop up to the top of the New Posts list again. I happen to think that posting "reported" is fine (and gives you bragging rights for being the first to spot it!), but that further posts are usually unnecessary. However, there is no rule regarding this so use your own judgement.
 

dmw007

macrumors G4
May 26, 2005
10,635
0
Working for MI-6
thedude110 said:
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't like it.

Better to have a bit of spam than to ask someone who needs help with their machine to have to spam their way to that help!

Good point thedude110, I agree. :)
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,922
169
Doctor Q said:
...because the moderators had the nerve to sleep, eat, work, or do something else unproductive instead of staying on duty...
Damned inconvenient of them. More stick, less carrot; I think. ;)
 

sunfast

macrumors 68020
Oct 14, 2005
2,105
0
London
I registered in order to post for help with my first mac so I started loads of threads as a newbie desperate for help. So I wouldn't support a move for a minimum post count.
 

UKnjb

macrumors 6502a
May 23, 2005
717
0
London, UK
sunfast said:
I registered in order to post for help with my first mac so I started loads of threads as a newbie desperate for help. So I wouldn't support a move for a minimum post count.
Same here. This has been the only forum with which I've ever been involved and if there had been all sorts of qualifying rules and regulations and stuff, it would have scared me off and I would never have had my questions asked and not been in a position to help later.

Surely everything smooths out and the odd bits of nonsense can be accomodated?
 

tveric

macrumors 6502
Jun 23, 2003
400
0
Agreed. These forums are already populated pretty well with the snobbiest holier-than-thou types on the net. Add some asinine requirement like this and you'll only be increasing that ratio.
 

eva01

macrumors 601
Feb 22, 2005
4,714
0
Gah! Plymouth
tveric said:
Agreed. These forums are already populated pretty well with the snobbiest holier-than-thou types on the net. Add some asinine requirement like this and you'll only be increasing that ratio.
you know basically every site has that type of people correct?
 

WildCowboy

Administrator/Editor
Staff member
Jan 20, 2005
17,268
1,175
eva01 said:
you know basically every site has that type of people correct?
No...we're better (and holier) than people on other forums. ;)