MR spammers

[Doctor Q]

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]

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. Its pretty funny seeing what is actually in that giant, vast, wasteland of a wasteland.

 

[jimjiminyjim]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.