New acct limitation suggestion

[Ciclismo]

Hi,

I am relatively new here, but I am no stranger to forums. I have been on some very good, and many really bad forums. And after searching for an Apple forum to join as I enter the world of Mac (I'm one of those that does endless research before spending more than $20, and am happy to share my discoveries) I came to the conclusion that this one is undoubtedly one of the best.

I have noticed, however, that this forum suffers a bit from spam, usually in spurts, but enough to be annoying. I would like to suggest a modification to the posting permissions that would counter this: I'd like to see that new accounts are limited to posting in existing threads only and prohibited from creating new threads until they have posted a considerable number of times (10-15 times would more than suffice, but 5 would be the minimum).

As it would require spammers to expend considerable effort before they could create their spam threads, it would undoubtedly have a considerable positive effect in decreasing spam accounts.

Furthermore this would, in my opinion, result in new members becoming more aware of the core forum etiquette of searching for existing threads that may answer or address one's issues, instead of just joining up and creating a new thread in an attempt to be spoon fed information. One of the forums I used to frequent initially did this and it was a nice atmosphere of interested individuals that actively participated and contributed to the forum. When it was abolished, however, several of us veterans left because the forum grew in memberships, but no longer developed or evolved in terms of content quality.


What do you guys think?

 

[FourCandles]

FWIW I've seen more spam posts recently that are within existing threads than starting new ones.

There seems to be a spate of new "members" (i.e. macrumors newbies) posting simple, probably automated replies to thread and then having links to whatever they're promoting in their sigs; or quoting the most recent post from the thread and doing same; or copying word-for-word a post a few posts previously and again with the links in the sig.

 

[stridemat]

So if a person came to the site to ask a question on a subject that had not be asked before they would not be able to until they have reached a certain post count?

 

[-aggie-]

This would cause people needing help to look elsewhere. Also, it's been discussed before, and the idea was nixed.

 

[iDisk]

So if a person came to the site to ask a question on a subject that had not be asked before they would not be able to until they have reached a certain post count?

Its about quality on a forum not trash and 9/10 their question can be MRoogled.

This would cause people needing help to look elsewhere. Also, it's been discussed before, and the idea was nixed.

Not really, potential memebers would be required to MRoogle their questions. Instead of making redundant threads. For example check the iPhone forum

 

[iDisk]

Hi,

I am relatively new here, but I am no stranger to forums. I have been on some very good, and many really bad forums. And after searching for an Apple forum to join as I enter the world of Mac (I'm one of those that does endless research before spending more than $20, and am happy to share my discoveries) I came to the conclusion that this one is undoubtedly one of the best.

I have noticed, however, that this forum suffers a bit from spam, usually in spurts, but enough to be annoying. I would like to suggest a modification to the posting permissions that would counter this: I'd like to see that new accounts are limited to posting in existing threads only and prohibited from creating new threads until they have posted a considerable number of times (10-15 times would more than suffice, but 5 would be the minimum).

As it would require spammers to expend considerable effort before they could create their spam threads, it would undoubtedly have a considerable positive effect in decreasing spam accounts.

Furthermore this would, in my opinion, result in new members becoming more aware of the core forum etiquette of searching for existing threads that may answer or address one's issues, instead of just joining up and creating a new thread in an attempt to be spoon fed information. One of the forums I used to frequent initially did this and it was a nice atmosphere of interested individuals that actively participated and contributed to the forum. When it was abolished, however, several of us veterans left because the forum grew in memberships, but no longer developed or evolved in terms of content quality.


What do you guys think?

great idea, send to the site admins

 

[maflynn]

Its about quality on a forum not trash and 9/10 their question can be MRoogled

Many people don't use MRoogle, many new members have no idea and forcing people have a certain post count to create a thread will only cause the +1/Me to replies.

When a person needs to resolve a problem that's impacting his computer, the last thing he needs to do is wait for his post count go up.

 

[Hellhammer]

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before.

1. Most people join this site because they have a question. If they were forced to make posts before they could create a thread, that could possibly drive them away because A) they may not have anything to say on existing threads B) they would spam, causing more work for mods. Due that, they could go to another forum with no such rule. This forum should be open for everyone

2. Spammers wouldn't go away. 5 posts can be made in two minutes so spammers could possibly spam 5 posts in order to create a thread. Again, more work for already overworking mods due extra posts.

I don't even find spamming to be such big deal. I see it every day on Forum Spy but before I click the thread, it's already gone so thanks to mods for quick work This wouldn't really solve the problem but could easily decrease the amount of new registrations and confuse newcomers.

This isn't just for us veterans, if there are no newbie threads, then at least I get bored. Most of the threads I reply are created by newbies. Yes, most of the questions have already been answered and can be found via MRroogle but what's the point of this forum if you're not allowed to ask? The amount of veterans is fairly small compared to total number of members. Also, the percentage of spammers is also tiny. This would cause more harm than help IMO

 

[Doctor Q]

The spamming is annoying, but we'd rather put up with some bad posts (and delete them as quickly as we can) than keep legitimate new users from asking questions the most appropriate way. It's a tradeoff but we've made a conscious decision not to implement restrictions like this on new users.

 

[EricNau]

The spamming is annoying, but we'd rather put up with some bad posts (and delete them as quickly as we can) than keep legitimate new users from asking questions the most appropriate way. It's a tradeoff but we've made a conscious decision not to implement restrictions like this on new users.

Is there currently a limit on the number of threads one can start in a given period of time? For example, users with less than 50 posts could only start one thread every 10 minutes.

In the past I've seen spammers start numerous threads every minute, and seeing how one can only send one post report every 30 seconds, it's as if one can spam faster than the threads can be reported. Just a thought.

 

[sammich]

Is there currently a limit on the number of threads one can start in a given period of time? For example, users with less than 50 posts could only start one thread every 10 minutes.

In the past I've seen spammers start numerous threads every minute, and seeing how one can only send one post report every 30 seconds, it's as if one can spam faster than the threads can be reported. Just a thought.

You beat me to it!

How about limiting new thread creation for members with less than 10 posts day to once every 10 minutes or something. That would kill spam instantly.

 

[lbro]

Is there a way to find out the ip address of the spammers or something like that and block their addresses from posting here?

 

[GGJstudios]

This is not a new question. Here's how WildCowboy answered it before:

It's also easier for us to clean up spam threads than spam posts inserted into existing threads, particularly when people have responded to the spam posts.

That's part of the reason we ask users to simply report spam posts and move on. In cases where people have responded to spam posts in existing threads, cleaning up the responses takes significantly more work than cleaning up the actual spam.

Is there a way to find out the ip address of the spammers or something like that and block their addresses from posting here?

No, since IP addresses can be faked/disguised easily by proxy servers.

How about limiting new thread creation for members with less than 10 posts day to once every 10 minutes or something. That would kill spam instantly.

The spammers would simply create multiple new accounts and spam from all of them.

In the past I've seen spammers start numerous threads every minute, and seeing how one can only send one post report every 30 seconds, it's as if one can spam faster than the threads can be reported. Just a thought.

You don't have to report every spam thread posted by a spammer. Just report one and the mods know to ban the spammer and delete all threads they created.

Its about quality on a forum not trash and 9/10 their question can be MRoogled.
Not really, potential memebers would be required to MRoogle their questions. Instead of making redundant threads. For example check the iPhone forum

As most of you know, I've been known to suggest MRoogle a couple of times in the past. Here's the way I see it: A newbie who's unfamiliar with the forum shouldn't be expected to know about MRoogle at first. That's why it's helpful to respond by posting link(s) to existing threads that answer their oft-repeated question, along with a suggestion to use MRoogle to find answers to future questions.

Most are very appreciative about the tip and are happy to use it. Only occasionally will you run into someone who has a bad attitude about the MRoogle suggestion, and usually those negative responses don't come from the OP, but from someone who's been around for a while, already knows about MRoogle, and hasn't even tried to help the OP. Instead, they'd rather attack those in the thread who are trying to help. But that's the way of the internet.

 

[angelwatt]

Is there a way to find out the ip address of the spammers or something like that and block their addresses from posting here?

IP addresses aren't consistent enough and the spammers come from several sources, including using legitimate user's machines (botnets), that make blocking by IP unreasonable and inevitably results in blocking legitimate users.

 

[Ciclismo]

As most of you know, I've been known to suggest MRoogle a couple of times in the past. Here's the way I see it: A newbie who's unfamiliar with the forum shouldn't be expected to know about MRoogle at first. That's why it's helpful to respond by posting link(s) to existing threads that answer their oft-repeated question, along with a suggestion to use MRoogle to find answers to future questions.

Most are very appreciative about the tip and are happy to use it. Only occasionally will you run into someone who has a bad attitude about the MRoogle suggestion, and usually those negative responses don't come from the OP, but from someone who's been around for a while, already knows about MRoogle, and hasn't even tried to help the OP. Instead, they'd rather attack those in the thread who are trying to help. But that's the way of the internet.

Thanks for that - I understand where you are coming from and found it enlightening. I will in future do exactly that (post links to existing threads) but I might steal your signature too

 

[GGJstudios]

... but I might steal your signature too

It's ok. I stole it from annk, so I figure it's "moderator-approved".