Spam signatures

[tadad1]

I have noticed an increase in the number of "macrumors newbie" members who seem to be setting up accounts just to spam off site links in their signatures, usually they are easy to spot as most of the posts are off topic, make little sense or are complete jibberish.


Perhaps this could be remedied by making the signature feature only usable once the member has graduated from "macrumors newbie" status.

 

[spinnerlys]

Good idea, like with the avatar limit I guess.

You can always use the

button to report it, it works quite well, but limiting it to a post count would take some load off the moderators I guess.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I really like the idea. It'll certainly fix the issue. Otoh, perhaps having any links in your sig when new is good. You still get a sig but no spam link.

 

[sushi]

This issue does seem more common these days.

The idea of a minimal post count before allowing a signature or signature w/links seems reasonable.

You can always use the

button to report it, it works quite well

Agree. This solution works well.

 

[My name is Alex]

I guess you could take it away so I have to earn it, but I like having my Jacob and Man in Black quote there...

 

[MacDawg]

I am not sure we need additional limits and restrictions. The majority of new posters abide by the rules and are not abusing the system. We always notice the offenders more than those who are not causing trouble. It would seem a little unfortunate to penalize all of the ones who are complying with the rules just because a few spammers do not. We all hate situations where we are caught in a blanket discipline because a few people spoil it for the rest of us.

I think reporting the posts/users and dealing with the offenders individually is sufficient until is gets completely unmanageable. While there has been an increase, I think for the most part these issues are dealt with fairly quickly and efficiently when reported.

 

[spinnerlys]

I am not sure we need additional limits and restrictions. The majority of new posters abide by the rules and are not abusing the system. We always notice the offenders more than those who are not causing trouble. It would seem a little unfortunate to penalize all of the ones who are complying with the rules just because a few spammers do not. We all hate situations where we are caught in a blanket discipline because a few people spoil it for the rest of us.

I think reporting the posts/users and dealing with the offenders individually is sufficient until is gets completely unmanageable. While there has been an increase, I think for the most part these issues are dealt with fairly quickly and efficiently when reported.

What about approval of signatures by moderators? Say someone has less than 50 posts and wants to have a signature, the moderator has to first look at it and approve it. Might be impossible with the current software though.

 

[iBlue]

What about approval of signatures by moderators? Say someone has less than 50 posts and wants to have a signature, the moderator has to first look at it and approve it. Might be impossible with the current software though.

Oh my god, that would be a lot of moderator work. Hell of a lot easier to just restrict signatures until 20 posts or something.

Personally I just report sigvertising and it tends to get dealt with quickly.

 

[MacDawg]

What about approval of signatures by moderators? Say someone has less than 50 posts and wants to have a signature, the moderator has to first look at it and approve it. Might be impossible with the current software though.

I personally think approving all of the signatures for new members would create an even greater burden on the moderators than dealing with the spammers

 

[spinnerlys]

I personally think approving all of the signatures for new members would create an even greater burden on the moderators than dealing with the spammers

I agree, but not many have signatures anyway. Was just an idea.

iBlue, 20 posts sounds good.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Funny thing is, in about six years here at MR, but not counting the time spent moderating, I've probably checked out links in people's signatures maybe a handful of times at most.

Apologies if I'm missing a world of entertainment, splendour, pleasure and riches by not checking out links in everyone's sigs. Although I like a well-crafted pithy statement, following links is just not something I feel personally compelled to do, so am left wondering how effective a spamming tool it actually is.

 

[MacDawg]

...so am left wondering how effective a spamming tool it actually is.

Probably not very effective at all, but since overt spamming gets squashed pretty quickly, this is at least a subtle and subversive way to try to get your link out there a little longer and maybe escape the ever searching eye of Sauron. Sorry... watched the Lord of the Rings again.

 

[SilentPanda]

If somebody spams, I prefer the link to be in their signature. This way if I delete all their posts and ban them, I know their spam link wasn't quoted by anybody. Just don't tell the spammers that.

 

[sushi]

What about approval of signatures by moderators?

I think that would result in more work for the limited moderator staff.

IMHO, something automatic would be better. To be a member, you must have 30 posts. So maybe set that as the level. That is assuming the forum software supports such a setup.

Then again, maybe it's not really that much of an issue to begin with.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Sorry... watched the Lord of the Rings again.

No apologies necessary at all.
————————————————————————————
LOTR coffee mugs, screensavers, Tshirts and figurines.

 

[sushi]

No apologies necessary at all.
————————————————————————————
LOTR coffee mugs, screensavers, Tshirts and figurines.

That's the first Rick Roll by image (picture) that I've received.

 

[DylanLikesPorn]

sigs should be useful, like mine.

 

[robbieduncan]

Perhaps this could be remedied by making the signature feature only usable once the member has graduated from "macrumors newbie" status.

I've suggested this in the past. Nothing came of it...

 

[iBlue]

Amusingly I just reported a sigvertiser. It's always the same. Bumping old threads with boring, contextless drivel and a suspiciously related signature link to the topic.

 

[robbieduncan]

Amusingly I just reported a sigvertiser. It's always the same. Bumping old threads with boring, contextless drivel and a suspiciously related signature link to the topic.

Me too. I suspect it was the same thread/spam sig.

 

[SilentPanda]

I've suggested this in the past. Nothing came of it...

I wouldn't say nothing came of it. It just wasn't implemented. I know most if not all of the mods on up read this forum. A bunch of good ideas come through here. Some are used, some are not, some are refined and operate in a way different than originally suggested.

It's also good to have these things brought back up once in a while. What wasn't an idea we would've done last year might be one we'd do this year. Also as new people come to the forum and older members have traversed other forums, they might have a new idea for implementing it.

In the case of signature spam we have to think, "Well what would spammers do instead?", "What is the impact to normal users?", and "How often do we have to cleanup this mess and how troublesome is it?". We've even read through documentation on spam bots that you can purchase to see what the software's reaction typically is to this.

Overall I think it was found that the spammers would adjust (so little to no impact to them), new users might get frustrated, and if they didn't put spam links in their signatures, they'd put them in their posts. I actually get more frustrated cleaning up people that quote spam than I do cleaning up the actual spam although it's fairly rare.

I know sushi's post a bit up there quoting Blue Velvet's fake spam was in jest, but if Blue Velvet had been a spammer and then sushi quoted it 2 pages later in the thread saying something like "OMG Spam!", the odds of us finding the quote of it is fairly slim. Now if BV had had the link in the signature area, sushi wouldn't have quoted it and while the quote might remain, the link would not.

PS. Please don't read this spammers.
PSS. Please don't quote spam.

 

[robbieduncan]

SilentPanda, many thanks for that. I should have said, "Nothing visible changed because of it". Clearly you and the other moderators, admins and gods discuss this things.

Instead of blocking signatures for new users of even visibly blocking the adding of links could the forum software just silently remove them (in the same way that a small number of domains are silently blocked)? That way the spambot would not know that anything was amiss and react...

 

[iBlue]

PSS. Please don't quote spam.

I've occasionally replied when it's particularly amusing but I don't quote it because I know that's got to be a bigger pain to clean up. (Whereas I know a thread can just go "poof"... um, in a manner of speaking.)

I didn't think of it in such a way that if it weren't signatures that it would just be in posts. Sigs are probably the less imposing of the two options. Bloody spammers.

 

[SilentPanda]

SilentPanda, many thanks for that. I should have said, "Nothing visible changed because of it". Clearly you and the other moderators, admins and gods discuss this things.

Instead of blocking signatures for new users of even visibly blocking the adding of links could the forum software just silently remove them (in the same way that a small number of domains are silently blocked)? That way the spambot would not know that anything was amiss and react...

I wasn't really getting on you. I knew you knew that, I just didn't want other people to think this forum goes unnoticed. It's probably the one forum I make a point to read pretty much everything in. I'd guess other mods do too!

If we started silently removing signatures of every single newbie (even via software instead of manually) then we'd get a lot of legitimate newbies asking "why does my signature keep disappearing?"

I've occasionally replied when it's particularly amusing but I don't quote it because I know that's got to be a bigger pain to clean up.

Amended! Sometimes even responded to a thread a spammer has posted in can cause cleanup. I think the iPhone factory girl is currently our most "spammable" thread due to the amount of outside links to MacRumors to it. So a spammer spams it, then a bunch of people start carrying on a completely random conversation in the thread, we remove the spam, now we have your post seemingly bumping a few year old thread with just an amusing comment... now people are confused why iBlue brought this thread back from the grave...

Of course, I'm not picking on you specifically, but usually responses to thread necros are removed too lest old topics become newly popular in the forum spy.

 

[iBlue]

Amended! Sometimes even responded to a thread a spammer has posted in can cause cleanup. I think the iPhone factory girl is currently our most "spammable" thread due to the amount of outside links to MacRumors to it. So a spammer spams it, then a bunch of people start carrying on a completely random conversation in the thread, we remove the spam, now we have your post seemingly bumping a few year old thread with just an amusing comment... now people are confused why iBlue brought this thread back from the grave...

Of course, I'm not picking on you specifically, but usually responses to thread necros are removed too lest old topics become newly popular in the forum spy.

Ah, people think I'm a bit weird anyway (it's a fair assumption). Although I'm sure I've done the existing thread reply thing, I more meant the fresh threads started by a spammer where they've gone and advertised something so stupid I can't help but call it what it is. As a general rule I just report spam, sometimes with content intended to amuse the mod(s) who finds it.