Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Less active forums becoming hubs for spam

Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 2:38:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Health, Sports, and Arts are in the saddest states.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

I think DDO needs to introduce a more comprehensive anti-spam system to prevent the increasing amounts of spam seen on the less frequently visited forums like Health, Sports, and Arts. This would essentially help prevent them from becoming solely a place for spammers to post with the least chance of getting noticed quickly, which is what they are developing in to.

------
Suggestions
- 50 posts on forums required or at least 3 completed debates required to create a forum topic. (the same system being used to obtain voting privileges)
- If a member has joined the site within 48 (or "x" amount of) hours, any of their created topics will not be visible on the forums until they are 'approved' or 'declined' by a human being.
- If a member has no debates or other significant activity on the site prior to creating a forum topic, any of created topics will not be visible on the forums until they are 'approved' or 'declined' by a human being.
- Ad Infinitum (contribute more possible ways of spam prevention)
------

This doesn't really increase the workload on moderators all that much. It changes the function of preventing spam from "reading each new account's topic creations to verify them" to "accepting or declining obvious spam". Brand new users who have honest intentions on DDO are not the most prevalent in topic creation, either way, so I suspect the suggested "approval/decline" list will be mostly spam.

If the methods that are currently being used to suppress spam continue without more cracking down on spammers, it will only progressively get worse. Not only are the less active forums being riddled with spam, it is rare to see frequently visited forums like Games without at least one spam tirade per day.

What do all of you think? :>
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 2:44:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't see this being plausible. That would be a lot of approving and denying of threads to make someone go through, and if it is spam bots then they still have to be banned to prevent further spam which just brings them back to the work they were already doing in the first place. Just seems really unnecessary.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 2:52:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think those suggestions will primarily hurt rising new members. Surely we don't want to deter rising new members from contributing to the site upon their arrival just to preempt spammers.

Here's what I would do:

(1) Set a rule that you can only post two threads per fifteen-minute interval, and they cannot be in the same forum

(2) Set a filter for repetition: i.e.., the second thread you post cannot be identical to the first.

(3) Extend this to profile comments: i.e, you cannot spam the same profile comment twice in a row in a fifteen-minute interval.

(4) Instant IP ban certain key words?

Hopefully that would be adequate.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 2:56:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 2:55:16 PM, UchihaMadara wrote:
At 9/7/2014 2:52:26 PM, BobTurner wrote:

(4) Instant IP ban certain key words?

lol which key words?

"Body building stimulants" would be a good start, lol.
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 2:57:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 2:56:05 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 9/7/2014 2:55:16 PM, UchihaMadara wrote:
At 9/7/2014 2:52:26 PM, BobTurner wrote:

(4) Instant IP ban certain key words?

lol which key words?

"Body building stimulants" would be a good start, lol.

but what if someone is having an intellectual discussion on whether or not they should be legalized and gets banned for it?
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 2:58:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 2:57:00 PM, UchihaMadara wrote:
At 9/7/2014 2:56:05 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 9/7/2014 2:55:16 PM, UchihaMadara wrote:
At 9/7/2014 2:52:26 PM, BobTurner wrote:

(4) Instant IP ban certain key words?

lol which key words?

"Body building stimulants" would be a good start, lol.

but what if someone is having an intellectual discussion on whether or not they should be legalized and gets banned for it?

Yeah, true....

Perhaps there would be some way to filter out carbon copies of old spam posts, or at least posts that are, say, 80% identical. Or at the very least subject those posts to moderation before they're posted.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:01:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 2:52:26 PM, BobTurner wrote:
I think those suggestions will primarily hurt rising new members. Surely we don't want to deter rising new members from contributing to the site upon their arrival just to preempt spammers.
We already kinda do that in the form of voting privilege, and it was done years ago when improper voting got out of hand.

Now, the forums and improper topic creation is getting out of hand. I think the same measures should begin to be put in place.

How many of us created forum topics before we reached a few dozen posts?

Here's what I would do:

(1) Set a rule that you can only post two threads per fifteen-minute interval, and they cannot be in the same forum
This is very logical.
(2) Set a filter for repetition: i.e.., the second thread you post cannot be identical to the first.
Agree.
(3) Extend this to profile comments: i.e, you cannot spam the same profile comment twice in a row in a fifteen-minute interval.
Agree.
(4) Instant IP ban certain key words?
.. this could be a cause for accidental trouble. lol.

Hopefully that would be adequate.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:04:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 2:44:27 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I don't see this being plausible. That would be a lot of approving and denying of threads to make someone go through, and if it is spam bots then they still have to be banned to prevent further spam which just brings them back to the work they were already doing in the first place. Just seems really unnecessary.
The majority of the threads that would need to be approved are going to be spam threads anyway. This wouldn't block forum posts, only new topic creation for users with less than 3 debates or 50 forum posts or (x form of identification)

There are not many legitimate new users who would be blocked by it, imo. It'd essentially just be a list of 90% spam.
Either way, tis just a suggestion. Something obviously should be done to lessen spam, even if it's at the cost of preventing new users from being OP's for a bit.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 4:48:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 3:01:39 PM, Daltonian wrote:
We already kinda do that in the form of voting privilege, and it was done years ago when improper voting got out of hand.


Voting is a bit different than posting in the forums. Posting in the forums is fundamental to being a member of the site. Voting, rightfully, requires a premium of time -- you have to earn your voting privileges, and rightfully so.

Now, the forums and improper topic creation is getting out of hand. I think the same measures should begin to be put in place.

How would you integrate new members into the site if they can't even post in the forums to introduce themselves, seek out debates, become acquainted with others in order to find topics and people to debate, etc.? It sounds overly harsh, and far too expansive. It completely misses the mark of combating the actual problem.

How many of us created forum topics before we reached a few dozen posts?

I may have. I think my first post was seeking out debates.

Here's what I would do:

(1) Set a rule that you can only post two threads per fifteen-minute interval, and they cannot be in the same forum
This is very logical.

Cool.

(2) Set a filter for repetition: i.e.., the second thread you post cannot be identical to the first.
Agree.

Cool again.

(3) Extend this to profile comments: i.e, you cannot spam the same profile comment twice in a row in a fifteen-minute interval.
Agree.

Colio.
(4) Instant IP ban certain key words?
.. this could be a cause for accidental trouble. lol.


Agreed..only on option 4, though. The other three should be implemented immediately.

Hopefully that would be adequate.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 6:54:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 4:48:37 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 9/7/2014 3:01:39 PM, Daltonian wrote:
We already kinda do that in the form of voting privilege, and it was done years ago when improper voting got out of hand.


Voting is a bit different than posting in the forums. Posting in the forums is fundamental to being a member of the site. Voting, rightfully, requires a premium of time -- you have to earn your voting privileges, and rightfully so.

Now, the forums and improper topic creation is getting out of hand. I think the same measures should begin to be put in place.

How would you integrate new members into the site if they can't even post in the forums to introduce themselves, seek out debates, become acquainted with others in order to find topics and people to debate, etc.? It sounds overly harsh, and far too expansive. It completely misses the mark of combating the actual problem.
No, you misunderstand my proposal. New members would still be able to *post* in the forums, they just wouldn't be able to create original threads or new topics (i.e, be the original poster). Akin to how one must partake in three debates before judging one, one must partake in "x" number of discussions before starting one by having "x" number of posts.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby