Note I made sure to include "RATIONAL" in the title of this. While we might all like to see the spammers strung up by their nuts and dipped into a pool full of starving alligators, it's not very rational to expect this as a valid solution to the problem.
The problem here is how to deal with the spammers without putting in draconian posting measures that risk alienating legitimate new users or existing users. This is not meant as a my-suggestion-is-the-only-way type of post, but more of a work in progress. One person suggests something, another person revises it, etc. My only request is that you try to consider the drawbacks to your suggestions as well as the benefits.
Of course one option is to continue the way things are now. Amusing for awhile, when we all jump in to mock the spammers.. but it's already getting boring.. and the spam is getting worse.
My initial thoughts are that maybe we could use some kind of Welcome to the Forum section (perhaps a rework of User Rides?) that new users can only post to for X number of posts. (we'll say 5 for now, just to have a number attached to it) All other forums would be read-only to that user until then. If spammers try to invade, they're restricted to that forum until hopefully someone can come along and ban them. If legitimate new users come along and post questions that are easily addressed by existing topics, they can be directed to those threads and their posts can remain in the new user section. If they post a thread that might merit saving, it could be moved over to the proper forum at the end of their trial period.
The drawbacks to this are more moderation, (both increased load on the existing admins and probably a demand for more mods) which can have its own set of problems. Also, I'm reasonably certain many users would quickly tire of going into the newbie section because it would turn into spam hell. Of course, the spammers can just spam in X number of messages to get around it.. but hopefully most of the time they would be caught and restricted before this happened.
Well I never said it was a perfect idea.. but hopefully the rest of you can build on it. My hope is that this problem can be mostly dealt with without the board turning into one of those highly xenophobic places where new users have to be approved and things like that.
Rather than limit new users to a single forum, how about setting it up that a new user has to complete X amount of posts before having full access to free posting.
Each of their posts up to the magical X number can be sent to one of the admins to be approved or discarded.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of the workings of these message forums and what limitations we may have. I'm just going on the way it is on a few other boards I've been on.
That is also possible, (pre-approving newbie posts) but that's even more workload on the admins and any mods they might appoint. (if they did)
One of the forums I used to go to had a 60 word (or something like that) minimum for every post. Maybe combine that with the X amount of posts idea; that way they could use all the forums too. Once they pass the trial, the limit will be gone.
Yeah, I thought about that as well. :(
im not to keen on the 60 word limit on posts, but i do like fred's idea about pre approving posts for the first few. they might need to get another admin just to handel the flood tho...
Keep in mind that it's a minimum limit, though. It worked pretty well at the forum, although it was permanent, which sucked sometimes. I think that 15 or so posts would be fine.
I thought Carm had mentioned setting the board up so you had to respond to an email message before you could join or post. I wonder if he has done that yet.
If you can't already tell from my posts, I'm generally anti-moderation when it comes to forums. (although I don't dislike the current admins here.. even though we've had our moments) It would not be my suggestion to appoint more admins.. but maybe a couple lower-level moderators who just have domain over spammers could be added. Perhaps instead of mods having the power to ban someone outright, they could be given the ability to suspend someone's posting access for 8-12 hours until one of the admins can come in and have a look and give the nod to a ban.
That would probably help somewhat since it would seem most of the BS accounts lately have fake/throwaway email addresses. But then again, it doesn't address someone tossing up a Hotmail account just to spam. Then you have to go to the next level of it, which is to ban certain web mail addresses from the verification process (Hotmail, Gmail, Lycos, etc.) plus the addresses of spammers who have already been banned, if the system does not already do so. But even that can be circumvented to some extent.
Or we can continue to expose their e-mails and ISP's.
As a website owner, I have a VERY deep hate and resentment towards spammer scum.
Assuming the information is valid.. not faked/spoofed/etc..
:rollin: we can't tell...
I guess not, but I don't think that represents the majority of spammers. They will find a path of least resistance to get as many messages out as quickly as possible, which in this case would mean posting on a forum that does not require a registration email to be sent.
Of course, we could always go the route of sending all kinds of porn and gay porn to their e-mails! :rollin: LMAO!!!
I think that the admins should choose a few people to allow the first couple of post of someone. Like how it was in the cat jam section. I guess give someone who is almost always online to validate the first 5-10 post that a newbe has. Or only the first 5-10 threads that a newbie starts. They havent started spamming other peoples threads yet as far as I know.
Would this be possible, eric or carmen?
I have already set the valid email thing, and as you all can see, it didn't work. The spammers likely have some kind of "bot" or script that automatically completes the registration process (I say this because since most forums have email validation the spammers likely would have developed something).
Having new users' first few post moderated would be out of the question as this would create a whole lot of work for Eric, Baxo and myself. Remember, we run this forum for the same reason you guys visit it - for fun. It's not a full time job for any of us. Also, having every new user's posts moderated would very likely discourage many legit users from ever returning.
Banning email domains such as hotmail, yahoo and gmail would also eliminate many legit users.
Ben's idea of restricting new users to certain areas has more merit, however, and at the risk of sounding like I wish I thought of it first, well, I thought of it first :D Seriously, I have been considering doing just this: Restricting new users to a "new user" section for the first 5-10 posts. On the surface this seems like a great idea, and I have been debating this in my mind for better than a week. My only fear is that we would scare new users away using that method as well, and being such a small "community", we really can't afford to do that. Still, of the available options I can think of this is the best, and if the spamming gets much worse I'll discuss it with Eric and Baxo.
In the meantime, just ignore the spam. I'm sure this goes without saying, but never, ever click on a link within spam - every click earns the spammer points (or money) and shows them that their spamming works. I can't be bothered coming up with entertaining edits for each one anymore (that and I'm just not creative enough) so I'm just gonna start deleting 'em. If you feel so inclined to reply to their threads go ahead, but as soon as I come across 'em, they're gone :evilgrin:
What about the possibility of a few (2-3) volunteer moderators who only have the power to suspend the posting ability of a new (10 posts or less) account that spams, until one of the admins can come along and deal with them more permanently? As I mentioned above, it could be on the order of 8-12 hours. That avoids some of the possible pitfalls of increasing the moderating pool, because their powers could not be used on established members. (such as in the heat of an argument)
And yes, I do realize that would probably take some custom coding at some point.
What about the visual verification or whatever the "type in the alphanumeric gibberish in the box there" thing is?
Also, require authentication before posting.
We do both on our site, and while spammers can get in, most get nuked before they post.
A Turing test/captcha?
*innocent whistling*
:D :D :D :D
And BTW, Notice that new spammers are repliying to old spam posts. Go look for yourself.:nono:
Its very disgusting to see some spam at the forum. Still not much to get crazy, but still enough to start to get my nerves. This community is very clean, and i dont want to wait to the moment when the forum is infeested with junk threads...
I aggre with the "type what the box says" or even an audible registering method, would be a good idea. On other hand, i guess that is not very easy.
The "low level admin" is OK, but we`ll need some people , connected at all time, and willing to do that job....
(the selection method for the guys; check who is online at 2:00 am, and these would be selected...hehehe)
Hmm, I dont really wanna have to do that, regularly. But you could make a couple of temp mods just until we find a problem. Can you just make it so that you can only edit text? That would be an easy fix, but could suck if it got into the wrong hands.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Something that a bot or script can't do due to the randomness factor. I would something like that would be the easiest solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
Many captchas *can* be defeated by bots. There's only one sure-fire (for now) captcha I've heard about so far, and it's one that was recently created. The test involves pictures of animals (among other options) that a computer can't pick out, but a human can. For example, the question could be "pick the cat".. and it could have 9 pictures, only one of them being a cat. Then it's down to a random guess on the bot's part.
http://www.kittenauth.com/
Maybe a test "pick the XR7 at the photo" should do the work or "how many litres are a 302 CID?"
4 or 5 questions and the signup wouldnt make hard to identify humans...
Nobody who dont knows that dont deserve to be in this forum, hehe...
We've already got the "captcha" thing - it's been in effect for over a year. Bots can get by it, though.
Giving people moderation powers to delete threads really wouldn't do anything more that what we've got now. Between Eric, Baxo and myself, a spam thread shouldn't last more than a few hours at the most.
The problem is we want to prevent these pen 15s from posting to begin with. Using logic (you know, the logic that states that if people are going out of their way to try to prevent you from posting, chances are they're not gonna be really receptive to your offer if you get by the preventions) obviously won't work on them, so we have to use our own logic, and the first thing we have to do until we get this sorted out is ignore the spammers. That means no replying to their threads, no matter how tempting it may be (their bots may subscribe to those threads and get notified every time there's a reply, showing the spammer that his scheme is working). We moderators will delete the threads as soon as we see 'em.
I'll try to hold it in :D But MexCougar's idea was REALLY good...
First question is do you charge or upgrade anything type accounts. you know like a premium membership?
Well here is thought, though it might not be good. But do kinda of a payed membership like 5 dollars pay pal or something. and make a free and pay member site. So that newbies can only post in one area and payed members can enjoy unhibitied enjoy.
I mean just a thought. I paid for Ranger Station.com and I think this site with its technical advise could warent something like that.
Daniel
Don't :flame: me, Just bringing it up.
I would hate that. Specially being jobless for the moment.
There are a few things you'll never see on this site: Paid memberships, popups and banner ads. We don't do this for the money.
I've installed a spamkiller script that's supposed to be pretty effective at catching this kind of thing. It compares new posts to a master blacklist and denies the post. We can actually add to that blacklist as well. It may take a bit for it to start working well, though - apparently it has to "learn".
Did you put an EEC-IV attached to the forum script ????
It´ll take like a 300 miles when running, or 2 minutes in idle....
Let's test it.
puppies!
Cheap Mortgages!
Increase your pen 15!
Deposed Nigerian General!
Make Money Fast!
Free iPods!
Did it work? Did it work? :D
I'm new though. Does that mean that everytime I have a question or anything that it has to be approved before I post it. You should give all newbie's a 1 "spam" post limit. Once they use that you watch that one person. That way you can single out who's using up space and who is realy using it. IMO
Thanks Fellow Thunderbird and Cougar Owners,
Mike "Iceman"
ooooH! i want a free ipod, where do i click!?
There's a huge difference between posting a question and posting spam. Spam is unsolicited offers from shady "businesses" (and I use that term loosely) made through generally unwanted means, such as posting messages in forums for free iPods or gas cards. It's kinda like email spam - nobody likes it, nobody wants it, (hopefully) nobody clicks on the offers, yet the spammers keep coming.
Spam is spam and there will be no tolerance (or mercy :evilgrin:). Making a post offering your car or parts for sale is not spam. You are a legitimate member offering something that people in this forum may actually want. Spam is generally produced by "bots" that flood messageboards with bullshiznit by joining, posting a few BS threads offering things nobody wants or offers nobody is stupid enough to fall for, and disapearing, only to show up tomorrow with a new user name and do it all again.
And therin lies the problem, which is why I've been debating the possibility of making a "newbies" forum for new users to reach the minimum post count. On the surface it sounds easy, but imposing limits on new users punishes a dozen legitimate new users for every one spammer, and that's not right. It would be like pulling every teenager's driving license because a few teens drive like idiots.
Hopefully this new script will keep the spammers in check...
I don't think it's entirely bots in use here.. one thread had a repeat post with a new username.
http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/showthread.php?t=8676
Just check the ISP # their using. In theory it should be the same if it's the same bot program right? And whats the "noobie post limit"? Am I past it yet?
There is no "Noobie post limit". You can see what everyone else can, and you have full posting privleges from the moment you join. The whole point of what I've said in this thread was to say that although I'd thought about it, I don't entirely agree with the idea of restricting noobs, and hope other methods, such as spam killers and scripts will do the trick.
Every time we ban a spammer we do so using their DNS numbers. They are all unique. Tom sent me some interesting info about spam - more than half of it comes from "zombie" computers. These are computers that have viruses/trojans and are under the control of hackers without the owners even knowing. It would be nice if the internet could somehow be "upgraded" to recognize and eliminate this kind of data, similar to how an antivirus program does, so that if a computer does somehow become infected it would be quarantined by the internet itself. Imagine how fast the 'net would be if 80% of its bandwidth wasn't being used for spam!
Your right, i must have taken this whole thing the wrong way. Sorry bro.