|
Thanks, it is fixed now.
Its the man, not the machine - Chuck Yeager
If at first you don't succeed... get a better publicist
If the final destination is death, then we should enjoy every second of the journey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spammers seem to employ people from all over the globe to hit certain pages with certain text. I've tried blocking by IP, keyword in their name, email address, Bio, but in the end the best solution, by far, has been the Report button and the Spam and abuse forum that allows you guys to seek and destroy.
Maybe we could award badges for those who kill spam 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your reply, Chris.
I can imagine how difficult this problem can be. I have done couple works or so to fight spam in a very simple case of a "Contact us" Web form and shared my recommendations in several Q & A answers. A naive approach in processing of such form would allow for an exploit turning the host into a zombie sending spam in no times. I remember your post showing that, for example, CodeProject is protected against JavaScript injection.
The problem of the spam through the formally legitimate post is much more difficult.
Did you ever considering Bayesian filtering? Please see:
http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html[^],
http://www.paulgraham.com/better.html[^].
(I do not really appreciate each and every opinion of Paul Graham; this is just the first place I faced with the Bayesian filtering. I used such thing for a while for a-mail filtering (not anymore) and know the problems of this approach: false positives.)
Even though the filtering is dangerous due to false positives, it could be used not for final removal, but just for marking the post and the offender for final removal, but only when confirmed by a person. It could be used to form a list of notification for the site support.
In other words, the only way I can see right now it to greatly speed up, simplify and streamline the process of removal of bad posts and accounts. Right now, the process of getting all the references and reporting on them is awkward enough, so new spam posts appear before the bad account it disabled, which is the most critical time. When people just report on posts and/or remove them, accounts remains active for a time which allows bad people to spam more, which makes this time a bottleneck. I understand that you physically unable to act faster in such situation. Filtering is merely one of the directions where this time could be shortened while reducing waste of time. Just some extra automation.
The idea of the badges or other encouraging awards is good.
I can easily picture myself wearing the badge. First which comes on mind is the well-known coat-of-arms of Moscow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Moscow.svg[^], where a thick-bellied CodeProject mascot could be placed instead of St. George, and Serpent to be hit with the pike could be… I don't know, maybe a "Cristian Shoe" or a "Tiffany bag"…
Cheers,
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I *love* the badge!
However, I love the idea of Bayesian filtering the messages even more. I've never written one before: maybe time to learn. Training would be simple because we'd use the spam/abuse reporting system to show it messages that were to be marked.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Maybe we could award badges for those who kill spam
*Removing my martial arts badges one by one*
Chuck Norris
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm,
I just noticed that one of the 'Tip/Trick' alternatives that I posted way back when we were in the beta stages of development is now visible. I looked around but do not see any buttons to delete it. I could probably report my tip as abusive... but this might invoke the 'account deletion' beta code. 
Could someone with keys to the mobile nuclear weapon storage-locker fire a missle at my test tip? There were dozens of us 'Beta Testers' posting test tips back then... so you might want to look around for more of them.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Boom?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
The Code Project
|
|
|
|
|
from this Tip[^], although it still seems to be present on articles awaiting approval.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
modified 7-Mar-12 13:18pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen this before. The entire forum is missing, though the "Comments and Discussions" header is still there. I have reported this before and was told it was fixed, but looks like they missed something (or maybe they fix it on a per-article basis).
|
|
|
|
|
We found it. It was under the sofa.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
It would be nice if we could see the author information for an article in Google. [1]
This should be as simple as adding rel="author" to the profile link in the article header, and then adding letting users add a link to their Google profile on their CodeProject profile page (using rel="me").
Obviously, you'd want to test the changes using the Rich Snippets Testing Tool [2].
[1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1408986[^]
[2] http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Done, but we'll have to wait a couple of weeks to ensure Google is picking up the right info. I'll also be updating your setting page to clarify how to link up your Google+ profile with your articles.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Enough: it's time to list voters. There is no reason not to do this. It'll quickly stop drive-by-voting and ensure that people vote more sensibly. It would also show if you are being targeted by someone. I don't mind the vote itself especially where I know I'm being a little troll-like but for ordinary posts? Ridiculous. See how long it takes this to get downvoted.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
And what do you do about sock puppets?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't they just be reported/removed because we can see them being created just for the down votes? That would probably reduce the amount of sock puppets created as well...
|
|
|
|
|
We're going to go around in circles here, but how do you define an account as a true sock puppet (ie an existing member playing silly buggers) vs a genuine member who has signed up and legitimately wants to down-vote?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
The same way you define a spam account, I guess.
I'm probably overlooking the problem, I'm sure you've given it more thought than I did.
|
|
|
|
|
They are very different.
A spammer posts ads for Nike shoes.
A member may downvote a message they don't like. Or 10 messages they don't like. They are entitled to their opinion.
A sock puppet, in the worst sense, creates an account specifically to downvote (or upvote) messages to sway scores.
How do you differentiate between someone's legitimate opinion and someone just trying to screw with the votes? Further, how would knowing the member who downvoted you help, other than giving you a target from which you, too, can downvote simply to make the point?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: They are entitled to their opinion.
That's the problem: most often they don't offer an opinion, just the downvote. So you post something inconsequential and it gets downvoted. That's not an opinion: you're a target. Needs dealing with.
Knowing who it is allows you to spot a pattern of voting. If the same person hits you 5 or 6 times you know they are not offering an opinion. At present it's dealt with by CP making a summary decision: you can see who it is - we can't. Where's the transparency?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so you see that someone has downvoted you 5 times in a row. You see the account is from someone you don't know.
What good will it do you?
If you say "it will allow me to spot a pattern" then what you're also asking for is to see every vote that person made. I don't agree with that in the current form. But assuming you did: you see this person has voted 5's for some, 1's for others. They just happen to have voted 5 of your messages down. Out of 100 random votes this person has made, only 5 are recent downvotes.
What then would you do?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say it would do me any good but it would give me the opportunity to ask them why they've done that. In any case, if someone knows that you can see how they've voted they may be less likely to do so for frivolous reasons or be more likely to justify it with a comment.
No, I'm only interested in posts against my account that they make. If I can see that someone is down voting me for no reason then I can bring it to your attention more easily than at present. It also means that if I have been down voted on several posts but by different people then I probably haven't got a leg to stand on. However, if each of those was a new account then I'm pretty sure we can agree I'm being targeted.
Right now I'm getting a large number of negative votes - some I get (they really disagree or are being mischievous because I said the post would generate down votes), others make no sense. It is the votes that make no sense that are so frustrating. I can't believe you don't see that: enough people have mentioned it over the years.
It really is time to address this and make it fair for everyone: at the moment if someone down votes a bunch of posts that's it: I have no recourse, no way of determining why they would do that. Maybe they do genuinely have an issue with the post: well then, say so.
As I said the solution is simple: all votes display the user who made them and n00bs can't vote for the first 6 months or until they accumulate a minimum number of points. I would bet that targeted down voting stops almost immediately.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I can't believe you don't see that
I have said repeatedly that I understand the frustration in this.
mark merrens wrote: As I said the solution is simple: all votes display the user who made them
As I've also said this isn't a simple solution for all the reasons stated before. You're going the wrong way about this. You keep saying you want to know why but you must know that if someone goes on a childish downvoting spree the chances of getting a sensible 'why' is about zero, and knowing who downvoted you still doesn't allow you to effectively engage in a discussion on why they voted: Where would you start the conversation? Hopefully not on the Lounge? What motivation would that person have in answering a "why did you downvote me?" question in the first place?
If you want the "why" of why a message was voted down (and I assume messages are the only thing you're talking about here) then why not suggest we include a "add a comment when voting feature"? This will give you the "why" and also, most likely, put a quick stop to downvote sprees. Or, as I'm guessing would happen, you'd get lots of "asdf".
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
