|
You can add another volunteer to the list.
|
|
|
|
|
Same with me.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to say it, but...I think we need to consider adding Captcha to QA posts.
One spammer with over 300 posts in two minutes? We can't fight that by hand - the DB caching is against us because even the deleted posts are still showing up as the whole of teh first coupel of pages of QA presently.
Anyone else think this might help?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
It will help against the bots, but probably will render QA unfriendly...
It is a very hard decision - but I would like to go on the other way...give some smart tool to the protectors...like close all post of a member, and the member, who got 3(?) messages in the QA reported as spam by any protector...also some kind of forced cache refresh...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Headshot on QA Moderation queue posts as well as well as message - over 82,000 posts in there at the moment, and that's just not practical to clear manually; not at a page-refresh per individual item of spam.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
82000 spams are rare, but CAPTCHA is there to stay...It is a really hard decision to make (fortunately not to us to do so)...Maybe it's time to wake Chris...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I sent him an email asking for assistance a while ago. Poor bugger...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Poor bugger...
Yeah - strat your week like that is bad enough, but the weekend! It's just cruel...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with limiting posts (number) from new accounts - or sending all posts from brand new accounts to moderation?
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: or sending all posts from brand new accounts to moderation?
Because at the moment there are 82,000 posts in moderation from spambots, and you wouldn't be able to see any "genuine questions" for an hour or so if you started deleting the garbage this instant! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
On consideration I can't see a huge objection to Captcha's but for those who do there may be other ways. I still think rules can be applied to posts to get rid of most of the spam - especially the robot generated stuff. Just another suggestion and I reiterate Captcha's are certainly one way.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: What's wrong with limiting posts (number) from new accounts
The question would be by which rule the amount of allowed posts would increase. If it's just a matter of how many days old an account is, the spammers could just "plan ahead".
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
I responded to OG. I agree with your point but it is not an insurmountable issue IMHO.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefévre wrote: spammers could just "plan ahead".
Which is what they have done; see my comment in the spam forum.
|
|
|
|
|
How about adding time break between posts.So that when a new member posts a question he/she will allow to post the next question only after a specific time break(like 10minutes or something).I think if member is a spammer he/she will be reported within that time.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking - maybe the CAPTCHA should sit on the login page, so you can't fake a login from code...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
When was the last time you logged in? For me, it's about once a year, when the CP cookie expires.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Of course for me and you, but if you try to login with new accounts (and a lot of them) on the same machine and you have CAPTCHA, you have trouble...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems I've missed the party. 
Anyway, my opinions.
It's not unreasonable to have a captcha on account creation, anything more get obnoxious.
Having a limit on one message per minute is not unreasonable. Any further messages will end up in the moderation queue automatically.
And have a maximum of five messages in the moderation queue allowed before blocking new messages.
|
|
|
|
|
How about a simple programming CAPTCHA, something like:
Predict the output:
integer i = 0, j = 0;
j = ++i;
Print (i);
OR just give them a simple syntax error to fix (except that would be related to a specific language).
I think everyone will be able to answer such simple ones. And it will keep those "Packers and Movers", "Streaming Movies", "Baba", etc., spammers away.
Just my 2 cents...
|
|
|
|
|
The latest Google offering[^] is much less obnoxious than the old "type these mangled letters" versions.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: One spammer with over 300 posts in two minutes
That's our fault. We're implementing frequency caps.
CAPTCHA won't work: the majority of spammers are actually Real People™
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I'd suggest to add functionality, let's say it might be called: "Lock user" (on user profile page). This functionality should be added for Protectors members.
Another option is to add Protector panel, where member with Protectr status can check all questions of selected users and delete it.
Spammer user should be locked automatically, when Protector member delete 3 questions or 3 qestion have been closed because of "spamm" reports.
modified 26-Apr-15 6:50am.
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally I'd suggest a "post-cooldown" in QA of some minutes.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
modified 26-Apr-15 6:52am.
|
|
|
|
|
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
