|
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 !
|
|
|
|
|
The default section heading "Background" is set as "Normal" instead of "Heading 2", and has formatting applied to make it Orange and Big. The font looks wrong - it's a bit thicker than the other section headings.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Open website - Select full site at bottom of the page. It should display full site but looks like it doesn't change layout at all. Pages are not accessible.
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I see that too.
Windows phone 8.1
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
Device, browser and screen size? Can you go to here[^] and let me know what it says?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, FYI, for me it says absolutely nothing (Win7 Desktop Firefox)
Quote: Display Info
Viewport
Resolution
Pixel ratio
Orientation
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Try now
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Hamsters happy!
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Viewport 360*511 px
Resolution 288dpi
Pixel ratio 3
Orientation portrait
My device is Nexus 5. Screen size 4.95 inch. Google Chrome (42.0.2311.109).
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
OK, thanks.
You're seeing the site as it should be seen: at 360px wide there's not a lot of screen space so it responsively rearranges itself to ensure readability within the confines (width) of the screen you're on.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's been fixed - deploying soon.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
