|
Hi SA, I've trusted your judgement on these spammers, but you have removed the messages these guys posted, and so cannot judge for myself whether the message was spam or not. Maybe it would be a better policy to wait until the spammers account has been disabled before removing the message, so that other members can confirm that the message is actually spam. I am sure that you could foresee your current policy being abused by someone, to get rid of a particular member that they do not like. Just a thought.
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe. I'm too much irritated by the space taken on the page. I still think better policy would be change of content like I do but not removing the post — this way it's easier to locate other spam posts by the account.
And you don't have to trust me or not: the original post remains in the history. Just click of version.
Thank you,
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
SAKryukov wrote: the original post remains in the history. Just click of version.
I stand corrected - my bad. I never thought to look into that, thanks. In that case you are doing the best thing.
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for justification. Let's do this. To me, not deleting posts finally before the account is removed or disabled is better, but some will removed such posts anyway. Maybe all we need is not ignoring them, reporting them here.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
|
I reported their account as a spammer and it said "1 report" (mine). Did you not report them as spam?
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the note — I might have forgotten it. Anyway, the spammers reported here are removed. It's much more important to remove the account.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aren't new articles subject to approval? And aren't unapproved articles only visible to those with sufficient reputation? In that case, I'd say that's a pretty good system. Most visitors won't see spam articles... they'll be deleted first.
And Chris has mentioned in the past that having a barrier to writing articles (in this case, a required level of reputation) is not ideal because that prevents potential authors from posting them. Not to mention that some people may only contribute articles, so the only other way for them go gain reputation would be when they view the site while logged in, which could take a while to build up the required reputation. We should allow an author to post an article as their first contribution on their first day as a member.
|
|
|
|
|
AspDotNetDev wrote: Aren't new articles subject to approval? And aren't unapproved articles only
visible to those with sufficient reputation?
You know how sick I am of disapproving spam articles?? I'd like to concentrate only on the legit articles.
|
|
|
|
|
How many spam articles are we talking? 1 spam for every 1 real article? 10 to 1? 1 to 10?
|
|
|
|
|
To me, seems like one out of every 10 is an ad lately.
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't seem like too much to handle, IMO. I would think that spam articles are faster to reject than good articles are to accept (spam is usually pretty obvious).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User reported and I removed the spam.
0100000101101110011001000111001011101001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gone.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Chris! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
