|
Maybe protectors can have a delete button on the QA list, so no need to open the question at all. This button may do two thing in one click - report the author and delete the question...(maybe a popup confirmation in case you din't got your coffee yet)
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
תפסיק לספר לה' כמה הצרות שלך גדולות, תספר לצרות שלך כמה ה' גדול!
|
|
|
|
|
I think that is exactly what OG suggested. Except for the confirmation, which I also feel would be a must - accidents happen when using touch devices.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
These folks were at it a 7 am my time and are still going at 6 pm. Surely a newly created account can have it's activity limited until its creator's bona fides are assured. A few posts a day in the early life of an account would limit a lot of rubbish.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Trouble with that is (though it's a good idea) it doesn't help - it's far, far to easy to open a new account, post your ten spams, and move on to the next. These guys at the moment, they seem to be running a dozen accounts? It wouldn't faze them at all to have to open new ones, and anyone with a domain can generally create email accounts without breaking into a sweat.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
What about a greyskull button in the account?
Once such a tedious spammer is spotted, then go to account, click on button, click on confirmation, click on confirmation 2 and.... tachaaaannn... all post of this account are gone.
For usual morons, normal report is ok. But for organized assh... it could help a lot.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
My personal feeling is that it's better on the message than the author: makes it harder to hit the button accidentally and get the wrong account if some innocent had edited it?
Plus when we get a spam flood like this weekend's, it's faster to have a Hammmer button on the QA list than have to go from there to the post, to the user then press the button. When you're looking at several hundred of the damn things, every little helps! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
But how are you going to target the messages? Or does your button nuke the full QA?
What about a edit box where one can put the spammer name or member ID (copy from profile) and then the button to nuke everything of that person?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The Kaiser Söze[^] button scares me. It would take too much work to ensure we had safety triggers, or at the least, a "oh crap, I need to Undo" button.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean Chris, but we need something.
With only 3 or 4 of then working together, they were posting faster than we could delete questions! 
You'd check a users questions count, delete a dozen, and check again to find the number had gone up from 200 to 210!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Consider to block too frequent post of answers (and maybe comments to). By nature an answer takes time to write (and even more to understand a question to the point when an answer can be give), so one who posts answers in too high frequency, probably a spammer )like the on posted over 100 answers within less then 20 minutes)...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
תפסיק לספר לה' כמה הצרות שלך גדולות, תספר לצרות שלך כמה ה' גדול!
|
|
|
|
|
I think SA can do that frequency too
Spammers are using multiple accounts. block one and they create a new one. Frequency caps don't work, unfortunately.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Just a thought...And an other one - is it possible that the last wave of spamming used the new API to do it quicker?
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
תפסיק לספר לה' כמה הצרות שלך גדולות, תספר לצרות שלך כמה ה' גדול!
|
|
|
|
|
No - the API's readonly for now
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Please do something...
1. Give more power to Protectors to temporarily lock the account for some predefined hours as a penalty.
OR
2. Ban the uses after 3 to 4 spam requests to post contents.
Or any other. But we have to have something. Now opening up one by one and reporting as well as deleting is a very tedious task.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems Protection can't protect the site
|
|
|
|
|
It protects. But in weekends, when people are less active, it happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree totally, #1 sounds to can be effective
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, man... 
|
|
|
|
|
Tadit Dash (ତଡିତ୍ କୁମାର ଦାଶ) wrote: Give more power to Protectors to temporarily lock the account
... and rename them "Punishers", with an icon of Bob showing muscles and a six-pack.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
That would be really cool.  
|
|
|
|
|
Tadit Dash (ତଡିତ୍ କୁମାର ଦାଶ) wrote: Give more power to Protectors to temporarily lock the account for some predefined hours as a penalty
Spammers use new accounts each time they spam. Blocking accounts doesn't work unfortunately.
Tadit Dash (ତଡିତ୍ କୁମାର ଦାଶ) wrote: 2. Ban the uses after 3 to 4 spam requests to post contents.
By the time the spammer has posted their comments, and we've actually spotted and reacted to them, they are gone.
Tadit Dash (ତଡିତ୍ କୁମାର ଦାଶ) wrote: Now opening up one by one and reporting as well as deleting is a very tedious task
It is. If it were really easy then I'd have members with pitchworks and torches ready to burn down the place because of people abusing the reporting system.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
You are all correct. But the frequency of reporting and closing the spammers' account is low in weekends. For that reason, I asked all those. I am sorry, I would mentioned this in my previous post.
|
|
|
|
|
One of the spammers managed to style a comment so some of the buttons were obscured. I believe I was able to delete the comment, but you should probably take a look. [^]
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
the subject is the message.
And I suggest put this f***ing Report flag into the top of a question.
And make a single "button" to Report question and the questioner with one click.
Thank you
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
They can't.
IP range blocking (or even IP address blocking) is fraught with problems: most of the employees of a company will share a small set of IP addresses - so banning those will ban all innocent employees as well.
How would you like it if you couldn't access it because some other person in your building had started advertising his home-brewed website? Especially as you would have no idea who, or what he was advertising?
And remember, changing your IP is trivial: reset the router will do that if you are on a cheaper, dynamic IP address ISP. And most of the spammers will be.
So all you get is annoyed people and spammers that are slightly inconvenienced.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
