Just a quick note about moderators from the community: we appreciate the suggestion and enthusiasm on this front. However, we have no plans to elect moderators from the community at this time.
Send them a bill for advertising...
Tell them your advertising rates are one million dollars.
That's a great Idea, put them so far into debt they go to loan sharks to help pay off the bill.
rig something up that when the spam, SOMEHOW, it hacks into there computer and kills it, the router, and all other computers for good. Thus permanently stopping spam, because they are now out of money trying to buy new computers and routers, and there service provider is told to deny them access to a new router. Boom.
...
That sounds great, but some the spam could be coming from zombie computers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds great, but some the spam could be coming from zombie computersrig something up that when the spam, SOMEHOW, it hacks into there computer and kills it, the router, and all other computers for good. Thus permanently stopping spam, because they are now out of money trying to buy new computers and routers, and there service provider is told to deny them access to a new router. Boom.
...
Now there's an image in my head of computer screens covered in "Uuuuuurrr... Brraaaiiinnnnz..." and I can't get it out :O
If this keeps up, the only real solution would be to block new users from posting until one of the website moderators can review their initial posts. One quick look should be enough to choose between "let in, no further review necessary" and "ban immediately and permanantly". We don't seem to have any cases of established accounts being taken over by spammers so far.Presumably we'll then get some new posters making comments such as "I really enjoyed this product, looking forward to the next!" followed once they're approved by the usual guff.
Okay, for non-commital statements like that we would need an intermediate setting then (let this post through, but leave on probabion until they say something with some real thought behind it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this keeps up, the only real solution would be to block new users from posting until one of the website moderators can review their initial posts. One quick look should be enough to choose between "let in, no further review necessary" and "ban immediately and permanantly". We don't seem to have any cases of established accounts being taken over by spammers so far.Presumably we'll then get some new posters making comments such as "I really enjoyed this product, looking forward to the next!" followed once they're approved by the usual guff.Okay, for non-commital statements like that we would need an intermediate setting then (let this post through, but leave on probabion until they say something with some real thought behind it).
Hmm. I'm seeing a business opening here. I wonder how much a spammer would pay me to write a bunch of thought-out posts they could paste in to get themselves authorized ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. I'm seeing a business opening here. I wonder how much a spammer would pay me to write a bunch of thought-out posts they could paste in to get themselves authorized ;)If this keeps up, the only real solution would be to block new users from posting until one of the website moderators can review their initial posts. One quick look should be enough to choose between "let in, no further review necessary" and "ban immediately and permanantly". We don't seem to have any cases of established accounts being taken over by spammers so far.Presumably we'll then get some new posters making comments such as "I really enjoyed this product, looking forward to the next!" followed once they're approved by the usual guff.Okay, for non-commital statements like that we would need an intermediate setting then (let this post through, but leave on probabion until they say something with some real thought behind it).
As always, a relevant XKCD.
Hmm. I'm seeing a business opening here. I wonder how much a spammer would pay me to write a bunch of thought-out posts they could paste in to get themselves authorized ;)As always, a relevant XKCD.
Exactly what I was thinking.
So after this mornings spam fest in forum games, I am thinking buried shoulder deep in a hot desert by an anthill.
What kind of anthill?
Army or Fire?
Forcing ants to fight to the death for our amusement... sounds like a fun afternoon.
I clicked on this thread hoping to see suggestions that involved "cave raptors"
I clicked on this thread hoping to see suggestions that involved "cave raptors"
Feeding them to cave raptors goes without saying, so we didn't bother to say it.
Just a quick note about moderators from the community: we appreciate the suggestion and enthusiasm on this front. However, we have no plans to elect moderators from the community at this time.
I've seen people raise concerns about this course if action before, but never understood what the downside is. Can someone enlighten me?
It seems to me appointing some people with the ability to lock (not delete) accounts' posting/reviewing ability and hide (not delete) posts would have a lot of upside and any megalomaniacs (presuming that's the risk) could be easily reined in. I just saw loveguruji make his first post, then sat here flagging the next 104. Surely if someone in my time zone had the ability to stop them making more posts, they'd give up pretty quick? Or are there lots of spam attacks during Seattle business hours as well?
I'm just curious about the perceived risks. Or is it more a general principle that you shouldn't let non employees represent you in a semi official capacity?
Well something needs to be done. I just logged onto the front page of the site and every single post on the current list of posts were spam. Makes the site look like Spamfinder.
I actually despise the spammers, for interposing themselves where literally no-one wants them to be.
If it is search engine spam is it possible to report it to Google and other search engines so they would actually take action to punish the offender, like, I don't know, removing them from search results?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen people raise concerns about this course if action before, but never understood what the downside is. Can someone enlighten me?
Remember that massive thread not so many months ago titled something like "Paizo's moderation practices are evil and the perpetrators need to die flaming horrible deaths"? That might not quite be the title but dipping into the complain-fest that was that thread from time to time sure got me the impression that Paizo should bolt their doors during business hours and travel to and from home in armored Pope-mobiles.
Fact is that moderation almost invariably involves silencing or editing someone's voice. That someone rarely agrees with what has been done, else they would have self-edited.
When Paizo does it, we all have to suck it up. These are their forums and they can do whatever they like to us. We are visitors in their house.
When a community member does it... well... (*&#$%(*% him, that #(*& head. Who does he (*^&$(ing think he is? Suddenly it's a different story because a fellow guest is dictating the rules of the house, even if they've been given the authority to do so by the owners.
Right now it's cut and dried. If a post is edited, it was someone with indisputable authority to do so. If even one community editor exists, then there will arise the question "was it HIM/HER that did it? Should they have?"
The way things are is the wisest, least acrimonious method of moderation. And even with that in place there's the occasional digital lynch mob, like the thread I mentioned at the start of this post. You don't want to see worse.
I see, thanks.
That would lead me to think that a non staff "full moderator" is not a good idea. However, I don't see giving someone the ability to lock an account which is posting spam as "community based moderation". It's one rather specific role which is hardly going to be fun or empowering. I don't really see what can go wrong that can't easily be addressed.
Does it really matter if babaji or whoever thinks his fifth account in as many hours shouldn't have been locked?
If the anti spam person locks some other genuine forum member's posting rights due to a sudden rush of power surely the account is unlocked a few hours later and a new anti spam person is found.
It would seem then that wisest precaution would be to bring some spam-hunter volunteers in far-flung time zones, not tell anyone about it, and deny it if asked. Check on those folks removed posts/ bans on weekly or less basis to ensure they haven't gone insane.
Though I'm loathe to suggest it would it be possible to start blocking certain IP addresses from being able to create accounts/sign in? I know the retail company I work for has actually blocked IP addresses for entire countries from purchasing from our web site due to both spamming and less-than-ethical/legal purchasing practices from people within that country (or at least individuals routing their questionable activities through those countries). The biggest drawback we have seen is from our service men and women who are stationed overseas in those countries and are unable to purchase directly from the web site and have to call in to make a purchase.
One thing I would strongly advise is that people stop using words like the six-letter-word beginning with b and ending with i. That's going to get picked up by the same spiders that the spammers are hoping to be found by, so we're essentially doing the spammers work for them (and attracting spammers, when they realize that this site shows up with high rank for those terms). Steve Geddes a few posts up is an example.
Basically, if you don't want more sharks, stop chumming.
As a followup, I also suggest that someone official at Paizo start doing some thread cleanup, getting rid of some of the terminology, deleting some of the less helpful posts (or indeed, all of them). There are also a number of parody aliases that should be removed for the same reason.
Just a quick note about moderators from the community: we appreciate the suggestion and enthusiasm on this front. However, we have no plans to elect moderators from the community at this time.I've seen people raise concerns about this course if action before, but never understood what the downside is. Can someone enlighten me?
It seems to me appointing some people with the ability to lock (not delete) accounts' posting/reviewing ability and hide (not delete) posts would have a lot of upside and any megalomaniacs (presuming that's the risk) could be easily reined in. I just saw loveguruji make his first post, then sat here flagging the next 104. Surely if someone in my time zone had the ability to stop them making more posts, they'd give up pretty quick? Or are there lots of spam attacks during Seattle business hours as well?
I'm just curious about the perceived risks. Or is it more a general principle that you shouldn't let non employees represent you in a semi official capacity?
Well, we are brainstorming some features that will help us handle spam accounts, so hopefully once those are implemented this problem won't be as prevalent, and the need for an additional set of eyes watching out for those will be minimized.
It's easier to work out potential issues in person, and come to decisions that benefit the community which we can easily communicate to the rest of our staff. It also becomes an issue of privacy for our users, since moderators commonly interface with Customer Service (because they are the first level of communication for customers). Without going too far into it, there would need to be some serious infrastructure changes to accommodate 3rd party moderators, and honestly we'd prefer to put that energy towards cool new features and projects. This may change over time, but right now it's not something we're doing.
Thanks, chris. I tend to assume computer programmers just have a different options tab than the rest of us. I'm sure the "obvious" solution over here is often unreasonably hard to implement (if not impossible).
One thing I would strongly advise is that people stop using words like the six-letter-word beginning with b and ending with i. That's going to get picked up by the same spiders that the spammers are hoping to be found by, so we're essentially doing the spammers work for them (and attracting spammers, when they realize that this site shows up with high rank for those terms). Steve Geddes a few posts up is an example.
Ah, good point. Sorry about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about an automatic restriction on your ability to make new posts based on the number of total flags your posts have received in the last twenty four hours?
So if you've accumulated ten flags (counting each individual flag whether for the same post or several) in the last twenty four hours you can only make one post per minute with an extra minute added per five flags (or something).
That might even force particularly heated debates to slow down a bit and help regular, actual community members to cool off.
It could also not apply to people with greater than a certain number of posts prior to the current day (so longtimers arent impacted or open to abuse). New customers wont really notice, even if they did get flagged (through advocating piracy or something) - they'd just think the site was slow.
How about an automatic restriction on your ability to make new posts based on the number of total flags your posts have received in the last twenty four hours?
So if you've accumulated ten flags (counting each individual flag whether for the same post or several) in the last twenty four hours you can only make one post per minute with an extra minute added per five flags (or something).
That might even force particularly heated debates to slow down a bit and help regular, actual community members to cool off.
It could also not apply to people with greater than a certain number of posts prior to the current day (so longtimers arent impacted or open to abuse). New customers wont really notice, even if they did get flagged (through advocating piracy or something) - they'd just think the site was slow.
I really think the solution is simpler. How many new threads does an individual poster need to be able to make per day not counting employees. 3? 5? 10?
Set a limit on new threads in a rolling 24 hr window. It won't stop them, but if they can't get the volume of SEO crap they are looking for it may not be worth it to have a human make the new account. It's been a while since I made my account so I don't remember what the process was like but surely there is a tolerable method to ensures human is doing it.
Challenge question a la Jammers Reviews seems to be an easy and effective choice that also prevents the dreaded captcha.
random example For clarity, my suggestion would be to have a similar challenge for new accounts, not for new posts.
How about an automatic restriction on your ability to make new posts based on the number of total flags your posts have received in the last twenty four hours?
So if you've accumulated ten flags (counting each individual flag whether for the same post or several) in the last twenty four hours you can only make one post per minute with an extra minute added per five flags (or something).
That might even force particularly heated debates to slow down a bit and help regular, actual community members to cool off.
It could also not apply to people with greater than a certain number of posts prior to the current day (so longtimers arent impacted or open to abuse). New customers wont really notice, even if they did get flagged (through advocating piracy or something) - they'd just think the site was slow.
This could be done without counting flags by using exponential backoff. (That is, the more recent posts you have the longer you have to wait to post a new one.)
But even that might just cause them to register additional accounts with a smaller post count per-account for the same overall number of posts.
I really think the solution is simpler. How many new threads does an individual poster need to be able to make per day not counting employees. 3? 5? 10?How about an automatic restriction on your ability to make new posts based on the number of total flags your posts have received in the last twenty four hours?
So if you've accumulated ten flags (counting each individual flag whether for the same post or several) in the last twenty four hours you can only make one post per minute with an extra minute added per five flags (or something).
That might even force particularly heated debates to slow down a bit and help regular, actual community members to cool off.
It could also not apply to people with greater than a certain number of posts prior to the current day (so longtimers arent impacted or open to abuse). New customers wont really notice, even if they did get flagged (through advocating piracy or something) - they'd just think the site was slow.
I think it depends on the person (i suspect ive had days with more than ten threads).
I think it depends on the person (i suspect ive had days with more than ten threads).I really think the solution is simpler. How many new threads does an individual poster need to be able to make per day not counting employees. 3? 5? 10?How about an automatic restriction on your ability to make new posts based on the number of total flags your posts have received in the last twenty four hours?
So if you've accumulated ten flags (counting each individual flag whether for the same post or several) in the last twenty four hours you can only make one post per minute with an extra minute added per five flags (or something).
That might even force particularly heated debates to slow down a bit and help regular, actual community members to cool off.
It could also not apply to people with greater than a certain number of posts prior to the current day (so longtimers arent impacted or open to abuse). New customers wont really notice, even if they did get flagged (through advocating piracy or something) - they'd just think the site was slow.
But how often have those 10 threads been within 5 minutes? That's why I suggested exponential backoff.
How about an automatic restriction on your ability to make new posts based on the number of total flags your posts have received in the last twenty four hours?
So if you've accumulated ten flags (counting each individual flag whether for the same post or several) in the last twenty four hours you can only make one post per minute with an extra minute added per five flags (or something).
That might even force particularly heated debates to slow down a bit and help regular, actual community members to cool off.
It could also not apply to people with greater than a certain number of posts prior to the current day (so longtimers arent impacted or open to abuse). New customers wont really notice, even if they did get flagged (through advocating piracy or something) - they'd just think the site was slow.
This could be done without counting flags by using exponential backoff. (That is, the more recent posts you have the longer you have to wait to post a new one.)
But even that might just cause them to register additional accounts with a smaller post count per-account for the same overall number of posts.
I think a post count based restriction will impact on regular users. By tying it to the flagging system, my thought was that there's still a human element involved but it can be shared by the community rather than falling on the staff (although they'll still have to clean up, of course).
The multiple account thing is a pretty obvious workaround though. :(
But how often have those 10 threads been within 5 minutes? That's why I suggested exponential backoff.I think it depends on the person (i suspect ive had days with more than ten threads).I really think the solution is simpler. How many new threads does an individual poster need to be able to make per day not counting employees. 3? 5? 10?How about an automatic restriction on your ability to make new posts based on the number of total flags your posts have received in the last twenty four hours?
So if you've accumulated ten flags (counting each individual flag whether for the same post or several) in the last twenty four hours you can only make one post per minute with an extra minute added per five flags (or something).
That might even force particularly heated debates to slow down a bit and help regular, actual community members to cool off.
It could also not apply to people with greater than a certain number of posts prior to the current day (so longtimers arent impacted or open to abuse). New customers wont really notice, even if they did get flagged (through advocating piracy or something) - they'd just think the site was slow.
Ah yeah. I misunderstood. (I'm not the most technically minded and the jargon was new to me). Yeah, that's a good suggestion.
I think it depends on the person (i suspect ive had days with more than ten threads).I really think the solution is simpler. How many new threads does an individual poster need to be able to make per day not counting employees. 3? 5? 10?How about an automatic restriction on your ability to make new posts based on the number of total flags your posts have received in the last twenty four hours?
So if you've accumulated ten flags (counting each individual flag whether for the same post or several) in the last twenty four hours you can only make one post per minute with an extra minute added per five flags (or something).
That might even force particularly heated debates to slow down a bit and help regular, actual community members to cool off.
It could also not apply to people with greater than a certain number of posts prior to the current day (so longtimers arent impacted or open to abuse). New customers wont really notice, even if they did get flagged (through advocating piracy or something) - they'd just think the site was slow.
That's a lot of new threads. I'm not talking about days where you post in 10 unique threads but where you are the OP in 10 threads. If you are over that then Paizo is probably doing you a favor by cutting you off. Like a responsible bar tender.
You may be right. :)
You may be right. :)
For curiosity more than anything I thumbed through your profile. You have started 307 new forums. The most on any one day was 4. April 9, 2009. 2 other times you started 3 in a single day. Several times you started 2 in a day.
I think 10 is probably a safe number for a rolling 24 period to never ever have a chance of being noticed by any user. 3-5 may cause a very small percentage of users to notice once every couple of years.
That's a relief. (And yet again drives home the weakness of "experience" over data). Thanks for checking! Although the new user issue is pretty easy to get around it, I think. It looked to me that the spammer was creating new accounts as Lissa was deleting them last night. if thats true, it can't be that hard (I don't remember the process).
That's a relief. (And yet again drives home the weakness of "experience" over data). Thanks for checking! Although the new user issue is pretty easy to get around it, I think. It looked to me that the spammer was creating new accounts as Lissa was deleting them last night. if thats true, it can't be that hard (I don't remember the process).
If they have a person who is willing to sit there and crank out new user accounts it may be difficult to stop them with my suggested method. My guess is that if a human is making accounts by hand to combat the moderators in real time that the efficiency of their system would be far too low to be sustainable. I guess it all depends on how much they are charging for SEO.
PostMonster General
|
I believe the current spate of spammers are humans being paid piecework. Most technological solutions that aim to prevent the bad behavior are going to annoy the rest of us and not deter the spammers. I prefer to focus on tools that assist us in cleanup, like the turbocharged banhammer we're building in the back room.
Thanks, Gary. I'm sure you're right. The more I think about it, the more difficult it seems. How irritating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could we just have the system automatically flag as suspicious anyone who generates X threads within Y minutes? It keeps the mods in the loop while still pinging likely spammers, and wouldn't necessarily hinder other users.