Sign in or 
Location: Wetpaint Central Discussion Forum
Discussion: Anti-Spam Measures
Category:
Discussion Forum /
Suggestions
Share this
Showing 7 posts
|
Maxwilly |
Anti-Spam Measures
Dec 26 2010, 2:21 PM EST
Here, I have a few suggestions to put an end to the continuous spam attacks.Email Verification: A strict email verification would stop a lot of spammers from the start. Most spammers use fake email addresses, so why don't you make it so that you have to verify your email before you can log in? Different Captcha: The Captcha doesn't work. I believe Wetpaint is fixing that. But it isn't strict enough, and it isn't in the right place. You should have to complete a Captcha for editing your profile, not for editing a page. Because profiles and forums are where the spammers work. It should be stricter. Bulk Banning: This has been suggested multiple times before. I like the idea, and it would be extremely useful to be able to ban all spammers in one click. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
CryingDove |
1. RE: Anti-Spam Measures
Dec 26 2010, 3:12 PM EST
I believe spammers know exactly how to get around everything that Wetpaint will throw at them, with the exception of a ban. A quick ban. This requires a vigilant moderation team to take care of the situation immediately. If I were a spammer, here is what I would do.1. Spam as much as possible here on Wetpaint Central. I would do this, by knowing the rules. I know that the moderators will see my spam (no matter how old the thread is) and they would reply to the thread with a warning. That would suit me fine, because it would not only leave my spam in the threads, it would also bring my spam to the top of the list again. That is what the rules say to do. Give them a warning. I can spam 3 times before being banned. It would be easier to ban the spammer and delete the thread(s) as soon as it is seen. Eventually they will get the hint. Right now, it is their posting haven. 3. I would not be an anonymous spammer. This spammer should be taken care of with an IP ban and nothing else has to be done except delete my current spam thread. 4. I would be a spammer with a login. Simply create another login. But I would soon tire of creating new accounts over and over. 5. Now for the inadvertent spammer. This is a member who has no clue as to what an irrelevant thread is about. Simply delete the thread immediately. They do not need to be told not to post irrelevant threads and leave the thread untouched by a moderator. Simply delete the thread. Lack of vigilance, will never justify code writing. The tools for moderating a wiki are already in place. Do you find this valuable? |
walrusworldstudios |
2. RE: Anti-Spam Measures
Dec 26 2010, 7:48 PM EST
I agree with everything CryingDove said, but I have a few things to add myself. Email Verification: Yes, a better email verification system would be effective, however, as CryingDove mentioned, any spammer could get around this. For example, a very desperate spammer could just create more valid email accounts. This would require more time than the current spam prevention system does, however, a spammer would eventually be able to create more accounts. An IP ban would be most effective here. If the moderators had the option to immediately IP ban the spammer, the spammer could no longer access the site. The only way to get rid of the spammer is a ban. Prevention works, but only to a point. CAPTCHA: To my understanding, you have to complete a CAPTCHA forum everytime you edit a page, profile, or post a thread. In fact, I just joined a website to test this out. On my Dr.Odd account, I had no friends that were mods or admins of the site. So, I opened up the Easy Edit button and edited my profile. Then, when I went to save the changes, Wetpaint prompted me to fill out a CAPTCHA forum. The CAPTCHA system works fine. However, the work-arounds to the system are clearly labeled on WPC. A smart spammer would do their research before deciding to spam a website. Again, prevention isn't enough. It takes an IP ban to rid of them forever. Just a few comments I had here and there. Overall, I agree with CryingDove. An IP ban is the only effective tool of getting rid of a spammer. Prevention Methods, such as a stronger email verification and a CAPTCHA system, are only effective until the spammers find a work-around to them. Once a work-around is discovered, they can continue to spam until banned. That's the reason why moderators need to be able to IP ban users. It's the only plausible method of riding the spammers from Wetpaint. -Matt Do you find this valuable? |
|
Maxwilly |
3. RE: Anti-Spam Measures
Dec 28 2010, 6:43 AM EST
Yes, good suggestions. I was aiming it more to automated spammers. Because on Wetpaint Central, I previously discussed with moderators the tens of thousands of silent spammers that seem to be joining by the minute. No human(s) could make so many accounts in such a small amount of time. It takes about 10 minutes to get your account properly up and running, but like I said, these people are doing it by the minute.
Do you find this valuable?
|
Andering_J_REDDSON |
4. RE: Anti-Spam Measures
Dec 28 2010, 6:17 PM EST
____Just adding my own Ø2¢;____I could not agree more with the simpler bulk banning option; A simple checkbox with a button on the member list page with a button at the top “Change Status” (and while we’re at it, perhaps it could become a way to change them to any level, so I could “bulk promote/demote” members). ____Vigilance is the duty of an effective moderatorship; If you can’t (WON’T) do the job, QUIT. Get out of the way and let someone who actually can and will do it. Last summer, one site was complaining that they’d been spammed out. ¿SO? It’s happened to me, too. I do all my sites entirely myself, and do not have these issues; This is because I police my sites very tightly. (By the way, for those who were whining before- I do it now without taking my sites private, and allowing anonymous postings. Laziness is no excuse of gross incompetence.) ____As to the Catchpas, I’d say they’re all too effective- Half the time I have to sit there and try and guess what they actually say. They’re bloody impossible to read, and if I could remove them from my sites they’d be gone. Period. They don’t actually stop spammers (as the occasional spammer at my site proves), and they do make it difficult for the occasional minor interest parties from asking a quick question. Remember, spammers as often as not aren’t paid based on the number of views but on the number of postings; Often it doesn’t even matter if the posting stays up, as long as goes up. They can post anonymously, do it 5Ø,ØØØ times a day (once per second for 12+ hours per day) seven days a week, and still earn enough to keep a roof over their head and food in their bellies. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
Naru2008 |
5. RE: Anti-Spam Measures
Dec 29 2010, 1:58 PM EST
"The CAPTCHA system works fine."Last time I checked Matt, it still does what I reported to Jeremy and lets you put in an incorrect letter at the end and still go through. It isn't doing it's job if it does that, don't you think? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
Losa78 |
6. RE: Anti-Spam Measures
Dec 29 2010, 2:35 PM EST
"Last time I checked Matt, it still does what I reported to Jeremy and lets you put in an incorrect letter at the end and still go through. It isn't doing it's job if it does that, don't you think?"Hmmm... The way I see it, if a person misses just one single character out of the whole captcha, it's fine if it still goes through. The odds for a simple bot "guess" are still pretty remote for this to really be an issue, imho... It surely reduces a lot of frustration, because, as many have said, most of the captchas are pretty hard to read, as much as you can refresh them and get as many new ones as you want. Just my two cents as well... 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
