What's up with all the spam posts?
-
@DavidPS
No worries. I definitely fit the description of an "undesirable user". -
Nonsense!
-
Last evening there was one. I banned it because I just logged on, and then they immediately made a new account and started posting. I banned that one as well, and then they made another new account, which I also banned, and then they gave up, I guess. What's the point of the spam, though? Since they don't have any links in the posts, I assume it's for SEO hacking or something.
Adding an hour wait to the post would be ideal @brad also emailed confirmation for registered users. Or we can implement something RPF did where mods have to approve people who signed up based on them answering a question like "Why did you register on this forum?" @ThinPicking
-
@Kilgore - Thanks for all the work you are doing. I wanted to share my observations.
The spam users stop after 200 new posts. It is just enough to populate the 10 screens of recent posts. @Yori hit the 200 mark in less than 2 hours and moved on. Are 200 posts in less than 2 hours humanly possible?
The number of new posts is erased from my view once the user is banned.
https://bioenergetic.forum/user/yoriI am thinking that that a possible solution would be to limit each users ability to create a new post to something along the line of once every 5 minutes. This would frustrate the mischievous and most likely would not impact other users.
““Effective health care depends on self-care” - Ivan Illich, 👀
☂️ -
@Kilgore said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
Last evening there was one. I banned it because I just logged on, and then they immediately made a new account and started posting. I banned that one as well, and then they made another new account, which I also banned, and then they gave up, I guess. What's the point of the spam, though? Since they don't have any links in the posts, I assume it's for SEO hacking or something.
I don't get it either. even for SEO purposes it would have to include links. Stuff like that is/was sometimes used to discredit the competition. You put spam links from you competion everywhere so that google punishes them by ranking their websites lower. But without links it doesn't make sense. Also, google became smarter and ignores such methods now.
All the spam-bots seem to have female names. As a precautionary measure, we should therefore block all users with female names, except for @Jennifer of course. Just kidding.
I'm not an expert, but would a captcha at registration solve the problem or can the bots solve them as well now?
I've never been a big party attender, but I never went to a party where I didn't probably offend most of the people there by talking about what I was interested in. (Ray Peat)
-
@Luke said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
would a captcha at registration solve the problem or can the bots solve them as well now?
Not always functional.
-
@DavidPS said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
Thanks for all the work you are doing.
Thank you. This is the hardest I will ever want to work in my life. #nevergettingajewb
@DavidPS said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
Are 200 posts in less than 2 hours humanly possible?
I think so.
@DavidPS said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
The number of new posts is erased from my view once the user is banned.
https://bioenergetic.forum/user/yoriThats because once they are deleted I also purge then that is like a final deletion.
@DavidPS said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
I am thinking that that a possible solution would be to limit each users ability to create a new post to something along the line of once every 5 minutes. This would frustrate the mischievous and most likely would not impact other users.
Good idea. I cant implement this but @brad could if he remembers he has a forum.
-
@Luke said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
I don't get it either. even for SEO purposes it would have to include links. Stuff like that is/was sometimes used to discredit the competition. You put spam links from you competion everywhere so that google punishes them by ranking their websites lower. But without links it doesn't make sense. Also, google became smarter and ignores such methods now.
Charlie wants to destroy us!
-
Stop taking credit for my work Bill.
-
Ch-arl-ina
-
@Luke said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
All the spam-bots seem to have female names. As a precautionary measure, we should therefore block all users with female names, except for @Jennifer of course. Just kidding.
Amazoniac says I’m sponsored by Applegate so I don’t know if that makes me just as spammy as the barbie-bots, but I think I can fly under the radar if I change my handle to ChiseledJawChadDrivesBigTruck.
-
Totally happy to make changes if there's a consensus among mods and users. Seems like an easy fix would be to rate limit first day new threads to something like 3.
-
@brad said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
Seems like an easy fix would be to rate limit first day new threads to something like 3.
It could do the job. OK for me.
-
@brad said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
Totally happy to make changes if there's a consensus among mods and users. Seems like an easy fix would be to rate limit first day new threads to something like 3.
It seems like the spam has stopped anyway knock on wood or I missed it. But sounds like a good idea.
-
A limit of 3 new threads for the first day is a very generous compromise and it will get the job done.
-
-
Well so much for the idea that the the spam was only going to be 200 new posts at a go.
-
*006 behaviour. Imposter!
Please ignore/block them for now. I'll clean them up when I'm at a bigger screen.
-
I liked the basketball engraving machine better than the pellet machine.
-
@Luke said in What's up with all the spam posts?:
I liked the basketball engraving machine better than the pellet machine.
Based
