dsimms Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 This is my Ider... 1: create limitations on allowing sigs and profile editing until they reach a post limit. Because auto spammers will never reach this limit; If they get past creating an account, then they will be stopped by sig and profile limits, and auto spam bots will not be able to drop links... 2. limit any post that contains any type of link for mod review.... of course allow enable/disable options. 3. allow Q&A to be setup in the posting process, along side Capacha... allow the use of Q&A, or Capacha or both... Any of this exist already? and if any of this does not exist already, then it should surely be implemented as soon as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Three exists. One is a hook. You forgot the best one. 4. Great moderation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
• Jay • Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Why waste any time? Just skip to the end game and disable registration. That's the most effective way to guarantee you will never see any more spam bots, not to mention save developers hours of time coding add-ons and features that run members away. Jumping through hoops to make a simple post? Nobody will put up with that for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsimms Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 why shut off registration, why not just remove all spam defenses?? Lets just have the spammers run the forum, and run everyone else off. Buy viagra today? Hacking software forsale. The best porn on the internet. and they do not just post it once, they infect/infest every single topic/thread on a forum. So no, I do not think I am asking for much.... and those that signup just to drop a link and run, they provide no value to the forum anyway... This is why its best to include what options admin would want to enable. If some admin wants to run the best spam forum on the net, then he can disable the simple things that I request, he can choose to run one, both, or none.... I think you are over exaggerating anyway, I would not be asking forum member to fill out a 10 page report before posting, and if forum members expect a certain quality out of the forum they visit, then they will not mind filling out 1 or 2 spam preventions to post, and everything else i mentioned would be invisible... I have had people come to my forum, post 3 words, 5 links, never to be seen again. They contribute 100% nothing to the forum, and they think we owe them something.... and others just attempt to drop links in without ever posting anything on the forum at all, then they get pissed off because they bought some link drop spam service.... Its just common sense spam prevention. Why waste any time? Just skip to the end game and disable registration. That's the most effective way to guarantee you will never see any more spam bots, not to mention save developers hours of time coding add-ons and features that run members away. Jumping through hoops to make a simple post? Nobody will put up with that for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Why waste any time? Just skip to the end game and disable registration. That's the most effective way to guarantee you will never see any more spam bots, not to mention save developers hours of time coding add-ons and features that run members away. Jumping through hoops to make a simple post? Nobody will put up with that for long.3/10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kessler Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 This is my Ider... 1: create limitations on allowing sigs and profile editing until they reach a post limit. Because auto spammers will never reach this limit; If they get past creating an account, then they will be stopped by sig and profile limits, and auto spam bots will not be able to drop links... 2. limit any post that contains any type of link for mod review.... of course allow enable/disable options. The first is already possible, albeit not quite in the manner you may be speaking. The second, there's already a built-in option for limiting the posting of links. For the method you describe, I believe there are options in the Marketplace to accomplish that. The third, would need to be an add-on at this point. Don't know if it'll make it into a future version of the software, as that's up to the developers to decide. why shut off registration, why not just remove all spam defenses?? I believe Jay's point was that the more work someone has to do or go through just to join a community, the less likely they are to join. Why join one community that all but requires a DNA sample, finger print and retina scan to join when another community doesn't require it? There's a point where the security measures become a problem instead of a help. As the spammers make use of software that's been designed to get around those new measures, the new members who would have joined your community are deciding it's not worth the hassle. So the trick isn't to always implement more and more ways to stop spammers, but sometimes to improve the current ways to become more effective. Not only cause problems for the spammers, but not put a noticeable burden on the real people who would join. Here's an example of an idea that seems brilliant in theory but that I personally believe is more of a pest. Those security codes printed on the back of credit cards. That's somehow supposed to stop/cripple or slow down those that steal credit card numbers, because when making a purchase, if that code isn't used as well, the transaction gets stopped. The problem with that is that all the thieves have to do is include that number when stealing the information. Supposedly, if someone copies the card, then it won't have the security code on the back, making it useless. Um, hello, if someone is making a copy of an actual card, what's to stop them from just writing down the number from the back of the card? I'm sure it's helped to cut down on theft some, but now as a price for that little gain, everyone must spend an extra few seconds on many transactions to enter in the number. So while the idea of adding in more and more steps to prevent spamming may sound brilliant up front, deeper down it may be nothing more than a nuisance that stops real people from joining, while the spammers still get through. They either get through because of developed software or because the spammers have no life so it doesn't bother them to register on a site. The real way to cut down on spamming is to find a way to make it more hassle and less profit, while not causing an inconvenience for legitimate visitors. Do that and you'll be famous and possibly rich beyond belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XiuzSu Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 This are all great suggestions (Though as said before they are already implemented aside from the last one) but lets be honest, do you think that your members (non-bots) will like to go through all that every time they post, or how good would this look as your forum's first impression. Personally, I would be greatly annoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsimms Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 I understand what you guys are saying, maybe a low traffic forum could get away for sometime without the use of extra spam measures, but if you are a popular board, then you would surely need them, i doubt many would mind taking 3/4 of a second answering a question...craigslist already makes you submit DNA by punching some digits on the phone before you are allowed to post, and that is a step that takes much longer then answering a question that would only take fraction of a second. like I said, allow forum admin to make that choice.... If they wish to use enable options, great. if they wish to disable options, great You guys are making a much bigger deal out of this then it really is... the only extra thing that maybe visible would be for a member to answer a question that will merely take a second. Do you think craigslist would die if they added Q/A? it probably would make their board much better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsimms Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 This are all great suggestions (Though as said before they are already implemented aside from the last one) but lets be honest, do you think that your members (non-bots) will like to go through all that every time they post, or how good would this look as your forum's first impression. Personally, I would be greatly annoyed. going through what exactly? answering a simple question that would take less then a fraction of a second? This is why we have options in this software, as if it was just all one-sided, 50% of the on/off/enable/disable would not be there today. This is why we call this admin choice.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
• Jay • Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 less then a fraction of a second LOL That was funny. Cool points for making me laugh.This is why we call this admin choice.... Admins have many choices. They're called hooks and add-ons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makoto Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I'm kinda surprised e-mail validation hasn't been mentioned. It's one effective way of killing spambots. You can call it an inconvenience, but this is important for more than just spam. Users should be using a valid e-mail when registering for many reasons. One being, if they loose their password one day and can't reset their account, what then? They're screwed. No matter how many posts they made. They can't really just expect me to believe them when they contact me begging for me to reset their password. Captcha during registration I believe is acceptable. But I do not believe captcha should be required anywhere for a registered member. I use the challenge question as both a means of forcing people to agree they are of age to use my site and helping stop spambots. Requiring a user to make a few posts before using the PM system can be reasonable as well. Generally, it's pretty easy to tell by ones posts if they're a spambot or not. This all depends though, usually people PM someone after getting to know them on the forums. In the ~two years I've ran an IPB powered forum, I've had one or two "spambots." They weren't actually bots, they actually went through the trouble of registering and tried to disguise their posts as being legit, though for anyone who knows what a spambot is, the distinction is obvious. Basically, IPB's current spam prevention system works flawlessly as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
• Jay • Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 IP.Board already has e-mail validation as a feature. That's probably why it hasn't been mentioned. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makoto Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 IP.Board already has e-mail validation as a feature. That's probably why it hasn't been mentioned. :smile: I know, but most of what he listed was already possible to begin with. I use e-mail validation. I'm saying I think what IP.Board has now is efficient enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
• Jay • Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I know, but most of what he listed was already possible to begin with. I use e-mail validation. I'm saying I think what IP.Board has now is efficient enough. I agree for the most part. If they integrate KeyCaptcha as a standard feature, it would be efficient enough, imho. We've had bots get past ReCaptcha on our site, but KeyCaptcha has been much more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makoto Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I wouldn't argue with considering an alternative captcha service. I'm not a big ran of reCaptcha, but surprisingly, my members have acclaimed they prefer it over the old GD captcha method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
• Jay • Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I wouldn't argue with considering an alternative captcha service. I'm not a big ran of reCaptcha, but surprisingly, my members have acclaimed they prefer it over the old GD captcha method.Here's the plug-in for it.You can see it in action here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.