#81
Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:18 PM
#82
Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:21 PM
If spam is posted to the site and is automatically approved - as it is right now - it fills the Reports System with garbage, not only making it harder for us to do our job to move stuff around, but makes it incredibly hard to navigate for things that have been reported - and personally, I do not have permissions to permanently remove reports, and neither do the other Moderators.
This certainly does not mean you should not, or must not, report spam - as it is currently the only way we see spam in posts that are not new (eg, a new thread created by a spammer is much easier to see, rather than necroposts/etc).
Whereas, if spam remains in an unapproved state, we can deal with it much more easily - press the Delete button on the post/thread the spambot created, hit "Flag Account" - rather than having to manually delete all the users' posts - and be careful we don't delete a legitimate thread - and clear any reports for that user. It's actually become one of my nightmares now. (I'm not kidding.)
I still, again (and I quote myself) "really, really suggest we approve new member's (<10) posts. It's much easier to delete content before it appears - and it keeps the Reports system in a manageable state." There are enough moderators that content will be approved expediently and we operate in timezones where we overlap by at least a few hours each, so the forum usually does not go un-watched by someone - and if all else fails, the reports system won't overflow.
#84
Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:29 PM
AfterLifeLochie, on 11 January 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:
If spam is posted to the site and is automatically approved - as it is right now - it fills the Reports System with garbage, not only making it harder for us to do our job to move stuff around, but makes it incredibly hard to navigate for things that have been reported - and personally, I do not have permissions to permanently remove reports, and neither do the other Moderators.
This certainly does not mean you should not, or must not, report spam - as it is currently the only way we see spam in posts that are not new (eg, a new thread created by a spammer is much easier to see, rather than necroposts/etc).
Whereas, if spam remains in an unapproved state, we can deal with it much more easily - press the Delete button on the post/thread the spambot created, hit "Flag Account" - rather than having to manually delete all the users' posts - and be careful we don't delete a legitimate thread - and clear any reports for that user. It's actually become one of my nightmares now. (I'm not kidding.)
I still, again (and I quote myself) "really, really suggest we approve new member's (<10) posts. It's much easier to delete content before it appears - and it keeps the Reports system in a manageable state." There are enough moderators that content will be approved expediently and we operate in timezones where we overlap by at least a few hours each, so the forum usually does not go un-watched by someone - and if all else fails, the reports system won't overflow.
You're the moderator. Whatever is easiest for you works for me.
#86
Posted 12 January 2013 - 01:06 AM
EDIT: OMG Spam posted IN a spam post! from 2 different accounts!
#87
Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:12 AM
#88
Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:11 AM
- Run a script at registration that times how long it takes for the application to be filled out, and how long it takes for a response to be made on the registration email. If it is not done in a HUMANLY time frame, then we flag that IP as 'suspicious'.
- A moderator could watch the account, and approve the posts they make.
- Or, the system could place an automatic block on the account, and the user would have to re-verify themselves before continuing.
- A moderator could watch the account, and approve the posts they make.
- Add additional security questions. But use random ones from a list. Also, the question should not be in plain text, but in an image, such as a .PNG.
- Two or three questions, pooled from a list of about twenty.
- This one is a little more tricky, but we could have an 'advanced' registration. The user could check a box, and they can use a lua prompt to create a function to return a certain value that we need.
- Spoiler
#89
Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:25 AM
Cranium, on 13 January 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:
- Run a script at registration that times how long it takes for the application to be filled out, and how long it takes for a response to be made on the registration email. If it is not done in a HUMANLY time frame, then we flag that IP as 'suspicious'.
- A moderator could watch the account, and approve the posts they make.
- Or, the system could place an automatic block on the account, and the user would have to re-verify themselves before continuing.
- A moderator could watch the account, and approve the posts they make.
- Add additional security questions. But use random ones from a list. Also, the question should not be in plain text, but in an image, such as a .PNG.
- Two or three questions, pooled from a list of about twenty.
- This one is a little more tricky, but we could have an 'advanced' registration. The user could check a box, and they can use a lua prompt to create a function to return a certain value that we need.
- Spoiler
#3 looks fun, but it would be way too complicated for new users.
#90
Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:09 AM
Dlcruz129, on 13 January 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:
#91
Posted 13 January 2013 - 12:01 PM
though they manage to ship captia off to places where the sun dosent shine and still gets past it :s
#92
Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:14 PM
PixelToast, on 13 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:
though they manage to ship captia off to places where the sun dosent shine and still gets past it :s
#93
Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:29 AM
Cranium, on 13 January 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:
PixelToast, on 13 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:
though they manage to ship captia off to places where the sun dosent shine and still gets past it :s
#94
Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:10 AM
#95
Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:12 AM
#96
Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:18 AM
It discusses recent integration with keyCaptcha. Which is better than reCaptcha, since it uses a puzzle, rather than a image that can be solved easily. Since it's already been integrated, why not add it to the website?
#97
Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:10 AM
EDIT: nevermind, Lyqyd mentioned that they are using different IPs every time
EDIT2: and ninja'd too
Edited by KaoS, 17 January 2013 - 07:19 AM.
#99
Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:56 AM
#100
Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:10 PM
Quote
>Markus Alexej "Notch" Persson
[nope]
>Markus "Notch" Persson
[nope]
>Markus Alexej Persson
[nope]
>Markus Persson
[nope]
>Notch
DING DING!
...
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users