Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Aug 07, 2013 at 08:06 UTC ( #1048285=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
in thread Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!

An alternative would be to only show unapproved nodes to logged-in users.

But aren't they a "legitimate" target market for the spammers?

The other thought that crossed my mind was a "spam" button in the Approval nodelet for anonymous posts.

Once clicked, the only place that post shows up is in the 'nodes to consider' list; where it can be restored with 'Keep' if the spam button has been abused.

The idea being to make the marking of spam a considerably simpler & quicker process than the current 4 present & cooperating monks + a downvote (== extended time when not many monks around).


With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.


Comment on Re^2: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
Re^3: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
by Tux (Monsignor) on Aug 07, 2013 at 09:30 UTC

    I did not know about the required downvote, and as I do not vote on anonymonk posts at all, that might slow down the reap (if other considerators act the same).


    Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
      I think we should keep this with in the nodes to consideration votes not the general up and down votes.

      Sparky
      FMTEYEWTK

        I don't think so:

        current 4 present & cooperating monks + a downvote

        The "4 present" is 4 reap votes, the "downvote" is the up-down vote. At least that is how I read it.


        Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
Re^3: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
by kcott (Abbot) on Aug 07, 2013 at 10:36 UTC

    ++ Yes, I like that idea.

    Furthermore, while I don't baulk at downvoting spam, given the flood we seem to be getting recently, I often feel I've wasted about a quarter of my votes each day doing so. Simply getting them off "Newest Nodes" (and the "Unapproved" lists in whatever section) and only requiring "Reap" considerations to remove them would be a significant improvement in my opinion.

    I'd also suggest that they don't appear in "Worst Nodes" either; although, if they weren't actually being downvoted that may be a moot point.

    -- Ken

      Furthermore, while I don't baulk at downvoting spam, given the flood we seem to be getting recently, I often feel I've wasted about a quarter of my votes each day doing so.

      Indeed. I've seem to have perpetual "dog votes" because of the downvotes cast against spam. Even if someone else has already cast the required downvote; you have to vote to know that :(


      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        Even if someone else has already cast the required downvote; you have to vote to know that :(

        Hmm, just a quite unreflected thought: some kind of symbol like "¬"/¬ might be ok for display on a node that has received at least one -1.

        Cheers, Sören

        Créateur des bugs mobiles - let loose once, run everywhere.
        (hooked on the Perl Programming language)

      I'm not quite clear what your criterion is for exclusion from worst nodes. If it's "Reaped", I'd agree totally, but otherwise I might differ. Back in the day when I wrote Re: History now influences voting, I didn't have the power to consider nodes and could only downvote to flag them to others. I now check worst nodes most days to see if there is anything that needs considering (although I may do other things, like upvoting a "thank you" that has a negative reputation). Reaped nodes obviously don't need considering, which is why I agree with you, but merely being considered might be problematic. Sometimes nodes sit for weeks with a consideration. I'd also restrict your exclusion to "Worst nodes of the day" rather than to the other categories, as it can be helpful to know which bridges are troll-infested.

      Regards,

      John Davies

        I don't check "Worst Nodes" that often, but I have noticed recently that the majority of the "Day" and "Week" lists have been spam: I did check yesterday (around the time I posted) and there were 8 in the "Day" list and 6 in the "Week" list; checking again just now, it's 6 and 6. The Reputations of the spam nodes range from -3 to -6.

        My original thought when suggesting exclusion from "Worst Nodes" was that this section could actually reflect what it was (at least in my opinion) intended for. Your comments bear this out to some degree: a "thank you" with an accidental (or even malicious) downvote, with a Rep of -1, is not going to show up when you look.

        Anyway, we appear to be in agreement about "Reaped" spam. Prior to consideration, I would assume that they're treated as any other node; that would fit with your current usage of checking for nodes requiring consideration. When considered with a "Spam" button, as suggested by BrowserUk, or by any other mechanism that flags them as spam, I was suggesting that would also prevent them from appearing in "Worst Nodes".

        -- Ken

Re^3: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
by SuicideJunkie (Priest) on Aug 07, 2013 at 14:28 UTC

    I think the idea there is to hide them from the search engine spidering.

    Humans can ignore them for being obviously spam, and most people won't even see them due to reaping, but the spider bots are very aggressive and spot them almost immediately.

      I'd always assumed that nodes didn't appear on the spiderable PM server until they were approved. A quick google proves that wrong unfortunately.


      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1048285]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-12-19 23:57 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (94 votes), past polls