Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl Monk, Perl Meditation
 
PerlMonks  

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

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Aug 09, 2013 at 17:48 UTC ( #1048810=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


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

whenever it (fortunately, rarely) appears.

If you are not here when it is posted -- usually early hours of the morning US time; then by the time you do visit, it has all been dealt with so you never see it.

Early and mid-morning European time, its a pain.

If it ainít broke . . .

You're obviously one of the majority who leave dealing with spam to others.

The current mechanism is a painful multi-step process.

  1. View node; type reason; check checkbox; click consider; wait for refresh.
  2. Check "reap"; click moderate; wait;
  3. Check downvote; click vote; wait.

And by the time you've done all that, upto a dozen more have appeared on the RAT page.

And you can only hope that 3 other monks are around and diligent enough to go through the same process.

All good and proper for dealing with matters of off-topic nodes, the lack of code tags and correcting titling; but too slow and cumbersome for dealing with spam in a timely manner.

I donít personally believe that author-based heuristics will be useful, or successful:

Strange, given that the existing consideration mechanism that you are so supportive of above, is already author-based.

It requires any monk using it to be a) logged-in; b) of a certain standing -- ie. to have acquired some minimal level of XP to ensure at least some level of worthiness either through attendance or positive contribution.

And what do you think these ingenious bot authors that you are so enamored of are going to do? Create 4 bot accounts; have them log in every day and answer enough nodes to accumulate sufficient Xp; so that when the bot owner posts spam; he can arrange for his bots to countermand the consideration process by have his bot vote "keep"?

You really do not think things through do you.


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 sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Aug 13, 2013 at 22:39 UTC

    It may well be true that most of the spam is coming in when I am asleep ... in which case I for one am most-grateful to those of you out there who laboriously “deal with it.”

    If we are going to come up with some “user-response based” treatment for spam, then I definitely think that this response should include at least these three features:

    1. Get rid of Anonymous Monk.   Maybe there are those who think that the ability to comment and to vote anonymously is a fabulous freedom, but this is the only forum-site that I am aware of which allows it.   It lets someone lurk around the corner and shoot spitballs.
    2. Expand the idea of “up/down voting” (and “consideration”) to include categorized reasons.   A mere number does not say diddly-squat.   Whereas ratings or tags, which can be tabulated, could be very useful indeed, even for years to come.
    3. Consider the utility of allowing the votes of certain users to count many-times more than others.   For instance, Popes such as yourself could nary-well be gods.   Perhaps even with the power to permanently excommunicate pesky fellow Monks with whom Your Eminences simply do not see eye-to-eye?   (It occurs to me that this thought might have for you a certain appeal ...)

      1. You once again demonstrate that you have either have a very short memory; or a very selective one.

        I recall -- but cannot be bothered to look up -- someone posting a long list of other sites that allow anonymous posters -- in direct reply to one of your previous assertions of this myth.

        You should by now be very aware that this isn't going to happen; so why keep flogging that dead horse?

      2. I learned early on here that looking to change the way this place works is a forlorn hope.

        The possibility of change is in the purview of those with neither the time to make major changes; nor the willingness to allow other to do so.

        Get over it; or use those skills you claim and write your own forum. Do a good job and maybe you'll attract many converts.

      3. Probably your worst idea to date. (And quite a turn around from the man who was decrying the possibility of "author-based consideration" just a couple of days ago.)

        And no, the idea holds no appeal for me. I have no special privileges here -- I long ago turned down the possibility of joining the inner sanctum -- and I prefer that it stay that way. One man; one opinion; one vote per expression of it.


      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://1048810]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-12-20 23:53 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

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





    Results (99 votes), past polls