Re: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!

There are many around here who tend to encourage people to identify and provide a link if they crosspost their questions to places such as StackOverflow or other forums. Blocking anonymonk from posting non-local links would prevent new visitors from being able to do so without creating an account.

Comment on Re: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 08, 2013 at 11:34 UTC
I think I favour my second idea. A spam button combined with tighter control on what can be spidered from here. But, as far as banning urls are concerned, if I was implementing it, rather than having to add every new url the spammers come up with to a blacklist; I'd have a whitelist of acceptable urls: cpan etc. You could then automate the maintenance of that white list by (say) sending /msg <url> to (say) userid whitelist. If the same url is submitted by 3 or 4 non-anonymous users of sufficient standing, it gets added. (The benefit of this mechanism is that unaccepted urls are never displayed anywhere publicly.) 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.	[reply]
Re^2: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! by Anonymous Monk on Aug 08, 2013 at 10:55 UTC
Blocking anonymonk Already happens, as does blocking initiates, for certain types of urls, not http://stackoverflow.com/ you see	[reply]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks