Author Topic: Forum Signature Spam: Let's discuss how to handle.. (Read 55,367 times)

jgpaiva · « **Reply #25 on:** September 13, 2007, 12:54 PM »

I think i'm with mouser, let's have the minimum amount of hassle for the genuine members.
Having a limit of 5 posts would be pretty decent, because the mods would delete those posts before the spammer even got to the 3rd spammy post.

As for big signatures, i'm starting to feel guity

mouser · « **Reply #26 on:** September 13, 2007, 12:59 PM »

Quote

s was noted before, if it's just requiring n posts before signatures will be shown, then the spammer will just post n+1, and that makes the problem worse.

i don't think this is realistic because well before they get to n+1, we will have spotted fake posts and deleted the user.

CWuestefeld · « **Reply #27 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:07 PM »

Quote from: mouser on September 13, 2007, 12:59 PM

i don't think this is realistic because well before they get to n+1, we will have spotted fake posts and deleted the user.

But at the top of the thread, you said

Quote from: mouser on September 12, 2007, 09:15 AM

So in addition to this being spam, it's also likely to result in wasted efforts by helpful people trying to answer their questions.

Apparently these posts aren't immediately obvious as spam.

I still say go with a 30-day probation, or just require that someone donate before they can have a sig.

mouser · « **Reply #28 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:11 PM »

to tell the truth, ironically, i'm afraid hiding the sigs will make this worse, in that we won't recognize the posts as spam so easily...

i think we will have to block users from SETTING their signature until after a few posts, then hopefully this will scare them off early.

this quote of mine:

Quote

So in addition to this being spam, it's also likely to result in wasted efforts by helpful people trying to answer their questions.

i guess i was just lamenting the fact that the posts can look real, but i still think we would spot them before they made multiple posts.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #29 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:14 PM »

Actually I quite like the idea of restricting sigs to donating members - its not a big hardship to non-donating members and is a little perk for people who bother to make the effort.

Perry Mowbray · « **Reply #30 on:** September 13, 2007, 02:33 PM »

Quote from: mouser on September 13, 2007, 01:11 PM

i think we will have to block users from SETTING their signature until after a few posts, then hopefully this will scare them off early.

So do you think that in the majority of cases that the spammer will be identified before they get to add their signature??

That would obviously be a nearly perfect result.

I think the 80/20 rule comes into to play here as well: as long as the majority are contained...

mouser · « **Reply #31 on:** September 13, 2007, 07:19 PM »

Quote

So do you think that in the majority of cases that the spammer will be identified before they get to add their signature??

in the ideal case, the spammer person signing up (or the bot if it's automated) will discover that they can't create a signature yet since they don't have enough posts, and will just go away without ever posting.

in the worst case, the automated script that posts won't realize that it's signature with the spam link wasn't created, and will make their fake post anyway, but with no spam advert link, it will be harder for us to recognize the post as spam.

Mark0 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 14, 2007, 11:52 AM »

Add a vote for the simple "minimum post count".
I kinda like the signatures because, like the avatars, they help identifying and characterizing a poster / user, IMHO.
On some forums there are strict & specific rules about them (like heigh in pixels, number of images or smiley, etc.), but I think that we just need to enforce some "taste". When a signature show up that will be unapproriated enough, I think one user or the other will find a polite way to notify it to the author and suggest changes.

Bye!

TucknDar · « **Reply #33 on:** September 14, 2007, 02:55 PM »

Do anyone have any experience with Akismet? http://akismet.com/

I haven't tried it and only recently found it, but it's supposed to catch spam-posts to forums/blogs/comments, etc...

Quote

When a new comment, trackback, or pingback comes to your blog it is submitted to the Akismet web service which runs hundreds of tests on the comment and returns a thumbs up or thumbs down.

There's a SMF plugin here: http://www.dansoftaustralia.net/products/smf-mods/akismet.htm

mouser · « **Reply #34 on:** September 14, 2007, 03:24 PM »

Nice find TucknDar -- that looks like a nice mod to smf that i may install..
ps. while i was checking out that author's site i came across a very cool tool he made, and posted about it here:
http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=9998

Curt · « **Reply #35 on:** September 14, 2007, 07:16 PM »

Quote from: CWuestefeld on September 13, 2007, 01:07 PM

, or just require that someone donate before they can have a sig.

This sounds reasonable.

f0dder · « **Reply #36 on:** September 16, 2007, 05:24 PM »

Quote from: Mark0 on September 14, 2007, 11:52 AM

but I think that we just need to enforce some "taste". When a signature show up that will be unapproriated enough, I think one user or the other will find a polite way to notify it to the author and suggest changes.

Hear ye, hear ye!

Daniel15 · « **Reply #37 on:** September 18, 2007, 10:18 AM »

Quote from: TucknDar on September 14, 2007, 02:55 PM

Do anyone have any experience with Akismet? http://akismet.com/

I haven't tried it and only recently found it, but it's supposed to catch spam-posts to forums/blogs/comments, etc...

Quote
When a new comment, trackback, or pingback comes to your blog it is submitted to the Akismet web service which runs hundreds of tests on the comment and returns a thumbs up or thumbs down.

There's a SMF plugin here: http://www.dansoftaustralia.net/products/smf-mods/akismet.htm

Hey look, it's my mod

To be honest, I'm not too happy with my Akismet mod at the moment. It works fine for most people, but doesn't seem to work for absolutely everyone (possibly due to differences in the server configuration), so please test it out on a test site before using it. I'm planning to rewrite it soon, although my free time is very limited at the moment. When I get more free time, I'll be doing more extensive testing with it.

housetier · « **Reply #38 on:** September 27, 2007, 05:14 AM »

I am in favor of allowing quotes and textual links but no images nor banners and such. Also, the signature shouldn't have more than 5 lines. The actual post is more important than a signature.

If people have so much to say in their signature, they should open a thread or put it on a website and link to it.

So far I haven't really been inconvenienced by other users' signatures because I told smf to not display them

terribleterryc · « **Reply #39 on:** September 27, 2007, 05:18 AM »

I use to HATE signatures. I like them now but turn them off after I associate them with everyone's name. The last several hours here I have not noticed any that rattle me. jgpaiva has largest I have seen and it is OK. If it stretched across entire page and was a color photograph or if it was animated I would immediately go looking for shut off button.

terribleterryc · « **Reply #40 on:** September 27, 2007, 05:28 AM »

housetier posted while I was posting. Because of abuse I have seen as a moderator and user I would have to join housetier in the no images, banners things. I also agree with the five line limit although that would cut off my gaming signature which I display for one day every three months. Might need more discussion on the five line limit as that cuts down your current sigs by 50%. It's OK from my perspective/experience.

Renegade · « **Reply #41 on:** September 27, 2007, 07:18 AM »

Well, I'm a bit late to this discussion... Anyways...

I'm all for limiting spam in the easiest way possible. A simple 5 minimum posts (or whatever, say 25) to have a sig with an added limitation that no links are possible until <insert good criterion> would work well. e.g. You quickly get to add a sig like this:

SELECT * FROM COMPANY.CUSTOMERS WHERE CLUE > 0

Rows returned: 0

No harm there, and no links. The spammers want the links... That's where the real attack needs to be. So something like 5 posts for a sig, and 25 for adding images or links would work well.

Like mouser said, they'd be caught before they got to 25 anyways - and that's what they're really after.

f0dder · « **Reply #42 on:** September 27, 2007, 09:33 AM »

Quote from: housetier on September 27, 2007, 05:14 AM

I am in favor of allowing quotes and textual links but no images nor banners and such. Also, the signature shouldn't have more than 5 lines. The actual post is more important than a signature.

I don't think images/banners should be disallowed as long as they're small and tasteful. Like mine :]

IQLover · « **Reply #43 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:02 AM »

Quote from: mouser on September 12, 2007, 09:15 AM

Thoughts?

Hi mouser, 1 question reg. signatures: how come that in some people's sign. images can be seen and not in mine? Doesn't matter what code I use, the image simply won't show. Example:
<img src="http://www.yuwie.com/images/banners/box.gif" border="0">

Nighted · « **Reply #44 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:23 AM »

Find the culprit and beat him/her with a wet noodle!

f0dder · « **Reply #45 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:37 AM »

IQLover's signature is an example of what I find distasteful... it's large and full of affiliate spam.

Nighted · « **Reply #46 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:41 AM »

I was thinking the very same thing.

mrainey · « **Reply #47 on:** September 27, 2007, 11:15 AM »

I have a link to my commercial software site in my signature, not because I want or expect to sell machining software to DC folks, but instead just to show off what I've been able to create using a modern version of the "dreaded" BASIC language.

mouser · « **Reply #48 on:** September 27, 2007, 12:02 PM »

IQLover, I think you should be able to put an image in your signature using this format:
[img]http://www.YOURDOMAINHERE.com/YOURFILENAMEHERE.png[/img]

Having said that.. I wonder if everyone agrees that we should disallow affiliate-type links in signatures?

lanux128 · « **Reply #49 on:** September 27, 2007, 12:14 PM »

Quote from: mouser on September 27, 2007, 12:02 PM

I wonder if everyone agrees that we should disallow affiliate-type links in signatures?

i have no problems with that.. i think it's better if any links in the sig is about DonationCoder.com only (such as mine)..