Spambot Countermeasure

[Domochevsky]

Hey,
given the recent increase in spam threads in the Arts&Crafts forum (that's where i saw them at least) i am wondering:

Given that they always seem to include at least 12 links in their posts, is it possible to automatically reject threads/posts of people that
a) have less than 3 posts AND
b) have more than 5 URLs in said posts?

Alternatively, there are certain keywords that can be associated with said links for more effective spam filtering. (Like "watch", "stream", "free online" and "ufc".)

[Morcleon]

a) If you reject their posts if they have less than 3 posts, how will they ever get to 3 posts? :smallconfused:

b) What if they want to post a table for recruiting for a PbP and need to link all of the 10+ PCs' character sheets? What if it's one of those threads that has 20+ older versions in an archive?

[KillianHawkeye]

a) If you reject their posts if they have less than 3 posts, how will they ever get to 3 posts? :smallconfused:

b) What if they want to post a table for recruiting for a PbP and need to link all of the 10+ PCs' character sheets? What if it's one of those threads that has 20+ older versions in an archive?

I've seen some forums that don't allow users to post hyperlinks at all until they have a certain number of posts, so it IS possible (although maybe not with this forum software).

[Mystic Muse]

I've seen some forums that don't allow users to post hyperlinks at all until they have a certain number of posts, so it IS possible (although maybe not with this forum software).

Even if it is, I wouldn't blame the mods for not wanting to implement it.

[Elder Tsofu]

a) If you reject their posts if they have less than 3 posts, how will they ever get to 3 posts? :smallconfused:

b) What if they want to post a table for recruiting for a PbP and need to link all of the 10+ PCs' character sheets? What if it's one of those threads that has 20+ older versions in an archive?

A) By posting 3 posts with less than 5 hyperlinks in them.
B) They'd have to wait until they posted three posts.

[Domochevsky]

a) If you reject their posts if they have less than 3 posts, how will they ever get to 3 posts? :smallconfused:

b) What if they want to post a table for recruiting for a PbP and need to link all of the 10+ PCs' character sheets? What if it's one of those threads that has 20+ older versions in an archive?

The "AND" is in all caps on purpose. One without the other is not a thing. :smallwink:

Basically what Tsofu said, yes.

The specific amount is negotiable, naturally. You could also make this 2 posts and 10 links.

(As far as possibility goes: I had this manually added to the post forms of my own forum, not allow any links at all for anyone with less than 3 posts, but allow attachments in general. So far it kept all spambots out; so there is precedent.)

[Morcleon]

The "AND" is in all caps on purpose. One without the other is not a thing. :smallwink:

Basically what Tsofu said, yes.

The specific amount is negotiable, naturally. You could also make this 2 posts and 10 links.

Oh, right. Didn't see that "AND"... :smalltongue:

[Domochevsky]

Extension for thread like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270229): c) Cannot have more than 2 links in the signature.

[erikun]

I would say that, in general, this is probably not a good idea.

The more restrictions you put on new accounts, the more annoying it is to new users. If you are up-front with your restrictions, then the spammers can already know about them and bypass them by just making a bunch of posts. (Please note that you are assuming a spammer will not make more than 3 posts.) If you make the restrictions hidden or buried in a large ToS list, then you affect a large number of users who want to know why their posts are being blocked/accounts being "locked" by anti-spam measures for making normal posts.

This also leads to an uncomfortable possibility of elitism: If accounts need to be three months old and have 100 posts before all restrictions are dropped (to make an extreme example), then accounts that aren't are going to be viewed as "noobish" by a number of people. GitP makes a bit point of stamping out elitism, and the benefit of that is allowing even brand-new people to voice their thoughts on any subject. I am not much in support of any idea that (possibly unintentionally, possibly indirectly) ends up supporting such elitism.

[Domochevsky]

...
(Please note that you are assuming a spammer will not make more than 3 posts.)
...

Is it not a reasonable assumption, though? They're not exactly known for their personal effort. :smallconfused: (Ideally the blocking goes along with a message that goes "Hey, don't use that many links until you got X posts. This is a anti-spam measure. We hope you understand".)

[willpell]

I've seen some forums that don't allow users to post hyperlinks at all until they have a certain number of posts, so it IS possible (although maybe not with this forum software).

I am familiar with this method as well, and it does indeed seem to help, though it is not foolproof.

[Jimorian]

It seems that the ones that are getting through now considering the site-specific captcha are infrequent enough that they're probably being shepherded by a human anyway, so any additional hoops won't be much of a barrier.

[Big Mac]

The more restrictions you put on new accounts, the more annoying it is to new users. If you are up-front with your restrictions, then the spammers can already know about them and bypass them by just making a bunch of posts. (Please note that you are assuming a spammer will not make more than 3 posts.) If you make the restrictions hidden or buried in a large ToS list, then you affect a large number of users who want to know why their posts are being blocked/accounts being "locked" by anti-spam measures for making normal posts.

I have, in the past, signed up to a forum, specifically because I was looking for something, saw someone else looking for it too, and wanted to share a link to the thing that the other person couldn't find.

(I don't randomly do this for everything, by the way. But I'm a fan of minority D&D campaign settings. So helping out a fan of a setting with a very small fandom can make a difference to the entire fanbase.)

Getting blocked from posting a link, generally will make me:

Give up or
Look for 4 other interesting threads I can reply to quickly.


Which option I choose depends on how "valuable" the forum I signed up to is to me.

As for spammers posting over 3 posts, there are a lot that do not do that.

There are "signature spammers" that generally post one: "That is really helpful advice. I love you." post, to try to sneak past the moderator team. Those guys add in a spam link, but sometimes wait for a while after posting, in the hope that the mod team do not go back to old threads.

Then there are the profile spammers, that do the same thing in the "website" section of forum profiles. (Stopping non-members from reading profiles stops them dead, but sometimes those types of spammers are too stupid to realise they are blocked and still do it.)

I don't think there is anything especially bad about having a rule that blocks newbies from posting links (or anything else like manual approval). But the biggest problem with this sort of suggestion is that it takes a person to program the forum to do this and any time the forum software is upgraded the modification may need to be removed and then added back. So it might be a great idea, but an administrative problem to implement.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thanks for the suggestion. I'll lock this thread now and Rawhide can post more, if he wants.