Reporting spam threads.

[Jasdoif]

As a thought - can you forbid users from posting links through this software until they hit a certain threshold of posts or time-since-registered? That might help discourage it...

This (and other things) were already proposed in the past and (imo rightfully) turned down, with the reasoning that all posters (whether they are new or old) have the same rights.

In addition to that, I'm not sure how much it'd actually help. Since the upgrade I've already stumbled across a spambot that made simple text posts, just to edit the entire post later to add in links; if it's common enough to be anticipated like that, such a change is more likely to impact legitimate users than the spambots.

[Eldan]

Plus, not all spam is from bots. Some of it is actually from some poor wretches who are being paid to go on forums and spam ads.

[Domochevsky]

And besides, this suggestion isn't really going to do anything. All it would do would encourage the spammers to post more spam threads to hit the can-now-post-links threshold, or to create dozens of accounts but leave them idle if it is a time-related limit. Plus, this is downright bothersome to new posters, who must now make the equivalent of 15 idle posts of generally uninteresting or uninformative posts before they can start participating in the way that they want.

If anything, the "moderator approval for first post" would possibly be the best solution, although still a very awkward and hostile one - to say nothing about the massive workload it would put on the moderators.

Except they'd never reach those 3 posts, because they'd not be able to make proper posts with links.
(No cleansing of posts with links, straight up denying them with a reason returned. "Yo dawg, no links/images until you have 3 posts under your belt".)

This is a very low hurdle for regular users and puts a full stop to most spam. (And later edits won't do anything, as they go through the same routine again.)

But yes, the drastic increase in spam all over the board is ...aggravating.

[erikun]

Except they'd never reach those 3 posts, because they'd not be able to make proper posts with links.
(No cleansing of posts with links, straight up denying them with a reason returned. "Yo dawg, no links/images until you have 3 posts under your belt".)

The spammers do, in fact, make small brief posts and then go back and edit in links later. Not all of them do, but quite a few of them are clearly capable of getting around that.

Plus, you are just asking the spammers who do get through to post a minimum of three threads, rather than the one or two most post. It can end up creating more spam, and the higher you set the threshold, the more spam it asks spammers to produce. (Plus, the more bothersome it is to new posters.)

Anyways, as ChristianSt mentioned, it's already been discussed and rejected. Thankfully, in my opinion.

[Domochevsky]

The spammers do, in fact, make small brief posts and then go back and edit in links later. Not all of them do, but quite a few of them are clearly capable of getting around that.

Which would be prevented by the system that will not be implemented.

Plus, you are just asking the spammers who do get through to post a minimum of three threads, rather than the one or two most post. It can end up creating more spam, and the higher you set the threshold, the more spam it asks spammers to produce. (Plus, the more bothersome it is to new posters.)

Anyways, as ChristianSt mentioned, it's already been discussed and rejected. Thankfully, in my opinion.

I am asking them to make 3 posts that don't contain any links (not even edited in afterwards), which most, if not all of them, are incapable of. You don't get a thread added to your counter if you fail to make it due to it containing links.

Of course all of this is moot (to my chagrin), as was mentioned.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Which would be prevented by the system that will not be implemented.

No, the system you suggest wouldn't prevent anything of the sort.

I am asking them to make 3 posts that don't contain any links (not even edited in afterwards), which most, if not all of them, are incapable of.

It would be trivial for whomever writes those things to modify them to first post a dozen threads without links, followed by a rerun to put those links in.

In fact, in general, any rules based on number of posts is trivially defeated, and all it achieves is to encourage them to post more threads that will be turned into spam, not fewer.

Grey Wolf

[Yawgmoth]

Let's be totally honest here: You're never going to be 100% spam-free unless you start requiring either payment or something moderately invasive like having to prove you're not a bot to a mod before posting.

[Rawhide]

Which would be prevented by the system that will not be implemented.

No, it would not. The system you propose would not work and is impossible without modifying the core files.

You cannot increment the post counter based on whether the post has a link in it or not, and you definitely cannot decrement the post count if one is later added.

People in this thread have already explained how to work around link posting limitations based on post counts, and mentioned that bots are already using this workaround even when it is not actually needed here.

---

I think this thread has run its course.