We really need to restrict new members more

[MiiNiPaa]

Here:
http://puu.sh/8YVAP.png
By those users:
http://www.cplusplus.com/user/jib436/
http://www.cplusplus.com/user/babaji161/
http://www.cplusplus.com/user/jibaba997/
(And two others I forgot)
EDIT: as deleted posts does not shows up as post count, I should tell they had around 160 each.

More than 10 pages of this crap. Spent 15 minutes removing it. Thanks to those who reported it too, I am sorry for one unlucky guy who decided to post in the middle of spam storm, I did not meant to repors your post too, but I could not stop in time.

And I feel sorry for Twicker: he need to deal with all those reports.

[Pter0dactyl]

good job minipaa.I was there with you reporting those post. :) ;)

[z05DSL3A]

just been helping cleaning up this crap. I seem to spend a lot of my 'drop in' time reporting spam.

[j3Rz8vqX]

Same, that was a pain.

[LB]

Maybe just a 15 minute delay between posting new topics if you're a new member?

[MiiNiPaa]

I thought about it too and it seems like best solution too the problem. I think about limiting regular posts to 1 per minute too to avoid existing thread spamming.

[z05DSL3A]

...put a limit on how many new threads someone (anyone) can start in a day?

[LB]

Not sure that would help, it just means there's a limit to our workload for reporting spam. With how fast we help people on these forums normal users might reach that limit every day.

[z05DSL3A]

I doubt that even the most inquisitive member would not need to start more than a handful of new threads.

It would also be good if when an account gets flagged, all the threads from that account that have no replies get removed until the admin reviews the status of the account.

[BHX]

Canis lupus wrote:

I doubt that even the most inquisitive member would not need to start more than a handful of new threads.

I have to agree with that. Usually a new member, if you look at the structure of most threads for beginners it is normally question and answer or question answer that brings up another question in the same thread.

Though, I don't know if twicker would want to put such restrictions in place and it wouldn't remove the problem. It would just go from a single user spamming the forums to multiple users spamming the site because those who are determined to do it will just make multiple accounts and then spam the max of each account before making a new one.

[MiiNiPaa]

Limit on amount of registration from single IP?
Like if new member was banned due to reports, it limits new users from that particular IP to one per hour for next 24 hours.

[wildblue]

I know one forum where a new user post containing links (typical spam post profile) is not actually posted until a moderator reviews it. I don't know if this forum software has that functionality - I think the other forum uses vbulletin. Occasionally it'll catch a legitimate post so the person has to wait to see their post, but it does seem to filter out most of the spam.

[N36fSL3A]

I don't think that new users need to be limited. Just because it happened once doesn't mean it will happen again.

If this becomes a common thing, then we should discuss restricting users.

That's just my 2 cents.

[MiiNiPaa]

Just because it happened once doesn't mean it will happen again

It would be better if we make sure it couldn't happen again.

I don't think that new users need to be limited.

This is not really limitting real users. I doubt that anyone will need to create more than one thread in 10 minutes (or say 5 threads per day) and I doubt that repeated tries to create new account from the same IP just after banning fresh one are sign of good will.

[N36fSL3A]

MiiNiPa, that's like saying we should kill all muslims/<insert other minority> just because some of them are terrorists/<insert other bad thing>

[naraku9333]

@Fredbill That is an awful and inaccurate comparison. Most forums have some sort of restriction on new members to prevent spam. MiiNiPaa's suggestions are reasonable.

[j3Rz8vqX]

Good idea with the limitations LB.

15 minutes is a bit, too, extreme in my opinion; I understand it was a suggestion, a good one too.

Possibly 5 posts per minute? (All users, inclusive)

There should not be anyone posting greater than 5 posts per minute; that is an insane amount of posting, she would have divine capabilities - if the posts were intellectual.

This could, also, be applied to replies: in the case, where hijackers may spam on another's posts due to the decline of possible posts per minute.

Everything becomes a contributing factor to how another behaves; but I'm sure the above will not effect the majority of our community; excluding bots and spammers.

[MiiNiPaa]

15 minutes is a bit, too, extreme in my opinion

Can you provide at least one example where you need to start more than one thread in 15 minutes?

Possibly 5 posts per minute?

Limit of posts per minute might be good too to avoid thread highjacking.

[Hippogriff]

15 minutes is a bit, too, extreme in my opinion; I understand it was a suggestion, a good one too.

Possibly 5 posts per minute? (All users, inclusive)

I don't think it's extreme at all, it was suggested 15 minutes for "new threads", not every post. I don't really think a limit for replies is needed as much..

Also I"m all for it, this kind of spam has happened several times before.

[N36fSL3A]

Possibly 5 posts per minute? (All users, inclusive)

Sometimes, when two debating members are on at the same time, posts are sometimes within 5 minutes of each other (happens to me sometimes).

Can you provide at least one example where you need to start more than one thread in 15 minutes?

What if I want to create a thread to ask for help and then create a Lounge thread?