We really need to restrict new members more
| posts are sometimes within 5 minutes of each other |
By "All users, inclusive" he probably meant that it would apply to all members, not the new ones only
| What if I want to create a thread to ask for help and then create a Lounge thread? |
There is another suggestion to limit user to 5 posts per day which does not have such problem.
Off-topic: does anybody knows how many posts should you have so high-post-count members could not delete your posts by reporting them?
Last edited on
These are all great ideas. I don't see twicker implementing them though.
Post limitation would limit users if they spam, but would also limit users that are truly seeking help. It would force new users to stay in their help thread and avoid taking part in the Lounge and pray they don't have any more problems until the next day if they hit their limit asking questions in their thread. This is assuming they stick around til the next day as most would instantly start looking for a site that lets them ask without having to wait for the limitation to end. As programmers, you all know that issues can spring up at any time that require another programmer's advice, but that is even more so with beginners. If we limit their ability to get help they will just seek help elsewhere.
Post limitation would limit users if they spam, but would also limit users that are truly seeking help. It would force new users to stay in their help thread and avoid taking part in the Lounge and pray they don't have any more problems until the next day if they hit their limit asking questions in their thread. This is assuming they stick around til the next day as most would instantly start looking for a site that lets them ask without having to wait for the limitation to end. As programmers, you all know that issues can spring up at any time that require another programmer's advice, but that is even more so with beginners. If we limit their ability to get help they will just seek help elsewhere.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
BHXSpecter nailed what I was trying to say. It sounds great on paper, but it'd be as annoying as those forums with the post character-limits.
closed account (j3Rz8vqX)
A suitable amount of posts would be tolerable.
Are intentions should not be to subjugate newer members, rather it should be to reduce the number of spam placed on the forum; 10 pages was a significant amount of spam - five may be tolerable.
Also, if a user is reported X amount of times in 30 minutes, they should be temporary banned; possibly 12 hours.
Are intentions should not be to subjugate newer members, rather it should be to reduce the number of spam placed on the forum; 10 pages was a significant amount of spam - five may be tolerable.
Also, if a user is reported X amount of times in 30 minutes, they should be temporary banned; possibly 12 hours.
It is my understanding that if you are reported on first post, your account instantly goes into limited functionality. That is only lifted if twicker decides the report was ill advised. If he sees that someone has been reported too many times and that each report was warranted, he just bans the account permanently.
From the times I have talked to him via email and PMs, I think he is of the mind that hopefully the first initial account ban will make the user realize their folly and straighten up and be a better member of the community if they decide to make a new account. He doesn't want to become a tyrant, but rather wants to make this site friendly and inviting to those seeking to learn C++, get help with C++, help others with C++, or just talk in the Lounge on age appropriate topics.
From the times I have talked to him via email and PMs, I think he is of the mind that hopefully the first initial account ban will make the user realize their folly and straighten up and be a better member of the community if they decide to make a new account. He doesn't want to become a tyrant, but rather wants to make this site friendly and inviting to those seeking to learn C++, get help with C++, help others with C++, or just talk in the Lounge on age appropriate topics.
Problem is that without limits user can easily get to the ~120 posts in 5 minutes unhindered. I do not know when member stop being "new" and fear that it might be possible to hit that mark in 15-20 minutes without anyone to caught him and be left unable to quickly stop him. Not to mention half a thousand posts you need to remove.
I do not see how you could legitimately post more than 3 posts per minute
With a little bit of statistics you can determine largest amount of topics new members (or anyone) legitimately creates per day and limit is slightly higher.
I do not think proposed changes would be even noticeable unless you are trying to spam the forum.
I do not see how you could legitimately post more than 3 posts per minute
unless you are trying to do exactly that.With a little bit of statistics you can determine largest amount of topics new members (or anyone) legitimately creates per day and limit is slightly higher.
I do not think proposed changes would be even noticeable unless you are trying to spam the forum.
It is funny you should mention statistics as a few days ago Twicker gave me these stats when I was discussing just this topic about spam and inappropriate topics in the Lounge:
For C++.com, the forum represents 22% of the traffic in terms of pageviews. And the traffic in the forum splits as follows: - beginner, 47% - general, 31% - windows, 8% - lounge, 4% - unices, 4% Therefore, in perspective, the lounge does not represent that much activity in terms of visitors (just under 1% overall). Although I agree it probably has the most moderation activity |
Last edited on
closed account (j3Rz8vqX)
We are here because we want to learn/help others.
Duoas:
Post count shouldn't be our priority of concern.
LB's post: About posts - (100+ post)
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/121697/
Duoas:
| People with experience know that post count correlates with nothing useful. |
Post count shouldn't be our priority of concern.
LB's post: About posts - (100+ post)
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/121697/
Err. I miss your point here.
The beginner section was spammed and was rendered completely unusable for about 30 minutes. (and unices a little too: maybe 2 pages). Lounge was completely fine.
Numbers are completely expected. I expected beginner section be over 50% though.
And I still do not think that anybody legitimately ever created more than, say, 10 topics per day.
Edit: certain amount of posts means that you managed to get many posts without getting banned. No spammer will do that because it is too much work for getting quickly banned for hundred posts which will be deleted quickly.
It does not say anything about creditibility or experience, bu you can certainly say that the person is at least serious in their determination of being the part of the forum.
The beginner section was spammed and was rendered completely unusable for about 30 minutes. (and unices a little too: maybe 2 pages). Lounge was completely fine.
Numbers are completely expected. I expected beginner section be over 50% though.
And I still do not think that anybody legitimately ever created more than, say, 10 topics per day.
Edit: certain amount of posts means that you managed to get many posts without getting banned. No spammer will do that because it is too much work for getting quickly banned for hundred posts which will be deleted quickly.
It does not say anything about creditibility or experience, bu you can certainly say that the person is at least serious in their determination of being the part of the forum.
Last edited on
My point is, putting in a site wide restriction in place just because of random and rare surplus of spam in one forum is over reacting. Now if every day we had a surplus of spam in all forums I could see a restriction being put in place, but it has been a few months since the last large spam attack like that.
Last edited on
closed account (j3Rz8vqX)
MiiNiPaa:
That was what my remark was referring to. There should even be any barrier to start with.
Our agreement:
should be more than enough to reduce spam.
BHX Specter:
Hopefully limited functionality is defined as incapable of posting.
My suggestion is that the rules be apply to all users, since folks aren't likely to post more than 3 posts per minute. This way, we avoid the defining of "new member".
| I do not know when member stop being "new" and fear that it might be possible to hit that mark in 15-20 minutes. |
That was what my remark was referring to. There should even be any barrier to start with.
Our agreement:
| 3 posts per minute |
BHX Specter:
| It is my understanding that if you are reported on first post, your account instantly goes into limited functionality. |
My suggestion is that the rules be apply to all users, since folks aren't likely to post more than 3 posts per minute. This way, we avoid the defining of "new member".
I'm not as active here as most of you, but as annoying as spam is, it happens and limitations tend to hinder more than help overall unless it is something that happens relentlessly. Many of your proposals are reasonable, but in the long run can cause more disruptions than they are meant to alleviate.
Well, I just removed another 40 or so posts by a 'babaj91' from the Beginners forum. I would say that some restrictions should go in place. How about if you are a new user (as in, time since join) and a post is reported all other posts you have made in the last 24 hours or something get removed? Or some other variation of that?
EDIT:
And just then I popped over to the Beginners forum for another look, and then deleted another 11 posts by 'skbaba252525'...
EDIT:
And just then I popped over to the Beginners forum for another look, and then deleted another 11 posts by 'skbaba252525'...
Last edited on
Even with a restriction of 5 posts a day. I could boot up all my browsers and make about 10 accounts (50 spam threads right there). Block my IP, I could jump to proxies. If I was a decent web developer, I could write a script that does the posting of threads for me as soon as I load the New Thread page.
Other sites are able to combat this because they have moderators watching their sites. I've never asked twicker, but I'm guessing one reason he has never made any of us a moderator is because of threads like this where we can't agree on a good approach and we have also repeatedly shown we all have different ideas of how this site and forums should be done (which likely conflicts with how twicker feels it should be done).
One reason I do know, because he told me in one of the emails, is because of the fact that he does have the report system in place.
Thought of something else. Remember Spoonlicker? He joined numerous times under several accounts and acted like a regular user until he got bored and started spamming. If a person gets their kicks out of spamming (like the sudden bji349 that did 51 threads before me and others started reporting him) they will simply bide their time until they have no cap and then go to town.
There is no way to stop that without it hindering all the users who are here for legit reasons.
Other sites are able to combat this because they have moderators watching their sites. I've never asked twicker, but I'm guessing one reason he has never made any of us a moderator is because of threads like this where we can't agree on a good approach and we have also repeatedly shown we all have different ideas of how this site and forums should be done (which likely conflicts with how twicker feels it should be done).
One reason I do know, because he told me in one of the emails, is because of the fact that he does have the report system in place.
Thought of something else. Remember Spoonlicker? He joined numerous times under several accounts and acted like a regular user until he got bored and started spamming. If a person gets their kicks out of spamming (like the sudden bji349 that did 51 threads before me and others started reporting him) they will simply bide their time until they have no cap and then go to town.
There is no way to stop that without it hindering all the users who are here for legit reasons.
Last edited on
I just noticed the amount and have to reconsider my last opinion.
Tying a username to all their posts in the case of reports might not be a bad idea.
| NT3 wrote: |
|---|
How about if you are a new user (as in, time since join) and a post is reported all other posts you have made in the last 24 hours or something get removed? |
Tying a username to all their posts in the case of reports might not be a bad idea.
| . I could boot up all my browsers and make about 10 accounts (50 spam threads right there). Block my IP, I could jump to proxies |
| Remember Spoonlicker? |
| There is no way to stop that without it hindering all the users |
Spam wich happens regulary and is most annoying is commercial spam. That means that spammer hopes to get profit from it. Hiding, increasing post count will take too much time to be profitable.
As the BHX school of philosophy goes (or to be more accurate, does not go), one should not bother to live at all. There could be a nuclear holocaust (software bug?) within the next few minutes.
A reasonable minimum gap between staring new topics (say 15 minutes) is all that is required to discourage the kind of spam that we have been encountering. It won't , in any way hinder the users who are here for legitimate reasons. Lounge kiddies excepted, of course.
A reasonable minimum gap between staring new topics (say 15 minutes) is all that is required to discourage the kind of spam that we have been encountering. It won't , in any way hinder the users who are here for legitimate reasons. Lounge kiddies excepted, of course.
Last edited on
MiiNiPaa said:
We seemed to have veered away from this in favor of other methods, but just in case we are sill considering this as part of the solution I would like to point out that it would negatively impact groups of people posting from any site with a competent systems administrator; for example a university or public library with a NAT'd network. IMO we should consider these types of venues when making forum rules since they would potentially be the largest source of unique and productive contributors. I would actually like to apply this objection to all suggestions where assuming a users identity based on their IP address has been put forward.
For those of you who are objecting to the 15 min limit on the basis that it is too long of a time to wait, or the 5 posts per day as being too limited, you need to remember that this is the planning phase. Some fine tuning after implementation of ANY policy is to be expected.
If we do decide to only place these restrictions on "new users" then we really need to redefine what a "new user" is. I subscribe to the school of thought that post count is all but meaningless and suggest that we base a users "newness" on the amount of time their account has shown meaningful activity. Say for instance a new contributor creates an account and posts a question, that activity is weighted and tallied into a "score". Any further activity that day adds a depreciating value to this score (or nothing at all) until new meaningful activity is shown on another day. Once a score of 'X' is reached (remember, fine tuning is always needed) then what ever restrictions we have in place are then lifted. This both solves for the scenario where a spammer creates 10 accounts and has some script post to the jobs section or something until they reach the number of posts required to lift the restriction and it minimizes the impact of a new policy on established users.
Another solution might be to simply block any posts, new topics or replies, whenever more then half the text is a URL. But that one just seems like it would be way to easy to get around and it would block posts where a hyperlink is really all the user is asking for.
Off Topic: Does it bother anyone else that the reporting here is anonymous? Am I the only one that would not be deterred from reporting posts if my handle was displayed publicly next to the "reported" button? I believe that the two or three times I've reported a post, where the user wasn't obviously a bot, I've stated my reason for doing so anyway. After all how else do we expect people to learn if we don't tell them why they are being scolded? I know the times that I've been reported it was pretty obvious who, and why they, did it anyway.
| Limit on amount of registration from single IP? |
We seemed to have veered away from this in favor of other methods, but just in case we are sill considering this as part of the solution I would like to point out that it would negatively impact groups of people posting from any site with a competent systems administrator; for example a university or public library with a NAT'd network. IMO we should consider these types of venues when making forum rules since they would potentially be the largest source of unique and productive contributors. I would actually like to apply this objection to all suggestions where assuming a users identity based on their IP address has been put forward.
For those of you who are objecting to the 15 min limit on the basis that it is too long of a time to wait, or the 5 posts per day as being too limited, you need to remember that this is the planning phase. Some fine tuning after implementation of ANY policy is to be expected.
If we do decide to only place these restrictions on "new users" then we really need to redefine what a "new user" is. I subscribe to the school of thought that post count is all but meaningless and suggest that we base a users "newness" on the amount of time their account has shown meaningful activity. Say for instance a new contributor creates an account and posts a question, that activity is weighted and tallied into a "score". Any further activity that day adds a depreciating value to this score (or nothing at all) until new meaningful activity is shown on another day. Once a score of 'X' is reached (remember, fine tuning is always needed) then what ever restrictions we have in place are then lifted. This both solves for the scenario where a spammer creates 10 accounts and has some script post to the jobs section or something until they reach the number of posts required to lift the restriction and it minimizes the impact of a new policy on established users.
Another solution might be to simply block any posts, new topics or replies, whenever more then half the text is a URL. But that one just seems like it would be way to easy to get around and it would block posts where a hyperlink is really all the user is asking for.
Off Topic: Does it bother anyone else that the reporting here is anonymous? Am I the only one that would not be deterred from reporting posts if my handle was displayed publicly next to the "reported" button? I believe that the two or three times I've reported a post, where the user wasn't obviously a bot, I've stated my reason for doing so anyway. After all how else do we expect people to learn if we don't tell them why they are being scolded? I know the times that I've been reported it was pretty obvious who, and why they, did it anyway.
Last edited on
That spammer came again :|
My suggestion was to temporary (say, for 24 hours) limit amount of registrations from a given IP when system detects that several new users from that IP was almost instantly banned for spam.
Also I suggested to gather statistics on user behavior and place limits which will not hinder users at all.
Post count is a subset of meaningful activity. The one where diminishing coefficient is 1.0.
I had frequented Warcraft 3 forum where something similar was implemented: you were given experience for posts. Postd in Inn (Lounge) did not give any exp and posts in another categories gave exp depending on post lenght (10-50 exp range). Posts which violated rules deduct exp they would give to user. Worked fine.
I think reason should be visible for user which was reported. Username of who reported should be visible only for admin IMO.
| I would actually like to apply this objection to all suggestions where assuming a users identity based on their IP address has been put forward. |
Also I suggested to gather statistics on user behavior and place limits which will not hinder users at all.
Post count is a subset of meaningful activity. The one where diminishing coefficient is 1.0.
I had frequented Warcraft 3 forum where something similar was implemented: you were given experience for posts. Postd in Inn (Lounge) did not give any exp and posts in another categories gave exp depending on post lenght (10-50 exp range). Posts which violated rules deduct exp they would give to user. Worked fine.
| Does it bother anyone else that the reporting here is anonymous? |