Spambots

canterswest

On the front page at 7.53, MSE was claiming 87 new threads and 296 new posts which it said was equivalent to 1 book.

If Baba is included in these stats then they are meaningless because spam is not equivalent to books.

Martin Lewis quotes site statistics often so can we have an explanation on how they are calculated and if spam is included.

canterswest

9.06am today, MSE's front page claimed 167 new threads and 687 new posts equivalent to 2 books


Saty made 73 new threads and 73 posts between 6.00am and 8.43am.


Do Saty's threads and posts count towards the stats that MSE publishes on its front page?

torbrex

canterswest wrote: »

On the front page at 7.53, MSE was claiming 87 new threads and 296 new posts which it said was equivalent to 1 book.

If Baba is included in these stats then they are meaningless because spam is not equivalent to books.

Martin Lewis quotes site statistics often so can we have an explanation on how they are calculated and if spam is included.

canterswest wrote: »

9.06am today, MSE's front page claimed 167 new threads and 687 new posts equivalent to 2 books


Saty made 73 new threads and 73 posts between 6.00am and 8.43am.


Do Saty's threads and posts count towards the stats that MSE publishes on its front page?

Again you have hijacked a thread to grind your axe.

What has any of that got to do with helping to stop the spam?

canterswest

Sorry, but I disagree and I think you are perhaps responding to me personally.


I am asking questions that may be awkward for MSE to answer and because it is getting questions it does not like it might be forced to do something about the spam.


With respect, your thread was ignored when you started it in March and none of your suggestions have been implemented but when I started asking questions it resulted almost instantly in Martin Lewis apologising and saying he would take responsibility for dealing with the spam *. He needs time to do this and is obviously trying but we need to keep the pressure on otherwise it spoils the forum especially for volunteer BGs.


You obviously contribute far, far more to the forum than I do, but I think I am better at forcing MSE to deal with its spam, which is what you want.


* Martin Lewis's change of attitude might have been questions on Twitter and not my intervention.

torbrex

canterswest wrote: »

Sorry, but I disagree and I think you are perhaps responding to me personally.


I am asking questions that may be awkward for MSE to answer and because it is getting questions it does not like it might be forced to do something about the spam.


With respect, your thread was ignored when you started it in March and none of your suggestions have been implemented but when I started asking questions it resulted almost instantly in Martin Lewis apologising and saying he would take responsibility for dealing with the spam *. He needs time to do this and is obviously trying but we need to keep the pressure on otherwise it spoils the forum especially for volunteer BGs.


You obviously contribute far, far more to the forum than I do, but I think I am better at forcing MSE to deal with its spam, which is what you want.


* Martin Lewis's change of attitude might have been questions on Twitter and not my intervention.

Start your own thread then and let us all see how good you are, I will ask for this one to be locked and just leave you to it.

canterswest

Again, you are making this about me when it isn't, it is about spam.


I think shutting down this thread would help MSE and make it less likely the company takes responsibility for dealing with the spam, which is not what you want.


Consider the BGs before shutting down your thread, or perhaps if BGs want this thread shut down they could agree it isn't needed, you could then shut it down.

torbrex

canterswest wrote: »

Again, you are making this about me when it isn't, it is about spam.


I think shutting down this thread would help MSE and make it less likely the company takes responsibility for dealing with the spam, which is not what you want.


Consider the BGs before shutting down your thread, or perhaps if BGs want this thread shut down they could agree it isn't needed, you could then shut it down.

what has quoting site stats actually got to do with stopping the spam?

that is what this thread is all about, it is not about having a dig at MSE or in your case Martin in particular

canterswest

If spam is included in the site stats then they really aren't true, they are worthless.


If they are not included then MSE has some way of counting them out, it has been aware all this time, exactly the numbers of spam posts excluded from its stats. If it can count them out, why can't it stop them altogether?


Martin Lewis loves his statistics, he quotes site stats often. He will want them to be correct so it gives him a huge incentive to sort out the spam.


I believe the site is now trying to take responsibility, having disgracefully left it to unpaid volunteers while the owners of the site become the super rich, some living in tax havens.


I would be disappointed if you shut your thread down and will try to make it clearer how my posts relate to spam.


(There is also a possibility that payment due to Martin Lewis might be based on some form of engagement stats, perhaps threads started, so they need to be valid)

torbrex

Don't bother, you have your axe and you need somewhere to spout off your gripes about MSE, this thread is finished as far as I am concerned.

droopsnoot

canterswest wrote: »

If spam is included in the site stats then they really aren't true, they are worthless.

The spam posts are removed reasonably quickly - possibly not as quickly as some might like, but relatively quickly. I would suggest that any site stats used for marketing or other "proper" purposes would be calculated after the removal of spam posts.