Curbing trolls and spammers - suggestion.

*MF*

Suggestion to MSE Admin re trolls and spammers

The Admins and I also want to say particularly the members on this site are to be complimented for their active reporting of trolls and spam, but I have a suggestion that I hope could be implemented by the site Admins to curb such activity

- specifically the use of PMs by trolls or spammers (and those who are banned but immediately return using a different name).

First some background

The suggestion arises from discussions on this excellent thread (established by pania), I have shown a link to the discussion itself:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=904055&page=37

As the discussions shows the central concern related to PM's being sent by spammers, perhaps even after a post or thread had been deleted - and the anxiety this can cause to members, particularly new members who may be frightened off on the receipt of a PM - something they may not have experienced, and well before they realise the vast majority of members are here to help.

Experienced trolls and spammers know the system, and can work the system - before they are spotted or recognised - they may rarely last long on a forum - but during their brief sojourn we all know they can wreak havoc, and cause real upset.

I know from experience on other forums also using vBulletin that it is possible to restrict the privileges of new members until they have attained a certain number of posts, usually over the posting of pics or photos, or the use of ava's or signatures.

So ...

Suggestion: Would it be possible to place new members on a "probationary" period - in this instance - specifically restricting their use of PMs until they have reached an initial number of posts - say 20 - by which time valid new members will have settled in, and hopefully trolls and spammers are long gone, and have been prevented during their brief stay from issuing PMs to other members.

Most, perhaps not all, new members, (again in my experience on other forums), rarely send PMs on joining and a short period before they gain that privilege seems a small price to pay to protect them from trolls and spammers.

Hope this suggestion might assist this great site!!!

mountainchrisriver

Thanks for starting this discussion... it is a timely and interesting one that seems to come round every now and then... that particular anti-troll thread is great and hopefully new members will have a read before they join up...:T although it is getting very long

The problem I can see with a limit on posting PM's until a certain post count is reached is that spammers will just blast that many posts out then away they go...

Hows about you can only post PM's after a week of joining up... this gives time for trolls/spammers etc to be routed out before they can post PM's... not sure this is even possible but sure MSE admin can let us know?

What do you think? :beer:

Rex_Mundi

There is a problem here. I have received (still do) loads of PMs (asking for advice) from members with no posts on the boards at all. I'm sure other BGs and members have had this. The system of so many posts before allowing PMs would stop genuine people getting help when they are too nervous/unsure to ask on the boards.

You say that trolls/spammers know the system (I agree), but they would also know that 20 quick one word replies on threads would allow them the use of PMs. This would take them no time at all. A genuine newbie to forums that wants to ask for advice would be stuck with no avenue of help if they are too nervous to post on the boards.

fermi

mountainchrisriver wrote: »

Hows about you can only post PM's after a week of joining up... this gives time for trolls/spammers etc to be routed out before they can post PM's... not sure this is even possible but sure MSE admin can let us know?

From looking at the AdminCP of another forum, it seems it would be possible to do on the basis of both the postcount and minimum number of days that the poster has been registered. That would be using usergroup permissions and promotions.

But even that wouldn't stop them all. I've seen quite a few spammers and other such posters suddenly "come alive" using accounts that were first registered months ago.

Personally, I dislike the idea of putting "restrictions" on new members. Although on some forums this is a "necessary evil".

EDIT:

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

A genuine newbie to forums that wants to ask for advice would be stuck with no avenue of help if they are too nervous to post on the boards.

And that is a good point. I frequently get PMs from genuine newbies who are too nervous to post on the main boards.

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

Firstly, thanks to *MF* for starting this thread; it's an important discussion and we welcome input on it. For the record, we still believe that the ratio of spam to users on our forum is still relatively low, and our reaction time is usually quite good (admittedly some times could be quicker and we are always seeking to improve). Spam will always exist in some form, and we know that spammers will always "beat the system".

That isn't to say, though, that we don't want to be even better at fighting it. With regard to the restricted ability point made, our biggest concern, as Rex touches on, is new moneysavers, often in problematic circumstances who are quite often new to forums. We don't want to scare these people off by restricting their avenues of help. PM's from new members are more common that you might think, and often a lifeline. For us, dealing with spam is a small price to pay if we are able to reach more new members. I'm sure you can understand our standpoint on that.

As mountainchrisriver also points out, correctly, a minimum post quote is likely to cause the spammer to hit us the set amount of times anyways. In effect, this could make the problem worse to clear up.

On the issue of trolling, this is extremely subjective. You wouldn't believe (or maybe you would!) the amount of reports from threads accusing each other of trolling. It's often hard to find that line and sometimes strong opinion is often labeled "trolling" or "bullying" which appear to be the modern buzz terms. That said, we are aware that there is a growing element of users who seem to want to disrupt and go against our "be nice to other moneysavers" ethos. We are working on further measures to stamp down on this, specifically in the debt free wannabe, bankrupcy and benefits areas, where people are often at their lowest and in need of the most help.

I think it is also worth pointing out that this sites grows exponentially day on day, and the last 6 months to a year, aided by the bank charges campaign has seen a dramatic rise. We often see people commenting that "MSE has gotten worse" "people are more nasty" - it's worth remembering that the sheer number of people on here is now huge, and thus the associated problems will also increase.

We are a limited staff, with limited resources and we work as hard as we can to keep the forum a friendly, informative and lively community.

*MF*

I was acutely aware (stress acutely) that I am new here, and therefore not perhaps best placed to comment - without being more familiar with my surroundings, but commenting on actions/experience from my involvement on other forums - i hoped allowed me some leeway in doing so.

Very valid comments have ensued - and all fully understood.

Thanks for that.

fermi

MSE_Forum_Manager wrote: »

That said, we are aware that there is a growing element of users who seem to want to disrupt and go against our "be nice to other moneysavers" ethos. We are working on further measures to stamp down on this, specifically in the debt free wannabe, bankrupcy and benefits areas, where people are often at their lowest and in need of the most help.

While I dislike that behaviour on any part of this or other forums, that is particularly welcome news.

ArmchairTycoon

With regards to spammers, perhaps a 24 hour grace period after someone has signed up before they have any posting rights and a required number of minimum posts before they can post a URL.

Given that most spammers are usually workng their way through a list of forums it would prove too time consuming for them to make the effort to come back in most cases, especially when they could no doubt spam far more forums elsewhere in the same amount of time.

With regards to trolling mosts ISPs include in their terms and condtions a clause that prohibits online abuse on newsgroups and public forums, serial trolls who return to the forum after being banned could be reported to their ISP, it is a small minority of people who do this so it would be worth the effort to pursue the worst offenders.

It surely cannot be difficult identifying the trolls ISP via their IP address, even if they are on dial up the ISP can match multiple IP addresses to a single person via their logs, no doubt some use proxies, if I recall correctly there are forum plugins for most forum software that regularly updates it's list of known proxies and prevents anyone from those proxies logging in.

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

*MF* wrote: »

I was acutely aware (stress acutely) that I am new here, and therefore not perhaps best placed to comment

On the contrary, sometimes it's extremely useful for us to get a newer perspective on the forum - your views are very valid.

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

fermi wrote: »

While I dislike that behaviour on any part of this or other forums, that is particularly welcome news.

Absolutely. Obviously we look to act across the boards, but our number one concern will always be those at most risk.

iwanttosave_2

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

There is a problem here. I have received (still do) loads of PMs (asking for advice) from members with no posts on the boards at all. I'm sure other BGs and members have had this. The system of so many posts before allowing PMs would stop genuine people getting help when they are too nervous/unsure to ask on the boards.

Actually, you can set this up so that staff and admin can still be sent and send PMs to people under the threshold very easily.

As for spammers, since I upgraded my place to the new version of VB, I've found I have had no automated spammers, the safeguards in place are alot better than the previous ones. But I can imagine the job upgrading this place! :rotfl: