Curbing trolls and spammers - suggestion.

iwanttosave_2

fermi wrote: »

It won't be a complete answer to any of this, although it may give the Admins extra "tools" to help.

Also this board is enormous for a vBulletin installation. Upgrading would not be simple.

Plus I suspect the install is quite customised for MSE, and there are likely to be custom mods/hacks to the software (the "thanks" system is one) here on MSE that could further complicate the upgrading process.

The difficulty of the task on a board like MSE is probably why we are still on version 3.6.5 which was outdated even before the latest vBulletin release of version 3.7.

Thats why I said it would be a big job doing it, I don't envy the person who decides to take it on.

I know that they don't like adding alot of hacks to the place, I remember that from a past thread, but my site is very mod/hack heavy and I upgraded with absolutly no problems what so ever, there was about 15 mins downtime in all after backing up my database, all my hacks and mods worked absolutly fine afterwards.

If only for the extra safeguards during registration (its allows you to ask questions bots can't answer for example) I do think it would be a good step forward.

On the other side of the coin, the user profile pages turn into myspace/facebook type clones which could in one hand put alittle pressure on the servers and also admin for people leaving messages on the profile "wall"

The main advantage I see for the new version would be the social group function which I think would be fab for DFWers to set up their own clubs and stuff.

T'is worth a think about anyways.

fermi

iwanttosave wrote: »

.... my site is very mod/hack heavy and I upgraded with absolutly no problems what so ever, there was about 15 mins downtime in all after backing up my database, all my hacks and mods worked absolutly fine afterwards.

Interesting to know. Not got around to upgrading much that wasn't pretty standard.

I wouldn't envy the person(s) upgrading MSE either.

Incisor

It seems that the working definition of 'troll' is too often 'Someone whose opinions I disagree with'. But what is really needed is a definition of troll. And it is better to avoid landing the label 'troll' on a person, just stick to identifying 'trolling behaviour'.

My own early posting experience here was to be called a troll, for speaking plainly about the method by which someone was going to deal with his widowed mother's debt problem. I felt that the approach was ethically challenged, and I was direct about this. Now it seems to be a house rule that there is no condemnation on the Debt-Free-Wanabee board, and to an extent I can go along with that in terms of not condemning people for getting into debt. But if you also ban plain speaking over the ethics of approaches to dealing with debt, then you create a moral vacuum.

Now the upshot of challenging something I genuinely felt was dubious is that I was labelled a troll, it seems that some of my posts were ripped out across the site, the thread where this happened was heavily moderated. And some m*r*n even started a new thread to challenge me to a standup flame war.

Now, back to the point. Before trying to deal with a 'troll problem', we need to be really clear what the definition is for 'troll'. Seriously, this debate should go no further until that definition is agreed. If it is 'Someone whose opinions I disagree with', then fine, I am happy to go away. But I would hope we could come up with a definition which would allow for people to hold strong views which differ. Please sort out what 'trolling' really is before having a debate about how to deal with it.

redux

Some forums have automatic moderation of users' early posts if they contain links.

But I'm mentioning it, not recommending it

I think that could actually be more of a problem here, as genuine new users vastly outnumber spammers (I think), which isn't necessarily the case elsewhere. These new users, especially if this was their first forum, might not understand their post failing to appear and would be rather alienated, which I'm sure Martin and many others want to avoid. Given the sheer volume of this place, Board Guides might have more work spotting and approving these genuine posts than under the current regime where many users are willing to report stray spam.

*MF*

I have seen two references which refer to "posts" being restricted - to clarify - in raising this matter at all, I was not in any way suggesting any such restriction - and despite my brief attendance here - I made clear my admiration for the both the admins and in particular the MSE members in their work in detecting and reporting trolls or spammers - in the threads which are open to us all to monitor and report for abuse - and for the Admins to adjudicate on thereafter. Long may that continue.

The issue which arose in the discussion, which prompted my suggestion, was solely related to a newbie receiving a PM from a spammer trying to get rich quick - and a PM cannot be detected by a member - it is not on the open forum, nor necessarily will it be detected by MSE admin - and I believe it may be even more upsetting for a newbie to receive a PM of that type.

I make no apology for making the suggestion, I hope it opened up a worthwhile discussion, I am sorry that this post appears and is pedantic(*) - two main extracts from my OP here:

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

- specifically restricting their use of PMs until they have reached an initial number of posts

I have also seen posts which cast doubt on there ever being a restriction of any kind. I am anxious to avoid being seen as some kind of newly arrived know it all, just spouting forth, so may I also include extracts from the discussion that took place and for which I posted a link, where I myself stated my doubts about any restrictions - of the type I suggested, these are they (and the link is still in my original post for those who wish to read the full discussion which took place):

I mentioned earlier I am experienced on other forums - and one of the ways of reducing such things is to limit the "privileges" of new members - eg., not allowing PM's until maybe 20/30/50 posts.

Never sure if placing limits is always a good idea - but real newbs rarely send PM's to start, and it may be one way of monitoring things.

I have since learned via Rex_Mundi's post and others that this site may vary from others in that regard and in other ways.

vBulletin the software platform this forum uses will have such facilities - some of the forums I am referring to had just those forms of limitations eg: when you could get an ava, when you could post photos etc. As I say I am not 100% convinced - but they do create a feeling of value beyond post count - and it would help all those on this thread - and the forum more widely - who can spot trolls or adverts etc - but cannot see PM's - which in many ways can be very much worse.

It is not for me to decide on such things, but this thread is for suggestions, I made one, and remain happy that I did - but I feel responsible that neither the suggestion nor its context is seen as other than as it was.

It was related solely to PMs.


(*) Pedantic ... As is known to the members on the relevant thread - today is day 3 for me of not smoking - may I ask that you cut me some slack please, ok. :A


PLUR!

mountainchrisriver

Another bright idea?

Why not give all BG's the ability to remove obvious spam posts from all boards... not just their own... So when spammers croos post on lots of different areas a BG could do a swifter clear up... :j

I know it creates a bit more work for them potentially but that could be solved by appointing more BG's in the future if this is found to be the case...

What do folk reckon? :cool: or :eek:

my_old_mans_a_dustman

Incisor wrote: »

It seems that the working definition of 'troll' is too often 'Someone whose opinions I disagree with'. But what is really needed is a definition of troll. And it is better to avoid landing the label 'troll' on a person, just stick to identifying 'trolling behaviour'.

My own early posting experience here was to be called a troll, for speaking plainly about the method by which someone was going to deal with his widowed mother's debt problem. I felt that the approach was ethically challenged, and I was direct about this. Now it seems to be a house rule that there is no condemnation on the Debt-Free-Wanabee board, and to an extent I can go along with that in terms of not condemning people for getting into debt. But if you also ban plain speaking over the ethics of approaches to dealing with debt, then you create a moral vacuum.

Now the upshot of challenging something I genuinely felt was dubious is that I was labelled a troll, it seems that some of my posts were ripped out across the site, the thread where this happened was heavily moderated. And some m*r*n even started a new thread to challenge me to a standup flame war.

Now, back to the point. Before trying to deal with a 'troll problem', we need to be really clear what the definition is for 'troll'. Seriously, this debate should go no further until that definition is agreed. If it is 'Someone whose opinions I disagree with', then fine, I am happy to go away. But I would hope we could come up with a definition which would allow for people to hold strong views which differ. Please sort out what 'trolling' really is before having a debate about how to deal with it.

I couldn't have put it better myself, I too have been called a troll because I dared to have a difference of opinion with an mse member who has been a member longer than myself:rolleyes:

lostinrates

I encouraged my DH to join, he posted in the Savings and investment forum was accused in less than courteous terms of being a troll. I went in and mouthed off a bit and one decent person did admit they had made a mistake in an accusation and also had the grace to apologise....but no one else.

My DH? hasn't been back - which is a shame as he actually understands some of the serious money stuff. After all, why would a busy professional waste time defending himself against people he doesn't know on a forum? It made me really angry that all people could say was that usually 'these people' are trolls (he posted a question and a link to a Telegraph article aboutIcelandic bank accounts ). I pointed out that if people don't come back its possibkle because a percentage of them are trolls but a percentage are people scared away by the vehemence of (wrongful) attacks.

Dithering_Dad

Perhaps MSE could make a small, one-off membership charge (say £5) that people have to pay in order to post onto the forum. The charge would make it uneconomic for spammers to post on MSE and would deter people from joining merely to cause trouble.

The problem with kicking off spammers and trolls is that they can simply create a new username and continue. Would they do this if it cost them a fiver each time?

The fivers could be donated onto one of the debt charities. I know that a lot of site users have debt problems but I'd imagine most people could afford a fiver - especially if they acquire it via one of the various 'clicks' sites or pigsback type sites.

I'd certainly be happy to pay £5 to a debt charity in return for a troll/spam free MSE.

Night-owl_6

I hate trolls