status-resolved Do You Think Spammers Care About Rules?

[JB Lions]

Not sure why my thread was deleted. I thought I posted it in the right forum, private for only admin/mods to see. And linking to a Google search isn't adult content, it was showing obvious spam. It was a YouTube video.

So is this the right forum? If not, which one is it?

My question was, why don't you just ban spammers? Do you think they care about rules?

 

[Eric Lyon]

Please be advised that linking to a questionable google search about titties and vulgar song lyrics that minors can access should be refined to the adult section. (You may not have known the FAQ was a public accessible forum) Thanks

With that said, It's pretty standard for only 1 out of every 20 to 50 people to actually brief the rules of communities and even more rare for every word to be read all the way to the bottom. This does not mean that everyone should be banned instantly that breaks a rule due to lack of reading. Each situation is different and may require slightly different courses of action.

Example 1: If someone makes their first post asking you to visit their link or google them to learn more; the first course of action should be a simple rule reminder. If that person repeats said promoting then it moves into a warning, then an infraction or relative disciplinary action (Or what ever the procedure is of that community).

Example 2: If someone spams blatantly with multiple phone hack, credit card fraud, etc., this normally constitutes a spam bot or account who's sole purpose is to advertise without any regard for the community and rules. These types are normally suspended instantly and await an account review. They are given the opportunity to contact the community staff in the event it was an accident (Most never contact because they know they were wrong and there's no point trying to contest the decision).

There are hundreds of other examples that may require different courses of action. For the sake of this topic and to keep my reply short, blanket banning everyone that doesn't read the rules is counter productive and leans on the extreme. Sadly, if a community was to ban everyone that broke a rule it would probably eliminate 90% or more of their memberships. I've found that by reminding people of the rules helps in most cases and they correct the oversight.

Just my thoughts on this anyways,

 

[JB Lions]

It was example 2. Hence the Google link. It shows this person posting that spam in numerous forums. 1 post in each forum. The spam having nothing to do with the topic of either of those forums (titties and vulgar song lyrics). That's called a spammer. Very obvious. I won't flag the stuff anymore since things don't get handled.

 

[Eric Lyon]

It was example 2. Hence the Google link. It shows this person posting that spam in numerous forums. 1 post in each forum. The spam having nothing to do with the topic of either of those forums (titties and vulgar song lyrics). That's called a spammer. Very obvious. I won't flag the stuff anymore since things don't get handled.

I can certainly understand your frustration with spammers and that by us removing (deleting) the thread in question and reminding the member of the rules wasn't a good solution for you. Combating spam and keeping everything fair for all members is a constant struggle every day. We just can't start blanket banning everyone that breaks rules and feel that sometimes, giving people a second or 3rd chance is a good course of action before banning them.

Thanks for understanding and I apologize for the inconvenience,

Eric lyon

 

[JB Lions]

We're not talking about everyone. I was talking about a specific case, a 100% obvious spammer that most forums handle. If your "good policy" is to give obvious spammers 2nd and 3rd chances, so maybe they can spam the forum even more. Ok, then that's the policy. Thanks.

 

[Joseph Green]

From what I've seen, this site has less spam than any other free forums of comparable size, and I've read many posts on here from members that say the same thing. If one spammer slips through the cracks or is given a second/third chance, it shouldn't be a big deal. It is unfair of you to inaccurately state that spam isn't being dealt with:

I won't flag the stuff anymore since things don't get handled.

If that were true, this place would be overrun with spam, like most free forums of considerable size.

 

[Paul]

@JB Lions, the first warning on record your record was for spam. Whether the warning was legitimate or not doesn't really matter: a moderator gave you a warning for spam, and under your proposal, that would have automatically banned you, fair or not. It's been 5 years since then; it would've been a real shame if we lost you so long ago.

I divide spam into several categories:

• Cross-forum spam. This is the easiest to catch because it's an automated process. Most of it is blocked before it ever reaches our servers, thanks to various services. If it does, accounts from would-be spammers hit a moderation queue where they have to be approved by administrators. We collaborate with other forums to track spammers and prevent known troublemakers from ever completing registration. Administrators review the evidence and approve or deny registration attempts accordingly. We can't read minds, though: if a spammer hits us early, before spamming other participating forums, we won't catch them this way. We catch a good number of accounts this way each day. They don't get a second chance and their accounts are deleted. (Side note: We also check for other types of spam, such as e-mail, and often consult a very large number of blacklists that deal with a variety of issues. These often have false positives, though; for example, you're on several blacklists because your ISP doesn't allow you to host an e-mail server or relay, or to send outgoing e-mails directly via SMTP.)
• Blatant, automated spam. This is easy to detect and easy to stop. These members don't get a second chance. Their accounts are permanently banned--no warnings--and we implement filters to prevent them from continuing with the same messages. Usually they have multiple accounts and IP addresses, so we rely purely on content to detect them. We have a special tool specifically for cleaning up after these guys. Fortunately, most automated spam also falls under the category of cross-forum spam, so this is rarely an issue.
• First-time users. Sometimes members join NamePros specifically for the purpose of promoting their own websites and services. These are real people who usually take the time to read our warnings. I often track new users who start out spamming, and I've found that most either become engaged in the community (with little or no further spamming), or leave and never return. It's very rare that they completely disregard our warnings. Sometimes they'll ask where they can acceptably promote their services, or they'll even try to convince us that they're not spamming. Moderators and administrators deal with these users on a case-by-case basis. We track problem users and ban those who make no effort to follow the rules. We'll usually be more forgiving if the user involved is off to a good start and has already contributed somewhat to the community. If a user's first few posts are all spam and padding, then we'll be quicker to ban.
• Established users, but repeat offenders. A lot of spam falls under this category. It puts us in a difficult situation, because we look at a user's positive contributions as well as negative before banning them. We make numerous attempts to work out these situations. With a default, generic spam warning, it would take about 4 offenses to get banned. However, we take severity and context into account; occasional but blatant disregard for the rules would result in an earlier ban, but probably not on the first offense.
• Established users, first time offenders. Everyone makes mistakes. We're pretty forgiving as long as it doesn't turn into a habit. Any warning will usually be insignificant.
• Pseudo-spam. We have many community members who don't speak English as a primary language. Users who are still getting the hang of English often make posts that seem like padding or spam, particularly because their posts are usually short and difficult to understand. A recent influx of users from China has made this issue more prominent: most of the new users don't speak English at all and rely on Google Translate to communicate. They participate by making lots of short comments that appear to be padding at first glance, but usually we never see actual spam from them. As always, there are some spammers mixed in, but they almost always stop when we ask nicely, per the aforementioned categories.

It sounds like the spam you found was a rare case of cross-forum spam that wasn't automatically flagged. Based on the sheer volume of spam that we block each day, it's inevitable that some will make it through. Moderators and administrators deal with many reports and don't really have time to go around Googling every tidbit of spam they find, especially when there are already systems in place to detect that type of spam. You're more than welcome to do so and include that information in your reports, however.

 

[JB Lions]

@JB Lions, the first warning on record your record was for spam. Whether the warning was legitimate or not doesn't really matter

Of course it matters, what a dumb thing to say and even bring up when the mod was wrong. I took that apart in public already back then. And so did other members in the thread below.

I got flagged for spam for linking to a Gizmodo article, this is the thread - https://www.namepros.com/threads/the-official-3d-showcase-and-discussion.644496/page-60#post3820558

You guys think I owned Gizmodo?

And this:

Moderators and administrators deal with many reports and don't really have time to go around Googling every tidbit of spam they find, especially when there are already systems in place to detect that type of spam. You're more than welcome to do so and include that information in your reports, however.

I did, but instead of handling it like most well run forums do, you want to

A. give them 2nd and 3rd chances and remind a spammer of rules
B. ban the spammer so they don't spam anymore

B is the correct answer, A was chosen. And this isn't going to be issue for me anymore because I'm not into wasting time. No point in reporting it when there is the possibility they can do it again because no action was taken.

and under your proposal, that would have automatically banned you

is incorrect. This case, the one I'm talking about, the spammer did the same post in many forums. Obvious spammer. Simple Google search would tell you that. Nothing like the false spam infraction a former mod made against my legit post.

Also, instead of deleting threads, a better way would be to move it to the correct forum. This all started because I reported something, didn't get handled like I thought it should, so I made a thread in what I thought was a private forum. It was deleted, hence this thread.

If one spammer slips through the cracks or is given a second/third chance, it shouldn't be a big deal.

Think that was addressed above. Typically, you don't give spammers more chances to spam you, just doesn't make much sense. You handle it when it's brought up.

 

[NameOmnia]

A recent influx of users from China has made this issue more prominent:

Please please please take what I am saying the right way as I don't mean to be racist or offensive in any way.

I can't ignore the fact though, that this increased number of Chinese domainers ( ? ) seems to go together with thefts of SPECIFIC domains ( aka those that appeal to the Chinese market ) from Pros' accounts.
It can be a coincidence but maybe it's not.

 

[NameOmnia]

the first warning on record your record was for spam.

Sorry Paul, all the world knows that JB and I don't go along very well, but I totally agree with him on this one

what a dumb thing to say and even bring up

Private communications between mods and members, like reports, warning etc, need to stay private. There is no justifiable reason for them to be made public.

 

[Joseph Green]

Give spammers 2nd and 3rd chances? So they can spam the forum more?

The point is that spam is not universally black and white. Your opinion and perspective on spam is not absolute. Not everyone who is deemed a spammer is intentionally breaking the rules. Spam is defined in many ways depending on the site, and sometimes people just need to be guided in the right direction.

* Edited the quote since it was changed.

 

[JB Lions]

The point is that spam is not universally black and white. Your opinion and perspective on spam is not absolute. Not everyone who is deemed a spammer is intentionally breaking the rules. Spam is defined in many ways depending on the site, and sometimes people just need to be guided in the right direction.

Yes, it is absolute. Take time to actually read. The spammer in question. 1 post. Same post. Many different forums. All 1 post in each forum. Content that had nothing to do with forums in question. Typical spammer pattern. When they do that to your forum, you ban them. You don't message a spammer about rules, they don't care. You don't give them more chances to spam you again.

This isn't that complicated.

Take a good look:

https://www.google.com/search?q='You guys won't believe this masked man did this in LA' -&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q="You guys won't believe this masked man did this in LA"

He's still going at it. You see a lot of:

1 post - ‎1 author

Now, if you want to go contact that spammer, that might be a bot, and try to guide them in the right direction, go for it.

 

[Joseph Green]

Yes, it is absolute.

Consider that there exists at least one place on the Internet where that behavior is acceptable and not considered spam. Some of those people would benefit from a warning and then discontinue the practice here.

* Edited my post to make it more helpful.

 

[JB Lions]

If it were absolute, we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?

Is it really that difficult for you to grasp that there exists at least one place on the Internet where that behavior is acceptable and not considered spam? Open your mind.

We're having this conversation because you don't read. Or you read and don't comprehend. I'm talking about a specific case that happened here at NP. I literally linked to the spam for you in my last post and you still don't get it. Eric literally mentions it, first sentence, first post. I'm not talking about some newbie that might not have read the rules or made an honest mistake. What I linked too, nothing else, is what this thread is about.

 

[Joseph Green]

@JB Lions

You edited your message, by adding to it, after I had already hit reply to your original post and was typing my response to it (on a mobile phone).

Nonetheless, I'm not sure why you think that changes what I said.

I'll end by saying that you may be 100% right in this particular case, but it'd be impossible for anyone to know that until a second chance was given.

* Edited the first sentence to add clarity.

 

[mis_chiff]

Of course it matters, what a dumb thing to say and even bring up when the mod was wrong. I took that apart in public already back then. And so did other members in the thread below.

I got flagged for spam for linking to a Gizmodo article, this is the thread - https://www.namepros.com/threads/the-official-3d-showcase-and-discussion.644496/page-60#post3820558

You guys think I owned Gizmodo?

Come on really, you still think about this
you took it apart in public? lol 2 years after the fact when the mood suited, instead of
when it happened - as you mentioned a reason for that above !

You linked to an article about adult 3d porn, as you even stated in your post
there is a 3d porn thread in the Adult section that the link would have been better served, and not removed!
It was not because we thought you owned gizmodo...

Let's get past it eh?

-------------------------
[in general]

Remember when everyone wanted transparency back then, all that yelling - even though the post was marked by whom, and there was a thread "in private" that it could be discussed...
and more transparency and leniency was promised...

well...where is the transparency?
we don't even know who deletes threads or moderates them anymore - always just by a "moderator"

as for spam lol [this must be the leniency promised]
- we have so many distinctive forums that never get used anymore
because the "stuff" can just be fit anywhere, hurting the existing flow to the original forums
- a place for everything and everything in it's place, called "where it should be"
but hey, what the hell do I know!

 

[JB Lions]

Come on really, you still think about this
you took it apart in public? lol 2 years after the fact when the mood suited, instead of
when it happened - as you mentioned a reason for that above !

You linked to an article about adult 3d porn, as you even stated in your post
there is a 3d porn thread in the Adult section that the link would have been better served, and not removed!
It was not because we thought you owned gizmodo...

Let's get past it eh?

-------------------------
[in general]

Remember when everyone wanted transparency back then, all that yelling - even though the post was marked by whom, and there was a thread "in private" that it could be discussed...
and more transparency and leniency was promised...

well...where is the transparency?
we don't even know who deletes threads or moderates them anymore - always just by a "moderator"

as for spam lol [this must be the leniency promised]
- we have so many distinctive forums that never get used anymore
because the "stuff" can just be fit anywhere, hurting the existing flow to the original forums
- a place for everything and everything in it's place, called "where it should be"
but hey, what the hell do I know!

Still, you don't read. I don't still think about it, I was responding to what Paul posted, did you not see me quoting him? I wouldn't have brought it up unless he mentioned it in the first place.

And no, it still isn't an article about 3d porn. Gizmodo doesn't have porn on their site. It was an article to Gizmodo talking about Playboy having a 3d cover, relevant to the thread. You would probably be the only one in this whole forum that would consider that spam. Nobody participating, having an interest in that topic in that thread would have. You notice how participation to this forum picked up once the overmoderating mods were gone? You don't hear people complaining about that anymore, people used to complain about that a lot back in the day.

Let's get past it eh?!

You just bumped this thread wanting to talk about it again. If you want to get past it, stop talking about it and have the other mods stop bringing it up. If it gets brought up in my direction (it was bad moderation, not spam), then obviously I'm going to address/correct it.

 

[mis_chiff]

I honestly don't care about what people talk about, this is old and redundant
but you are right, Paul should not have discussed your personal profile in a PUBLIC thread,
considering that is not what this specific thread/topic was about

ok to play it out - back then this is how it was seen -
you were a new member - first post - it was a link in the general form - to an "article" about 3d porn and Playboy magazine - which led to the Playboy stuff when followed.

anyways, we are never going to agree, so let's just agree to disagree and let it go please JB

and as for the forum picking up - I didn't notice am upswing till just recenlty tbh
till some of the discussions actually meant something for people to participate in.

the crap doesn't count ...