Do you think this might be a good way for Fluther to help eliminate spam?

Was just coming on to ask a similar question.

Most new users who are valid come here to ask a specific Q so I’m not sure that making them wait 24 hours would be good. But perhaps not allowing new users to answer for a period of time would help reduce spam. Or have a verification method built?

This is a good question. I’m not sure placing a restriction is feasible for the same reason mentioned by @janbb. A new user with a pressing question would likely simply leave rather than wait 24 hours.

I remember someone once mentioned adding a mod specifically for taking care of spam. I wonder if that’s worth considering.

Or it could be that the new user’s question or answer has to be approved by a mod, so it might not be a 24 hour wait, it might be a two hour wait or however long it takes for a mod to take a look at it and approve it to post. Just trying to come up with some thoughts, because it’s work for the mods to have to deal with dozens of posts, like we had today.

^That’s worth considering.

I noticed that today’s spammer puts in some kind of relevant statement then adds their money making website link at the end. I wonder if they are using ChatGPT to generate the text, then just adds their link at the end?

Today there’s definitely been a ton of spam.

I have 71 new activity right now and usually it would be about 5 to 7. This morning i had in the 50’s.

I’m up to 90 “Activity for You” !

sad face : > ((

^^ You people need to clean out the Augean stables!

My stables were up to date until I got hit without 60 spams today.

I had only 23 “Activity” this morning due to spam. Two had content relevant to the topic, which impressed me.

Yes. I think that would be great. Any and all versions of this would help.

I remember someone once mentioned adding a mod specifically for taking care of spam. I wonder if that’s worth considering.

There’s a way for a mod to be “spam-only” by setting them up with limited abilities. For example, they might be able to remove comments, but not ban anyone.

The concern here is that this moderator would still have access to all moderator messages, our emails, the annotations we can make on threads…and if we trust them with all that, there is not really any need to even make the distinction.

I’ve seen 45 “A f Y” three times after clean ingout 50 or so SPAM.

Back up to 60 . . “A f Y” !

The recent spammer has left the building. I just click on “mark as all read” in my activity for you. If it’s legit I will have to wait until someone adds a comment.

@RedDeerGuy1 I do that too when I see there are numerous old questions with new activity.

I think the idea of a waiting period during which questions are reviewed may have merit. The details of such a system can be worked out.

@Hawaii_Jake The problem with any solution is that there aren’t enough mods to deal with one. Unless as brian suggests, a troop of volunteer could be empowered to delete spam when seen.

It seems like it should be easier to prevent the majority of spam from ever being published. Then, whatever is not caught won’t be so bad. Right now I would think the mods are so busy just keeping up with the bulk of all the spam.

A few years ago, awesome Mariah did something similar for questions. She made it so that Fluther automatically rejects certain threads posted by new users. They’re rejected the instant they are published, so you never have to see them. Then, when one of us comes online, we ban the spammer. It’s been hugely helpful. We do get false positives sometimes, but in that case we can manually override the system’s decision.

We spend a lot of time on very small and almost mindless tasks. If we could get more technical solutions, that would free us up for those tasks that really require a human brain.

Ben was looking into helping us with what we call “profile spam” – people joining just to leave a link on their profile. We paused the conversation for the holidays, but maybe we can pick that up again.

It’s so frustrating. I’m not sure if your suggestion would work, because after a waiting period then the spammers could go hog wild. Maybe they are bots and not actual people and would have all of the patience in the world.

Fluther probably doesn’t want to quell new users in most circumstances, because usage is what keeps the website alive. It also helps “addict” new users.

One idea I thought of was for fluther to catch when the same answer is posted three times. I have no idea how hard that is to program. Or, if someone answers three times in less than one minute. I wonder if they can see how far apart in time these posts happen and program accordingly.

We should message Mariah.

Thank you for all you do, Mods!

Could we make is so first timers cannot include a link? Or they need to have more than 10 Lurve. Their Q would be sent back to “editing” – without telling them why.

I was thinking last night that maybe some code could be developed – probably by Ben – that would reject posts with a link in them on questions that are older than a certain period of time. Move them to something like a spam folder the way email programs do or just delete them. I know it would involve someone having to do some programming but I don’t know that it would be arduous to do.

I don’t understand targeting a post with a link. We tend to emphasize posting links in Q’s and answers.

Posting a link multiple times could be targeted maybe.

Don’t other sites use a capchta or something similar? Maybe a verification text as well? It wouldn’t be impossible to get through, but the bit of a barrier could stop people uselessly polluting our pool.

@JLeslie I’m talking about posts over three or four months old. Almost any time someone posts on those older posts with a link it is spam.

The Captcha idea is a good one.

@janbb That makes sense.

I wrote Mariah. Maybe if she has time she’ll look at it.

I have an idea. Instead of a blanket 24-hour waiting period to submit any question or answer, what about a twist on that theme. Have a 24-hour waiting period before anyone can submit a link either in the details of a question or in an answer. This would deter the vast majority of spam, I think. Most spammers come on and immediately post answers with their links or write a question that includes a link in the details.

This would still allow new members who are genuine about seeking answers to post questions and engage in the community.

(I hadn’t noticed spam recently.)

@Tropical_Willie I currently have 4200 Activity For Me.

@Zaku 4200? How is that even possible? So you never click on them?

Let’s seeee…you’ve been here since 2007, equals 15 years… so yeah, I guess that would be about right.