ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just take your last post, JC. If the "new" anti
> spam measures did not cause the "separate" but
> also, you must admit, "new" problem of the
> "refresh" button working slowly, then what did?
>
I don't know. All I know is they didn't begin happening at the same time, if I recall correctly.
> You seem to say that even before the charm
> problem, the system was always set up to
> investigate new posters.
NOPE. The system was "always" <---for quite a few years at least, if not always, set up to require posters to *register*. Meaning, 'guests' 'always' were not able to post.
But I thought that was
> what the "new" software was supposed to do. I
> thought that instead of letting someone pick a
> name and then post immediately, that the system
> already in place would change to not allow that
> person to post until you or Curt had a chance to
> take a look at the application.
That is what is new, although there is no 'application' per se. Before this requirement was in place, anyone could register with an email address, have their temporary password automatically sent to that email address, then they could post (their spam crap) immediately afterward. Now, it takes a specific approval before anyone can post for the first time.
>I never knew
> that, as you say, that was always the case.
>
It wasn't.
> I'm confused by your explanations. If I read you
> correctly nothing you are doing now as previously
> announced to be new is causing the problem with
> the refreshing function but you say there may be.
> Most of us are saying there must be.
>
Now you're confusing me.
> You say that "See the result? Hardly any spam
> anymore."
>
> I think berk's point is that the cure is worse
> than the disease. We started out by suffering
> maybe a thread from the bracelet people once every
> two or three weeks which was quickly closed to two
> problems
>
It was a heck of a lot more often than once every two or three weeks, trust me. It was almost daily. The posts would usually be overnight, and users who woke up (or got to their computers) earliest would report the posts, and some with lots of time on their hands would reply to the posts (as if the spammer was going to read them). By the time I got to the computer in the AM, there would be Spam messages reported and/or PMs to my attention alerting me to the spam. I'm willing to bet you saw them a lot less frequently than most of us because of your Pacific Time Zone location, and you don't have to get up as early, Mr. Retiree! (can you tell I'm jealous?)
>
> 1) We get the red warning often when we try to
> post, sometimes during debates where we want to
> respond quickly......but much worse
>
Sorry,. maybe Curt can change the parameters of that restriction, I'll ask him
> 2) the refreshing function of the board is
> delayed which makes a person unsure whether his
> message has been blocked and will ever be posted.
> Sometimes I try to post it again and get the same
> message already posted warning but later I look
> and the message never got posted.
>
That happens to me too. I usually read another thread while I"m 'waiting', then see "last post by JC" eventually near the top of the list of topics.
Curt has said that the ad service (which provides the only revenue he receives for this free site, and it ain't much) is the cause of this.
> So that's why I agreed with berk that the cure is
> worse than the disease.
>
> I'm just not understanding what you are saying.
And I must suck at explaining it, but hopefully it's at least a little more clear now.