TheFutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just got flagged as possibly posting SPAM? Huh?



Please read the earlier posts in this very thread for the answer to your question (berk's post dated Sept 2nd and replies).



JC

I don't understand this. Please explain. It should be a simple matter to simply block the messages from anyone not already a user and then to carefully examine the application of anyone seeking to be a new user.

Why do old users ever get the message?

It seems to me that these "new anti-spam" measures must be set up to somehow analyze the post itself or the frequency of the posts to take effect. That is the only way I can explain how old users are being temporarily held up.

And to tell the truth, the "charm" people have not come back since the first the measures took effect. They are probably too busy infecting numerous sites to be worried about losing one.

So what gives???????????????

if the system sees you posting too many times in a row it flags it as spam. I don't think the spam issue we were having before is what this is designed to stop (problem was not a bunch of message but 2 or 3 from fake users). I know since the new system was put in we haven't had any pandora charm posts so it is working to that extent. if it can be modified to not block "quick" posts from real users that would be great, but all things being equal I can live with what we got. thanks curt for stopping the annoying spam we were getting before.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Exactly what I was saying, berk. I think the anti spam methods adopted were excessive. It should have started with simply blocking unapproved new users.

It should have been so fancy pants that it was set up to calculate how many posts were made within a certain time because like you say, that never was the problem with Pandora at all anyway.

I think they should go back and simply the measures to do just that.

I'll tell you why.

This website is already having problems with its automatic refreshing features. Maybe that is also the fault of the anti spam but when you put that together with a game wherein everyone is trying to post at the same time, you have just a tremendous pile up.

So PUH-LEEZE JC change the anti spam machinery to ONLY STOP NEW posters until they can be approved.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand this. Please explain.

OK, I'll try..again.

It
> should be a simple matter to simply block the
> messages from anyone not already a user and then
> to carefully examine the application of anyone
> seeking to be a new user.
>

Messages were *already* being blocked from anyone not already a user. Problem was, people were signing on as users for the express purpose of posting spam about selling phony jerseys, Uggs, jewelrey, handbags, you name it.


> Why do old users ever get the message?
>

That's a good question. I can think of two reasons. First of all, I don't think that the admin controls of the Phorum software this message board uses, has such parameters. In other words, there isn't a setting Curt can populate that automatically turns off the restriction once they become "old" enough. I believe there is simply no such setting to make this restriction, good idea that it is.

Furthermore (here's the second reason): Some of these spammers are quite organized. they sign up with a new username, then they don't attempt to post for several weeks, even months. By then they might be an "old user" , return to the board and make 10 posts overnight trying to sell their bootleg crap.



> It seems to me that these "new anti-spam" measures
> must be set up to somehow analyze the post itself
> or the frequency of the posts to take effect.

That's also something the software does not (completely) do. There may be a way to filter out key words such as UGGs and Pandora (that stupid jewelry), but we've found that spammers often intentionally misspell the product, as in, "get your Pand0ra jewelry here" (substituting the zero for the letter O). A lot of the *legitimate* posters on here use the same tactic when posting curse words because these clowns somehow think it's no longer a bad word if they change out one one vowel in a four-letter word to an asterisk.

Also, what about the word "jersey"---some spammers sell fake NFL jerseys but we can't block that word from being posted--that would censor all the intellectual discussions we have about changing the color of our uniforms.


> That is the only way I can explain how old users
> are being temporarily held up.
>

How about the original explanation? that's how I can explain it...let me try to articulate it again: There is a restriction, for every user that makes it past the (new-ish) screening process, which stops them from making multiple posts within a specific time frame (I don't know what it is, but let's call it within three minutes of their previous post). This helps stop spammers from quickly posting say, a dozen spam messages in a dozen different threads. It would limit them to posting only one, until a moderator can locate and delete that message. As I said earlier, I believe there is no way to put this restriction on "new" vs. "old" users.

> And to tell the truth, the "charm" people have not
> come back since the first the measures took
> effect. They are probably too busy infecting
> numerous sites to be worried about losing one.
>

Aw, c'mon man? They're probably too BUSY? How about, Curt and I have been busting their asses left and right before they can even sign up as a user in the first place? That's why you haven't seen your Pandora Charm adds on here. Too busy, smh.... give us some credit man !

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if the system sees you posting too many times in a
> row it flags it as spam. I don't think the spam
> issue we were having before is what this is
> designed to stop (problem was not a bunch of
> message but 2 or 3 from fake users).

It did happen sometimes (a bunch of spam from the same users). But even 2 or 3 is 2 or 3 too many.

I know since
> the new system was put in we haven't had any
> pandora charm posts so it is working to that
> extent. if it can be modified to not block "quick"
> posts from real users that would be great, but all
> things being equal I can live with what we got.

Everyone who gets approved as a user is a 'real' user. Guests are not allowed to post. We've been catching a lot of the spammers before approving them as users in the first place...it's been working like a ....charm


> thanks curt for stopping the annoying spam we were
> getting before.


Yes indeed, thanks to Curt, we don't have so see as much of that crap any more.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly what I was saying, berk. I think the anti
> spam methods adopted were excessive. It should
> have started with simply blocking unapproved new
> users.
>

That is already in place.


> It should have been so fancy pants that it was set
> up to calculate how many posts were made within a
> certain time because like you say, that never was
> the problem with Pandora at all anyway.
>

No way to do that, I don't think


> I think they should go back and simply the
> measures to do just that.
>




> I'll tell you why.
>
> This website is already having problems with its
> automatic refreshing features.


I know nothing about how that works, but I believe it is a separate problem. It started happening quite a bit after the new anti-spam restrictions were put in place.



>
> So PUH-LEEZE JC change the anti spam machinery to
> ONLY STOP NEW posters until they can be approved.


Nothing to change, that is already happening. See the result? Hardly any spam anymore.

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.

LOL. All we have managed to do is to confuse each other.

Any effort you guys put into this site is appreciated. You folks do a great service for us and it often goes without thanks. I'm glad I found this board 4 years ago as it has been my home and source for all things Phins related since. Again, to all the mods of this site, especially Curt, thank you and keep up the good work! Go Phins!!!!

FYI- I noticed during the season, when doing specific game day threads, where you post so much, somtimes if i posted more then 2-3 times about the game in a row without someone else posting it, wouldn't allow me to post anymore, thinking I was posting spam.... It was a bit weird since I am longtime member who post regularly, but the spam software still identified my actions as spam and wouldnt execute anymore post in the thread...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FYI- I noticed during the season, when doing
> specific game day threads, where you post so much,
> somtimes if i posted more then 2-3 times about the
> game in a row without someone else posting it,
> wouldn't allow me to post anymore, thinking I was
> posting spam.... It was a bit weird since I am
> longtime member who post regularly, but the spam
> software still identified my actions as spam and
> wouldnt execute anymore post in the thread...


I think I remember that happening to me as well, so I'm sure it doesn't consider how long and frequently you have been a poster.