Dealing with spam bots on this site

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

From time to time we have spam on the forums.
When I see this I usually use the "report" button on these posts for one time and report them as spam.

I just wonder if the moderators really want us to do this, since I don't want them to get spammed with spam reports.

So - Chris and Michael:
Do you want us to report spam, when we see it new or do you check for yourselves?

[michael]

Yes, please do. It helps us notice them. It's then just a couple of key stokes to delete all their postings and ban their IP addresses.

We have lots of behind the scenes tech that screens out 95% of the spammers, but a few a week squeak through.

Michael

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Great!
Now where's my jabberwock pet?
Lets go hunting!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Good to know. I've been enjoying pressing the "report" button a few times recently.

[Rob C]

Good to know. I've been enjoying pressing the "report" button a few times recently.

Are you attempting to create explosions in place of smileys? I didn't realise that was an option!

Rob C

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Watch it Rob, or I'll report you to the Principal!

[Rhossydd]

I too have been regularly reporting the dodgy posts.
What's become rather tedious is the increase in spam to my mail account I use for LuLa (and I don't use it for anything else). Is there any possibility of making registration harder ? to try to avoid letting the spammers in ?

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

The programmed intelligence in these bots is becoming better and better.
What I saw a couple of times is, that the bots were posting stuff which were citations or modifications of other posts which really looked human made on the first look.
Checking such a bots posting history revealed there was a mechanism behind - Turing test failed.
Same for registration - bots are getting better and better. If you want a 100% safe registration you'd need a human check - hard to believe this would be possible here without overwhelming the moderators. I think we just have to live with the fact and try out best to get rid of them.

[Rhossydd]

you'd need a human check - hard to believe this would be possible here without overwhelming the moderators.

I'm sure the modatorial team will be aware of how many applications there are to join and if non-automatic promotion is a practicality. Maybe a two stage application process might help beat the bots ?

[hjulenissen]

...If you want a 100% safe registration you'd need a human check - hard to believe this would be possible here without overwhelming the moderators. I think we just have to live with the fact and try out best to get rid of them.

I have also seen these pseudo-inteligent posts that seems like a rehash of previous post. At first, they seem to make sense, but the username together with the number of previous posts is often telling.

Community effort:
Initial registration grants you the rights to only post in a single thread ("newbies corner"). You are required to post a couple of sentences about yourself and one image that you have taken yourself. This image must also contain your lula username in some form. Once other members have confirmed that your post seems legit, there is a dedicated "approve" button that bump your status to regular user.

Pros:
No extra case-to-case work for the admins (but probably some initial setup work).
Quick response time
I doubt that spam bots creators find it worth the effort to circumvent it.

Cons:
I dont know if the current level of spam warrants the extra work...

-h

[michael]

The number of spambots and human spammers that actually get though our automated filters is very small; not worth spending any time or money on.

Michael

[Bryan Conner]

It would be nice if we could all send the spammer spam.  You know...fight fire with fire.

[Chris Sanderson]

Actually since I have instituted a host of silly questions of registrants, the incidence of spam is less than 10% of what it was. However I now spend more time helping registrants answer the silly questions - but we are much less bothered by spammers

[fredjeang]

Actually since I have instituted a host of silly questions of registrants, the incidence of spam is less than 10% of what it was. However I now spend more time helping registrants answer the silly questions - but we are much less bothered by spammers

Ahhh...
Now I understand why you hardly post in the motion section. Too busy with the spammers...

Come on Michael ! We need Chris's posts and experience back in the video section.

(while I'm writing this, I'd like to ask: in English is it possible to put the 's even if the last letter is a S ? I can write Michael's posts but is it the same with Chris's posts?)

[michael]

In English, if a word already ends with an "s", to make it plural you put an apostrophe after the "s", so for example, Chris'.

Michael

[fredjeang]

Thanks Michael.

Cheers.

[Chris Sanderson]

In English, if a word already ends with an "s", to make it plural you put an apostrophe after the "s", so for example, Chris'.

Michael

...I think he means 'possessive' not 'plural'   

[Gary Brown]

(while I'm writing this, I'd like to ask: in English is it possible to put the 's even if the last letter is a S ? I can write Michael's posts but is it the same with Chris's posts?)

Opinions vary, but the oft-cited Chicago Manual of Style's rule is to add apostrophe-s to singular nouns regardless of whether they end in s — thus, the horse's mouth, a bass's stripes, Chris's posts — and add an apostrophe alone to plural nouns unless it's an irregular plural that doesn't end in “s” — thus puppies' paws, children's literature.

Their rules do include several exceptions, and they end up saying, “Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s — hence ‘Dylan Thomas' poetry,’ ‘Maria Callas' singing,’ and ‘that business' main concern.’ Though easy to apply, that usage disregards pronunciation and thus seems unnatural to many.”

[fredjeang]

...I think he means 'possessive' not 'plural'   

Can't we be have both? I'm possessive, and plural.

[fredjeang]

Opinions vary, but the oft-cited Chicago Manual of Style's rule is to add apostrophe-s to singular nouns regardless of whether they end in s — thus, the horse's mouth, a bass's stripes, Chris's posts — and add an apostrophe alone to plural nouns unless it's an irregular plural that doesn't end in “s” — thus puppies' paws, children's literature.

Their rules do include several exceptions, and they end up saying, “Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s — hence ‘Dylan Thomas' poetry,’ ‘Maria Callas' singing,’ and ‘that business' main concern.’ Though easy to apply, that usage disregards pronunciation and thus seems unnatural to many.”

It's getting more complicated than I thought...but I think I got it.

The spammers' posts
Chris's posts
and if I'm uncomfortable with the rules: Chris' posts