SPAM question for the Mods

[Raymond]

I was just wondering if you have come up with a solution to prevent spammers from initiating threads.

If not, another forum that I am part of seems to have come up with a plan that seems to be working.

[JugglingReferee]

I was thinking that the regulars (people who visit at least twice a day) could be given delete authority. If 2 or more of them agreed, a thread could be deleted. Each of these people would be a "half delete-only mod".

I run two other forums, BNR. What is your suggestion?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I was thinking that the regulars (people who visit at least twice a day) could be given delete authority. If 2 or more of them agreed, a thread could be deleted. Each of these people would be a "half delete-only mod".

I run two other forums, BNR. What is your suggestion?

I like your idea. And would love to hear BNR's idea too.

MTD, Sr.

[mick]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I was just wondering if you have come up with a solution to prevent spammers from initiating threads.

If not, another forum that I am part of seems to have come up with a plan that seems to be working.

I think whatever you decide is fine with me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I was just wondering if you have come up with a solution to prevent spammers from initiating threads.

If not, another forum that I am part of seems to have come up with a plan that seems to be working.

I know of a site that has everyone that wants to participate in the site, must pay at least $10 annually. Now this might not go over well with people who have been here for years. But you do not see any spammers coming to that site and infecting the board constantly. I have a feeling that will not go over well with the regulars at all. But at the very least you would stop people just coming onto the site to constantly spam over and over and over again.

Peace

[Raymond]

I'm on a football fan site and the Administrator has set it up so the no one can start a thread until they have posted 'X' amount of responses to other threads in the forum. A guess the spammer's software isn't set up to respond to threads, only to initiate them.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm on a football fan site and the Administrator has set it up so the no one can start a thread until they have posted 'X' amount of responses to other threads in the forum.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[JugglingReferee]

There are some posts which are valid posts, but where the original poster will likely not come back to the board after receiving an answer. If they must post in other threads to reach a post count before able to start their own thread, then they will not post at all, or become more interested and possibly more involved. If a goal is to discourage people from wandering away, then maybe the way to handle is to have a feature to allow a newbie to start a thread, but it must be approved by mods before it is visible. Or, if voted as "yes" by at least 3 regular members, it becomes visible, and voted "no" by at least 3 regular members, it remains invisible.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

There are some posts which are valid posts, but where the original poster will likely not come back to the board after receiving an answer. If they must post in other threads to reach a post count before able to start their own thread, then they will not post at all, or become more interested and possibly more involved. If a goal is to discourage people from wandering away, then maybe the way to handle is to have a feature to allow a newbie to start a thread, but it must be approved by mods before it is visible. Or, if voted as "yes" by at least 3 regular members, it becomes visible, and voted "no" by at least 3 regular members, it remains invisible.

How will the regulars be able to view it?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How will the regulars be able to view it?

Those with at least x number of posts will be able to see it. All it is is an if statement or two in the code. I would put the x to be 1,000 posts.

[waltjp]

I like the idea of 'regulars' being able to delete inappropriate posts but this can also lead to abuse if those with delete authority use it to remove posts for personal reasons.

[SWMOzebra]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I like the idea of 'regulars' being able to delete inappropriate posts but this can also lead to abuse if those with delete authority use it to remove posts for personal reasons.

What?? Officials with "authority" issues? Absolute and utter poppycock!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I like the idea of 'regulars' being able to delete inappropriate posts but this can also lead to abuse if those with delete authority use it to remove posts for personal reasons.

The Juggler mentioned needing agreement from 2 "regulars." I'd suggest a higher threshold, perhaps 5 or 6. I'd also suggest something slightly different.

A sort of semi-moderator position; it doesn't have to be identified on the tags, but it could be. It would be a group chosen much as the moderators are chosen, but would include more people with less authority than the current moderators have. This group would need to reach either a majority vote or a consensus of 5 (any number could be chosen) before deleting, closing, or editing a post or thread.

[bob jenkins]

IMO, a "challenge and response" system would work better than any of the alternatives so far presented.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

IMO, a "challenge and response" system would work better than any of the alternatives so far presented.

Could you elaborate on this? Is it what it appears to be?

1. M&M says something that offends me.
2. I make an official challenge.
3. M&M gets to respond.
4. Mick gets to kick him in the teeth.