posted
It's your standard Hatrack self-assessment free-for-all. *smile
Participation is entirely voluntary and at your own risk of recursivity.
---
This thread branches off from a discussion here: Just saying hi quickly. We are having another influx of spam threads, both those rather clearly marked with pharmaceutically-oriented titles (or various anatomy parts that usually don't see the sun, the waywardness of attractive female celebrities, etc.) and those that masquerade as introductory threads. The latter are usually replicated verbatim throughout the web concurrently, on sites from Cancer Caregivers to the Vanderburgh County Municipal Sanitation site, and they are pretty easy to spot (so far) [I think, but maybe not?] for these reasons.
What do you all think about what it is and is not okay to do with reference to these threads? Of course nobody should be violating the TOS, but apart from that, other concerns have been raised. For example, if we do not restrict ourselves only to kind and welcoming remarks on threads titled as introductory threads, we may not be vigilant enough to avoid being dismissive and rude to real self-intro threads of real newcomers here to participate in the site.
Of note, this hasn't happened with regard to this multi-posted fake intro thread joking, but it has happened when someone was registering multiple pseudonyms, and some real newcomers received the brunt of suspicion over it. I personally find the spambot intros to be so different and easy to verify that goofing around on them seems to me to be innocuous, but this may not be so clear to others (or, quite possibly, may not be as clear to me as I think).
What's your take? What can we say on these threads, and what should we avoid? What about talking about such fake intro threads on other threads -- is it that we must keep the pseudointro threads clear of anything unwelcoming, or is it that the whole site should be kept clear off discussion about their spam nature? Something in between?
posted
I think if it is not offensive, it is not a problem. So long as it does not get the extent that tons and tons of new intro threads are constantly being introduced and being annoying.
I think the only ISSUE that can arise from people poking fun at new people is the unfounded claim that they might be a bot.... really not a great issue other than it's rude, since a real person could then say hey guys... I'm a real person.
Looking back/at the current point I'm making I guess joking around about bots(like asking them questions you realize won't be answered) is just as legitimate a form of goofing around as anything else, and maybe I just don't find it entertaining and therefore should keep my nose out of it.
I just thought that Zasser guy was a real person(I didn't look it up/put much credibility in other people) and thought everyone else was jumping the gun on being annoying to him.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: I just thought that Zasser guy was a real person(I didn't look it up/put much credibility in other people) and thought everyone else was jumping the gun on being annoying to him.
*nods
That's exactly why I always give link references when I identify a bot -- so that it is clear why I think what I do about it. In this case, I linked to the same verbatim message (under "Gerald" or "gerry") at the following:
1. a forum about nightlife in Dallas, Texas 2. a legal forum about intellectual property rights, and 3. a computer tech forum
(Gerald gets around! )
There were many others, hundreds actually, including the Cancer Caregivers forum, but I was tired of cutting and pasting. *grin I did give the google search terms, though, so that if anyone still had doubts, they could see what I saw with a 5-second search.
We really may just have different senses of humor, you know. That's cool. Differences keep it interesting. But I also think the idea that this could bleed over to real newcomer posts is worth discussing. I myself don't think I have a problem spotting/verifying such posts, and I think many here are in the same position, but it is obvious these do look real to some people. Since that is the case, there will indeed likely be people who can't easily tell them apart and may be unfortunately influenced to bleedover inadvertantly.
What would make it clear for you that the this was a bot, other than citing several widely disparate other forums with the same verbatim message & a Google search information? Or is it close enough that you think we should avoid discussions of the potentiality altogether, regardless of what someone might post in demonstration?
-----
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Only CT would pick Vanderburgh county.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Of course nobody should be violating the TOS,...
Does anybody know where this can be found? I've been looking and have come up empty. I'm sure it was presented to me upon registration, but I didn't save a copy of it at that time...
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: What do you all think about what it is and is not okay to do with reference to these threads? Of course nobody should be violating the TOS, but apart from that, other concerns have been raised. For example, if we do not restrict ourselves only to kind and welcoming remarks on threads titled as introductory threads, we may not be vigilant enough to avoid being dismissive and rude to real self-intro threads of real newcomers here to participate in the site.
I think Hatrack's fairly good, on the whole, at discerning what is or isn't spam. And as long as there's no TOS violations, I can't see the problem with having a little spam-prodding fun. If it's done in a civil manner, and the person ends up being a real person, I see no reason why a simple apology and a "Welcome!" shouldn't more than cover it.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Evansville roomate at 4-H leadership conference taught me well. Of course the area has been completely skewed since the Road Food brain scandal.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Of course nobody should be violating the TOS,...
Does anybody know where this can be found? I've been looking and have come up empty. I'm sure it was presented to me upon registration, but I didn't save a copy of it at that time...
Here you go. The only way I know of to find it is to log out and click on "register." [Edit: looks like you can't get there from here, at least not while logged in. You have to logout, look at it under "register," and then re-login. Maybe Papa Janitor can put a link somewhere, if it's worth it. **** or rather, what cmc said below **** ]
----
Mick, that's exactly what a bot would say, if he were a sneaky, connivin', horse-thievin' sort.
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: My Evansville roomate at 4-H leadership conference taught me well. Of course the area has been completely skewed since the Road Food brain scandal.
*facepalm
[small voice] my people, my people [/small voice]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pegasus - I reviewed the terms from my profile. If you click on yourself, it opens another window and on the right side of your options you can review the agreement.
posted
They could have just been normal and shown pork tenderloins. That's standard IN fare and not quite as weird sounding.
And sorry that wasn't Road Food, it was Feasting on Asphalt. I watch too much food tv when I have access to cable.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT it's not that I didn't find your evidence good, it's that I didn't check it and figured it wouldn't be so simple to find it. Eh. I don't know, I really had no basis for what I said. I won't even say I don't find that sort ofjoking that clever, because I'm sure i could be proven wrong at least once. Just rest assured I'll ignore all "I'm new" threads from now on, or check them myself. Or whatever... not be stupid though.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've yet to see one spam more than once after having been caught. I've seen a few spam two or three times, but it is usually in rapid succession. I mean, PJ is good, but he doesn't have magic powers.
posted
I would honestly be a little excited if someone ever accused me of being a bot. *le sigh* To be new again!
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Papa can edit posts to remove the spam, but as a moderator he can't delete/ban the account, it takes an administrator to do that, I believe. So sometimes that takes longer, giving the bot time to spam again.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: CT it's not that I didn't find your evidence good, it's that I didn't check it and figured it wouldn't be so simple to find it. Eh. I don't know, I really had no basis for what I said. I won't even say I don't find that sort ofjoking that clever, because I'm sure i could be proven wrong at least once. Just rest assured I'll ignore all "I'm new" threads from now on, or check them myself. Or whatever... not be stupid though.
You, sir, are an officer and a gentleman [or the female equivalent of the phrase, if that is more appropriate]. This is a stand-up and upfront sort of response, and I respect you very much for it.
I myself was being more than a bit pissy last night, and I woke up feeling quite ashamed about it. Thanks for being a good role model, and my apologies for harping on the point.
posted
Papa doesn't put in the request until the second spam post because in most cases it's not worth spending the time for someone who created a one-time throwaway registration. Papa was at one point making a list of all spam registrations to send to an administrator to remove, but since they were coming in at maybe ten a day and only a fraction of those actually posted, it (again) didn't seem to be worth the time. Now he just doesn't bother until the second thread.
<Checks.> A quick check of the last 50 spam threads shows about four repeat posters.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I was trying to be considerate, but I was totally crabby in my mind. That would have been a good time to sit back and let it go. It does leak out.
But thank you, sincerely. (((J)))
---
Edited to add:
Starsnuffer, from another thread, I just gathered you are in high school, yes? I should have cut you more slack regardless, but this makes me even more impressed by your response.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I was trying to be considerate, but I was totally crabby in my mind. That would have been a good time to sit back and let it go. It does leak out
Me too. Or if not considerate, then honest. Also, thanks.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like them to add captchas to new account registrations.
Seconded wholeheartedly.
It fixed the problem on my friends' bulletin board, and it was already built-in functionality. Haven't had a spam registration or post since then. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that last spam thread, I'm going to Third the recommendation of captchas. And because I finally won a whistle race, so the fun is gone.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
It's all good.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
]![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
