|
Re^2: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 07, 2013 at 08:06 UTC
|
An alternative would be to only show unapproved nodes to logged-in users.
But aren't they a "legitimate" target market for the spammers?
The other thought that crossed my mind was a "spam" button in the Approval nodelet for anonymous posts.
Once clicked, the only place that post shows up is in the 'nodes to consider' list; where it can be restored with 'Keep' if the spam button has been abused.
The idea being to make the marking of spam a considerably simpler & quicker process than the current 4 present & cooperating monks + a downvote (== extended time when not many monks around).
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
|
|
++
Yes, I like that idea.
Furthermore, while I don't baulk at downvoting spam, given the flood we seem to be getting recently, I often feel I've wasted about a quarter of my votes each day doing so.
Simply getting them off "Newest Nodes" (and the "Unapproved" lists in whatever section) and only requiring "Reap" considerations to remove them would be a significant improvement in my opinion.
I'd also suggest that they don't appear in "Worst Nodes" either; although, if they weren't actually being downvoted that may be a moot point.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
I'm not quite clear what your criterion is for exclusion from worst nodes. If it's "Reaped", I'd agree totally, but otherwise I might differ. Back in the day when I wrote Re: History now influences voting, I didn't have the power to consider nodes and could only downvote to flag them to others. I now check worst nodes most days to see if there is anything that needs considering (although I may do other things, like upvoting a "thank you" that has a negative reputation). Reaped nodes obviously don't need considering, which is why I agree with you, but merely being considered might be problematic. Sometimes nodes sit for weeks with a consideration. I'd also restrict your exclusion to "Worst nodes of the day" rather than to the other categories, as it can be helpful to know which bridges are troll-infested.
Regards,
John Davies
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
I think the idea there is to hide them from the search engine spidering.
Humans can ignore them for being obviously spam, and most people won't even see them due to reaping, but the spider bots are very aggressive and spot them almost immediately.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
I think we should keep this with in the nodes to consideration votes not the general up and down votes.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
