Spam reporting thread #44
Esto es una continuación del tema Spam reporting thread #43.
Este tema fue continuado por Spam reporting thread #45.
CharlasSpam Fighters!
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1Lyndatrue
Procedures for reporting spam
Distinguish between the following, and flag the highest level of the violation:
-- Type 1: Irredeemable commercial spam: make sure to flag the member's profile, as well as the spammy activity. This type includes things selling strollers, pharmaceuticals, live-streaming sports games, porn, and/or trying to create traffic/links to sites for such things. Sufficient profile flags will automatically result in temporary suspension and deletion of the member's activity, so use your profile-flagging powers wisely and carefully.
-- Type 2: Teachable moments: DO NOT flag the member's profile, but DO flag the violating activity (e.g. self-promotional Talk post, group, or local venue). This type includes promotional activity that violates the Terms of Service (TOS), but where the member is potentially redeemable, e.g. overzealous authors, overzealous publishers, or other members with small TOS violations but who are otherwise using the site legitimately. These cases should be reported to staff (by sending a message or email to staff and/or or posting on this thread), so the member can be taught how to use the site.
Specific procedures:
-- Overzealous authors or publishers (these fall under type 2): do NOT flag the member's profile. Report to staff here or privately. You can also send the member a polite message pointing them to the terms, mentioning the "no promoting" language, and pointing them to the Do's and Don't page for authors: http://www.librarything.com/about_authors.php
-- Suspected sock-puppetry to promote a book, write fake reviews, and/or stack ratings: do not flag the profile, but report to staff here or by message, so staff can investigate. This is a serious violation for which members can be permanently banned.
-- Profile flags for commercial spammers only (type 1): On the member's profile page, click on the "report for spam" link, then follow instructions to flag the member. Again, this is only for commercial spam, not for "overzealous" authors, publishers, or booksellers, which should be reported to staff instead. See Talk post: http://www.librarything.com/topic/85810
-- Spam or promotional posts in a Talk topic (type 1 or 2): flag the post as an abuse of the terms of service.
-- Spam or promotional groups (types 1 and 2): flag new groups using the "flag this group" link.
-- Spam lists: report in this thread, and flag the member if it's commercial spam.
-- Spam works (type 1 spam): flag the work as spam on the work's editions page, and then vote on proposed work spam. Make sure to read the guidelines before proposing or voting, especially for what is not spam. Voting page: http://www.librarything.com/spam_works.php
-- Spam in a review (type 1), or an explicitly promotional review (type 2): flag the review as an abuse of the TOS, using the red flag.
-- Spam or promotion in "published reviews," or other CK fields (type 1 or 2): post here and/or delete.
-- Spam or egregious promotion/advertising in venues or events (type 1 or 2): post here and/or delete. Note that authors are permitted to add events for their books.
-- Spam in book links / quick links: post here and/or edit to remove spam.
-- Spam author names listed on a work: No current procedure. Tim has asked us not to change CK to indicate spammers, and not to combine spam authors together.
-- Not sure if it's spam? Post here, and explain why.
Please note that Tim has asked us not to use either CK or the combining system (whether works or authors) for spam fighting.
For more information see these wiki pages:
Procedures for flagging and reporting spam: http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Spam#Procedures_for_flagging_and_repo....
Spam works, guidelines for flagging and voting: http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/HelpThing:Spam_works
(A copy of these guidelines, for pasting in new threads, can be found here or at the top of previous threads.)
Distinguish between the following, and flag the highest level of the violation:
-- Type 1: Irredeemable commercial spam: make sure to flag the member's profile, as well as the spammy activity. This type includes things selling strollers, pharmaceuticals, live-streaming sports games, porn, and/or trying to create traffic/links to sites for such things. Sufficient profile flags will automatically result in temporary suspension and deletion of the member's activity, so use your profile-flagging powers wisely and carefully.
-- Type 2: Teachable moments: DO NOT flag the member's profile, but DO flag the violating activity (e.g. self-promotional Talk post, group, or local venue). This type includes promotional activity that violates the Terms of Service (TOS), but where the member is potentially redeemable, e.g. overzealous authors, overzealous publishers, or other members with small TOS violations but who are otherwise using the site legitimately. These cases should be reported to staff (by sending a message or email to staff and/or or posting on this thread), so the member can be taught how to use the site.
Specific procedures:
-- Overzealous authors or publishers (these fall under type 2): do NOT flag the member's profile. Report to staff here or privately. You can also send the member a polite message pointing them to the terms, mentioning the "no promoting" language, and pointing them to the Do's and Don't page for authors: http://www.librarything.com/about_authors.php
-- Suspected sock-puppetry to promote a book, write fake reviews, and/or stack ratings: do not flag the profile, but report to staff here or by message, so staff can investigate. This is a serious violation for which members can be permanently banned.
-- Profile flags for commercial spammers only (type 1): On the member's profile page, click on the "report for spam" link, then follow instructions to flag the member. Again, this is only for commercial spam, not for "overzealous" authors, publishers, or booksellers, which should be reported to staff instead. See Talk post: http://www.librarything.com/topic/85810
-- Spam or promotional posts in a Talk topic (type 1 or 2): flag the post as an abuse of the terms of service.
-- Spam or promotional groups (types 1 and 2): flag new groups using the "flag this group" link.
-- Spam lists: report in this thread, and flag the member if it's commercial spam.
-- Spam works (type 1 spam): flag the work as spam on the work's editions page, and then vote on proposed work spam. Make sure to read the guidelines before proposing or voting, especially for what is not spam. Voting page: http://www.librarything.com/spam_works.php
-- Spam in a review (type 1), or an explicitly promotional review (type 2): flag the review as an abuse of the TOS, using the red flag.
-- Spam or promotion in "published reviews," or other CK fields (type 1 or 2): post here and/or delete.
-- Spam or egregious promotion/advertising in venues or events (type 1 or 2): post here and/or delete. Note that authors are permitted to add events for their books.
-- Spam in book links / quick links: post here and/or edit to remove spam.
-- Spam author names listed on a work: No current procedure. Tim has asked us not to change CK to indicate spammers, and not to combine spam authors together.
-- Not sure if it's spam? Post here, and explain why.
Please note that Tim has asked us not to use either CK or the combining system (whether works or authors) for spam fighting.
For more information see these wiki pages:
Procedures for flagging and reporting spam: http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Spam#Procedures_for_flagging_and_repo....
Spam works, guidelines for flagging and voting: http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/HelpThing:Spam_works
(A copy of these guidelines, for pasting in new threads, can be found here or at the top of previous threads.)
2Taphophile13
Ok, back to work, everyone.
https://www.librarything.com/profile/asdf874646
yuck, it's advertising massage travel
https://www.librarything.com/profile/asdf874646
yuck, it's advertising massage travel
3lesmel
>2 Taphophile13: darn it. missed. that's what i get for trying to work on two things at once. heh
4Taphophile13
>3 lesmel:
I know, I missed several because I was reading and watching TV while swatting bots.
I know, I missed several because I was reading and watching TV while swatting bots.
7timspalding
Okay, I'm setting to work now. Was caught up in app and stuff all day.
8Taphophile13
Super Tim to the rescue!
9timspalding
Oh, I didn't kill them. You did. I'm starting in on a new algorithm to catch them, though.
I'm thinking that new posts with certain very bad signatures will get pushed to a "Spam?" category. Members who care can delve into it. But if it's not rescued, it'll get deleted.
I'm thinking that new posts with certain very bad signatures will get pushed to a "Spam?" category. Members who care can delve into it. But if it's not rescued, it'll get deleted.
10timspalding
May not finish tonight. Starting on a glass of wine. These fucking spammers owe me a drink.
11Lyndatrue
>10 timspalding: I lift a virtual glass in toast to you, sir. They owe you a bottle of the best.
30Lyndatrue
I think I'm fading even earlier than usual. I've seen these types of spam lately in several places, but I swear it's worst here on LT.
Evening, folks. Here's hoping for a little quiet.
Evening, folks. Here's hoping for a little quiet.
40timspalding
So, I've got one component up. But I'm still working on the other.
41amanda4242
Do spam messages get counted towards a group's activity? I ask because Book Talk currently has more messages than the 75 Books Challenge and that strikes me as odd.
42timspalding
>41 amanda4242:
Could be.
I've got it calculating and storing some information. Now I need to act on it.
Could be.
I've got it calculating and storing some information. Now I need to act on it.
43timspalding
Okay, I finished. And that's put a SERIOUS dent in it. Should hold until tomorrow.
45amanda4242
Thanks Tim! Your work is greatly appreciated.
46timspalding
Well, I'm so grateful, I must say.
Note that the algorithm works because you did. If I didn't have such a large dataset of crap accounts, I wouldn't be able to suss them out algorithmically.
Let's see if that holds. Back tomorrow.
Note that the algorithm works because you did. If I didn't have such a large dataset of crap accounts, I wouldn't be able to suss them out algorithmically.
Let's see if that holds. Back tomorrow.
49amanda4242
>47 klarusu: Oh, good. I thought there was something wrong with my (ancient) computer.
50timspalding
Yup!
Fixed.
Fixed.
52timspalding
Should be gone now. It's the topics you're not seeing.
54Yamanekotei
Gone :)
55patchygirl
Can anyone else see some spam in the Book Talk group that doesn't show on the main talk page?
I'm sorry I can't make a link but the profile name is vcd66 and I've flagged it.
I'm sorry I can't make a link but the profile name is vcd66 and I've flagged it.
56.Monkey.
Interesting, I guess that's one of the changes Tim made, so it catches them and doesn't flood the actual Talk page?
(So yeah itiswas there in Book Talk, and I flagged them as well)
(Already gone now!)
(So yeah it
(Already gone now!)
57abbottthomas
Many of the spam posts were displayed on the Book Talk group page despite already having been removed as well as not showing in 'All Topics'. All gone now so presumably just a slow catch up.
58klarusu
>55 patchygirl: & >56 .Monkey.: I think it was supposed to take them out from everywhere so that may be a glitch ...
59MissWatson
I see a lot of messages that look like spam to me in the Category Challenge group: http://www.librarything.com/groups/2015categorychalleng
60.Monkey.
>58 klarusu: They disappeared from there seconds after I flagged it there, so...
62timspalding
Okay, major changes:
1. A complex and secret algorithm now identifies some Talk posts as potential spam.
2. Potential spam is not shown.
3. Members of this group alone get a "Spam?" link in "Talk." It shows topics caught as spam. Red ones have already been deleted. I've added convenience links to mark the users as spam. If you're going to do anything, focus on that. Flagging members kills topics. Flagging topics doesn't do that, usually.
4. At present there's no way to rescue or remove something from the spam list. There will be soon.
My goal is to have members only rescue messages, and have everything there that ISN'T rescued in maybe a day to both die forever and cause their posters to die.
1. A complex and secret algorithm now identifies some Talk posts as potential spam.
2. Potential spam is not shown.
3. Members of this group alone get a "Spam?" link in "Talk." It shows topics caught as spam. Red ones have already been deleted. I've added convenience links to mark the users as spam. If you're going to do anything, focus on that. Flagging members kills topics. Flagging topics doesn't do that, usually.
4. At present there's no way to rescue or remove something from the spam list. There will be soon.
My goal is to have members only rescue messages, and have everything there that ISN'T rescued in maybe a day to both die forever and cause their posters to die.
66rybie2
>62 timspalding: Beautiful. And already, the list of potential spam is admirable. That glass (those glasses?) of wine last night paid off in a bountiful way, Tim. Thank you.
69abbottthomas
Fascinating to see the full extent of the problem in the new Spam? thread.
70amysisson
So I can see the list, but when I went to look at a topic to see if it needed to be rescued, it just told me the topic was deleted. Are we not supposed to be able to see the posts so we can decide?
ETA: Never mind.
ETA: Never mind.
71timspalding
Okay, you can now rescue posts in Spam.
I'm not going to get rid of users with potential-spam messages by default. But we'll check the list and delete members. You can too.
I'm not going to get rid of users with potential-spam messages by default. But we'll check the list and delete members. You can too.
72Lyndatrue
>62 timspalding: I'm confused. Am I member of this group or not? I don't see any link. Oh wait, I see it. Oops. I just needed to raise my sights a bit...
ETA: Looks very useful, but OMFG, that's a lot of spam...
ETA: Looks very useful, but OMFG, that's a lot of spam...
732wonderY
>71 timspalding: So explain what the red cross and green checkmark signify.
74timspalding
>72 Lyndatrue:
The red cross is a life preserver ring. It rescues it.
The green checkmark happens when you rescue it.
The gravestone with RIP on is a dead topic or user.
The red cross is a life preserver ring. It rescues it.
The green checkmark happens when you rescue it.
The gravestone with RIP on is a dead topic or user.
752wonderY
Soooo. I tried to post a new topic and the post topic button disappears when I try to enter a thread title. Could this be related to your new algorithms?
76timspalding
Can you explain that again?
The "Post message" button disappears when you are in the "Subject" line?!
The "Post message" button disappears when you are in the "Subject" line?!
78timspalding
I… what?
79timspalding
When does it disappear?
81Lyndatrue
>80 2wonderY: I just tried this with two different browsers, and I don't see it.
ETA: Hey, do I have to have a paid membership to post in spam fighters? I don't even see it as an option to join the group. :-{
ETA: Hey, do I have to have a paid membership to post in spam fighters? I don't even see it as an option to join the group. :-{
82Lyndatrue
Never mind. I guess I have no patience on the joining thing. Still, the lack of choices in the drop down option for adding a topic worried me for a bit.
I finally realized that most of the choices there were the default groups (including some that are only watched, and that you can't join).
I finally realized that most of the choices there were the default groups (including some that are only watched, and that you can't join).
83abbottthomas
>82 Lyndatrue: You are on the list of recent members when I look at the group page. In fact both you and Lyndatrue2 are there.
84Lyndatrue
>83 abbottthomas: Yepper. I'm slow, but methodical. I also love editing what I posted so that any answers appear to be redundant. I'm sneaky that way.
852wonderY
>81 Lyndatrue: I dunno. I last posted a new message on Tuesday. I think it was from this computer.
86Taphophile13
OK, I am feeling stupid (it happens), or I am going blind (very true) or I am lost (again). I don't see the "Spam?" link in "Talk."
Could someone give me a clue, please?
Could someone give me a clue, please?
88lesmel
>86 Taphophile13: First, look in the upper right of the Spam Fighters group. Are you Watching or a member?
Second, look in the left side of the TALK navigation. Below "Hot Topics" and above "Your World."
Second, look in the left side of the TALK navigation. Below "Hot Topics" and above "Your World."
89lilithcat
>86 Taphophile13:
You won't see it because, as near as I can tell, you have not joined this group*. To do so, go to the main group page and look in the upper right. You should see the option to join.
*See >62 timspalding: "Members of this group alone get a "Spam?" link in "Talk.""
You won't see it because, as near as I can tell, you have not joined this group*. To do so, go to the main group page and look in the upper right. You should see the option to join.
*See >62 timspalding: "Members of this group alone get a "Spam?" link in "Talk.""
90Yamanekotei
Oh, she wasn't in a group. My bad, sorry... you have to be a member of this group. Join us now!
91Taphophile13
>87 Yamanekotei: >88 lesmel: >89 lilithcat:
Thank you all. For some reason I thought this was a watch only group. (Senior moments; gotta love them). I stopped watching and joined and there it was!
Thank you all. For some reason I thought this was a watch only group. (Senior moments; gotta love them). I stopped watching and joined and there it was!
93amanda4242
someone trying to crowdfund their book
https://www.librarything.com/topic/201209#
https://www.librarything.com/profile/Ainoa.Marco
https://www.librarything.com/topic/201209#
https://www.librarything.com/profile/Ainoa.Marco
94rybie2
This is a first - I'm eagerly anticipating tonight's bot bamwar onslaught so I can watch the spammers fall in real time. After watching the Benghazi committee atrocity all day, I need a little light relief.
95Taphophile13
>94 rybie2:
I'm looking forward to see how it shakes out too.
I'm looking forward to see how it shakes out too.
96lesmel
>94 rybie2: & >95 Taphophile13: I am sharpening my playlist...muhahahaha
97rodneyvc
So, what is the workflow? Should be want to rescue a message, how do we view it? If I click on a red message I'm told it is deleted. Do I need to rescue it, view, and then reflag it if it really is spam?
98Lyndatrue
Take a look at >74 timspalding: (Tim replied to me, but it was someone else that had asked the question). Everything in there right now is dead stuff from earlier, but it will get populated with targets soon enough.
99Taphophile13
There's a new post in "Spam?"; it appears to be livestream sports. So we just leave it alone and it dies a natural death. Cool.
ETA: we're supposed to flag the profile, right?
ETA: we're supposed to flag the profile, right?
102Taphophile13
I saw it in the regular Book Talk thread and flagged the member, then the four threads. A few minutes later I saw the little tombstone in the regular Talk threads but never saw it on the new "Spam?" page. Either way it is gone.
103timspalding
Yeah, the "Spam?" is only for messages that enter the system suspect. Others have to be "made" that way, and when they are, they die.
Working on some new tools tonight. I want to get ahead of these bastards.
Working on some new tools tonight. I want to get ahead of these bastards.
104Lyndatrue
I keep waiting for them, and nothing (so far) has shown up. I suspect that they may be more sentient than expected. Perhaps they've even moved on. Then again, life never works out that way, not really.
Just waiting for the shoe to drop.
Just waiting for the shoe to drop.
105timspalding
Why won't they play?!
106Yamanekotei
Is it empty now? I don't see any headstoned post in "Spam?" topic.
109timspalding
Here they come, maybe. Guy just joined who got a 100% spam rating right out of the chute.
tytyu97
Let's wait for him to do something.
tytyu97
Let's wait for him to do something.
112amanda4242
Glad it's working...also kinda glad we're not superfluous.
113klarusu
The quick link to flag profile is nice. I can see how well this system will work if there's an eventual switch towards members 'rescuing' and the rest being dealt with automatically. Good to see Talk free of the 'flood' even if the occasional one gets through.
114timspalding
Yes, the flag-link is good. If necessary, I'll add them (for you guys) more places. You can spot most spam from just the title alone, after all.
116timspalding
Okay. Lowering the threshold. That last guy, dhaanismith085, was 10% under too.
117timspalding
Okay, gotta go to bed. Nap today wasn't enough.
I think we'll be okay. But I'm leaving with it doing more calculations than usual.
I think we'll be okay. But I'm leaving with it doing more calculations than usual.
118Lyndatrue
>117 timspalding: Sleep well. Me too. :-}
119Mr.Durick
http://www.librarything.com/groups/callingallmedicalstu
overzealous author. I did not leave a message.
overzealous author. I did not leave a message.
124amysisson
I flagged the profile (http://www.librarything.com/profile/alipinako11) and at least 7-8 of the messages but it's not disappearing very quickly this time. (Not a complaint, just an observation)
125lorax
>124 amysisson:
The messages were disappearing faster than I could flag them - that seems pretty quick to me!
The messages were disappearing faster than I could flag them - that seems pretty quick to me!
128Lyndatrue
So, I need some new ground rules for how this is going to work, timspalding.
I understand about the three states found in the "Spam?" group:
The red cross is a life preserver ring. It rescues it.
The green checkmark happens when you rescue it.
The gravestone with RIP on is a dead topic or user.
Should we still flag profiles that have the life preserver thing, if they're deserving? I think the answer is yes, since we want to hasten the death of the account (so to speak). I just did one, and also flagged the topic (might as well), just in case. When I refreshed it all, it was tombstoned (that's my official word, and I'm sticking to it).
I'll bet that there will be vanishingly few accounts that are flagged, and deserve rescuing, but it's nice to see that the algorithm isn't perfect, and that you still need us. ;-}
I understand about the three states found in the "Spam?" group:
The red cross is a life preserver ring. It rescues it.
The green checkmark happens when you rescue it.
The gravestone with RIP on is a dead topic or user.
Should we still flag profiles that have the life preserver thing, if they're deserving? I think the answer is yes, since we want to hasten the death of the account (so to speak). I just did one, and also flagged the topic (might as well), just in case. When I refreshed it all, it was tombstoned (that's my official word, and I'm sticking to it).
I'll bet that there will be vanishingly few accounts that are flagged, and deserve rescuing, but it's nice to see that the algorithm isn't perfect, and that you still need us. ;-}
129MarthaJeanne
>122 lilithcat: Her feelings have been hurt. She thinks we're rude.
(Putting profile here in case she tries again. I'm of two minds about flagging her now. http://www.librarything.com/profile/SaraTous)
(Putting profile here in case she tries again. I'm of two minds about flagging her now. http://www.librarything.com/profile/SaraTous)
131amysisson
I just flagged 4 posts and one profile that have a life preserver symbol right now.
ETA: And now they have a gravestone. Hooray!
ETA: And now they have a gravestone. Hooray!
132Lyndatrue
This profile needs flagging.
http://www.librarything.com/profile/lintiknah1
(No sense doing the 100 or so topics, the profile should be enough.)
ETA: Already dead.
Dear Tim, I love you.
http://www.librarything.com/profile/lintiknah1
(No sense doing the 100 or so topics, the profile should be enough.)
ETA: Already dead.
Dear Tim, I love you.
133Yamanekotei
I flagged it and it is gone now. This one was quick... it posted 47 in ten minutes.
134timspalding
Going swimmingly tonight. :)
135Lyndatrue
>134 timspalding: It is indeed. I hope others are remembering to check, and do the final flag that takes them from life preserver to deserved death. One quick flag per profile, give it a minute or two, and poof! All gone.
I wonder if they'll tire of this, now that they're off in their own little dog run.
I wonder if they'll tire of this, now that they're off in their own little dog run.
136timspalding
They'll come back in some other way, I'm sure. But I have some new tools now.
138klarusu
This is working so well - complete change from the normal weekend job of flagging the bots down. I know for most people this won't be a really big visible change to the site because we managed to keep the bots down manually, but I think this is actually a really important change with large effects, albeit 'unseen' by many.
140MarthaJeanne
How did he make it through?
143Luisali
http://www.librarything.com/topic/201611
http://www.librarything.com/profile/odellsh50
a lot of messages in Book talk from
http://www.librarything.com/profile/cghfd
http://www.librarything.com/profile/odellsh50
a lot of messages in Book talk from
http://www.librarything.com/profile/cghfd
145Taphophile13
>138 klarusu:
Agree completely. Recent weekends meant playing Whack-a-Mole and it was beginning to happen nightly. The Spam? page really shows what an onslaught it would have been. Tim has done a wonderful job with these new changes.
Agree completely. Recent weekends meant playing Whack-a-Mole and it was beginning to happen nightly. The Spam? page really shows what an onslaught it would have been. Tim has done a wonderful job with these new changes.
147Lyndatrue
It's just so quiet now. It's almost eerie. Sleep well, friends. I'm sure the little monsters will be back at it soon enough.
148timspalding
I'd like to think they're rational beings. If we make it harder and less rewarding, they might choose to bother someone else.
149yolana
>147 Lyndatrue: We can rest well knowing we fought the good fight.
150Taphophile13
This is the quietest weekend I can remember. It's so nice to be able to do other things besides manning the ramparts.
Well done, Tim.
Well done, Tim.
151MarthaJeanne
Ah, lovely! I finally saw something other than gravestones in the spam page. And watched first the spammer and then the spam die.
152rybie2
crickets...
All's quiet again... how nice that I can divert spam fighting energies to, you know, other LT and book porn activities. >134 timspalding:, I have to say this is one of the biggest and oh-so-opportune spam fighting fixes you've ever done. Thank you.
All's quiet again... how nice that I can divert spam fighting energies to, you know, other LT and book porn activities. >134 timspalding:, I have to say this is one of the biggest and oh-so-opportune spam fighting fixes you've ever done. Thank you.
154rybie2
>153 Yamanekotei: Of course, as soon as I say it's quiet, some little spammer slithers in.
157MarthaJeanne
That one is gone, too.
158LesMiserables
Deleted
159gilroy
>158 LesMiserables:
That one doesn't look like spam to me. Competition for reviews, maybe, but not spam.
That and no one in the FS group has marked any of them as spam either.
That one doesn't look like spam to me. Competition for reviews, maybe, but not spam.
That and no one in the FS group has marked any of them as spam either.
160LesMiserables
160
Just wondering. I thought it was pushing self-promotion of a blog too much.
Just wondering. I thought it was pushing self-promotion of a blog too much.
161gilroy
>160 LesMiserables:
I'd leave a private comment expressing your concerns. Open a polite dialogue and see where it goes from there.
I'd leave a private comment expressing your concerns. Open a polite dialogue and see where it goes from there.
162lorax
>160 LesMiserables:, >161 gilroy:
I would stay the hell out of the Folio Society group. Last time we erred on the side of flagging a bookselling post we got yelled at and told to go away.
I would stay the hell out of the Folio Society group. Last time we erred on the side of flagging a bookselling post we got yelled at and told to go away.
1632wonderY
How did this one slip by?
http://www.librarything.com/topic/201877
http://www.librarything.com/profile/qaalsu
http://www.librarything.com/topic/201877
http://www.librarything.com/profile/qaalsu
166.Monkey.
And another http://www.librarything.com/profile/ferive A few have been slipping through today!
167timspalding
>163 2wonderY:
If you PM me, I'll describe the method. It is not fool-proof. But it's helping. And it's additive—the more you do, the more we'll catch.
If you PM me, I'll describe the method. It is not fool-proof. But it's helping. And it's additive—the more you do, the more we'll catch.
171Collectorator
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
172MsMaryAnn
I rescued a post yesterday. The odd thing is it was from a LT member with a private account.
177lilithcat
This one slipped through:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202154
http://www.librarything.com/profile/waalska
never mind - gone now!
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202154
http://www.librarything.com/profile/waalska
never mind - gone now!
178lorax
I find it fascinating how easy it is to tell the bots from the live human spammers just by looking at the usernames - but the bot usernames are clearly not actually random, they're obvious keyboard mashes. "fdfdfdsdfsf" and "zdszxccxc" and the like, all bunches of letters close together on the keyboard. If you're going to go to all the trouble of coding up a spambot, why not just throw in something to generate random strings for the names?
181Mr.Durick
Oh crap. I think I did it wrong. http://www.librarything.com/topic/202178 is on the Spam? page. I flagged it the normal way. Then I clicked over on the life ring or whatever and got a green check mark. It is spam.
So I guess I need a way to unrescue it. And I wonder whether we are still supposed to flag the ones that are spam. I just briefly scanned above and don't so far see the answers. I will look again tomorrow, but if anybody can make it clear to me I'd appreciate it.
Robert
So I guess I need a way to unrescue it. And I wonder whether we are still supposed to flag the ones that are spam. I just briefly scanned above and don't so far see the answers. I will look again tomorrow, but if anybody can make it clear to me I'd appreciate it.
Robert
182klarusu
>181 Mr.Durick: I've been flagging the users as Spam using the little red flag link on the Spam? page but not worrying about the posts themselves.
You're right, a way to 'unrescue' would be great - I access via touch screen when I'm on the go and do occasionally accidentally click on stuff so I could see how I could also do this by mistake in the future.
You're right, a way to 'unrescue' would be great - I access via touch screen when I'm on the go and do occasionally accidentally click on stuff so I could see how I could also do this by mistake in the future.
184torontoc
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202224#
going back to get the person who posted
here it is - just joined
http://www.librarything.com/profile/binamina12
going back to get the person who posted
here it is - just joined
http://www.librarything.com/profile/binamina12
187yolana
https://www.librarything.com/topic/202330
https://www.librarything.com/profile/shoxuqm3986ur
I pasted wrong and I'm leaving to get coffee now
https://www.librarything.com/profile/shoxuqm3986ur
I pasted wrong and I'm leaving to get coffee now
188majkia
Anita.Zamba Sent me a message: I'm Anita .
I will like to be your friend only if you don't mind,please write so i can share my pictures with you,i have something very important things to discuss with you,Here is my email.(
zamba-anita@hotmail.com
I will like to be your friend only if you don't mind,please write so i can share my pictures with you,i have something very important things to discuss with you,Here is my email.(
zamba-anita@hotmail.com
189torontoc
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202375#
sigh -when will these people stop- going back to get the new member who posted
here it is
http://www.librarything.com/profile/gonimiah12
sigh -when will these people stop- going back to get the new member who posted
here it is
http://www.librarything.com/profile/gonimiah12
194Luisali
http://www.librarything.com/profile/eetdca98
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202447
and many other posts.
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202447
and many other posts.
196Mr.Durick
So do we flag these or do they take care of themselves?
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202514
http://www.librarything.com/profile/rebeccamark5
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202514
http://www.librarything.com/profile/rebeccamark5
200Lyndatrue
>196 Mr.Durick: You should always flag them (and it's nice to show the evidence, as you've done). The ones that take care of themselves appear quickly in the other place, but not everything gets caught. Remember that the algorithm is doing some fancy pattern matching, but that nothing is perfect. Well, except for that first cup of coffee in the morning, which I'm drinking now, and I guarantee you that it is indeed perfect.
It's very nice to not be dealing with the onslaught that we were seeing. I think I've only seen one live one (myself) since this new method was initiated. I do worry slightly about the need for vigilance, and hope that we will not become complacent. It's an arms race, after all.
It's very nice to not be dealing with the onslaught that we were seeing. I think I've only seen one live one (myself) since this new method was initiated. I do worry slightly about the need for vigilance, and hope that we will not become complacent. It's an arms race, after all.
201Taphophile13
>200 Lyndatrue:
. . . the need for vigilance, and hope that we will not become complacent.
Just to keep us in practice:
Toilet paper entrepreneurialism
https://www.librarything.com/profile/TPEntrepreneur
jackass investing
https://www.librarything.com/profile/mikedever
improve your English
https://www.librarything.com/profile/NAMESCENTRE
real estate
https://www.librarything.com/profile/lorenkeim
. . . the need for vigilance, and hope that we will not become complacent.
Just to keep us in practice:
Toilet paper entrepreneurialism
https://www.librarything.com/profile/TPEntrepreneur
jackass investing
https://www.librarything.com/profile/mikedever
improve your English
https://www.librarything.com/profile/NAMESCENTRE
real estate
https://www.librarything.com/profile/lorenkeim
202MarthaJeanne
>201 Taphophile13: That last one has real books listed that he wrote.
Mark Dever didn't bother entering his own book, but others have. https://www.librarything.com/work/11796452
None of them look flagworthy to me.
Mark Dever didn't bother entering his own book, but others have. https://www.librarything.com/work/11796452
None of them look flagworthy to me.
203lilithcat
>202 MarthaJeanne:
Agreed.
NAMESCENTRE is an organizational account for a learning/social center. Nothing wrong with that.
Agreed.
NAMESCENTRE is an organizational account for a learning/social center. Nothing wrong with that.
204CurrerBell
>203 lilithcat: NAMESCENTRE seems to have been flagged out of existence, so I really can't judge whether it's legit or not.
I don't know if this "Did we make a mistake?" message to contact TPTB is good enough for a noob like NAMESCENTRE who's just signed up a user account. If everyone's just flagging like lemmings, this may produce the unfriendly exclusions that Tim wants to avoid.
I don't know if this "Did we make a mistake?" message to contact TPTB is good enough for a noob like NAMESCENTRE who's just signed up a user account. If everyone's just flagging like lemmings, this may produce the unfriendly exclusions that Tim wants to avoid.
205MarthaJeanne
I'm not sure about all of them, but most of these were not recent joins.
206lilithcat
>204 CurrerBell:
if everyone's just flagging like lemmings,
I'm afraid that's what's happening. I looked at that account before it was flagged out of existence, and there was nothing spammy about it.
Looks like mikedever is gone, too, although he's a legit author.
if everyone's just flagging like lemmings,
I'm afraid that's what's happening. I looked at that account before it was flagged out of existence, and there was nothing spammy about it.
Looks like mikedever is gone, too, although he's a legit author.
207klarusu
>203 lilithcat: & >204 CurrerBell: I think maybe more judicious use of the 'Is this Spam? thread now that it's a bit quicker/easier to flag away? Those were also gone before I had the chance to check.
208lilithcat
>207 klarusu:
Well, sure, that would be nice, but the problem is that some people assume these profiles are spam, rather than asking the question.
It would be helpful if we could counterflag flags on profiles.
ETA: RSI just made - https://www.librarything.com/topic/202608
Well, sure, that would be nice, but the problem is that some people assume these profiles are spam, rather than asking the question.
It would be helpful if we could counterflag flags on profiles.
ETA: RSI just made - https://www.librarything.com/topic/202608
209Lyndatrue
Personally, I'd like to see the practice of posting profiles for flagging stopped, or at least posted in a thread that isn't used for genuine spammers. Even posting things in the "Is it Spam?" thread has become problematic. I long ago quit flagging the spam profiles posted in this thread, since I don't understand what they hurt.
If someone goes to the bother of setting up a profile advertising their business, BUT they don't make groups, or post anywhere, or otherwise do anything invasive or rude, I believe the best action is to just ignore it...and I do.
I'm often concerned when someone posts a profile without at least one topic or group, or SOMETHING, that says it's spam. I'm more likely to just flag if it's someone that is here often, but sometimes it's a person who hasn't posted here before, and I am sad when the profile's already gone, and there's no way to even look to see if it was honestly deserved or not.
I was a lot quicker on the trigger when I first started doing this (here on LT), but now, I'm wishing for someone to look at the suspended profile (when it's a situation without other evidence, at least), so as to know whether or not it deserves a resurrection.
I dunno. No easy answers. There never are.
If someone goes to the bother of setting up a profile advertising their business, BUT they don't make groups, or post anywhere, or otherwise do anything invasive or rude, I believe the best action is to just ignore it...and I do.
I'm often concerned when someone posts a profile without at least one topic or group, or SOMETHING, that says it's spam. I'm more likely to just flag if it's someone that is here often, but sometimes it's a person who hasn't posted here before, and I am sad when the profile's already gone, and there's no way to even look to see if it was honestly deserved or not.
I was a lot quicker on the trigger when I first started doing this (here on LT), but now, I'm wishing for someone to look at the suspended profile (when it's a situation without other evidence, at least), so as to know whether or not it deserves a resurrection.
I dunno. No easy answers. There never are.
210lilithcat
>209 Lyndatrue:
I tend to agree with you (unless it's really obnoxious, like "email me, honey" with nearly-X-rated profile pics). I don't like the assumption made by some that a commercial entity or author, or someone who hasn't entered any information on the profile, must be spam. It's just not true. I'd rather keep an eye on them, and flag them only if they start engaging in spammy activity.
I tend to agree with you (unless it's really obnoxious, like "email me, honey" with nearly-X-rated profile pics). I don't like the assumption made by some that a commercial entity or author, or someone who hasn't entered any information on the profile, must be spam. It's just not true. I'd rather keep an eye on them, and flag them only if they start engaging in spammy activity.
211lesmel
>204 CurrerBell: flagging like lemmings -- can I have this on a t-shirt? or maybe just a coffee mug?
>208 lilithcat: I would love to see an option for counter-flagging -- especially after a lemming incident.
>208 lilithcat: I would love to see an option for counter-flagging -- especially after a lemming incident.
215lesmel
Couple needing flagging from the Spam? section
http://www.librarything.com/profile/mokshismithh
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202989
http://www.librarything.com/profile/hprout78
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202968
http://www.librarything.com/profile/mokshismithh
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202989
http://www.librarything.com/profile/hprout78
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202968
217Marissa_Doyle
>188 majkia: I got one of those Anita.Zamba messages earlier this morning as well, but it appears the account has since been suspended.
218MarthaJeanne
>217 Marissa_Doyle: Me, too. How did she get back in? Ugh!
219.Monkey.
Yep here also. It was already suspended when I clicked over. I remembered the name, and having flagged it when mentioned previously. How did they come back with the same name?!
221MarthaJeanne
>220 Yamanekotei: Both gone.
225MarthaJeanne
https://www.librarything.com/profile/gfhjk
multiple Korean spam got through.
multiple Korean spam got through.
230lesmel
https://www.librarything.com/profile/wertg
10+ posts got through
10+ posts got through
237.Monkey.
Yeah I'm guessing that's why MJ put it in parentheses. Authors are never to be flagged unless they are being WAY crazy with the spam, they are to be directed to the TOS, or let staff know if they're still not letting up.
238MarthaJeanne
I marked it as author and put it in parentheses. Some people flag without reading, but also, I think things get deleted as spam faster than they used to, and maybe even profiles getting deleted on the basis of the spam posts/groups. I've seen a number recently where the profile went very fast, whereas before the profiles lasted longer than the spam.
239.Monkey.
Yeah Tim's recent changes made them go a lot faster, since we were struggling with them lingering and making tons of posts before getting knocked out. Which is great but might be an issue with the iffy profiles, especially if marking groups dings back the profile as well.
243lesmel
3-4 spammers in Spam? Section need to be killed.
https://www.librarything.com/profile/karrahae
https://www.librarything.com/profile/vmflej6
https://www.librarything.com/profile/rebeccacooper56
https://www.librarything.com/profile/laddyki01
https://www.librarything.com/profile/karrahae
https://www.librarything.com/profile/vmflej6
https://www.librarything.com/profile/rebeccacooper56
https://www.librarything.com/profile/laddyki01
244klarusu
>242 lesmel: I see the blank posts ones are not disappearing from Talk even though they're dead and buried with a tombstone.
245henkl
http://www.librarything.com/topic/204170
http://www.librarything.com/topic/204172
Threads with 0 messages; korean titles
http://www.librarything.com/topic/204172
Threads with 0 messages; korean titles
2462wonderY
I'm seeing three tombstones persist on the regular Talk page. Should we mention it to staff?
247Lyndatrue
The blank posts currently visible in Talk can only be removed by staff. I was in the process of pointing it out to Tim when I saw these comments. I poked him, and I'm sure he or some other fine staff person will be along presently to fix it.
>246 2wonderY: Where's the third one? I only see two.
Never mind. I found it.
http://www.librarything.com/topic/204171
>246 2wonderY: Where's the third one? I only see two.
Never mind. I found it.
http://www.librarything.com/topic/204171
248Lyndatrue
I'm now officially confused. I left a message on Tim's profile. A bit later, I left one on lorannen's as well. No response from either one, and I'd hoped to see it all better by now. Nope, not so much. I'm not sure what else there is; usually they're both so responsive.
I dunno.
I dunno.
250lesmel
Someone needs flagging from the Spam? Section
https://www.librarything.com/profile/rushismithh
https://www.librarything.com/profile/rushismithh
Este tema fue continuado por Spam reporting thread #45.
