11–20 of 22 posts
You could rely on the users to moderate, but then you get-inconsistent moderation with no one accountable for false positives.
I think a lot of it also has to do with the community itself. A site of this size would probably get 300-400 spam messages a day if it weren't for the fact that it's audience would see right through it. Tech people are so concious of Spam that they ignore it out of principle which means spamming a tech site pointless. As for suggestions... 1. Obviously CAPTCHA. It just makes sense 2. I find keyword blocking very effe…
Part 2 sounds powerful but it would make the submission process less simple and maybe less user friendly for new users.
I use this on my mail server and with 200 users I've yet to ever get a false positive.
I think a lot of it also has to do with the community itself. A site of this size would probably get 300-400 spam messages a day if it weren't for the fact that it's audience would see right through it. Tech people are so concious of Spam that they ignore it out of principle which means spamming a tech site pointless. As for suggestions... 1. Obviously CAPTCHA. It just makes sense 2. I find keyword blocking very effe…
Part 2 sounds powerful but it would make the submission process less simple and maybe less user friendly for new users.
The sites most vulnerable to spam are ones that a) have a critical mass of readership, especially dumb readership that will click on ridiculous spam links, and b) ones not run by people who are active contributors to the field of spam filtering.
I think a lot of it also has to do with the community itself. A site of this size would probably get 300-400 spam messages a day if it weren't for the fact that it's audience would see right through it. Tech people are so concious of Spam that they ignore it out of principle which means spamming a tech site pointless. As for suggestions... 1. Obviously CAPTCHA. It just makes sense 2. I find keyword blocking very effe…
As a sighted person, I've even run across captchas that were impossible to decipher, both from some third party solution and from something like recaptcha, the latter which bothers me to no end because sometimes both words are ambiguous.
Whether or not they make sense depends on your audience and your site and your implementation of it.
The sites most vulnerable to spam are ones that a) have a critical mass of readership, especially dumb readership that will click on ridiculous spam links, and b) ones not run by people who are active contributors to the field of spam filtering.
i cant see how not being an active contributor to the field of spam filtering make your site vulnerable to spammers. Not be vigilant against spammers yes, but you don't need to be in the industry to combat this problem. the dumb readership comment speaks for itself, lets get off the high horse bro.
Pretty much every site with user generated content is overwhelmed with people trying to post spam. For my site, I use a combination of javascript human detection, bayesian filtering, and aggressive human intervention (including single click "spam this" links on every piece of content when logged in as an Admin) It's worth noting that since late 2007, a significant portion of comment spam is human powered. CAPTCHA sty…
I think a lot of it also has to do with the community itself. A site of this size would probably get 300-400 spam messages a day if it weren't for the fact that it's audience would see right through it. Tech people are so concious of Spam that they ignore it out of principle which means spamming a tech site pointless. As for suggestions... 1. Obviously CAPTCHA. It just makes sense 2. I find keyword blocking very effe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part 2 sounds powerful but it would make the submission process less simple and maybe less user friendly for new users.
Well you'd only do it on words that are almost certainly spam. Like Viagra or male impotence or...well, you get the picture. It works on the theory of "this word would almost never be used legitimately in a post so it's almost certainly spam" I use this on my mail server and with 200 users I've yet to ever get a false positive.
How do you know? I don't see how you would measure that; if you can figure out it is a false positive, you have discovered a better filter. You might get user complaints, but the absence of user complaints doesn't prove you have no false positives. (Although the presence of user complains could prove that you do.)
Also: The assertion that everything to do with viagra is spam makes it very difficult to have a discussion about viagra or spam. For example, this posting would be rejected.