500 Server error's

[Chrill]

I.e. You can register but you need to make X posts within Y days or your account gets deleted. 99,9% of signed in that fall into these category are spambots or advertisers.

Most spam accounts do try to post, but they get caught out by filters or, in some cases, requiring validation. The best way to stop these accounts is at the registration phase, not the posting phase. Then again, with most spammers these days being poorly paid people instead of robots, questions like "what is two plus seven?" won't catch the spammers.

[kamnet]

Side thought, but maybe perhaps it would be a good idea to purge some of these spam accounts? For example, no posts and having registered more than 3 years ago? I seriously doubt any legitimate users will have even cared if we deleted an account they created but never used.

[Voyager One]

no posts and having registered more than 3 years ago?

TBH, I'd be even more harsh - up to a month. Basically, if someone has registered only to be a name on the forums... what's the point of that. Anyone can read our posts without having to register.

[Hyronymus]

Or block the IP's from common spammers. They very often register from the very same IP.

[Andrew350]

Side thought, but maybe perhaps it would be a good idea to purge some of these spam accounts? For example, no posts and having registered more than 3 years ago? I seriously doubt any legitimate users will have even cared if we deleted an account they created but never used.

TBH, I'd be even more harsh - up to a month. Basically, if someone has registered only to be a name on the forums... what's the point of that. Anyone can read our posts without having to register.

There are a few people who don't post, but still use PM's to communicate with other members. Mass-deleting these "old" accounts in such a way will inevitably cut some people off who don't deserve it, so I don't think that's really a great idea.

[michael blunck]

Side thought, but maybe perhaps it would be a good idea to purge some of these spam accounts?

Nah, never. That´s strongly against tt-forums´ philosophy! In fact, it´d cut down its member count from a shiny 45,414 to a sad number somewhere in the thousands, the same what had been experienced on the German tt-forums.

regards
Michael

[ChillCore]

Or block the IP's from common spammers. They very often register from the very same IP.

That is actually one of the worst solutions as many peeps do not have static IPs, meaning you will block a lot of ligit users.
Some sites (?used to/still do?)go as far as blocking entire ranges of IPs.

There are a few people who don't post, but still use PM's to communicate with other members. Mass-deleting these "old" accounts in such a way will inevitably cut some people off who don't deserve it, so I don't think that's really a great idea.

I can confirm this.
I do get PMs for help with my patchpack from time to time from new members without them posting anywhere else.
I gently direct them to the forums for more help if needed but more often then not they have the needed info from my reply already so they do not post or at a later stage.



I do think there is another group of members too that does not post ... the ones that register to be able to subscribe to threads ... but I am only guessing here.

[Chris]

Yes some people do lurk on the forums; it allows them to skip to the first unread post of threads and subscribe to topics etc.

[kamnet]

Side thought, but maybe perhaps it would be a good idea to purge some of these spam accounts? For example, no posts and having registered more than 3 years ago? I seriously doubt any legitimate users will have even cared if we deleted an account they created but never used.

TBH, I'd be even more harsh - up to a month. Basically, if someone has registered only to be a name on the forums... what's the point of that. Anyone can read our posts without having to register.

There are a few people who don't post, but still use PM's to communicate with other members. Mass-deleting these "old" accounts in such a way will inevitably cut some people off who don't deserve it, so I don't think that's really a great idea.

Oops, I meant having not LOGGED IN for more than three years.

[Zakos]

When it comes to spammers, I trust the mods to take care of it. Even the dormant ones are easy to label when you examine their profiles; they stand out on the members list, having 0 posts but still an entry for their website.

These two, for instance.

Organize the list to see the newest members and you'll see they're as plentiful as ants.

[WWTBAM]

Hmm, the forums are intermittently slowing to a crawl. It was happening yesterday, but thought it was my connection but today it's not.

[orudge]

Yes, it will perhaps still be slow now and then.

[ChillCore]

So the site was slow again this morning ...

I had a look at the members list and at the rate of spammers registering it is no wonder the site slows to a crawl.
Having a second look at the active members list and looking what the guests are doing ... no less then five were registering at the same time.

Can't we take away their toy?
All they want is post their links in their profiles ... can we not restrict that ... eg. no persoanl links before 20 posts or so.
That will stop them because then they have to spend time making posts that make sense, just an idea.


[OT]
Mr. rudge, if you need an extra pair of hands to deal with them for an hour or so a day, feel free to send me a PM.
I know ... one should not ask and I am not, just offering a pair of eyes in case you want them.
I am reluctant to deal with the normal moderator tasks but spammers, I'd be more then happy.

[Purno]

Can't we take away their toy?
All they want is post their links in their profiles ... can we not restrict that ... eg. no persoanl links before 20 posts or so.
That will stop them because then they have to spend time making posts that make sense, just an idea.

Doesn't sound like a bad idea, actually. But I guess you can lower it to 10 posts, or perhaps even 5. I don't think our lovely moderator team lets those spammers get any further than that

[orudge]

That suggestion involves having to hack up phpBB though, which I don't really have time to do. I put more anti spam measures into place recently, I'll just have to see what else I can do.

[michael blunck]

I put more anti spam measures into place recently [...]

How about eventually getting rid of thousands of spam (bot) "members"? And since most of the spamming today isn´t only done by bots but by humans, simply "taking measures" wouldn´t be appropriate anymore. The only real solution would be to remove them from the DB.

Well, I know, I´m always proposing the same thing ...

bot party 10.png (6.73 KiB) Viewed 3524 times

regards
Michael

[WWTBAM]

Well 27 of the most recent on the memberlist are about to go.

Edit: Also if a user is banned, they don't show up in the birthday list.

[Purno]

I was unable to load the forums at all, for roughly 30 mins, 5 mins ago. Not complaining, just letting you know in case you didn't know yet

Edit: Also if a user is banned, they don't show up in the birthday list.

Is that enough to speed things up? Can't the birthday thing be disabled for new sign ups? TBH, since the birthday list is usually 99% spambots, I wouldn't miss it if it was gone completely.

Michael Blunck has a good point. There's thousands of accounts filling up the database. I'm sure accounts that have no posts and weren't logged in for a long time would be safe to delete. But I guess Owen is already aware of this suggestion.

[WWTBAM]

I have heard rumours of Owen thinking about changing his spam(bot) keeping policies

[Hyronymus]

Well 27 of the most recent on the memberlist are about to go.

Edit: Also if a user is banned, they don't show up in the birthday list.

That depends on hoe you ban them: if you ban their IP or domain they still appear in the birthday list.