Spam reporting thread #44

É uma continuação do tópico Spam reporting thread #43.

Este tópico foi continuado por Spam reporting thread #45.

DiscussãoSpam Fighters!

Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.

Spam reporting thread #44

Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.

Out 21, 2015, 11:09 pm

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:
-- 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:
-- 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:
-- 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:
Spam works, guidelines for flagging and voting:

(A copy of these guidelines, for pasting in new threads, can be found here or at the top of previous threads.)

Editado: Out 21, 2015, 11:22 pm

Ok, back to work, everyone.

yuck, it's advertising massage travel

Out 21, 2015, 11:24 pm

>2 Taphophile13: darn it. missed. that's what i get for trying to work on two things at once. heh

Out 21, 2015, 11:25 pm

>3 lesmel:
I know, I missed several because I was reading and watching TV while swatting bots.

Out 21, 2015, 11:33 pm

It's a lull! I can go back to my book (and maybe sleep)!

Out 21, 2015, 11:37 pm

Okay, I'm setting to work now. Was caught up in app and stuff all day.

Out 21, 2015, 11:38 pm

Super Tim to the rescue!

Out 21, 2015, 11:41 pm

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.

Out 21, 2015, 11:42 pm

May not finish tonight. Starting on a glass of wine. These fucking spammers owe me a drink.

Out 21, 2015, 11:53 pm

>10 timspalding: I lift a virtual glass in toast to you, sir. They owe you a bottle of the best.

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 12:26 am

Ha. Beat me to it. Harder to keep up on my ipad

Out 22, 2015, 12:46 am

Out 22, 2015, 12:49 am

Out 22, 2015, 1:00 am

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.

Out 22, 2015, 1:06 am

Out 22, 2015, 1:25 am

So, I've got one component up. But I'm still working on the other.

Out 22, 2015, 1:28 am

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.

Out 22, 2015, 1:33 am

>41 amanda4242:

Could be.

I've got it calculating and storing some information. Now I need to act on it.

Out 22, 2015, 1:44 am

Okay, I finished. And that's put a SERIOUS dent in it. Should hold until tomorrow.

Out 22, 2015, 1:45 am

Brilliant Tim, thanks.

Out 22, 2015, 1:47 am

Thanks Tim! Your work is greatly appreciated.

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 1:55 am

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.

Out 22, 2015, 1:59 am

Weird script at the top of 'Talk' when I went in ... something to do with the tweaks?

Out 22, 2015, 2:00 am

Looks like spam debug code!

Out 22, 2015, 2:00 am

>47 klarusu: Oh, good. I thought there was something wrong with my (ancient) computer.

Out 22, 2015, 2:01 am



Out 22, 2015, 2:01 am

Seems to only show when looking at all topics.

Out 22, 2015, 2:01 am

Should be gone now. It's the topics you're not seeing.

Out 22, 2015, 2:02 am


Out 22, 2015, 2:03 am

Gone :)

Out 22, 2015, 6:33 am

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.

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 6:38 am

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 it iswas there in Book Talk, and I flagged them as well)
(Already gone now!)

Out 22, 2015, 6:42 am

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.

Out 22, 2015, 6:43 am

>55 patchygirl: & >56 .Monkey.: I think it was supposed to take them out from everywhere so that may be a glitch ...

Out 22, 2015, 7:27 am

I see a lot of messages that look like spam to me in the Category Challenge group:

Out 22, 2015, 8:01 am

>58 klarusu: They disappeared from there seconds after I flagged it there, so...

Out 22, 2015, 11:21 am

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.

Out 22, 2015, 11:30 am


Out 22, 2015, 11:31 am

>Cool. Love the little head stones!

Out 22, 2015, 11:32 am


Out 22, 2015, 11:35 am

>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.

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 11:47 am

So, how do I join the group? I've only got watcher status.
Nebber mind!

Out 22, 2015, 11:52 am


Out 22, 2015, 12:02 pm

Fascinating to see the full extent of the problem in the new Spam? thread.

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 12:03 pm

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.

Out 22, 2015, 12:24 pm

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.

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 12:28 pm

>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...

Out 22, 2015, 12:30 pm

>71 timspalding: So explain what the red cross and green checkmark signify.

Out 22, 2015, 12:46 pm

>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.

Out 22, 2015, 1:04 pm

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?

Out 22, 2015, 1:07 pm

Can you explain that again?

The "Post message" button disappears when you are in the "Subject" line?!

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 1:16 pm

and then

Post message box is gone.

Out 22, 2015, 1:18 pm

I… what?

Out 22, 2015, 1:18 pm

When does it disappear?

Out 22, 2015, 1:20 pm

At the first letter entered in the subject line.

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 1:34 pm

>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. :-{

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 1:41 pm

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).

Out 22, 2015, 1:40 pm

>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.

Out 22, 2015, 1:42 pm

>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.

Out 22, 2015, 1:51 pm

>81 Lyndatrue: I dunno. I last posted a new message on Tuesday. I think it was from this computer.

Out 22, 2015, 1:53 pm

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?

Out 22, 2015, 1:57 pm

>86 Taphophile13:

Go up to the top of this thread, and in the left column there is "Spam?" link.

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 2:05 pm

>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."

Out 22, 2015, 2:02 pm

>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.""

Out 22, 2015, 2:03 pm

Oh, she wasn't in a group. My bad, sorry... you have to be a member of this group. Join us now!

Out 22, 2015, 2:17 pm

>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!

Out 22, 2015, 3:17 pm

Brilliant! Thank you.

Out 22, 2015, 7:00 pm

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.

Out 22, 2015, 7:09 pm

>94 rybie2:
I'm looking forward to see how it shakes out too.

Out 22, 2015, 7:25 pm

>94 rybie2: & >95 Taphophile13: I am sharpening my playlist...muhahahaha

Out 22, 2015, 7:36 pm

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?

Out 22, 2015, 7:42 pm

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.

Editado: Out 22, 2015, 8:08 pm

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?

Out 22, 2015, 10:41 pm

>100 Taphophile13:

Didn't end up in spam?

Out 22, 2015, 10:45 pm

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.

Out 22, 2015, 11:15 pm

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.

Out 23, 2015, 12:46 am

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.

Out 23, 2015, 1:16 am

Why won't they play?!

Out 23, 2015, 1:22 am

Is it empty now? I don't see any headstoned post in "Spam?" topic.

Out 23, 2015, 1:22 am

It's eerily quiet ...

Out 23, 2015, 1:24 am

>106 Yamanekotei:

It's back. Fiddling.

Out 23, 2015, 1:25 am

Here they come, maybe. Guy just joined who got a 100% spam rating right out of the chute.


Let's wait for him to do something.

Out 23, 2015, 1:31 am

tytyu97 got spam-caught, correctly.

jaci075 squeaked through 10% below the threshold.

Out 23, 2015, 1:33 am

Glad it's working...also kinda glad we're not superfluous.

Out 23, 2015, 1:41 am

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.

Out 23, 2015, 1:47 am

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.

Out 23, 2015, 1:55 am

Okay. Lowering the threshold. That last guy, dhaanismith085, was 10% under too.

Out 23, 2015, 2:02 am

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.

Out 23, 2015, 2:12 am

>117 timspalding: Sleep well. Me too. :-}

Out 23, 2015, 3:21 am

overzealous author. I did not leave a message.

Out 23, 2015, 8:58 am

The new algorithm did its job! Woohoo!

Out 23, 2015, 9:33 am

>119 Mr.Durick:

I left a message on her profile.

Out 23, 2015, 10:22 am

>121 lesmel:

Looks like it!

Out 23, 2015, 11:09 am

I flagged the profile ( and at least 7-8 of the messages but it's not disappearing very quickly this time. (Not a complaint, just an observation)

Out 23, 2015, 11:11 am

>124 amysisson:

The messages were disappearing faster than I could flag them - that seems pretty quick to me!

Out 23, 2015, 11:11 am

I hit them too. Gone now.

Out 23, 2015, 12:24 pm

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. ;-}

Editado: Out 23, 2015, 3:34 pm

>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.

Out 23, 2015, 3:05 pm

LOL oh dear.

Editado: Out 23, 2015, 6:08 pm

I just flagged 4 posts and one profile that have a life preserver symbol right now.

ETA: And now they have a gravestone. Hooray!

Editado: Out 23, 2015, 6:48 pm

This profile needs flagging.

(No sense doing the 100 or so topics, the profile should be enough.)

ETA: Already dead.

Dear Tim, I love you.

Out 23, 2015, 6:50 pm

I flagged it and it is gone now. This one was quick... it posted 47 in ten minutes.

Out 24, 2015, 12:21 am

Going swimmingly tonight. :)

Editado: Out 24, 2015, 12:26 am

>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.

Out 24, 2015, 12:26 am

They'll come back in some other way, I'm sure. But I have some new tools now.

Out 24, 2015, 12:38 am

Out 24, 2015, 3:03 am

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.

Out 24, 2015, 4:31 am

How did he make it through?

Out 24, 2015, 6:28 am

Gone now.

Out 24, 2015, 10:42 am

>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.

Out 24, 2015, 11:16 am

oh my! Tim, you are just the bees knees.

Out 25, 2015, 1:00 am

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.

Out 25, 2015, 1:10 am

I'd like to think they're rational beings. If we make it harder and less rewarding, they might choose to bother someone else.

Out 25, 2015, 8:46 am

>147 Lyndatrue: We can rest well knowing we fought the good fight.

Out 25, 2015, 11:42 am

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.

Out 25, 2015, 1:11 pm

Ah, lovely! I finally saw something other than gravestones in the spam page. And watched first the spammer and then the spam die.

Out 26, 2015, 1:13 am


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.

Out 26, 2015, 1:30 am

>153 Yamanekotei: Of course, as soon as I say it's quiet, some little spammer slithers in.

Out 26, 2015, 1:33 am

>154 rybie2:

No worry, it was gone in two seconds.

Out 26, 2015, 2:50 am

Out 26, 2015, 3:01 am

That one is gone, too.

Editado: Out 26, 2015, 6:08 pm


Out 26, 2015, 5:40 am

>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.

Out 26, 2015, 5:44 am

Just wondering. I thought it was pushing self-promotion of a blog too much.

Out 26, 2015, 7:16 am

>160 LesMiserables:

I'd leave a private comment expressing your concerns. Open a polite dialogue and see where it goes from there.

Out 26, 2015, 8:46 am

>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.

Out 26, 2015, 9:40 am

Out 26, 2015, 9:42 am

And another A few have been slipping through today!

Editado: Out 26, 2015, 9:43 am

>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.

Out 26, 2015, 11:57 am

>167 timspalding: the more you do, the more we'll catch


Out 27, 2015, 5:39 am

This member has been suspended from the site.

Out 27, 2015, 7:05 am

I rescued a post yesterday. The odd thing is it was from a LT member with a private account.

Out 28, 2015, 2:13 pm

Editado: Out 29, 2015, 9:24 am

Out 29, 2015, 2:37 pm

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?

Out 29, 2015, 2:43 pm

>178 lorax:

They're not bots, I don't think. They're people. Poorly paid people.

Out 30, 2015, 3:08 am

Oh crap. I think I did it wrong. 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.


Out 30, 2015, 3:32 am

>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.

Editado: Out 30, 2015, 1:26 pm
going back to get the person who posted
here it is - just joined

Editado: Out 31, 2015, 9:08 am

Nov 1, 2015, 7:09 am

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.(

Editado: Nov 1, 2015, 10:34 am
sigh -when will these people stop- going back to get the new member who posted
here it is

Nov 2, 2015, 1:14 am

Nov 3, 2015, 2:43 am

Nov 3, 2015, 9:16 am

>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.

Nov 3, 2015, 11:30 am

>200 Lyndatrue:
. . . the need for vigilance, and hope that we will not become complacent.

Just to keep us in practice:

Toilet paper entrepreneurialism

jackass investing

improve your English

real estate

Editado: Nov 3, 2015, 12:26 pm

>201 Taphophile13: That last one has real books listed that he wrote.

Mark Dever didn't bother entering his own book, but others have.

None of them look flagworthy to me.

Nov 3, 2015, 1:49 pm

>202 MarthaJeanne:


NAMESCENTRE is an organizational account for a learning/social center. Nothing wrong with that.

Nov 3, 2015, 2:41 pm

>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.

Nov 3, 2015, 2:49 pm

I'm not sure about all of them, but most of these were not recent joins.

Editado: Nov 3, 2015, 2:52 pm

>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.

Nov 3, 2015, 2:54 pm

>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.

Editado: Nov 3, 2015, 3:05 pm

>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 -

Nov 3, 2015, 3:03 pm

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.

Nov 3, 2015, 3:08 pm

>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.

Nov 3, 2015, 3:35 pm

>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.

Editado: Nov 4, 2015, 8:58 am

>215 lesmel: I just noticed and flagged.

ETA: They are in the graveyard now.

Nov 4, 2015, 10:56 am

>188 majkia: I got one of those Anita.Zamba messages earlier this morning as well, but it appears the account has since been suspended.

Nov 4, 2015, 11:50 am

>217 Marissa_Doyle: Me, too. How did she get back in? Ugh!

Nov 4, 2015, 1:56 pm

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?!

Nov 5, 2015, 2:23 am

Nov 7, 2015, 1:07 am
multiple Korean spam got through.

Nov 7, 2015, 7:29 am

Nov 8, 2015, 12:28 pm

Please do NOT flag author profiles! See >1 Lyndatrue: above. These are "type 2, teachable moments".

Nov 8, 2015, 3:01 pm

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.

Editado: Nov 8, 2015, 5:36 pm

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.

Nov 8, 2015, 4:55 pm

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.

Nov 9, 2015, 1:33 am

Korean spam made it through. Now gone.

Editado: Nov 9, 2015, 1:35 am

Korean spam that made it through.

Now gone.

Editado: Nov 9, 2015, 6:34 am slipped through

ETA: blank posts

Nov 9, 2015, 6:56 am

>242 lesmel: I see the blank posts ones are not disappearing from Talk even though they're dead and buried with a tombstone.

Nov 9, 2015, 7:43 am

Nov 9, 2015, 8:53 am

I'm seeing three tombstones persist on the regular Talk page. Should we mention it to staff?

Editado: Nov 9, 2015, 11:03 am

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.

Nov 9, 2015, 8:07 pm

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.

Nov 9, 2015, 8:41 pm

I just ignored the posts. Ta da. Problem mostly solved. lol

Nov 10, 2015, 12:09 am

Someone needs flagging from the Spam? Section

Nov 11, 2015, 7:58 am

livestreamer needs pushing over the cliff

Nov 11, 2015, 9:53 am

Continuing in another thread.
Este tópico foi continuado por Spam reporting thread #45.