Idiots responding to spam

[Schurkey]

Do you have a reason for your lack of regard?

This is not the only forum I'm active on.

I find it REMARKABLY convenient when someone (ONE person, not fifteen) replies to fresh spam (so it doesn't get bumped very far up the page) stating that it's already been reported. Then I can utterly ignore it.

Otherwise, I feel an obligation to click the "report" button, at which time I either find out that no-one has bothered to "report", OR I find that I've wasted my time and it's been reported but the moderators haven't removed it yet.

Having ONE person reply that it's been reported saves everyone else time.

The harm done is it takes on the look that the topic has no issues but if it slips down a little with an odd subject name and no replies it makes it easier to find

If it's been tagged as spam via the "Report" button, how can the moderator NOT find it? They wouldn't be looking for "zero reply" postings from the index page, they'd be looking at the link provided in the spam report generated by the "Report" button.

Are you saying that the "Report Post" button doesn't provide a link back to the offending post/thread when it alerts the moderator, so that they have to go searching for goofy-titled threads with zero responses to find the thing?

and by that time hopefully many of you have hit report and tagged it as spam.

WHY do "many people" need to tag it as spam? THAT is the waste of time I'm looking to prevent! Is spam not spam until it's been reported multiple times? Is this a "craigslist" deal where no action is taken until some complaint threshold has been met? Perhaps this is the real problem that needs to be addressed.





I got jacked-up about responding to spam posts months ago. So now I don't respond...but it feels like a dis-service to the community to not alert folks that the reporting has already been handled.

 

[48RON54]

I wish that the biggest problem I may face today would be getting upset about people responding to spam on an internet forum

 

[PugetDude]

I wish that the biggest problem I may face today would be getting upset about people responding to spam on an internet forum

 

[jayoldschool]

Simple...also silly.



If it's fresh enough to already be at or near the top of the page, what harm was done?


Clearly, I do not know how the system works.

The first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have a problem. Dealing with spam is not unique to this forum. All forums deal with it, and they all handle it the same way. Don't respond to spam, ever. If you don't understand that or agree with it, forums aren't the place for you.

 

[bigredmf]

What about idiots referring to forum members as idiots?

Thinking the title of this thread violates forum rules.

Red


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[PugetDude]

What about idiots referring to forum members as idiots?

Thinking the title of this thread violates forum rules.

Red


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Idiocy or irony?

This thread has jumped the shark.

 

[NUTTSGT]

When you report SPAM, it goes to one person as far as I know. I don't get any alerts and don't think the other Mods do either. All those reported posts/SPAM go to Ryan.

That's the way he has it set up, his rules on his forum.

I've never seen anybody get banned for responding to spam either. Heck, I've responded to it myself a few times as it was a hidden message...copy/paste from a previous member's post and not a obvious post with links. I used to reply (before I became a Mod) to the Spam with a "reported" post until Ryan asked me not to do it. My thought was the same reason, so everybody else that saw it would know it was already reported. However, Ryan explained to me that when a spammer was banned, if another member had quoted the spammer, the reporting member could get inadvertently banned as well.

So it all boils down to a simple forum rule of reporting spam and not responding to it.

 

[HOTFR8]

I see the topic is closed but I will reply to these two posts.

Didn't I read some time in the past that responses to a spam post had to be deleted before the spam could causing more work for the moderator to get things straight?

lg
no neat sig line

Yes some times that is correct.

Why don't we just have a policy that a new member can't post a thread containing a link? Maybe like a 10-post / 1 week wait before you can post links? It's obviously still able to be thwarted, but it would cut down on the "drive by" spam blasts.

No, easier to report spam and them so we ban them from posting again.