Talk:Spam

What determines a 'spammer' ?

Where do we report abuse and spam-like behaviour to ?


 * hi,
 * for now, I can block anyone who shows persistent abuse or spam; msg me at identica:phoebe. If spam continues to be a problem I will protect the main page for only registered users to edit, which should help (it hasn't been much of an issue so far). I can also give admin rights to anyone who wants to take on this job - just let me know. (p.s copying/moving this to the laconica:Community Portal -- 16:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

= SQL commands to look for spammy users =

This may help, but not 100% accurate - checks a profile link against a notice link:

select profile.nickname from notice,profile where (locate(profile.homepage, content)>=1 or locate(substring(profile.homepage, 1, length(profile.homepage)-1), content)>=1) and profile.homepage<>"" and profile.id=notice.profile_id;

--140.203.231.39 12:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (John Breslin AKA Cloud)

= Confirmed E-Mail address =

Spammers always create new accounts, because it's so easy to do. So make it harder. My suggestion: Allow only users with a confirmed E-Mail address. Only one account per address allowed. When someone spams, send 3 warnings and then ban him if that doesn't help. --AKF --178.6.45.238 11:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

= Linking the accounts with @-replies =

"Please DO NOT link to spammer's account when reporting (don't use @): you're helping them with extra high-PR links! - note that StatusNet support people have asked repeatedly that people not use this method. Go ahead and do it if you want, but we really don't like it; and absolutely don't expect support for it."

The only PR they get, is when URLs outside of the account link to it. Internal linking won't increase their "PR", won't increase their Google presence, and does absolutely nothing for them. Further, if @support is doing their job, then these accounts are getting deleted, and the @-reply won't link anywhere. Regardless, linking to the account with @-replies is doing nothing for their overall presence. From @eightyeight.

thank you, @eightyeight for your thoughts.

linking the names would definitely be easier for silencing them - and not copying every name by hand anymore.

problem is that i learned from @marjoleink that this would give spammers a higher linkjuice. i don't know.

next problem: @support is not doing it's job anymore. as far as i can tell, everything is up to @evan now.

we're waiting for a blogpost announcing this.

we're waiting for his offer to hide silenced users.

we're waiting for the proposed bayesian filter...

--march 15:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)