647 Posts in 1009 Topics by 161 members
|Go to End||Next >|
13 March 2013 at 9:18am
I had't been around for a week or so, I'll check more often from now, take some of the load of your back
13 March 2013 at 10:49pm
14 March 2013 at 7:33am
sigh, and again please...
17 March 2013 at 9:20pm
Another in Payment Gateways...
22 March 2013 at 3:11am Last edited: 22 March 2013 3:12am
I recall suggesting to ban posts with more then 4 consecutive links...
Probably checking first posts only won't work, people would simply start with a dummy if they found out. - especially since we're discussing it here!!
But we must be careful not to mark you as a spammer as well so we'd need to check for external links. OK, 4 external links (= 4 times http(s):// ?) That would probably be more then enough, but still it might ban valid users.
So - create exceptions for github, gist, eh... wow!
not so easy
22 March 2013 at 6:06am
Thanks for the link "Martimiz's suggestion"
but your suggestion posted here in detail, is also in this case stale...
My first suggestions is :
- The system accepts a new user without problem ...
- As that user has not posted one or two (or more, up to you determine)
messages that have been verified by a moderator,
Its posts will be published after validation by a moderator on a case by case
then passed the withdrawal phase (1, 2 or more messages checked)
its following messages are issued without restriction, as at present.
If in this period of probation, a message is clearly a spam,
this message and the following (or all) and the user are manually deleted.
It takes work, but unless hunting spam automatically published, as actually ...
Then, the idea of limiting the number of link is very interesting...
My second suggestions is :
You may be able to reconcile the two formulas,
because my suggestion would be filtered messages on the PPK
while external links were only 1 or 2 unless I'm mistaken.
My third suggestions is :
The idea of Martimiz (testing the links) to be safe for users 'normal'
must unpublish the doubtful message,
pending its manualy approval by a moderator,
(which will be very soon, viewing your reactivity ...)
Excuse me for taking up space,
although a newcomer, with little or no experience.
Excuse my bad english
and thanks for your understanding.
29 March 2013 at 8:47am Last edited: 29 March 2013 8:48am
this is why I think my suggestion is the only option.
Unfortunately it requires that the moderators manually validate messages first new users, before they leave the flange on the spot.
Spammers and other parasites,
will quickly tire of having to leave 1, 2, 3, 4 (or more) messages about Silverstripe before being automatically validated.
You must create a status of "guess" quarantined ...
Unfortunately I can not help you because I am a "beginner webmaster apprentice."
Too bad, because I learn a lot with all your messages ...
30 March 2013 at 2:06am
Point is - I'd rather have good people be able to ask questions right away then having them wait just to discourage the bad ones. Especially since moderation is voluntary work - and moderators do go on vacation, have weekends, sleep while others are awake, maybe even get sick once in a while...
That's why I 'm not sure the system you propose would really work
|Go to Top||Next >|