Don't Reply to Spam, Report It!

[alsg]

Here's a suggestion prompted by a recent post on by a spammer: Don't directly reply to spam threads, even to bemoan them or castigate the spammer. It only gets more members to click and read the spam thread by putting it and keeping it on top of the "new" threads list. Instead of replying, just report the spam to our admin with a PM if necessary.

 

[PaddlingPitt]

I did report it, but then became angry. Your advice is good. Duly noted.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

Don't directly reply to spam threads, even to bemoan them or castigate the spammer. It only gets more members to click and read the spam thread by putting it and keeping it on top of the "new" threads list. Instead of replying, just report the spam to our admin with a PM if necessary.

I agree this is the best procedure.

Spam is a fact of life in all areas of internet and electronic communications. We've had two spammers in seven weeks on the Xenforo platform, both caught within a few hours and both now banned. I believe our automated registration system, involving hCaptcha, email confirmation and spam list checks, will keep out the vast majority of robot spammers, but determined individuals can get through. I check the IP addresses of all new registrants and have rejected a few based on that. I had my eye on the most recent one -- the IP address being from Jodhpur, India -- but have tended to give new some new registrations the benefit of the doubt. I will become more proactive if necessary.

Thanks for the reports.

 

[Robin]

Here's a suggestion prompted by a recent post on by a spammer: Don't directly reply to spam threads, even to bemoan them or castigate the spammer. It only gets more members to click and read the spam thread by putting it and keeping it on top of the "new" threads list. Instead of replying, just report the spam to our admin with a PM if necessary.

Clicking on a thread does not keep it on the top of the new threads list. Responding to it does that.

When I ran the site I vetted each and every new member. In the past few months I had to read how vetting was unfriendly, it kept new people away, it was too hard, too time consuming, etc.
One internet "expert" led us to beleive that CAPTCHA would be the solution and that vetting was not needed. So how's that working out? CAPTCHA only keeps out machines, not real people with bad intentions.

This will be the norm if new members are not vetted, they come from all areas, not just off shore.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

I am familiar with different procedures to reduce spam and the pluses and minuses of each, but it's not a canoeing topic nor a critically related topic at this point in time, so I see no need to prolong discussion about it. Report it if you see it. I'll take care of it. Thank you.