|
Team 23
July 20, 2010, 02:28 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Team 23
July 20, 2010, 04:03 PM
|
|
account closed - thanks for the heads up.
|
| |
|
Team 23
July 20, 2010, 05:13 PM
|
|
Now, what's that -- mr. Mygdal in the mix ;-)
|
| |
|
July 21, 2010, 12:46 PM
|
|
Any chance to delete his comments too?!
http://www.23hq.com/paynekj/photo/5803212
|
| |
|
|
July 23, 2010, 11:11 AM
|
|
While you're at it, could you also please remove comments from "nice"?
http://www.23hq.com/mortenlund/photo/5811543
http://www.23hq.com/Q-Mol/photo/5812436
|
| |
|
July 23, 2010, 09:06 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
July 24, 2010, 09:30 AM
|
|
Alright, we've deleted the concerned comments -- 40 in all, so it doesn't seem to have been an automated attack...
|
| |
|
|
July 24, 2010, 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
July 30, 2010, 01:21 PM
|
|
an other one !
http://www.23hq.com/Sixtine/photo/5813341
Can you do something ?
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
July 30, 2010, 01:25 PM
|
|
Sure, it's done... Love the photo btw.
|
| |
|
|
July 30, 2010, 10:30 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
August 09, 2010, 03:40 AM
|
|
There's another one
Comment(5889398)
(He? She?) It's posting album comments because there's no "report spam" button (hint, hint ;) )
|
| |
|
August 09, 2010, 06:16 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 10, 2010, 06:34 AM
|
|
@janfri: You're right. Although the user ended up only posting two spam messages due to spam guards -- so I think I'll actually count this one in the win column ;-)
|
| |
|
August 18, 2010, 08:42 AM
|
|
More spam from Replica Jewelry gaolinkeji@163.com here http://www.23hq.com/claudecf/photo/5201684
I just realised I could spam it myself! Forget it.
|
| |
|
|
August 19, 2010, 09:37 AM
|
|
I am spamming at least two or three spammers a day. And if you have a look at the new photogroups they're just spammers.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 19, 2010, 09:54 AM
|
|
We are banning IP's a fast a we can and upping the spam filters as well. The big problem is that this is manual spam, not automated, targeted at rather few photos, which makes it almost impossible to combat effectively. We are doing pretty much all we can.
|
| |
|
|
August 20, 2010, 01:04 PM
|
|
And another one... comment# 5934835, same album as the other one. Don't like my suggestion?
|
| |
|
August 24, 2010, 01:12 PM
|
|
Another one:
http://www.23hq.com/steffiC182
Used to spam these discussions.
|
| |
|
|
September 17, 2010, 05:43 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
September 17, 2010, 06:11 AM
|
|
Yes it does... Have done a cleanup on that spammer.
|
| |
|
|
September 17, 2010, 06:52 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
September 20, 2010, 03:51 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
September 20, 2010, 09:30 PM
|
|
@corax,
Interestingly those came from three different spammers...
|
| |
|
|
September 20, 2010, 09:38 PM
|
|
Interestingly I have already deleted about five more... all to the same album. That's why I was asking for a button to report spam from album comments. Also I think it's the same person, or syndicate. Maybe they use different IP addresses, but that's not surprising if they are on a dial-up line...
|
| |
|
|
October 07, 2010, 01:38 AM
|
|
"About cdma5257
I'm located in United States and I have been using 23 since September 15, 2010."
If you wish to delete this comment go to
http://www.23hq.com/Corax/album/3047624 and click the 'Delete comment'
link.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
October 08, 2010, 06:14 AM
|
|
It's gone now -- thanks for reporting.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
November 30, 2010, 09:19 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
November 30, 2010, 11:04 AM
|
|
Hey Paulo -- can't really seem to find anything on that account. Can you link to an example of the spam?
|
| |
|
December 10, 2010, 01:10 AM
|
|
User goberrytree is uploading questionable images. He sometimes uploads multiple instances of the same image. It is annoying. Is there any way to deal with this? Or just wait until he uses up his monthly quota?
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
December 11, 2010, 09:21 AM
|
|
Wow, you're right -- have done something about it.
|
| |
|
|
December 29, 2010, 11:36 PM
|
|
I have been getting spam almost every day since Dec 19 from the users listed below. Each user has spammed up to 14 photos. I have deleted these comments. The users are:
abercrombie sale
xiaoyi
moncler sale
canada goose coats
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
December 30, 2010, 07:30 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
December 30, 2010, 04:13 PM
|
|
Thanks Steffen. I didn't know that I could change my comment settings. It''s a nice feature.
|
| |
|
|
December 30, 2010, 04:20 PM
|
|
Users Affanita45 and MaxEmerge are violating terms of use by posting photos which advertise their businesses. They are not the only ones doing this, but I just noticed them today.
|
| |
|
|
January 18, 2011, 09:36 PM
|
|
Nothing done about Affanita45. He/she is still advertising a business, which violates the terms of use. It is someone here in my state of New Jersey, which bothers me even more!
|
| |
|
|
January 22, 2011, 03:14 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
January 22, 2011, 04:38 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
February 11, 2011, 09:22 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
February 12, 2011, 01:36 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
March 02, 2011, 08:04 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
March 02, 2011, 08:10 PM
|
|
... Has been done away with.
|
| |
|
|
March 05, 2011, 04:13 PM
|
|
Almost... http://www.23hq.com/photogroup/meetthegimp/conversation/6534081
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
May 05, 2011, 10:53 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
May 13, 2011, 10:26 AM
|
|
Yet another: http://www.23hq.com/luuca/photo/6681982
|
| |
|
plus
May 22, 2011, 08:11 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
May 23, 2011, 03:51 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
May 23, 2011, 05:34 AM
|
|
How wonderful that we get to keep meeting this way ;-)
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
May 23, 2011, 10:15 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
May 31, 2011, 06:53 AM
|
|
Apparently user 7as8sauaf ;) Spamming the forums.
|
| |
|
June 14, 2011, 08:59 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
June 14, 2011, 09:15 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
June 14, 2011, 04:11 PM
|
|
Thank you Steffen. After i delete hundreds of spam-comments i have a question...
Is it possible for you, if you delete an spam-acoount to delete automatically all spam-comments of this account?
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
June 14, 2011, 04:15 PM
|
|
Yup, we have special links to spam everything from an account and from an IP address -- and also ban addresses where spam is originating from. So on spam attack, just flag the spammer and we'll do something about it. (Also, there are suggestions elsewhere to extend these features to community moderators.)
We've switched spam filter providers recently and hopefully we're training their filters well these days ;-)
|
| |
|
|
June 14, 2011, 05:54 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
June 21, 2011, 07:23 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
June 21, 2011, 10:26 PM
|
|
Sorry, I only now noticed the second comment on this photo: http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/6101327
The account was apparently created just for this comment and not used again, which is a little suspicious.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
June 22, 2011, 09:11 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
June 23, 2011, 05:56 PM
|
|
Thanks.
Maybe a stupid question: Could you devise a filter rule from that? Accounts that only post one single comment with a least one weblink right after creation (within ~24h) and never log in again for, let's say, six months, or so? Or would that be an impratical amount to check?
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
June 23, 2011, 06:02 PM
|
|
That is actually exactly what we're using/paying Akismet for -- to assemble information about the comments being uploading and using it to flag spam decisively. We've been back using these guys for about 2-3 weeks now, so training-wise they should be starting to halt the spam wave. Not sure that's happening though.
|
| |
|
|
June 29, 2011, 08:07 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
June 29, 2011, 08:28 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
July 04, 2011, 09:56 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
July 11, 2011, 02:34 PM
|
|
I received a "spam" private message from kynddmddv. I see the user no longer exists.
|
| |
|
July 12, 2011, 07:39 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
July 12, 2011, 07:44 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
July 12, 2011, 08:29 AM
|
|
Not sure:
http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/6918478
http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/6918472
The given url for me results in a timeout, so I can't check.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
July 12, 2011, 08:35 AM
|
|
Ah, that's pretty clear cut. Have alerted the spam filters and closed down the account.
|
| |
|
|
July 15, 2011, 06:06 AM
|
|
And another one: http://www.23hq.com/louisvuitton123 as seen here: http://www.23hq.com/JordanPerez/photo/6144213
I plead to mark every comment with more than one URI in it as spam :)
|
| |
|
|
plus
July 15, 2011, 11:55 AM
|
|
@IkoTikashi
Hmm, I think only external links are to be counted. Shouldn't be difficult to regexp links to pages on 23.
|
| |
|
|
July 15, 2011, 11:58 AM
|
|
Definitely external URIs only.
|
| |
|
|
plus
July 22, 2011, 11:48 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
July 22, 2011, 11:49 AM
|
|
Lots of spam here:
http://www.23hq.com/whatsgoingon/photo/6945182
the last one with an account too
http://www.23hq.com/naueing
I already deleted a comment from him on one of my photos today.
|
| |
|
|
plus
July 25, 2011, 07:06 AM
|
|
Again, I'd like to see a "mark as spam" button for albums:
http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/album/4117685
|
| |
|
|
plus
July 26, 2011, 07:02 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
July 26, 2011, 07:16 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
July 26, 2011, 02:30 PM
|
|
Hmm, maybe a suggestion: Add a spam report form on 23hq.com/yourusername/a/spam enabling users to report spam on their own images. Only two fields are necessary: The link to an image or album with a spam comment and the 23 username of the spammer. These incoming reports you can regexp easier than having to wait for someone to report it here (which should remain possible, of course). It shouldn't be difficult to implement plausability checks to prevent abuse.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
July 26, 2011, 02:34 PM
|
|
Wouldn't be too different from just tracking when people click the Spam button on a photo though ;-) We actually do a bit of that tracking now, but I'll grant you that we are quicker at reacting to posts in this thread.
|
| |
|
|
July 26, 2011, 04:10 PM
|
|
I've just written my first (wOOt) Greasemonkey script that inserts a link "Report spam on this page" on every photo and album page. Clicking that link POSTs the current URL to a forum here on 23hq (currently here: http://www.23hq.com/photogroup/help/conversation/6958311 for testing)
The script is Alpha, I'm totally open for suggestions/improvements.
|
| |
|
|
July 28, 2011, 01:30 PM
|
|
Spammer: http://www.23hq.com/marks/photo/6741062
EDIT:
I just used @IkoTikashi's script in Chrome (as a user script) to report this.
See here for using Greasemonkey in Chrome: http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/user-scripts
I might tweak this script to be more in alignment with Chrome scripting, if that is ok with the author.
|
| |
|
|
July 29, 2011, 05:30 AM
|
|
@clvrmnky: That's totally ok with me
|
| |
|
|
July 29, 2011, 05:40 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
July 30, 2011, 10:31 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
August 02, 2011, 12:21 AM
|
|
I updated @IkoTikashi's GM script slightly so that Chrome will properly limit running the script to 23hq.com and 222.23hq.com.
Basically, change all "@include" to "@match"
I think it still works ok, but I can't find any spam!
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 04, 2011, 09:02 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 04, 2011, 09:07 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
August 04, 2011, 02:46 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
August 04, 2011, 03:01 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 05, 2011, 08:13 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
August 05, 2011, 02:29 PM
|
|
1sTaRtUrLhttp://www.23hq.com/zhangli2011 looks suspect.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 09, 2011, 09:10 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 09, 2011, 10:04 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 10, 2011, 08:18 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 17, 2011, 10:04 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 17, 2011, 10:06 AM
|
|
Hey it's been a while ;-) Can you send me a link to a comment with spam from youva?
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 18, 2011, 09:01 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 18, 2011, 09:49 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
August 18, 2011, 09:01 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 18, 2011, 09:27 PM
|
|
a) Did you buy something?
b) Can you link me to a example of the spam comments?
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 19, 2011, 08:44 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 19, 2011, 03:45 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 19, 2011, 04:19 PM
|
|
Thanks, and thanks for the fav. :)
Steffen, could you check something? I'm not sure, but I think this photo has been in the "popular right now" category before. The same goes for some others which were spammed. There is a delay in between and maybe it's constant enough to derive an anti-spam rule from that? Like "43 days after an image is no longer in the popular right now and has been there for at least 8 hours, then the first comment on this image from a newly registered who has not uploaded an image yet will be spam with 75% probability" or something like this.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 20, 2011, 10:08 AM
|
|
A good thought -- but I'm worried that the pattern also fits for a real user coming by 23, seeing a featured photo and signing up to leave a comment.
We are combating spam in a good list of ways: Banning IP ranges, clearing spam comments quickly, using spam filters, requiring Akistment. And we have been really hard on spam for the past 2-3 weeks where we've increased the number of steps needed to sign up for an account and to leaving a comment -- and we're hoping that this will stem the tide. So far it actually seems we've been having much less spam over the past 10 days than over the month of July?
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 20, 2011, 04:42 PM
|
|
> but I'm worried that the pattern also fits for a real user coming by 23,
> seeing a featured photo and signing up to leave a comment.
Sorry, I wasn't exact in my suggestion: I didn't mean for this to be the only rule to match, just one of them. A genuine user wouldn't include a bunch of outside-links in the first comment, for example.
> So far it actually seems we've been having much less spam over the past 10 days than over the month of July?
I don't keep an exact track, but so far it surely feels like the spammers became extinc… ehm, I mean are on holiday. Or you've finally annoyed them so much, they moved to easier targets. After all, if the spam isn't getting through, they won't get paid.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 22, 2011, 10:27 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 22, 2011, 10:31 AM
|
|
I love Gucci! Anyways, can you send me a link to an example of the spam?
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 23, 2011, 09:09 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 25, 2011, 08:42 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 25, 2011, 12:48 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
August 29, 2011, 06:37 AM
|
|
The only thing that bothers me a little bit about that new spam-detection-filter is that nearly 95% of my comments get "marked as possible spam", although there's no URL being posted by me.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 29, 2011, 06:42 AM
|
|
@Iko: In the current working, everything from non-Plus users is flagged by the spam filters (since we've been seeing spam attacks aimed at boosting search queries only, without any links at all). This is to ensure that every comment is follow by a captcha. It's annoying and I'm hope only to force this for another few weeks.
|
| |
|
|
August 29, 2011, 06:54 AM
|
|
@STC: Ah well, that explains it! ;) Thx
|
| |
|
|
plus
August 31, 2011, 01:10 PM
|
|
Well, they're getting quite rare recently (thanks Steffen!), but I still found a new spammer: http://www.23hq.com/aaaa4444 has spammed here: http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7113630
Seems to be the only comment/spam of this user (so far).
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 04, 2011, 09:44 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 07, 2011, 04:15 PM
|
|
Don't the filters trip comments with more than, let's say 50, external links from new users? http://www.23hq.com/love201111 has spammed here: http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7151501
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
September 07, 2011, 04:52 PM
|
|
Of course they do -- but the filter can be overwritten by human action. So I guess spamming you was worth it?
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 07, 2011, 05:05 PM
|
|
You're right. The filters should be able to tag comments with so many external links as spam, but as you said, it's not absolute.
Something I noticed: It affects the photos in the "just in" category (aka the last one posted) much more often than others. Is this one easier to reach for the spammers or do crawlers visit it more often as it changes regularly?
Still, the amount of spam has gone down a lot so your measures clearly had the intended effect.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
September 07, 2011, 05:09 PM
|
|
My guess is that spammers go to the Just In page, open all links in new tabs -- and then copy-paste in comments and fill in the captchas.
As you say, we could build more intelligent spam detection mechanisms; but the the line to cross would be to only allow X number of comments per hour. It's a pretty drastic move, which is why we've held back.
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 07, 2011, 06:38 PM
|
|
> but the the line to cross would be to only allow X number of comments per hour
Hmm, question: How much time does pass (on average) between the registering of a new user and the first wave of spams he posts? Maybe limit the number of comments per time based on the duration the user is a 23 member? Given the existing data could you say how much this would affect legitimate users?
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
September 07, 2011, 07:31 PM
|
|
Problem is that we started requiring user registration to comment a few weeks back -- so you will actually have legitimate users signing up in order to comment. That's actually a pretty critical pattern. But rate limiting would be a good idea -- 20 comments per hour and 40 per day at most? Would inhibit spam attacks at least?
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 07, 2011, 07:48 PM
|
|
What I meant is: Looking at the comment posting statistics of new users (less than 3 months members or so) is there a clear distinction in the amount of comments per time between "normal" users and spammers in the first few days right after signing up? I can think of someone commenting on 40 or 50 photos they day he sings up (because it's the reason he signed up), but his behavior should be sufficiently different from a spammer to give the filters a helping hand (e.g. not posting the same comment more than once or twice and pauses he needs to actually write the comments and not just click-paste them).
However, without knowing the actual statistics I may be completely wrong on this.
On thing is — as far as I know — spammers never reply or comment a second time on the same image if their first comment hasn't been removed/marked yet.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
September 07, 2011, 08:10 PM
|
|
But that's based on long term patterns of spammers -- and that's so easily combatable by setting up a new account from a different IP. So you're absolutely right: There are patterns where you can tell a spam commenter over the span over time, after the first spam attacks. But each comment is a captcha, and setting up a new account is also a single captcha -- so the path of least resistance for that is simply setting up a new account.
There's something to the rate limiting, which would make it much harder on spammers; and only slightly harder on real users?
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 07, 2011, 08:33 PM
|
|
> There's something to the rate limiting, which would make it much harder on spammers; and only slightly harder on real users?
Without knowing how much comments actual users post an hour or a day and how much spammers use an account before signing up for a new one it's difficult to say if a limit will actually be useful and where it should be set. You'll have to look into the 23 usage statistics to find that out. But the actual idea of having a (sensible) limit for new users (let's say the first two or three months) sounds reasonable.
Maybe something mean: To post a comment with an (clickable) outside link aforementioned new users have to enter _two_ captchas. Spammers want their message to be recognized easily and fast, if users have to enter an url by themselves and can't just click on it it's already too much effort. (As you said: The path of least resistance. Instead of solving a second captcha they'll write their links in a human- but not machine-readable way).
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 08, 2011, 03:30 PM
|
|
Sigh, http://www.23hq.com/love201111 spammed again on http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7154789
I thought you k****d his behind…
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 09, 2011, 04:10 PM
|
|
Hmm, again the same one: http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7156722
I was about to click the mark as spam link when I noticed in time it's the same some.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
September 10, 2011, 11:32 AM
|
|
Didn't do a good enough job apparently. Weird. Anyways, should be all better now.
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 10, 2011, 09:08 PM
|
|
> Didn't do a good enough job apparently.
I don't think so. If you really didn't do a good job, we'd all be drowning in spam by now. Several times over.
|
| |
|
|
September 14, 2011, 07:17 AM
|
|
Another one: http://www.23hq.com/Chaneloutlet
Spammed about 8 photos I commented on
http://www.23hq.com/isabelpics/photo/5001097
http://www.23hq.com/davidmortensen/photo/5255660
Is there a chance we get something like "moderated" comments?! If a comment contains more than X links (to external sites) mark it as "Unwanted", inform the photo owner and let him decide if he wishes to delete or post that comment to his photo.
|
| |
|
|
September 14, 2011, 03:27 PM
|
|
I haven't been following this "discussion" very diligently, as most of it is spammers' names, which I'm not actually interested in ;) but I think Iko's suggestion bears considering, and I'd like to add to it – just a spontaneous thought, and there might be potential for abuse in it, too, but here goes:
If I'm not mistaken, commenting is now only allowed for registered users of 23 (I liked it better before, except for the spam of course, but I see the necessity). Does registering for 23 involve an email verification process? If so, it might be worth a thought to also notify the commenter that their comment has been caught in a spam or moderation filter.
The spammers will probably know anyway, and may care or not, but a "real" person might not be aware of this measure and wonder what happened.
I have no idea how expensive/legal/helpful/counterproductive spamming the spammers might be though :)
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
September 15, 2011, 05:29 PM
|
|
This beautiful photo is currently tainted by 4 different spam comments:
http://www.23hq.com/t3mujin/photo/7171053
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
September 15, 2011, 05:53 PM
|
|
Lovely photo actually.
@Corax: The discussion is muddled by reports, but it's probably a good thing. To reply to a few questions:
- Registration has become harder that we'd like: There are captchas and verifications involved. And for the time being, registration is required. This will change in a short while though -- so people can open up for anonymous comments if they wish.
- Spam flagging is a live process. This means that people will know if their comments are flagged and will be able to overwrite with a captcha. If commented are marked as spam by the uploader, we have chosen *not* to notify the commenter because this might become another vector for spam attacks. It's a shame, but I think it's the right choice.
Now, I'm going elsewhere to post something slightly more fun ;-)
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 19, 2011, 10:17 AM
|
|
While traveling I got a small idea: If a new user (however this definition is made) wants to post a comment on an image which is featured in the "popular right now" or "just in" categories/pages or which is in the top-5 ratings or view counts of the uploader or the group, require a second, differently typed captcha for the comment to get through. If more than one external link is included, ask for confirmation with a second set of two captchas (one link needs only one additional captcha). This rule should also apply to all images (if existent) that are the direct predecessors and successors, since many people will also look at these.
As Steffen already explained, spammers are lazy and won't take the time to solve more captchas, but less captchas means their "comments" will have to got to images maybe only a few people will ever look at.
It's just an idea, I didn't do any math so I can't say if it would be useful or not.
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 20, 2011, 07:53 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
September 20, 2011, 08:10 AM
|
|
Next one: http://www.23hq.com/cheapwatch has spammed on this album: http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/album/7184278
(Again, why is there no "mark as spam" for album comments? Or am I just blind?)
|
| |
|
September 20, 2011, 09:36 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
September 23, 2011, 10:34 AM
|
|
Guess what, found another one:
http://www.23hq.com/love201111/ spammed here: http://www.23hq.com/anne_aus_berlin/photo/7194827
|
| |
|
|
September 24, 2011, 07:15 PM
|
|
Some spam on this photo: http://www.23hq.com/voss/photo/7197039
|
| |
|
|
October 07, 2011, 06:29 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
October 07, 2011, 06:31 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
October 07, 2011, 06:49 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
October 11, 2011, 10:41 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
October 11, 2011, 10:43 AM
|
|
And on search page 2
http://www.23hq.com/photogroup/7211481/
http://www.23hq.com/photogroup/7133801/
http://www.23hq.com/photogroup/7131773/
I think you should search in den Database for "photogroups" with "only 1 topic" and "0 pictures" and delete all of them.
|
| |
|
|
October 12, 2011, 02:25 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
October 13, 2011, 01:50 PM
|
|
Pretty much every single recently added photogroup is a spamtrap.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
October 13, 2011, 02:42 PM
|
|
@clvrmnky: Yes, we are aware of this, and I have set aside some time this weekend to institute new and bigbrotheresque policies for photogroups...
|
| |
|
|
October 14, 2011, 08:17 AM
|
|
If you add a "Report spam" button the groups, I´m pretty sure users would help you to identify spammers.
|
| |
|
|
October 15, 2011, 12:29 AM
|
|
Spammers are like cockroaches. Easy to identify, but hard to completely stamp out.
|
| |
|
|
plus
October 15, 2011, 06:32 AM
|
|
I'm not sure about this one: http://www.23hq.com/JessicaGao
The concerning comment is here: http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7371672
That pushed the image to the popular right now which I'd rather like to have from regular views.
Edit: Just noticed a second one: http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7371677, again this pushed the image which means spammers comments have a significant impact on view counts — one more reason to get rid of them.
|
| |
|
|
October 15, 2011, 10:10 AM
|
|
Another one: http://www.23hq.com/office123
Just posted a spam on my photos...
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
October 16, 2011, 12:50 PM
|
|
Alright guys, have spent the day in the company of spammers -- think my IQ has taken a significant hit as a consequence. Generally, I've built a number of methods to either detect or combat spam. Some of these methods are going to annoy all of us (read: captchas), while others are slightly more subtle. Also, I've cleaned up in the list of photogroups and also feature much more interesting groups on on the PG list.
Throw us a note back if these measure are either too harsh or not harsh enough.
|
| |
|
|
plus
October 16, 2011, 05:49 PM
|
|
> Alright guys, have spent the day in the company of spammers -- think my IQ has taken a significant hit as a consequence.
Urgs — I hope it's reversible. And I can think of many unpleasant things to do on a Sunday which are still much, much better than this.
> Also, I've cleaned up in the list of photogroups and also feature much more interesting groups on on the PG list.
The link is broken. Copy&Paste?
> Throw us a note back if these measure are either too harsh or not harsh enough.
If this will get us rid of (nearly all) the spammers, it's fine with me.
The spam comments http://www.23hq.com/JessicaGao posted on http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7371677, http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7371674 and http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7371672 (three consecutive images), can I mark them as spam now or do you still have to tackle that user?
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
October 16, 2011, 05:55 PM
|
|
Just mark them as spam -- I can now run tools after the fact to ban IP addresses and more awesome and related stuff.
I'm hating the new Firefox-way of removing "http://" in from of URL. It's a nice feature, but for some reason I always end up coping with http when I need it -- and the other way around when I don't. The link was nothing fancy though -- just the standard photogroup overview.
|
| |
|
|
plus
October 16, 2011, 06:34 PM
|
|
> Just mark them as spam -- I can now run tools after the fact to ban IP addresses and more awesome and related stuff.
Seems like you took already care of them and the spammer…
> I'm hating the new Firefox-way of removing "http://" in from of URL.
I don't know if it works for the stable Firefox as I'm using the nightly version, but you can try to go to about:config and set browser.urlbar.trimURLs to "false" and it should show the protocol again.
|
| |
|
October 23, 2011, 11:47 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
November 10, 2011, 08:52 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
November 10, 2011, 09:05 AM
|
|
Hey, it's been a while -- I have banned.
|
| |
|
|
plus
February 05, 2012, 12:26 PM
|
|
Has been quiet for some time (which I like), but I got a curious comment today, the second one on this photo:
http://www.23hq.com/nachbarnebenan/photo/7603836
I'm having trouble deciding if it's spam or has just been posted to the wrong place.
Maybe looking at the logs if the same comment was posted several times on other users images helps you decide.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
February 05, 2012, 12:29 PM
|
|
Yup, quiet is good -- I've banned, spammed and generally tried to hold off the evildoers now.
Steffen
|
| |
|
|
plus
February 05, 2012, 12:47 PM
|
|
Thanks for taking care of it, even though I could think of better things to do at a (cold but sunny) weekend.
|
| |
|
|
plus
March 07, 2012, 10:57 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
March 29, 2012, 01:38 PM
|
|
Have cleared the accounts.
|
| |
|
March 29, 2012, 01:53 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
plus
March 30, 2012, 08:27 AM
|
|
There are some quite persistent spammers at it again.
I've just deleted this same spam on my most recent photo and it seems others are targeted too: http://www.23hq.com/Dan-Tuyet/photo/7725382
Don't the spam filters catch if someone posts the exact same comment full of links on several photos?
|
| |
|
March 30, 2012, 08:05 PM
|
|
I want to cancel my membership because of the spam i get. But I don't find any possibility on the website. I tried to mail to team@23hq.com, but the mail came back as undeliverable. Then I tried to contact Steffen, but it did not work. So, if somebody here can help me, please give me a note.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
March 30, 2012, 08:08 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
