Spam, link stuffing, off topic August 2022

#1

Hi all — I’ve just spent some time cleaning up “spam” that I think was actually some form of linking stuffing.

Floods of posts, some of them on old threads, some of them that sort of made sense, often with lots of links. Some links were to other posts here … and then if you looked very carefully there were offsite links to things that were off in some way.

There was one initial user who I thought (we all thought) was posting in good faith and then asked that their account be anonymized. That one still needs to be reviewed in general.

Now, another new user ended up posting 20 posts in a very short period of time that seems the same as the previous user in style and definitely included link stuffing / promo.

I have cleaned up or “unlisted” (basically as evidence) a number of posts. Some of which even sort of made sense.

What you can do to help: if something looks off, hit the “flag” button on a post or comment to notify moderators.

I’ll be doing some more investigating and discussion with @moderators around this. To see if there is a pattern, IP address, or other markers. There may end up being some deleted posts in various threads.

Sorry for this, and if anyone ended up with lots of notifications because of this flood.

9 Likes
#2

Thanks for that!

It is good regular users get to understand what is going on!

Best wishes, TT

#3

Thank you, I felt something abnormal was going on…

Yesterday’s posts weren’t particularly useful, and their pace would have been hard to achieve without some kind of script.

Cheers!

#4

I do think there is a bit of excessive link sharing and perhaps the trust level system in Discourse is not raising as many red flags as it should? Is it possible perhaps some more speed bumps can be set down (in whatever methods Discourse has available)

#5

I know for the second user, it actually flagged the first post, and it “seemed fine” so I approved the user. Once a user has posted seemingly “regular” user content, then further posting is allowed – which allows more links.

I’ll have another look at the trust systems and “links per post”.

#6

Right.

It is a tricky one for moderators to judge.

I think they did well in the one big recent case. It is a skill to know when and when not to judge.

But some folk can link a lot innocently and productively.

FYI, I’m personally adverse to trying make it rule based (= your “speed bumps” :slight_smile: ).

I would rather trust we have good moderators??

Just a comment, TT

#7

We do have good mods, but i think they have had a lot to dig through and sort out as a result of this.

Reducing their potential work load is something which needs to be considered.

As always it’s a trade off between ease of use and security.

1 Like
#8

Right. And show their skill in doing so.

No it isn’t :slight_smile: … It is a question of HOW much of an issue was our/their last case long term?

I would agree on a less liberal linkage system IF I saw it was gonna be a long-term issue, repeated…

But I doubt that it would escape them again?

Just a side comment, TT

#9

But if there are some simple steps which can be taken?

#10

Right.

Is a song about SPAM a security risk? (Developer’s Version)

TT

#11

Yes. The simple steps are that everyone can help moderate by hitting the “flag” icon on posts.

3 Likes
#12

I think some of the speed bumps were reduced during on-boarding with the new forum. Maybe now that the system has been up for a year some of those bumps could be re-applied.

1 Like
#13

Right.

It is interesting!

TBH, I knew intuitively “X” was a problem, mainly from the extremism of posting but assumed he was a (badly) “lost beginner”, at first.

When I challenged him, seeing there was some kinda odd agenda, @pmario asked me to lay off a bit. Which I did. In deference to him.

The problem with “flag” is it is a bit aggressive??

But I do see your point!

TT

#14

It will be repeated.

Moderators have to sleep sometime. When a new user posts multiple posts jam-packed with urls in the middle of the night – most systems would throttle that behaviour. It’s reasonable to ask incoming folk to spend a little time making themselves acquainted before increasing their daily max thread and url posts.

3 Likes
#15

Flag is private and messages mods. Not aggressive. Mods can choose to make a flag an official warning.

#16

No, it is aggressive in the sense it assumes something is true that may not be so.
It can be seriously abused.

That said, here, I do trust you moderators to do the right thing with spurious use of it. So, okay!

Best, TT

#17

I would have flagged these except many were relevant ideas and references, although I did not have the time to follow many, I may never have. It is later when I objected to his calling my argument “wrong, wrong, wrong” that I started to think he (assumption) was neuro diverse. So I still did not judge too hard.

The only other egregious things I saw such as pushing too hard and “not listening”, or too many multiple rapid posts.

Perhaps he was using discourse to boost links rating to the sites he quoted, but they seemed too diverse for that.

Yes, I few times I thought of flagging someone I backed off because they do seem too aggressive and really need explanation of you do it. It seemed too easy to replace a flame war with a flag war.

I think what actually transpired was fine, the eventual limitations on him, although I hope we have not made a mistake, but then there are a lot of bad actors out there.

It does suggest to me a few new soft limits discouraging more than one or two posts without any one replying, perhaps with the exception of corrections and bumps after an extended period, reducing the allowable links per-post, unless it is specifically about building a links repository and encouraging wiki pages.

If we had a set guiding principles we could refer people to when we see them doing these things, if they did not then reform it becomes worthy of a flag. It is always better to get the community to self moderate and only use real moderation when it gets out of hand.

But in the end we needed this conversation.

#18

Thank you, I felt something weird with them.

It is something that I never liked (see the posting in old threads)
Has Discourse any method to closed thread after certain time from the opening or the date of last post?
I think they can close the old thread 6-9 months after their creation. If someone want to thank a post, (s)he can react to the post. If there is a related question, (s)he could open a new thread.

#19

Personally I do not agree with this, the searchability and ability to revisit posts is important and was always possible under google groups. What if for an example an update solves a problem in a better way?..

I also want to suggest someone with a lot of content should be encouraged to put it in their own tiddlyhost wiki and invite users to visit it, rather than long posts in discourse.

#20

You can open a new (related) thread or do a request for its reopening.