Fo example.. look ath this member.. why not to ban him?
http://www.chess.com/members/view/danavbabaji
Moderation for threads before amking them public
Sort:
astrolover wrote:
Is is possible to set up a system whereby all threads would first be moderated before they become visible to community?
I vote no.
You'll get used to the wild wild west that is chess.com. This is nutcase haven.
It would be more work checking every post before allowing it, than clicking once to ban a spammer.
May 13, 2014
0
#6
FirebrandX wrote:
One solution is to have pre-moderation on new accounts attempting to post for the first time. This prevents spam, while at the same time regular members can post immediately.
This is much better solution.
May 13, 2014
0
#7
hicks83 wrote:
It would be more work checking every post before allowing it, than clicking once to ban a spammer.
Maybe not in the long run, as spammers will eventually recognize that their spams don't get through.
Though I guess it wouldn't work against spambots, but maybe there are other ways to prevent these. For example, someone suggested the excellent idea to play 3 games before being allowed to post...
The current system discourages people who have interesting questions/ideas to post, as they are bound to be drown in the sea of b****
hicks83 wrote:
It would be more work checking every post before allowing it, than clicking once to ban a spammer.
How about just checking the first 10 posts of each new member?
hicks83 wrote:
It would be more work checking every post before allowing it, than clicking once to ban a spammer.
Well, the current inaction is ruining the forum.
Scottrf wrote:
hicks83 wrote:
It would be more work checking every post before allowing it, than clicking once to ban a spammer.
Well, the current inaction is ruining the forum.
So imagine what it would be like if everything needed approving! 
It is a problem, and i'm sure it will be addressed with a change in procedure at some point.
Until then, i'll just keep deleting it when I see it.
hicks83 wrote:
So imagine what it would be like if everything needed approving!
I meant inaction on the part of the staff, not inactivity of the forum.
It's not hard to stop and I've never known any forum affected so badly for such a long period of time.
May 13, 2014
0
#12
hicks83 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hicks83 wrote:
It would be more work checking every post before allowing it, than clicking once to ban a spammer.
Well, the current inaction is ruining the forum.
So imagine what it would be like if everything needed approving!
It is a problem, and i'm sure it will be addressed with a change in procedure at some point.
Until then, i'll just keep deleting it when I see it.
As I already said, check first few posts for new members only. Then you don't have to approve everything
Scottrf wrote:
hicks83 wrote:
So imagine what it would be like if everything needed approving!
I meant inaction on the part of the staff, not inactivity of the forum.
It's not hard to stop and I've never known any forum affected so badly for such a long period of time.
Moderation of new members was/is standard even in Yahoo groups from 20 years ago . Chess.com should catch up with modern ways ...
May 13, 2014
0
#14
Fighting spam is incredibly tough — a minor change in filters can suddenly block hundreds of legitimate posts and only prevent a few spam posts. So you're right that filters (what we currently have) are not as powerful as getting people involved to say "yes" or "no."
We're working on some things now (which should make things tolerable), and some better things once our technology upgrade is complete (which should make things awesome). Visible changes might be slow for now, and I'm sorry for that. But please know that we do care a lot about the quality of the forums!
Well my life would certainly be easier if there was a system in place to stop it.
I don't get paid to remove spam, and none of us would want to be vetting new members to allow them to post.
Its one for the management.
Wot?
kaynight wrote:
ColonelKnight: With you there man, even share a name.
My understanding is that these spammers join a site, post their material, and move onto the next site within about ten minutes. So flagging posts from new "members" who have only been on the site for less than two hours should greatly reduce the problem.
May 13, 2014
0
#18
BishopTARDIS wrote:
My understanding is that these spammers join a site, post their material, and move onto the next site within about ten minutes. So flagging posts from new "members" who have only been on the site for less than two hours should greatly reduce the problem.
Yes, and in general, limiting the posting rights of new members in some way would certainly help a lot diminish the amount of spam and nonsense.
I brought that up in another post and someone rightly pointed out that spammers would use scripts to work around a lot of checks and balances. All in all, hard thing to do.
FirebrandX wrote:
ColonelKnight wrote:
I brought that up in another post and someone rightly pointed out that spammers would use scripts to work around a lot of checks and balances. All in all, hard thing to do.
You can't "script" around a human review. I get bogus emails all the time from spammers pretending to be friends of mine from Facebook, but I never fall for it.
Thats the point though.
You can tell quite easily who is your friend, and it takes a moment to just reject them.
If you had a list of 20 users needing approval, and all look like they're making legitimate posts then you're just going to approve everything.
All a spammer needs to do to get through is make a legitimate looking post. (which for this site is hard to tell sometimes!)
I couldn't be doing with that.
From last few days I am seeing too many spam threads which are kind of superstitious ads. Day by day these are becoming too annoying. Is is possible to set up a system whereby all threads would first be moderated before they become visible to community?
Thanks