[Arkcon]

... that new users not be allowed to post or attach images until they've made a few posts.  It might be helpful, to prevent image spam.  I got a nasty surprise using the Recent posts feature at work just now ...

[Mitch]

A new user has to post. It would kill the growth of the website if a user registered and then couldn't post.

[Borek]

What Arkcon suggest is to not allow new users to attach images while posting. That'll help to some extent.

[Arkcon]

Mitch: is right 'tho, someone's first post to the forum could well be a scanned or drawn structure that they have a question on.  It would be annoying for them if they had to post a 'Hi there' message, then post the image.  And spammers would just do the same, still, a bit of a delay could payoff, and make these boards unattractive to spammers.  The image spam we got today was a real surprise -- I hadn't seen that before, and I used to be on these boards constantly.

[Borek]

The image spam we got today was a real surprise -- I hadn't seen that before, and I used to be on these boards constantly.

You would be surprised knowing how much of these appear recently, and you must be lucky to not see them. I am deleting them several times a day, and - for example - sjb reports them every few days.

Not allowing new users to post links and pictures (just like they in theory can't start new polls) will definitely help to put amout of spam down. Hard to say whether it will lower number of new users posting their questions - as it was discussed not long ago in many cases it will force these people to actually read and type their questions, which can help them understand the problem.

[enahs]

You would be surprised knowing how much of these appear recently, and you must be lucky to not see them. I am deleting them several times a day, and - for example - sjb reports them every few days.

Mitch gave me the admin access stuff ~6 weeks ago to help out with that. Literally everyday I have also been either moving them to the abuse section, or deleting the ones with pictures. When I started looking for them to help out, I was surprised how many there actually are and never noticed before.

[billnotgatez]

It just became a revelation that I can report offensive stuff to admins and moderators via a link
Would it be a help if anyone sees the junk they report it if they can not remove it
Or would it cause excess activity

[macman104]

Would it be a help if anyone sees the junk they report it if they can not remove it
Or would it cause excess activity

I was going to ask, if someone reports a post, and then another person reports it, does it make two reports?

[ARGOS++]

Dear All;

Would it be allowed to fantasize for a “solution” and refine Arkcon’s suggestion by incorporate conclusions from own observations?

My main goals are:
   A.)    “Not” limit serious members, or limit them as least as possible!
   B.)    Make it as unalluring as possible for such kind of spammers!
             (To make it imposible for them is simple imposible!)
   C.)    Using  “features” alredy build in the system.

From my observations (Sorry! Mostly Mitch or Mr Borek were faster with removing it, then I with my login and reporte it them.) I “extracted” a method how to better distinguish between a serious member (SM) and a spammer of such kind:
  A.)   A SM nearly never has more then 3 or 4 Links in his postings, but such spammers use a lot.
  B.)   A SM nearly never has more then 3 or 4 Pictures in his postings (Arkcon’s suggestion).
  C.)   A SM “never” combines a picture whit a particular Link.
  D.)   Such spammers are not interested to split there “messages” into several very small postings.
  E.)   With the same method also almost all “Viagra” and “Perfume” spammer could be handled.

So my suggestion is divided in two parts:
   1.)   Generally disable the possibility to combine a Picture with a direct Link.
   2.)   As long as a member owns less then three stars it’s not allowed for him to have more Pictures/Links in one of his postings as he owns stars.

I only post all this, because I very well know, that there is no solution that can be done without any programming at all. But from my daily work I know, that this is nearly the most effective solution with the least programming effort. (I don’t believe “only moaning about” is any solution at all.)

I hope it maybe worth to think at least about.
Good Luck!
                    ARGOS⁺⁺

[macman104]

ARGOS, I actually really really like that setup.  It seems very good. 

I would say, below a certain threshold, the poster must wait for an admin to approve the message posting.  They can preview and everything, and then instead, when they hit "submit", it is checked for those criteria if their post count is below a certain threshold.  If it matches those criteria, then it is stored and awaits approval for posting.

To speed it up, by the same logic, anyone who is part of the other group ("proven posters", you might say, lol), is allowed to view a page where they can approve the post.  Or ya' know, maybe not .

[enahs]

The easiest solution, and I am surprised it is not a default feature of SMF. Do not automatically display the images in the post, but have to button to click an AJAX script to load the images. As people are saying, it is usually pretty obvious when it is a spam post or not. This would at least be able to prevent the following situation I describe.

I was embarrassed a little ~4 weeks ago when I loaded up a post that I knew was spam to move and it loaded up a nice porn advertisement; and I was in the library on my laptop at school....

[Mitch]

I like the idea of more global moderators to help out with spam. Global moderators can ban people too?

[Borek]

Would it be a help if anyone sees the junk they report it if they can not remove it

Yes. I am not always able to refresh chemicalforums every five minutes, but I am always told "you have mail". The more eyes at work, the faster the reaction.

The easiest solution, and I am surprised it is not a default feature of SMF. Do not automatically display the images in the post

That could work, although I am not sure if we have enough manpower for that. I mean - such pictures always require mod/admin action and it may sometimes take several hours before they are spotted. And sometimes they are simply overlooked. That's an occasional problem at PF.

[enahs]

That could work, although I am not sure if we have enough manpower for that. I mean - such pictures always require mod/admin action and it may sometimes take several hours before they are spotted. And sometimes they are simply overlooked. That's an occasional problem at PF.

I mean, the end user has to click a button to load up the pictures. It will then be pretty obvious from the text and such if the image is actually relevant or the post is junk. That would at least prevent people from accidentally coming across pornographic pictures at work or school. It would by no means stop the spam from happening.

[Borek]

OK, I thought you mean attachements that have to be approved by mods.