Timeline for We need better spam detection and blocking tools
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2012 at 15:23 | comment | added | Arjan |
On the other hand, @awoodland, some shorteners provide nice insight, like by adding a "+" after a goo.gl URL. (This needs you to be logged in to some Google account, but then the data is public.)
|
|
| May 17, 2012 at 14:42 | answer | added | Ivo FlipseMod | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 17, 2012 at 14:25 | comment | added | Flexo - Save the data dump | I like the idea of auto-flagging suspicious patterns. As far as auto-blacklisting goes I think you'd need to add URL de-shortening to circumvent it. I think I've seen a few instances of spammers using URL shortening services. A spam search tool would also need to search older revisions of posts which have been edited to removed the spammy links to be truly useful. | |
| May 17, 2012 at 13:26 | comment | added | Arjan |
Maybe also a "reject as spam" reason for suggested edits? And make those edits be searchable by spam:1 too? (Or: such edits often seem to be using things like BBCode which might be easily detectable.)
|
|
| May 17, 2012 at 9:01 | comment | added | slhck | Yes please!!! One word of caution though: excessive blacklisting only results in spammers using no URLs at all, which in turn makes it harder for the community to identify those posts as spam. I'd rather see them posting the same URLs again than making up new ones or including none at all. I'm really not talking about Botox spam or so, but the not-so-obvious one. Like KVMSwitchTech, if you know what I mean. | |
| May 17, 2012 at 8:48 | answer | added | Marc Gravell | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 17, 2012 at 8:30 | answer | added | Arjan | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 17, 2012 at 6:44 | comment | added | random Mod | A fresh account, first two posts, both with the same URL, usually a spammer | |
| May 17, 2012 at 6:23 | history | asked | nhinkle | CC BY-SA 3.0 |