Topic: Spam Rules

We are getting a couple of posts ever month or so which might be classified as Spam.

http://www.ozoneasylum.com/25839
or
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/25769

I would classify both as Spam. I would like to see these threads shutdown and deleted immediately. This causes others to not waste there time Spamming us. I do not want to assist in increasing the relevance of there site by letting their threads sit here and able to be easily crawled.

Some of these threads can become something a little more worthwhile, as the first on in that example. But are still Spam.

If you have any other thoughts on this please let me know. I would like to take a very aggressive stance against there but do not want to do so unless I have some kind of consensus form other MSes. So lets hash this one out a bit to see how we all view this issue, and then we can come up with an appropriate response.

Dan @ Code Town

Well...they ARE posted in Site Reviews, right?

I do understand that they have the look and smell of spam about them.

But a really honest review, and then end would probably be more appropriate.

they are both spam

Not being an MS, I suppose I'm not technically qualified to comment, but I'll comment anyway.

I can understand your concern, and I agree with you that they do indeed appear to be spam. However, as WS pointed out, they are posted in the Site Reviews forum, so technically they are legitimate. Where do you draw the line, then? Well, I asked myself this: "How do these threads differ from genuine requests for reviews?"

The answer, I think, is that the original poster rarely (if ever) replies to criticism in spam threads, and the threads either die out for lack of interest or spiral into silliness before fizzling. Yet, as you mentioned, they remain in plain site where they can be crawled. (I suppose it would be worth mentioning at this point that posting a link to your site in your sig is even more effective in terms of relevancy, and sigs are not generally considered spam. But that's another story, and no, sigs and spam review threads are not the same thing.)

Anyway, I can understand your concern, so I'll throw an idea out and see what you guys think. Feel free to ignore it, discuss it, shoot it down, whatever. Since the primary characteristic of spam threads is a lack of participation by the spammer, this could be made a requirement of threads posted in the SR forum. Newly admitted inmates would be given a week to respond to any criticism (i.e., one week from the moment a reply is posted), while other inmates would be given a longer period of time (say, two weeks to a month). This reply must address the criticism given and not just be filler. If these conditions are not met, the thread is shut down and deleted.

Now, even as I typed that, a number of objections popped into my head. For starters, what if someone is legitimately unable to respond during the required time period? Granted, this is unlikely, but it is possible. It might also be seen as too authoritarian a measure. It also requires that a judgment be passed on whether or not any replies to criticism are genuine or just filler, creating yet another task for our beleaguered mad scientists.

That being said, these stipulations should be no problem for people genuinely looking for criticism. In fact, even if it is not publicly announced as policy, few people will ever notice--because the threads that get deleted will be the ones started by spammers who don't really care about them anyway. And if this new rule were to cause these spammers to take a genuine interest in the threads they start, well, there's victory in another fashion. In my mind, this sounds like a reasonable solution, if indeed it is determined that a solution is required. I suppose that issue is still up for debate, though.

Just the two cents of a lowly mad librarian.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Most of the asylum only has a page rank of five or so.
Personally, I see both posts as borderline, and if they were outside of Site Reviews, they'd be remove, but in there,
oh well.

(we might consider setting ref="nofollow" for some forums, though)

yep, ref="nofollow" sounds really appropriate. Not only for borderline posts but the URL posted in the Site reviews! are often test URLs, or in progress works, so it may be annoying to see these URLs indexed in a serach engine.

Good point. Nofollow would eliminate the incentive. It would also be a heck of a lot easier than what I was thinking.

I like that as well.

That was a great solution really quick. Now I am really happy I brought this up.

Thanks all,

Dan @ Code Town

and who implements it: always the guy without time ;-). oh well, let's see if I have a spare flag in that table. I doubt it. *shrugs*

Tyberius Prime: who have acces to the FTP except you ?

well, true.
But you know what: anyone who wants to develop on the grail, I'll be more than happy to grant access to the testing grail - and I'll upload it to the asylum when it's done.

done, and enabled for site reviews.

Good work, TP!

I know you don't hear that often enough.

Thanks for the hard work!

Yep. Well (and quickly) done.

Awesome. Makes me feel much better.

Thanks,

Dan @ Code Town

Unfortunatly, it apperantly broke the slimies - I have no idea why yet, but I'll find out later today.

The following text has no meaning what so ever as it is being said by a non-MS... then again perhaps it does!!

Slimies are still out!!! THE HUMANITY!!

Hey I gave a nice speech in one of those threads you know personally I think we should burn the lot of them (expect for the one with my speech of course ) and get rid of the guys who post them. If you'd notice 90% of them (from the above 100%) are Newly Admitted so just get rid of them!! Say why don't you keep a couple of guys just for Spam Control?? I VOTE ME!!!
.
.
.
.
... what??

[edit]Hey slimies aren't out!!![/edit]



(Edited by templar654 on 06-03-2005 17:22)

Personally I've been deleting all the sothink.com crap no matter what forum it shows up in.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.