Feature request: extending the "ignore user" functionality

[worik]

Hi site admins,

 

since we are suffering a bit from some trolls/spammers/? (* underline applicable term), I usually put them in my ignore-user list and am done with them and their spam.

 

What's left of them is a view like this in the overview pages (screenshot taken from https://www.loverslab.com/ ):

where the

troll/spammer/? (* underline applicable term) is still visible and the posts of relevant users become overlayed with rubbish.

 

A feature which would eliminate all traces of ignored users from all views would be very welcome.

Though I have no idea how hard that is to set up. ?

 

 

Edit:

Of course, the benefit is primarily visible, until a moderator has cleaned up the mess. Which is usually veeery fast ? ?

Consider this request as YAAITQ - yet another arrow in the quiver.

 

Edit 2 (20190714):

Proposing another feature: Limit the possible posts per time. Please see below for details.

[ZenBuddhist]

2 hours ago, worik said:

Though I have no idea how hard that is to set up.

 

it will probably add around 7 extra billion lines of coding to one of the 2853 Javascript plugins the forum's core already uses, but it's doable, i guess.

 

2 hours ago, worik said:

YAAITQ

 

is this Skyrim jargon?  

[worik]

3 hours ago, ZenBuddhist said:

is this Skyrim jargon?  

Best practise:

Spoiler

 

and aim for the troll's/spammer's/?'s (*) knee. Especially if you have YAAITQ

.. which would also be an effective approach to handle them. Less programming at least. ?

 

*) underline applicable term

 

 

 

 

[worik]

I might want to add another feature request / feature idea to throttle malicious posts down a bit. ?

 

Limiting the number of posts per time ⏰

 

Is it possible to limit a post, depending on how much time has passed since the last post?

If we can't differentiate between users, I would immediately suggest a rate of 1 post / minute. For everybody. I can't imagine that many legitimate activities that would require an honest user to post faster than that. (Editing the own previous post is a different thing)

 

But if we can differentiate, we could add even more limitations to new users with less than 100/20/10/5 posts. But that would be just the cherry on top.

 

In effect, a malicious and insulting post can appear. But the malicious user would have to sit and wait before he can post a second insult/spam/etc ...

[ZenBuddhist]

5 minutes ago, worik said:

Limiting the number of posts per time

 

7 minutes ago, worik said:

But if we can differentiate, we could add even more limitations to new users with less than 100/20/10/5 posts. But that would be just the cherry on top.

 

excellent points, milady Worik;
i second you on your request.

[winny257]

1 hour ago, ZenBuddhist said:

 

 

excellent points, milady Worik;
i second you on your request.

the problem, the spammer writes very little, usually two, three insulting words.
mostly he copies complete thread pages and everything is removed very quickly by the moderators.
I have last week, at least ten times, the moderators informed, that is better in my opinion as additional powerful security programs.
LL is currently very slow, especially on weekends, further stress from programs could worsen the situation!

[worik]

1 hour ago, winny257 said:

the problem, the spammer writes very little, usually two, three insulting words.

My suggestion would not rely on what is written in the post. The LL community would still need to report a malicious post. ( And I count on it, that we are pretty good at that )

1 hour ago, winny257 said:

I have last week, at least ten times, the moderators informed,

? That's what I meant! Good work! And by the way: Kudos to the mods! You all are REALLY FAST! ??

 

With a throttle like I proposed, the harm could be limited.

Instead of suffering through a spread of 30 or 40 annoying posts in 2 minutes all over LL, we would only have to endure it in 2 or 3 threads until the moderators have time to react.

 

 

[winny257]

47 minutes ago, worik said:

My suggestion would not rely on what is written in the post. The LL community would still need to report a malicious post. ( And I count on it, that we are pretty good at that )

? That's what I meant! Good work! And by the way: Kudos to the mods! You all are REALLY FAST! ??

 

With a throttle like I proposed, the harm could be limited.

Instead of suffering through a spread of 30 or 40 annoying posts in 2 minutes all over LL, we would only have to endure it in 2 or 3 threads until the moderators have time to react.

 

 

sorry I write in German.
ich weiß was du meinst, aber die Zeitbegrenzung müßte für neue Mitglieder höher sein, mindestens 5 Minuten zwischen jeder Post, es ist aber ein zusätzlicher Aufwand für die Webseite.
warum nicht das Übel bei der Wurzel packen, siehst du ich bin ein absoluter Noob, aber ich weiß bereits mehr als sehr viele andere.
z.B. weiß ich das es nur ein Spammer ist und das dieser Spammer ein deutscher ist!
jeder PC, Laptop, IPhone *Internet* hat eine IP-Adresse und diese kann man nicht manipulieren! 
das Moderatorenteam sollte in der lage sein diese IP einfach zu blockieren.
ich weiß daß zwei IP's genutzt werden, einmal eine private und einmal eine Firmen IP, mehr kann und darf ich nicht sagen, weil ich mich strafbar machen würde.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, winny257 said:

sorry I write in German.
ich weiß was du meinst, aber die Zeitbegrenzung müßte für neue Mitglieder höher sein, mindestens 5 Minuten zwischen jeder Post, es ist aber ein zusätzlicher Aufwand für die Webseite.
warum nicht das Übel bei der Wurzel packen, siehst du ich bin ein absoluter Noob, aber ich weiß bereits mehr als sehr viele andere.
z.B. weiß ich das es nur ein Spammer ist und das dieser Spammer ein deutscher ist!
jeder PC, Laptop, IPhone *Internet* hat eine IP-Adresse und diese kann man nicht manipulieren! 
das Moderatorenteam sollte in der lage sein diese IP einfach zu blockieren.
ich weiß daß zwei IP's genutzt werden, einmal eine private und einmal eine Firmen IP, mehr kann und darf ich nicht sagen, weil ich mich strafbar machen würde.

Your thinking of the MAC address which is the devices internal ID signature that can't be manipulated (well it can but the risk to great to try). The only problem is the software needed to do it is too expensive and out of reach for most websites.

[worik]

57 minutes ago, winny257 said:

mindestens 5 Minuten zwischen jeder Post

Sounds good to me. 5 minute limit for a new user with < (insert number) posts.

And it should be fairly "cheap" in terms of site load, since it would only be necessary to check when a post would be submitted.

 

57 minutes ago, winny257 said:

und einmal eine Firmen IP,

? can't breath .. .. help ! ? Posting privately on a naughty website, at work, probably during working hours, posting unduly spam and insults, probably from company equipment... oh my!

The wet dream of any company lawyer. High-Five for the down-sizing team! ?

 

@winny257 OK für Dich wenn ich für alle "nur" in Englisch poste?

[winny257]

40 minutes ago, worik said:

Sounds good to me. 5 minute limit for a new user with < (insert number) posts.

And it should be fairly "cheap" in terms of site load, since it would only be necessary to check when a post would be submitted.

 

? can't breath .. .. help ! ? Posting privately on a naughty website, at work, probably during working hours, posting unduly spam and insults, probably from company equipment... oh my!

The wet dream of any company lawyer. High-Five for the down-sizing team! ?

 

@winny257 OK für Dich wenn ich für alle "nur" in Englisch poste?

Worik du weißt mein englisch ist Unterirdisch, deshalb schrieb ich bei diesem heiklen Thema auf deutsch.
ja dieser Spammer benutzt einen Firmen PC, entweder ist er eigener Chef oder er wurde noch nicht erwischt.
aber was nicht ist kann noch werden. 
wenn er erwischt wird, dann wirds teuer! 

 

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/webwelt/article741679/50-000-Euro-Strafe-sollen-Spam-Versender-schocken.html

[ZenBuddhist]

1 hour ago, winny257 said:

sorry I write in German.
ich weiß was du meinst, aber die Zeitbegrenzung müßte für neue Mitglieder höher sein, mindestens 5 Minuten zwischen jeder Post, es ist aber ein zusätzlicher Aufwand für die Webseite.
warum nicht das Übel bei der Wurzel packen, siehst du ich bin ein absoluter Noob, aber ich weiß bereits mehr als sehr viele andere.
z.B. weiß ich das es nur ein Spammer ist und das dieser Spammer ein deutscher ist!
jeder PC, Laptop, IPhone *Internet* hat eine IP-Adresse und diese kann man nicht manipulieren! 
das Moderatorenteam sollte in der lage sein diese IP einfach zu blockieren.
ich weiß daß zwei IP's genutzt werden, einmal eine private und einmal eine Firmen IP, mehr kann und darf ich nicht sagen, weil ich mich strafbar machen würde.

 

hey, Winny,

as far as i could understand, you propose an IP-oriented filter for the spammers. well, if they are hidden behind a VPN, that won't work; all they would have to do is to change their IP address, and they would connect without any trouble. further, inasmuch LL's server is hosted behind Cloudflare, that should provide all necessary protection. having a second layer of protection besides Cloudflare's, although possible, would have to consider a lot of factors (including Cloudflare's), which would take time and $$$ to implement as well as constant management.

 

i truly like Worik's idea: until a user reaches a minimum of 10 posts, for example, s/he/it is tagged as Rookie and allowed one post every x minutes (perhaps 5 or 10 or 30); from 11 to 50 posts, he's a tagged as a Junior member and entitled to post every x/2 minutes, and so forth. further: because several members lurk but do not participate actively on threads, another set of rules based on number of accesses x days since signing up to LL could be devised, and that would differentiate the old lurking members from those who signed up recently.

it's not an easy task, but is doable.

 

cheers, all.

[winny257]

41 minutes ago, ZenBuddhist said:

 

hey, Winny,

as far as i could understand, you propose an IP-oriented filter for the spammers. well, if they are hidden behind a VPN, that won't work; all they would have to do is to change their IP address, and they would connect without any trouble. further, inasmuch LL's server is hosted behind Cloudflare, that should provide all necessary protection. having a second layer of protection besides Cloudflare's, although possible, would have to consider a lot of factors (including Cloudflare's), which would take time and $$$ to implement as well as constant management.

 

i truly like Worik's idea: until a user reaches a minimum of 10 posts, for example, s/he/it is tagged as Rookie and allowed one post every x minutes (perhaps 5 or 10 or 30); from 11 to 50 posts, he's a tagged as a Junior member and entitled to post every x/2 minutes, and so forth. further: because several members lurk but do not participate actively on threads, another set of rules based on number of accesses x days since signing up to LL could be devised, and that would differentiate the old lurking members from those who signed up recently.

it's not an easy task, but is doable.

 

cheers, all.

My mistake, I have put it wrong.
@namaradus has understood what I mean, each device * PC etc * has its own code, every internet connection has a start location. 
so if I do something illegal from my PC, then the law enforcement agency can prove exactly, that I was the culprit. 

[ZenBuddhist]

2 hours ago, winny257 said:

My mistake, I have put it wrong.
@namaradus has understood what I mean, each device * PC etc * has its own code, every internet connection has a start location. 
so if I do something illegal from my PC, then the law enforcement agency can prove exactly, that I was the culprit. 

oh! okay — i see. @namaradus is right: the cost to implement such system is astronomical — especially because since 2017 most connections network through IPv6.
a simpler solution would be through cookies. even though they are mostly used for marketing purposes, cookies can be modified to track users' posts and so forth. on the negative side, there are a lot of laws regulating the processing of personal data and its free movement (GDPR, for example); also, cookies are easily deletable.
but that could be a start, i guess.

thanks, Winny;


Cheers.
 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ZenBuddhist said:

the cost to implement such system is astronomical — especially because since 2017 most connections network through IPv6.

Not really that high but $12,000 a year for MAC banning software isn't something you want to be paying unless it was worth having for banning purposes. Sites like Bethesda.net, Steam, Xbox Live and PSN it would be worth having. And it doesn't matter if it's IPv4 or IPv6 the cost would be the same and it's only new connections since 2017 that use IPv6 and only if those companies had upgraded their hardware by that time as there are still a lot of new connections using IPv4.

[ZenBuddhist]

9 minutes ago, namaradus said:

Not really that high but $12,000 a year for MAC banning software isn't something you want to be paying unless it was worth having for banning purposes. Sites like Bethesda.net, Steam, Xbox Live and PSN it would be worth having. And it doesn't matter if it's IPv4 or IPv6 the cost would be the same and it's only new connections since 2017 that use IPv6 and only if those companies had upgraded their hardware by that time as there are still a lot of new connections using IPv4.

 

thanks for the explanation, Namaradus.

[2dk2c.2]

On 7/7/2019 at 1:54 AM, worik said:

Hi site admins,

 

since we are suffering a bit from some trolls/spammers/? (* underline applicable term), I usually put them in my ignore-user list and am done with them and their spam.

 

What's left of them is a view like this in the overview pages (screenshot taken from https://www.loverslab.com/ ):

where the

troll/spammer/? (* underline applicable term) is still visible and the posts of relevant users become overlayed with rubbish.

 

A feature which would eliminate all traces of ignored users from all views would be very welcome.

Though I have no idea how hard that is to set up. ?

 

 

Edit:

Of course, the benefit is primarily visible, until a moderator has cleaned up the mess. Which is usually veeery fast ? ?

Consider this request as YAAITQ - yet another arrow in the quiver.

 

Edit 2 (20190714):

Proposing another feature: Limit the possible posts per time. Please see below for details.

The part about posts per time looks like 12 (I'm so bad at math) or 13.

 

But here's the thing, I edit my own posts, and at least once a month, the system tells me that my single post (with misspellings) cannot be edited anymore, and then 

it changes its mind, and allows me to edit.

 I always take it personally, it's a character-flaw I have. 

And I had a few others, but

(O, I know, the loverslab.com site winked out of existence for me around an hour ago, google or whoever could not resolve the name. 

(I closed my browser, reopened, and there it was. Did I click too fast before? (I was pressing "Back" to get to an earlier page)

I pay 3.00 a month fees for something, I thought it was for less commercials and no delay downloading, but I still get commercials and delays on downloads.

"I must not be paying enough", I think, but then why pay anything at all, hmm.

So, I think, making the place more paranoid than it already is, is a really bad idea.

Find the hacker, the anonymous-wannabe, the would-be-sysop, find out what pissed him off (it's usually a "he")

Some Moderator must have been too dismissive, I'm guessing, or his uploads were banned. 

Do they have records? That would be somewhere to start.

 

 

[DoctaSax]

15 hours ago, 2dk2c.2 said:

I pay 3.00 a month fees for something, I thought it was for less commercials and no delay downloading, but I still get commercials and delays on downloads.

You should see Ashal about that.