Are you worried about bot-created LQ-users?

Michael Uplawski · 08-13-2021, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan64

Obviously you can decide [what you wish], but I don't really think that will be based on those spammers. That is just not logical.

What I consider logical is that, when my "constructive" activity does not arouse interest, other than with people who need to test their bots – which are not even spamming bots –, then something in what I do is superfluous. End of Story.

But currently I cannot seriously hope to measure the utility of those blog posts, as there is no way to do it with most of the hits being bot-generated.

No spam in this topic, no spammers, either.

rtmistler · 08-13-2021, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Uplawski

What I consider logical is that, when my "constructive" activity does not arouse interest, other than with people who need to test their bots – which are not even spamming bots –, than something in what I do is superfluous. End of Story.

But currently I cannot seriously hope to measure the utility of those blog posts, as there is no way to do it with most of the hits being bot-generated.

No spam in this topic, no spammers, either.

I took a look at your list of blogs, scanned titles only. There are a broad variety of topics.

Since you've taken the time to create blogs about processes and topics, assuming from start to conclusion; perhaps suggest relevant blog entries you've made as part of your reply for applicable questions.

Some of my most commonly referenced blogs are in my signature, and I do cite them as answers for questions about bash or C programming. Granted, they're ancient, but some still apply for introductory problems for new script writers or programmers.

You seem to have the same with different technical topics. Point that out to people who ask questions similar to what you've covered in a blog entry.

TB0ne · 08-13-2021, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rtmistler

Most, if not all, mods cannot do anything besides ban the user. They cannot edit profiles. They cannot address posts in forums where they do not moderate. When banning a user for spam or advertising, my preference is to remove all posts that I can, and I do so, but as mentioned I cannot remove posts in forums where I do not moderate and also cannot edit or remove the user and their profile entirely.

Either you're saying this, or from your post it is giving me the thought that their profile is still there and possibly any links they have included in that profile can be seen. I don't know if that's a true conclusion, perhaps if there are any examples of banned persons who still have a profile containing ads, this will be useful. (Understood that posting it here thus permeates their ad intent, perhaps re-report and also cite this conversation?)

People do report suspected spammers and it is helpful to see the reasons, many reporting persons do spell out those reasons, and explain where they see the advertising. Not defending any practices. Sometimes it is 100% obvious if the advertisements are for hair care, essay writing, or dirty sites. If their ad sites are for technical blogs or help. Sometimes it is a fine line. You for instance can have your own business and include a link for that in your signature or profile. So long as you're not touting that in technical threads, then I believe that is allowed under the rules for the site.

I'll point out that it is not a perfect world. If someone makes a report of this nature and they feel that it was ignored or overlooked, I'd suggest a PM to the sub-forum moderator(s) who should've done the evaluation, as well as Jeremy, if you feel that it was dismissed with undue haste.

Understand totally, and I get it; merely a suggestion in general.

And I'd have to look a little bit to find a few examples, but those folks exist in a very gray area. While their actual POSTS aren't against any LQ Rules, they more than likely wouldn't get a ban. And, since their advertising links are their 'home pages', in their profile, they're not showing up either. So...they wouldn't even qualify for a ban under existing rules. But when you get a first post in a topic that's either been solved or answered that says something along the lines of "This is very informative, I will follow this topic closely", and their homepage is set to a gambling website.....it's pretty clear what they're about.

However, the intent is certainly there, and it does leave that account open for later use/editing. There isn't a perfect solution/answer.

Michael Uplawski · 08-13-2021, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rtmistler

perhaps suggest relevant blog entries you've made as part of your reply for applicable questions.

I did that and, more often, used a blog post as a conclusion after a discussion had – not dealt a downright answer but – changed my perception. If I am not erring, most of my blog posts (if not all) deal a topic which I had myself not been able to cover until then – at least, after BW-userx had asked me to do it this way

It is not obvious to me, if this is eloquent enough to explain my “use” of the blog and at the same time the deception, if it does not provide what I consider had been missing. <= And this, too. Writing a blog (or this very post) in a language which is not your own, adds 1 use and possibly some arbitrary value to all you do.

Now I am adding a meta-level to a meta-discussion... I can ignore the bots. That is not my difficulty.

rtmistler · 08-13-2021, 03:21 PM

Very well. Returning to on topic.

I reiterate my second paragraph in post #14. Please report your suspected bots or send PMs about those who you suspect are bots where there are no reference posts to report from.

Michael Uplawski · 08-13-2021, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rtmistler

Very well. Returning to on topic.

I reiterate my second paragraph in post #14. Please report your suspected bots or send PMs about those who you suspect are bots where there are no reference posts to report from.

I'll do that.

ondoho · 08-14-2021, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Uplawski

those who are living people, are almost impossible to detect. I feel superfluous here.

The people who contribute here are for the very largest part real people. You are not superfluous here.

I understand that looking at the list of visitors or currently logged in users might convey a different picture (also because many users use them "hide my online status" feature), but as far as actually communicating is concerned, you are with humans!
Even most of the spammers are humans, but we fight constantly to recognize all of them (a bit of a hobby of mine to figure out whether they could be bots) and get them removed.

ondoho · 08-25-2021, 01:58 AM

Here's an account that has a spam link in its profile ("spam" is actually putting it mildly).
I think it will need to be removed - knowing jeremy moderates this subforum, I post here. No PMs.

shruggy · 08-25-2021, 08:04 AM

And another one. And yet another.

GentleThotSeaMonkey · 08-25-2021, 01:49 PM

Starting at main Forums page, where it says: "Welcome to our newest member <userName>"
a (wget/curl) script could count backward from this latest user#, looking (scanning) for Website links...

boughtonp · 08-25-2021, 05:00 PM

If Jeremy wants to find spammers, he doesn't need to write a script to do HTTP requests - he can directly query the profile+posts in the database.

Also, whilst simply looking for website links is too crude, there are plenty of other obvious traits that could be used.