Suspicious new forum members

[PDQ Mobile]

And I guess an iphone doesn't provide such sofistication.

In Safari on iOS if you press and hold on a hyperlink it will display the URL and offer a range of actions.

Jonathan

I'll find one and try it.

But if it's an unknown site or something "shortened" (which is what the discussion upthread was about and I am not sure what that really means) how does one differentiate safe from unsafe?

It is all too much for my non digital mindset I fear.

[drossall]

The thing in common between the link types discussed here is that, barring unlikely mistakes, the links go where the poster intended. So, the first thing, as in the real world, is trust. If anyone here with more than about 1000 posts includes a link that sounds interesting, I'll click on it with confidence. If it's someone with less than 10, I'll be really wary.

Because normal hyperlinks consist of a link behind text, URL shorteners such as Bit.ly are of limited use on a forum. You might as well just post short link (I've got over 5000 posts and that is a safe link!) However, URL shorteners are useful in emails, especially plain-text emails, because the rules about line wrapping are a bit ill-defined and this can lead to broken links if they wrap. Shortening links prevents them from breaking.

In this context, the great thing in email about plain text is that, without HTML markup, you can't hide a link behind text, so you can always see what the real link is before clicking on it. (Except with an URL shortener, unfortunately, so the tip above about a plus sign is a good one.)

[richardfm]

One problem with disallowing links behind text, is that the 'raw' link may be extremely long. For example this which is a perfectly innocent Google search result. If I had posted the raw link no-one would have made sense of this post!

You could have shorten the URL to https://www.google.com/search?q=cycling+uk+forum before posting.

[drossall]

Should have shortened, really. Everything else is information about the original person's Google session, such as that it used a Firefox browser - which of course most people following the link won't be doing anyway.

[661-Pete]

You could have shorten the URL to https://www.google.com/search?q=cycling+uk+forum before posting.

Agreed. I only inserted the full link to illustrate the point. But some types of urls don't admit of that sort of trimming - and knowing how much to crop isn't always intuitive.

[661-Pete]

...such as that it used a Firefox browser - which of course most people following the link won't be doing anyway.

Is that so? I must admit, I have some doubts about FF these days, although I still use it regularly. Main problems are with layout. I'm told that, as an 'independent', its record on privacy is better than Chrome or Edge. But any advice welcome! - though I don't promise to follow it!

[mjr]

I have been given the go-ahead to ban new posters posting spam, rather than deleting their posts. Consequently they will be obliterated and gone off the list ............ along with their spam too.

But it often remains in the members list, alongside their zero post name. Anyone after a marriage bureau or a "viagara" shop? There are a few listed!

Could you ask for the go ahead to ban old zero post accounts with dodgy homepages, too?

Naffing spammers!

[661-Pete]

I have been given the go-ahead to ban new posters posting spam, rather than deleting their posts. Consequently they will be obliterated exterminated and gone off the list ............ along with their spam too.

Here you are Mick, this should give you the inspiration!

[Cyril Haearn]

Hey MickF,Graham has retired, may we elect you as a new moderator?

[thirdcrank]

There are seven new forum members with dodgy websites amongst those who joined within the last couple of days.

[markjohnobrien]

Thanks - I’ll make sure I don’t click on any links from these seven.

[Paulatic]

Very useful links if you’re looking for a new stage curtain or some dental work in Australia.

[Bonefishblues]

Very useful links if you’re looking for a new stage curtain or some dental work in Australia.
4839177C-0131-4A40-980B-3207F9EAAC44.png

Or a dentist who likes to make an entrance

[DevonDamo]

Another dodgy new forum member has just graced us with a zombie spamming post. I've already reported them, but if you're quick, you can see what they're up to before their posts are deleted:

The most recent one:
viewtopic.php?p=1607933#p1607933

You'll see that the post from 'Lillianvaughanws' is resurrecting a 3 year old thread with a banal answer which is regurgitating info which was posted earlier in the thread. You might be forgiven for thinking there's nothing suspicious about this - just a dreary poster, who doesn't bother looking at what's been written (or when) before posting. However, you can see what their game is if you look at their previous contribution from last year:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=115399&p=1521610#p1521610

Same modus operandi: resurrecting an old thread. However, they've sneaked back to edit their post 10 days later to spam some trash paid-for diet plan. Going back to what I've previously said: it's a good thing to be a bit suspicious of new posters resurrecting old threads etc. Jumping in to the discussion just helps them by camouflaging the fact that they've resurrected a dead thread or made a pointlessly banal or barely-legible contribution.

(Edit: this is fun... Whichever moderator received my report has briefly woken up, deleted the first spam post, and then gone back to sleep, proud of the half-job they've just done. That explains why my second link above now just takes you to the first post in that thread, which no longer contains the spam post from 'Lillianvaughanws.' However, if you look at the first link above, you'll see that the moderator has obviously taken a very liberal and broad-minded approach and decided that this proven-spammer still has a valuable role to play on our forum, and not banned them or deleted their latest dodgy post. I don't know which moderator we've got to thank for this one as they didn't send me any notification when they acted on my report but, comically, one of the two people who replied after the spammer resurrected the first thread above is our spam-buster MickF. I'm curious to see what 'Lillianvaughanws' plans to hit us with over the next few days, but whether it's spam or something worse, this one is going to be a real comedy of errors for our mod team!)

[drossall]

]Is that so? I must admit, I have some doubts about FF these days, although I still use it regularly. Main problems are with layout. I'm told that, as an 'independent', its record on privacy is better than Chrome or Edge. But any advice welcome! - though I don't promise to follow it!

Sorry, I've only just noticed that post. I wasn't offering advice on which browser to use, merely remarking that, statistically, most people won't be on Firefox. I didn't check my facts in advance either. But mobile usage is large now - at least half, depending on the site - and will tend to be Safari (iPhone/iPad) or Chrome (Android). Chrome, Edge and Safari all probably exceed Firefox on desktop and laptop devices.

As it happens, I'm currently using Firefox myself, having swapped back and forth with Chrome at various times.