Suspicious new forum members

[Psamathe]

I think it might be best if the feature which which allows links to be posted with text appearing instead of the website address were disabled. It's probably only a matter of time before a spammer or worse infiltrates the forum and uses that feature to conceal a malware link, i.e.

https://www.obviouslydodgylookinglink.com vs. This link is about bikes and is completely safe to click

I agree but the SPAMmers would just use URL shortners e.g. would you every visit https://bit.ly/3sTJnZf?

Ian

[thirdcrank]

... So I think we keep things as they are. .

A prompt, well-informed decision. End of.

[Bonefishblues]

... So I think we keep things as they are. .

A prompt, well-informed decision. End of.

...but probably worth another 16 pages of debate, I expect

[slowster]

I have never trusted links that use URL shorteners, and have never clicked on them when I have come across them, which probably shows what a suspicious/paranoid luddite I am. Is the problem of very long links so bad/common that they warrant keeping the potential vulnerability?

I think that unless a person is extremely disciplined, it is difficult to be confident of not clicking on any link on a forum without first hovering the cursor over it to check the web address. I maintain that level of self-discipline with emails, but that is much easier to do, since even where emails from apparently trusted senders contain links it is usually possible to type the web address manually into the browser or to find the website via google.

It is different with an internet forum, because much of the content is naturally engaging and interesting, and so it is much easier to be absorbed when reading a post and unthinkingly click on a link in it. A link that looks exactly like a safe familiar web address will catch some people out.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=145078
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/bottom-bracket-service-adjustable-cup-and-cone
https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m14b0s123p409/SCHWALBE-Inner-Tubes
https://www.wiggle.co.uk/shimano-acera-m360-rear-mech-78-speed

As for whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, that is inevitably a somewhat subjective judgement: anyone who gets caught out by a malicious link will have a different perspective.

[Mick F]

Speaking as a Spambuster.

Every time I log in, I check for new posters, and some of the new posters are spammers.
Varies a bit, but generally there's three or four a day new posters. Sometimes six or seven.

What I do, as I was originally told to, was to disapprove or approve new posters. Some seem like a valid and interesting first post, and some are outright spam. The good posters are approved, and the spam posters are disapproved and disappear from the forum so the "normal"users never see it in the first place.

I also have the abilities to ban users. By doing that with a new poster, the user is obliterated off the member list as well as their post too.
Maybe there are many many many spammers still members but have a zero post count as their spam has been deleted.

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.

[markjohnobrien]

Speaking as a Spambuster.

Every time I log in, I check for new posters, and some of the new posters are spammers.
Varies a bit, but generally there's three or four a day new posters. Sometimes six or seven.

What I do, as I was originally told to, was to disapprove or approve new posters. Some seem like a valid and interesting first post, and some are outright spam. The good posters are approved, and the spam posters are disapproved and disappear from the forum so the "normal"users never see it in the first place.

I also have the abilities to ban users. By doing that with a new poster, the user is obliterated off the member list as well as their post too.
Maybe there are many many many spammers still members but have a zero post count as their spam has been deleted.

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.

Excellent.

[661-Pete]

I agree but the SPAMmers would just use URL shortners e.g. would you every visit https://bit.ly/3sTJnZf?

You can safely check out a bitly shortened link, although it's a bit tedious: you have to carefully select (without clicking on it) the link; then copy-and-paste into your browser address bar, and add a + sign to the end of it. (Is there an easier way, anyone?)

With tinyurl it's a bit more straightforward, with a sticky option: just go to https://tinyurl.com/preview.php and check the preview feature is ON.

I don't know about other shorteners but these two seem to be the most popular ones.

[mjr]

(Is there an easier way, anyone?)

Drag and drop the link into the input box on https://linkunshorten.com or https://unshorten.it and click the button. That also saves having to remember how to preview links from each site.

[PDQ Mobile]

I am not good with new technology.
It doesn't really interest me so that's part of the problem.
And I distrust it because I feel I have too little control over what goes onto my device.

But sometimes a poster puts an internet link "behind" a word or a phrase.

So they might write, "check ii out here" and the "here" gets highlighted just as an internet link would.
( i don't know how they do it)

I never click on such a hidden link.

It seems to me you are all discussing something similar, though some specialist terms or abbreviations I don't understand.

The question is: is there a difference between a link hidden in the way I described and these URL shorteners?
Is one more trustworthy than the other ?

[Jdsk]

The things that people are describing are hyperlinks. They have a URL (which is where they take you) and some anchor text (the bit that is shown in the browser). The anchor text can be the URL itself or something that describes it, and that description can be honest or dishonest.

URL shorteners do what it says on the packet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_text
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL_shortening

Jonathan

[PDQ Mobile]

Thanks.

That's what I sort of thought.
So why is one deemed more risky?

No one has ever commented about "hyperlinks" and their trustworthiness that I am aware of or have seen discussed.

(Wiki is unavailable to me. )

[Jamesh]

Speaking as a Spambuster.

Every time I log in, I check for new posters, and some of the new posters are spammers.
Varies a bit, but generally there's three or four a day new posters. Sometimes six or seven.

What I do, as I was originally told to, was to disapprove or approve new posters. Some seem like a valid and interesting first post, and some are outright spam. The good posters are approved, and the spam posters are disapproved and disappear from the forum so the "normal"users never see it in the first place.

I also have the abilities to ban users. By doing that with a new poster, the user is obliterated off the member list as well as their post too.
Maybe there are many many many spammers still members but have a zero post count as their spam has been deleted.

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.

Mick please don't ban me for crossing the Mersey by ferry!!!

Phil would like you to though!

Cheers James

[mjr]

The question is: is there a difference between a link hidden in the way I described and these URL shorteners?
Is one more trustworthy than the other ?

Yes. The simple "hiding" you describe will be revealed in most browsers by hovering the pointer over (where it appears in a status bar or tooltip) or long-pressing (where it usually appears in a popup), but if a shortening service is used, that will only display the service's address, not any scam it may redirect to.

[PDQ Mobile]

The question is: is there a difference between a link hidden in the way I described and these URL shorteners?
Is one more trustworthy than the other ?

Yes. The simple "hiding" you describe will be revealed in most browsers by hovering the pointer over (where it appears in a status bar or tooltip) or long-pressing (where it usually appears in a popup), but if a shortening service is used, that will only display the service's address, not any scam it may redirect to.

Thanks.
I fear it is beyond me.
Tooltip?
Popup- I don't allow them, I think that's how it's set.

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

Such hidden links best avoided by digital incompetents, methinks.
Because we are easy prey to such.

And it does seem an awful faff to be certain nothing is amiss.

Cheers though.

[Jdsk]

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