(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!)
Er... I'm not sure what satisfaction you get from this sort of criticism, but I would appreciate it if, instead of posting mocking edits, you simply notified us.
As it happens, I *did* ban Lillianvaughanws, but for some reason it didn't work or wasn't processed correctly. That happens from time to time & I am not sure the cause. I have now deactivated the account.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
(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!)
Er... I'm not sure what satisfaction you get from this sort of criticism, but I would appreciate it if, instead of posting mocking edits, you simply notified us.
As it happens, I *did* ban Lillianvaughanws, but for some reason it didn't work or wasn't processed correctly. That happens from time to time & I am not sure the cause. I have now deactivated the account.
Not to worry VP. Post says much about the poster, and Forum contributors will read it as such, I'm sure.
Vorpal wrote: ↑21 May 2021, 11:40amEr... I'm not sure what satisfaction you get from this sort of criticism, but I would appreciate it if, instead of posting mocking edits, you simply notified us.
No need to take it personally: up until now, I had no idea that is was you that had dealt with this one as you hadn't acknowledged my report.
But your deletion of only one post left me in quandary: do I make a second report about this poster when the evidence of his ill-intent had already been deleted? Or do I gently mock the apparently moderation blunder and bide my time for the spammer/scammer to strike again before reporting it? I opted for the latter because discussion/argument about this can only be for the good - there are a surprising amount of people on this forum who'll jump in to debates started or resurrected by people who're clearly dodgy. As has been pointed out by your moderator colleagues earlier in this thread - our main defence against this sort of thing is users being aware and vigilant.
DevonDamo wrote: ↑21 May 2021, 2:10pm
No need to take it personally: up until now, I had no idea that is was you that had dealt with this one as you hadn't acknowledged my report.
I haven't taken it personally, and it doesn't really matter who dealt with it. It could have happened to any of us.
It would have been better to report the second post, as well. I left it place because it seemed harmless enough to leave that I didn't see the point in taking the time to move it. I didn't realise that the banning hadn't worked, and that is what should have been reported. A report also means that any moderator can deal with it. Editing your post might not be noticed by any of us.
As for acknowledging your report, you should at least have received a notice that the report was closed.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Vorpal wrote: ↑21 May 2021, 2:19pm
....that the report was closed.
As this thread ought to be, too, perhaps?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
I dip in and out of the forum nowadays rather than being on for an hour or more four or five times a day.
Consequently, I don't see it all, just see what I see and act accordingly. If I miss anything, it's because I'm not paying enough and constant attention.
ApologIsing?
I suppose I am, but see it from my point of view. Been on this forum since Adam was a lad, and TBH I've seen it all. At this moment, I have 51,700 posts as of when this new forum started in Jan 2007. I was a member of the previous incarnation and the one before that too. Add 'em all up and maybe it's 62,000+ perhaps.
Vorpal wrote: ↑21 May 2021, 2:19pm
It would have been better to report the second post, as well. I left it place because it seemed harmless enough to leave that I didn't see the point in taking the time to move it. I didn't realise that the banning hadn't worked, and that is what should have been reported. A report also means that any moderator can deal with it. Editing your post might not be noticed by any of us.
As for acknowledging your report, you should at least have received a notice that the report was closed.
Nope - no acknowledgement of any sort. It seems there may be glitches in the moderation system, i.e. with banning members and providing closure notices to members after dealing with their reports. One to raise with @admin perhaps?
As for reporting the second post, my report actually provided a condensed version of what I'd written on the previous page, i.e. identifying the suspicious user and the fact that they'd just made a second post following the same modus operandi. As I said earlier, clicking 'report' on their latest innocent-looking post seemed a bit futile after their incriminating post had already been deleted.
As for this suggestion:
661-Pete wrote: ↑21 May 2021, 2:35pmAs this thread ought to be, too, perhaps?
Locking/deleting this thread is fine by me. With our excellent track-record of recognising potentially malevolent content, we should be fine without it.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how, naming a potted plant as Dracaena marginata, could possibly be deemed to be 'malevolent content'?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
661-Pete wrote: ↑21 May 2021, 9:48pm
Perhaps someone could explain to me how, naming a potted plant as Dracaena marginata, could possibly be deemed to be 'malevolent content'?
I think the issue comes in the use of signatures, links in signatures. Make a few innocent posts so your membership is accepted then change your signature to e.g. some viagra pharmacy and your link appears instantly in all those posts.
Whilst few member would be reading those now old innocuous posts and so would not see those links, search engines use links from other (reputable) sites to help rate a link. So if I create a TurboPharmacy.com web site, tell Google they will rank it based on content of the site. But if Google start seeing links to TurboPharmacy.com appearing in other (reputable) sites they'll treat that as a positive reflection about TurboPharmacy.com and improve it's ranking (higher up/nearer the start of search results).
Make a load of innocuous posts, wait a few weeks and when you then add your dodgy link to your signature nobody will notice but search engine crawlers will still see it...
661-Pete wrote: ↑21 May 2021, 9:48pm
Perhaps someone could explain to me how, naming a potted plant as Dracaena marginata, could possibly be deemed to be 'malevolent content'?
I certainly couldn't because it isn't. (The explanation for what happened is in my post on the previous page of this thread.)
661-Pete wrote: ↑21 May 2021, 9:48pm
Perhaps someone could explain to me how, naming a potted plant as Dracaena marginata, could possibly be deemed to be 'malevolent content'?
I think the issue comes in the use of signatures, links in signatures. Make a few innocent posts so your membership is accepted then change your signature to e.g. some viagra pharmacy and your link appears instantly in all those posts.
Thanks, that makes it clear now. I suppose one remedy might be to disallow URLs in sig. lines. And perhaps not to allow a sig. line at all until the member has made a certain minimum number of posts. Would this be possible with phpbb?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
IMO suspicions about people posting in bad faith are best dealt with by using the existing reporting system for several reasons including the possibility that suspicions may be unfounded and therefore offensive to the poster, or that open reporting may give more publicity to the would be troll or spammer.
IMO While some of us may feel a personal interest in our own reports, their only value can be in improving things for the membership as a whole.
IMO Getting publicly personal over the moderation seems to me unacceptable, and I'll bite my tongue over the apparent motivation in some cases.
That's not to say that the principles are closed to discussion, so long as the discussion is aimed at improving things generally.
