hate that quantity gets rewarded here

[Anthony]

I do like the idea of removing signatures for members who are are only posting for the link and not returning it until they improve their posting. If a member has their signature removed they should not qualify for the recognition.

We implemented the 10 post policy because we were getting a lot of PM spam and it was difficult to effectively deal with it. But I do see in doing so we created the issue of the "spam to get 10". Guess it is a picking the less of two evils.

We will have to look at it, maybe we can set a limit on the PM's for new members. I will explore what options we have and when Michael gets back next week share this thread with him there are a lot of good ideas.

[TheGooner]

However, your first statement, while it maybe relative to your postings needs, it isn't relative to mine, and possibly not others either.

Are you sure?

You've posted about 3000 times in 13 years - or about 4700 days.
That's about 0.63 posts per day.

I've posted 3800 times in 11.5 years - or about 4200 days.
That's about 0.90 posts per day.

I think 5 posts a day would suit 99% of real contributors .. or perhaps real contributors 99% of the time ...
Either way it would cut the problem quickly.

[Sherlock]

Yes, and new posters will have 5 posts by day 1 and 10 by day 2
On the top average 1 per day means that there are days when more than 5 is needed (since for me there are weeks and months when I do not even come here), especially when there will be an interesting topic.

[TheGooner]

On the top average 1 per day means that there are days when more than 5 is needed (since for me there are weeks and months when I do not even come here), especially when there will be an interesting topic.

Needed? Needed really?
No - not needed at all.

If you know there are daily limited posts - then you'll make them count - by including more content.
Result? Better posts.

[Sherlock]

Yes, I would really love to post to the forum, to keep my posts counting, answer to the questions that will be asked in future, because there used to be spammers (and they will be there even with 5 posts/day), so will remind me the absurdity of the world, where honesty is castrated and scams are rewarded.

It is obvious that nobody at GPWA wants to do the job. If they wanted, they would solve the problem now (and the problem would emerge later). I have the same problem right now, I fired another person who does not want/is not able to work on something like moderation of the forum. It is just dark times. It is not easy to fight this, when you can easily win the next round but you know it is a whack a mole, so you have to keep fighting to the end, when you will simply not be able to fight anymore.

But why not 5 posts, it does not matter what will be made. It just has to be made quick until we all will have 5 posts in this thread.

[AussieDave]

Are you sure?

You've posted about 3000 times in 13 years - or about 4700 days.
That's about 0.63 posts per day.

I've posted 3800 times in 11.5 years - or about 4200 days.
That's about 0.90 posts per day.

That's average posts. You haven't factored in holidays and other days, when, for whatever reason, I'm not at the forum.
Hence your attempt to justify your argument is flawed.

Furthermore, some day's I, as I'm sure may others do too, post 5+ times in one day. EG - it's easy to rack up a high daily post count, when, you get your teeth stuck into an informative quality thread, with equally knowledgeable, informative posters.

These instances are akin to reading a decent book - one you simply can't put down, even though it's time for bed

will remind me the absurdity of the world, where honesty is castrated and scams are rewarded.

Yes, an unfortunate causality of the world, these days.

[FictionNet]

I might be wrong, Dave, but I *think* Gooner is on the same page as you but wires are mixed It'd be interesting to compare a particular spammer's 'average post per day' to that of a 'real' forum member.

[AussieDave]

The spammy dribble posts are annoying for sure, they can, and I have seen them, dilute threads to a complete waste of bytes. However, aside from these bot-like-posts, it's the "Thank You" button which is being abused to no end.

If you take a look at any member's post, you'll find their stats listed in the top right hand section of their post. Those members who are abusing the "Thank You" button, have number which are totally off the scale. You need to look for the entry Thanks:

One particular member has used the Thank You button: 7,873 times.

I've compare that number against a handful of GPWA old timers here who continue to post on a regular basis. I've also compared that number to newer active members, again that number is way over-the-top. It's off the scale.

Of the members spamming, one in particular seems to favour visiting historical, outdated pages, and adding covert Thank You's.

How much clearer do people want the picture to be, that this particular member has, it seems, the sole agenda to create a plethora of links back to their GPWA profile, be this via indiscriminate, and random Thank You's, and dribble spam posts.

The majority of GPWA members are respectful of the rules. They know what's ethical right and wrong. There's unfortunately a small minority of GPWA members who are essentially abusing their membership here, and instead using this community to feather their own nests.

Why should the majority be penalized, for unethical actions of the minority...

Granted, a forum will always be susceptible to spammers - it goes with the territory.

In closing... If the spammers wont take a hint, or learn from previous warnings/suspensions, then they don't deserve to hold GPWA membership.

[JamieG1981]

The spammy dribble posts are annoying for sure, they can, and I have seen them, dilute threads to a complete waste of bytes. However, aside from these bot-like-posts, it's the "Thank You" button which is being abused to no end.

If you take a look at any member's post, you'll find their stats listed in the top right hand section of their post. Those members who are abusing the "Thank You" button, have number which are totally off the scale. You need to look for the entry Thanks:

One particular member has used the Thank You button: 7,873 times.

I've compare that number against a handful of GPWA old timers here who continue to post on a regular basis. I've also compared that number to newer active members, again that number is way over-the-top. It's off the scale.

Of the members spamming, one in particular seems to favour visiting historical, outdated pages, and adding covert Thank You's.

How much clearer do people want the picture to be, that this particular member has, it seems, the sole agenda to create a plethora of links back to their GPWA profile, be this via indiscriminate, and random Thank You's, and dribble spam posts.

As I mentioned previously I use the Tapatalk app, when you click on a person's profile it also shows you what other groups/forums that person follows.

The same person you mention above is a member of over 125 other groups/forums. I'm guessing this is just 1 or many forums that are following a similar pattern.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[FictionNet]

Okay, I'm clearly being a moron here then 'cos I've spotted the 'poster' giving and receiving a bazillion 'thanks' but I didn't think much of it.

What do the number of 'thanks' a poster gives or receives matter? Does it contribute towards being on gpwa's front page or something? If so, I had no idea and it makes total sense why I've been seeing it misused.

[Progger]

Another all in solution...

1.Make the signatures invisible, for unregistred Users and bots like Google.
2.And exactly the same rule for the members page´s - example https://www.gpwa.org/member/aussiedave

Regards

[AussieDave]

Okay, I'm clearly being a moron here then 'cos I've spotted the 'poster' giving and receiving a bazillion 'thanks' but I didn't think much of it.

What do the number of 'thanks' a poster gives or receives matter? Does it contribute towards being on gpwa's front page or something?

The person who uses the Thank You Button... that adds a direct link back to their GPWA profile. If they have their site url(s) on their profile page (while link-juice maybe next to zero or less), it's still viewed as link by Google.

Sure, We can argue that's OLD SCHOOL SEO...make up your own mind.

In so far as the updated alog for the monthly top member posters, I was under the impression, that Thank You's, now do play a role, if only a small % in the factoring process. Of course I could wrong.

As I mentioned previously I use the Tapatalk app, when you click on a person's profile it also shows you what other groups/forums that person follows.

The same person you mention above is a member of over 125 other groups/forums. I'm guessing this is just 1 or many forums that are following a similar pattern.

My apologies Jamie, I totally misunderstood your original post on that. I don't use taptalk. My mobile, is basically only used for phone calls and the occasional email when I'm out.

In relation to 125 groups/forums, that's a lot of places to be a member of. Hell this spamming agenda just gets worse and worse.

Which now begs the question... Given this is private member, and there has been speculation a BOT is being used... has anyone checked the login credentials? I mean, for all we know, this member has given some backlink SEO mob from India access to the GPWA private account.

Another all in solution...

1.Make the signatures invisible, for unregistred Users and bots like Google.
2.And exactly the same rule for the members page´s - example xxxxxxx

Thanks for using me as an example

Seriously though... Again, why should the majority of genuine GPWA members, be penalized, for the bad choices of a small minority?

It's like saying... Because Joe Blow broke the law and got a jail term, then anyone associated to Joe Blow, is also sent to jail!

[-Shay-]

The spammy dribble posts are annoying for sure, they can, and I have seen them, dilute threads to a complete waste of bytes. However, aside from these bot-like-posts, it's the "Thank You" button which is being abused to no end.

If you take a look at any member's post, you'll find their stats listed in the top right hand section of their post. Those members who are abusing the "Thank You" button, have number which are totally off the scale. You need to look for the entry Thanks:

One particular member has used the Thank You button: 7,873 times.

I've compare that number against a handful of GPWA old timers here who continue to post on a regular basis. I've also compared that number to newer active members, again that number is way over-the-top. It's off the scale.

Of the members spamming, one in particular seems to favour visiting historical, outdated pages, and adding covert Thank You's.

How much clearer do people want the picture to be, that this particular member has, it seems, the sole agenda to create a plethora of links back to their GPWA profile, be this via indiscriminate, and random Thank You's, and dribble spam posts.

The majority of GPWA members are respectful of the rules. They know what's ethical right and wrong. There's unfortunately a small minority of GPWA members who are essentially abusing their membership here, and instead using this community to feather their own nests.

Why should the majority be penalized, for unethical actions of the minority...

Granted, a forum will always be susceptible to spammers - it goes with the territory.

In closing... If the spammers wont take a hint, or learn from previous warnings/suspensions, then they don't deserve to hold GPWA membership.

Strip link to profile from the thanks = easy problem solved.

I used to use the thanks to mark where I last read a thread (in addition to giving the thumbs up to a post I mostly/totally agreed with or appreciated especially when I have commented/started a thread and also when I am following a thread but do not wish to comment). My thanks count is much higher than the one referenced. I quit doing that at such a scale when it became a discussion topic of abuse/potential abuse.

[wonderpunter]

The perfect link is to strip link from spammers.. not stop them using the boards.. because without links they wont post anyway.. last time this happend a certain spammers contribution dropped to 0.. or perhaps make new user sig links based upon approval just like membership

[AussieDave]

My thanks count is much higher than the one referenced. I quit doing that at such a scale when it became a discussion topic of abuse/potential abuse.

In the thread about this same member months back, you (along with someone else) were both supportive advocates for the member in question. It seems that your motivation in that thread, and this one alike, is adorning a one-eyed-blinker approach. Instead of accepting the fact this member is a bona fide GPWA spammer, and subsequently, we've all been played for suckers - you included!

What part of AGD placing this person on a Limited account, with no links, no profile links, no benefit to spam, and with that, this member stopped flooding AGD with spam. What part of that don't you get???!!!

Not to mention membership to 125 groups/forums on TapaTalk... All this sure resembles the profile of agenda driven spammer... just sayin

[-Shay-]

In the thread about this same member months back, you (along with someone else) were both supportive advocates for the member in question. It seems that your motivation in that thread, and this one alike, is adorning a one-eyed-blinker approach. Instead of accepting the fact this member is a bona fide GPWA spammer, and subsequently, we've all been played for suckers - you included!

What part of AGD placing this person on a Limited account, with no links, no profile links, no benefit to spam, and with that, this member stopped flooding AGD with spam. What part of that don't you get???!!!

Not to mention membership to 125 groups/forums on TapaTalk... All this sure resembles the profile of agenda driven spammer... just sayin

I would not so much say that I supported the individual. It may have seemed that way but I was not. I felt that the thread was an attack of a personal nature against him and as such, my preference was to defend him. This thread has not turned into what I feel is a personal attack against anyone. It has been a productive thread thus far and has discussed an issue without bordering inflammatory.

With that in mind, if you address one person who is a frequent abuser of the spammer arts then it makes sense to address all spam related issues. Taking away the carrots that encourage spamming works far better than punishing a single person.

The five suggestions below are common sense suggestions that eliminate the "true problem", as spammers spam because they have incentive to do so (a link to the profile which links to sites, recognition which leads to a link on the homepage). If you take away the incentive to spam, then it allows the forum to go back to a sharing of information.

1. remove footers altogether.
2. remove link to profile from the thanks people give.
3. end this top poster of the month thing.
4. set number of posts at 1 before members can PM. Zero tolerance for abuse of PM's (1 strike policy).
5. set zero tolerance policy for spammy, plagiarized, and/or inflammatory posts (1 strike policy).

[FictionNet]

This thread has not turned into what I feel is a personal attack against anyone. It has been a productive thread thus far and has discussed an issue without bordering inflammatory.

Agreed. Somehow, we're managing it. Regardless of who we are, every single poster in this thread - regardless of our stance - is trying to achieve the same result, ie. a better gpwa. All of us are very busy and have more productive ways we could be spending our time than discussing an issue of spam on a site's forum that we don't even own. But we're here discussing it, passionately, because we are a part of gpwa and don't like watching it become messed up. I firmly believe that noone in this thread is trying to hurt anyone else's feelings, despite voicing strong objections to others' views on what, if anything, should be done.

[RacingJim]

How about 50-100 posts to get a sig link. If it's proven all you've posted it drivel to get a sig link then close the account. I don't get how it's particularly hard. the only reason I see is like I've mentioned before, you don't mind the spammy posts cos you want your forum to seem more active, there can be no other reason for tolerating post-spam - we can all see it a mile off.

[DanHorvat]

I see the main spammer has received over 1.50 Thanks per post, a total of almost 2000 Thanks, which is more than most of us.

Two conclusions. One, using Thanks as a criterion won't work. Two, the spammer is more valuable to the forum than those members who are reluctant to post "because there are spammers on the forum".

I'd just leave it as is. If you want to beat the spammer, post instead of lurking.

You're turning into an eloquent lynch mob.

[Mattbar]

I see the main spammer has received over 1.50 Thanks per post, a total of almost 2000 Thanks, which is more than most of us.

A lot of those thanks have been earned in the affiliate payment threads, and therefore they may very well be justified. Although said person was accused a while back of just re-posting payment info from AfG.


A possible solution to this however is to only give signature and home page links to longer term contributors. If you've been adding to the forum and helping people for a long time you should be rewarded with a permanent 'hall of fame' style home page link and/or the facility to have a signature link.


This would remove those people who spam monthly just to get their links and would at the same time give new members something to aim for. Effectively saying if you become a valued member and contributor to the community then you can get added benefits.


If you base this on post counts then whatever the thresholds you will still get spammers, instead rather than this being threshold based it could be voted by the community, again retaining the integrity of the forum.


This is just my 2 cents worth. I still think GPWA is a great resource whatever, and personally I'm happy enough to ignore spammers and block their posts for the time being.