Spam reporting thread #32

Dit is een voortzetting van het onderwerp Spam reporting thread #31.

Dit onderwerp werd voortgezet door Spam reporting thread #33.

DiscussieSpam Fighters!

Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.

Spam reporting thread #32

Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.

1lilithcat
Bewerkt: dec 23, 2014, 10:12 am

PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING SPAM

Distinguish between the following, and flag the highest level of the violation:

-- Type 1: Irredeemable commercial spam: make sure to flag the member's profile, as well as the spammy activity. This type includes things selling strollers, pharmaceuticals, live-streaming sports games, porn, and/or trying to create traffic/links to sites for such things. Sufficient profile flags will automatically result in temporary suspension and deletion of the member's activity, so use your profile-flagging powers wisely and carefully.

-- Type 2: Teachable moments: DO NOT flag the member's profile, but DO flag the violating activity (e.g. self-promotional Talk post, group, or local venue). This type includes promotional activity that violates the Terms of Service (TOS), but where the member is potentially redeemable, e.g. overzealous authors, overzealous publishers, or other members with small TOS violations but who are otherwise using the site legitimately. These cases should be reported to staff (by sending a message or email to staff and/or or posting on this thread), so the member can be taught how to use the site.

Specific procedures:
-- Overzealous authors or publishers (these fall under type 2): do NOT flag the member's profile. Report to staff here or privately. You can also send the member a polite message pointing them to the terms, mentioning the "no promoting" language, and pointing them to the Do's and Don't page for authors: http://www.librarything.com/about_authors.php
-- Suspected sock-puppetry to promote a book, write fake reviews, and/or stack ratings: do not flag the profile, but report to staff here or by message, so staff can investigate. This is a serious violation for which members can be permanently banned.
-- Profile flags for commercial spammers only (type 1): On the member's profile page, click on the "report for spam" link, then follow instructions to flag the member. Again, this is only for commercial spam, not for "overzealous" authors, publishers, or booksellers, which should be reported to staff instead. See Talk post: http://www.librarything.com/topic/85810
-- Spam or promotional posts in a Talk topic (type 1 or 2): flag the post as an abuse of the terms of service.
-- Spam or promotional groups (types 1 and 2): flag new groups using the "flag this group" link.
-- Spam lists: report in this thread, and flag the member if it's commercial spam.
-- Spam works (type 1 spam): flag the work as spam on the work's editions page, and then vote on proposed work spam. Make sure to read the guidelines before proposing or voting, especially for what is not spam. Voting page: http://www.librarything.com/spam_works.php
-- Spam in a review (type 1), or an explicitly promotional review (type 2): flag the review as an abuse of the TOS, using the red flag.
-- Spam or promotion in "published reviews," or other CK fields (type 1 or 2): post here and/or delete.
-- Spam or egregious promotion/advertising in venues or events (type 1 or 2): post here and/or delete. Note that authors are permitted to add events for their books.
-- Spam in book links / quick links: post here and/or edit to remove spam.
-- Spam author names listed on a work: No current procedure. Tim has asked us not to change CK to indicate spammers, and not to combine spam authors together.
-- Not sure if it's spam? Post here, and explain why.

Please note that Tim has asked us not to use either CK or the combining system (whether works or authors) for spam fighting.

For more information see these wiki pages:
Procedures for flagging and reporting spam: http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Spam#Procedures_for_flagging_and_repo....
Spam works, guidelines for flagging and voting: http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/HelpThing:Spam_works

(A copy of these guidelines, for pasting in new threads, can be found here or at the top of previous threads.)

3MsMaryAnn
dec 2, 2014, 9:54 am

author touting own book

http://www.librarything.com/topic/183677

left link about authors on profile

4MarthaJeanne
dec 3, 2014, 1:55 am

http://www.librarything.com/topic/183710

An author who obviously does know better.

10Taphophile13
Bewerkt: dec 5, 2014, 12:08 am

joined today, first review links to website, sells talismans/magic spells
http://www.librarything.com/work/book/114531671
http://www.librarything.com/profile/nowspells1

16MsMaryAnn
dec 5, 2014, 12:26 pm

>15 MsMaryAnn: 12:25 Need 1 more flag on each

17MsMaryAnn
Bewerkt: dec 5, 2014, 12:28 pm

author promo

http://www.librarything.com/topic/183832

left message on profile

18MsMaryAnn
dec 5, 2014, 6:04 pm

Spam profile images. The pics aren't flaggable but the profile is.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/updatedreviews

25MsMaryAnn
dec 6, 2014, 12:05 pm

Spam profile images. The pics aren't flaggable but the profile is.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/ertqaa

35rsterling
dec 7, 2014, 11:52 am

https://www.librarything.com/profile/staceymstewart
Also added spam quick link, which I'll scrub and mark for deletion now.

38Taphophile13
dec 7, 2014, 3:34 pm

46Taphophile13
dec 8, 2014, 3:17 pm

49Lyndatrue
dec 8, 2014, 7:31 pm

>48 Luisali: I see all those were added on April 12th. I don't see a way to flag them. I flagged the profile (although I don't know that it matters, since it seems that this was a hit and run attack, as most are).

I'd guess that you could notify someone on staff, such as lorannen, who may have a handle on how to remove it.

562wonderY
dec 9, 2014, 11:46 am

Listen up troops.

That last one took more than 11 minutes to destroy.

Stay vigilant!

572wonderY
dec 9, 2014, 12:15 pm

MUCH better!

58Meredy
dec 9, 2014, 2:36 pm

>56 2wonderY: Why? What happened?

592wonderY
dec 9, 2014, 3:08 pm

Knock-down time resumed the 60 second average. I think SantaThing has pulled people's attention away from guard duty. ;)

60MarthaJeanne
dec 9, 2014, 3:15 pm

Europe's morning they sometimes stay around for 30 minutes or so. Not enough of us online.

62MarthaJeanne
dec 10, 2014, 2:41 am

Author spam
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184008 (both messages)

63MarthaJeanne
Bewerkt: dec 10, 2014, 2:52 am

>61 Yamanekotei: That one took 25 minutes.

However http://www.librarything.com/topic/184022 has gathered 3flags in four minutes.

68Yamanekotei
dec 10, 2014, 11:48 am

>63 MarthaJeanne:

I knew it would have taken longer time. At that time there were only 63 people online, and not all of them are spam fighters.

But 25 min? Hmmmm...

69Lyndatrue
dec 10, 2014, 11:49 am

>68 Yamanekotei: How can you tell that there were 63 people online? Can you see whether they were active, or idle?

70Yamanekotei
dec 10, 2014, 11:55 am

I saw the number on the bottom of the page. It said 63, now it is 209. It is only the number of people who is logged on (and open LT page on a browser), doesn't show if that person is actively posting, nor idle, though.

71Lyndatrue
dec 10, 2014, 12:01 pm

>70 Yamanekotei: I'm usually logged in all night, while I'm sleeping. I suspect that's true of at least half of those 63, perhaps more. I don't think I pay much attention to the bottom of the page, but now I'm going to be checking it compulsively. It currently says 199; I'd have expected more, but I guess it's like anything else online. Perhaps 10% of any community, from mailing lists to forums, tends to be active.

Thanks for the info; very interesting.

72hailelib
dec 10, 2014, 12:11 pm

Actually, I'm pretty sure that number reflects the number of people who have actually done something on LT within the last "X" minutes.

73MarthaJeanne
dec 10, 2014, 1:53 pm

>68 Yamanekotei: I was a lot more surprised at how fast the next one disappeared.

75Taphophile13
dec 10, 2014, 5:49 pm

82henkl
dec 11, 2014, 6:57 am

83MarthaJeanne
dec 11, 2014, 6:58 am

>81 2wonderY: is gone (just under 1/2 hour)
>80 2wonderY: still needs one flag after 20 minutes.

86MsMaryAnn
dec 12, 2014, 1:41 pm

Author self promo:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/184190

Left comment on profile

87Taphophile13
dec 12, 2014, 2:24 pm

88Taphophile13
dec 12, 2014, 4:30 pm

93MsMaryAnn
dec 12, 2014, 5:13 pm

SPAM profile image. The image isn't flaggable but the profie is.
http://www.librarything.com/profile/tollfreenumbers

97Helenliz
dec 13, 2014, 8:21 am

Loads and loads of Bam War spam on Book talk. Get flagging, it's the entire front page right now.

98zjakkelien
dec 13, 2014, 8:37 am

Help!!! Enormous amount of flaggable posts in book talk... I can't flag fast enough to catch them all...

99calm
dec 13, 2014, 8:38 am

This is impossible. Can't keep up

100JackieCarroll
dec 13, 2014, 8:50 am

The topics say that the user is removed for spam, but the topic still appears in the list.

101MarthaJeanne
Bewerkt: dec 13, 2014, 9:02 am

Well, this one seems to be over. It would be better if the topics were to disappear as soon as the user is removed, though.

Spoke too soon.

102Helenliz
dec 13, 2014, 9:03 am

Spoke too soon - more on its way.

103calm
dec 13, 2014, 9:03 am

You spoke to soon, there is another one!

104zjakkelien
dec 13, 2014, 9:03 am

Yeah, it seems to have stopped now, but that was not fun... I've never been online during such a spam onslaught, but now I feel there should be a way of flagging ALL of someone's posts, for cases such as this... Everytime I moved away to flag someone's profile there were 5 more by a different profile byt the time I got back. If a profile is suspended, it would be nice if all the posts they started that have no comments were removed...

105zjakkelien
dec 13, 2014, 9:05 am

Thanks for the heads-up getting on it...

111zjakkelien
dec 13, 2014, 9:22 am

Ok, flagged all of the last ones, but I have to go to the hairdresser now. Hope that was it...

117Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 9:31 am

Is it over? And what can we do to stop this sooner next time?

118MsMaryAnn
dec 13, 2014, 9:42 am

>117 Taphophile13: I wonder if "bamwar" can be prevented from setting up profiles? I think flagging the hell out of the profile first will suspend the account preventing further emails. After the person has been suspended the posts that got through disappear even if they only have a few flags.

119Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 9:46 am

>118 MsMaryAnn: I just left a message for Tim. These attacks seem to be coming faster and harder. I would like to see a way to flag them all immediately into oblivion or prevent them from creating accounts. I wonder if they are all coming from a particular IP address. I think other sites are being attacked too.

120JackieCarroll
dec 13, 2014, 9:49 am

Next time I'll try going for the profiles first. Each profile makes several posts that should disappear when we kill the profile. At least, I think they do.

121Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 9:52 am

>120 JackieCarroll: sounds like a good plan — we all hit the profiles instead of the individual threads

122MsMaryAnn
dec 13, 2014, 9:55 am

>119 Taphophile13: A quick internet search brings up pages and pages, thousands of hits!

123Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 9:59 am

>122 MsMaryAnn: Yes, I saw that. It's scary. I don't really know what the thing is but it's making me very uneasy. I wonder if someone is trying to bring down the internet.

1242wonderY
dec 13, 2014, 10:22 am

Many active members don't bother about spam, but perhaps we need to recruit everyone to at least star this one thread. Yikes, I'm sorry I missed helping. I'm just coming on.

125Lyndatrue
dec 13, 2014, 11:33 am

>123 Taphophile13: Trust me in this one. It would take a whole lot more than this to bring down the internet. I've been involved (off and on) in that world from the beginning (from the days of Usenet, and Clarence L. Thomas IV, and Canter & Siegel). It tends to show up in waves. The groups that actively fight this manage to get one source shut down, but another seems to spring up in its place. It's whack-a-mole of the most pernicious type.

For the tl;dr crowd, here's a nice quote from Wikipedia:
The first widely recognized Usenet spam (though not the most famous) was posted on 18 January 1994 by Clarence L. Thomas IV, a sysadmin at Andrews University.

The best known group for fighting spam is MAAWG: https://www.maawg.org/

126Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 11:36 am

>125 Lyndatrue: Thanks for the info, Lynda. I just really don't understand the spam mindset.

127zjakkelien
dec 13, 2014, 11:42 am

>124 2wonderY: I don't think that would help. Under normal circumstances any spam posted here is already flagged to oblivion by the time I see it. And under the unusual circumstances of today, I think it's difficult to miss, right?

I always also hit the profile on the first spam post when it's blatant links as we have seen today, by the way. Still, some way to flag more than one profile at a time would be appreciated. Perhaps a button that appears when you've flagged a profile that allows to flag all the posts made by that profile within the least X minutes.

Or if that's considered too agressive, perhaps having that option only under certain circumstances? I envision a spam version of martial law: when it's clear we are under attack, it becomes easier to flag people... Would it not be possible to automatically detect that we are under attack? E.g. by the number of messages per minute rising all of a sudden, in particular messages by newly made profiles?

1282wonderY
dec 13, 2014, 11:55 am

And is a weekend attack most likely because admin is short staffed?

129MarthaJeanne
dec 13, 2014, 12:17 pm

The really bad pharmacy ones that led to the current spam tools were also on a weekend.

130Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 1:11 pm

BAMWAR IS BACK! FLAG THE SPAMMER PROFILE!!!!

133Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 1:17 pm

135Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 1:18 pm

What an amazing number of spam posts we have today! Very annoying!
Some way to block it before it drowns the whole site would be nice.

143Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 1:25 pm

I flagged them all, and it seems to help: the spam posts have disappeared from the talk list on the homepage.

But it's still annoying!

156Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 1:38 pm

>154 Taphophile13: You find them faster than I can flag them! Impressive!

158Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 1:42 pm

>156 Ennas: Thanks. I'll keep posting them if you flag them for me. Such an onslaught. Obviously there's a machine doing this and we are only human.

159Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 1:47 pm

>158 Taphophile13: I have this vision of all these cans of Spam flying around in our library, threatening our preciousss booksss. Eek! Bring out the Spam Busters!

160Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 1:51 pm

>159 Ennas: I know what you mean. I love to read quietly. It's very soothing — and then this thing happens and is so stressful. I really do feel as if we are being attacked.

161Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 1:53 pm

>160 Taphophile13: We ARE being attacked! By spam bots, I guess.

162Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 1:55 pm

Looks like we have a slight breather but I am sure it will be back.

163timspalding
dec 13, 2014, 1:57 pm

Hey, I'm just coming into this.

It looks like our automatic spam-removal—based on your flagging, btw—is working to some extent.

Tell me a little bit about how it's been blooming, from your perspective?

164Yamanekotei
dec 13, 2014, 1:58 pm

Open each of "Members with xxxxxxx's books" and see if the account is not a flaggable account. Otherwise flag them all. It seems easier way to bust effectively.

165Yamanekotei
dec 13, 2014, 2:01 pm

166MsMaryAnn
dec 13, 2014, 2:01 pm

>163 timspalding: First it was talk threads in Book Talk, then moved on to works and reviews of those works.

167timspalding
dec 13, 2014, 2:04 pm

Right. I don't actually think it's automated. But it's pretty assaulting.

168calm
dec 13, 2014, 2:05 pm

> 163 Talk threads were so bad that my browser offered to translate the page, the spammer changed names every six threads or so and it just kept on coming. The new wrinkle is that they are now posting spam books and reviews instead of just having a blank profile. Don't know if they are going to target talk again or not.

169Taphophile13
Bewerkt: dec 13, 2014, 2:16 pm

It's been whack-a-mole as >125 Lyndatrue: said. Every time we flagged a thread five more popped up. Then they started posting five 5-star reviews per account. It's exhausting to try to get ahead of them.

170Ennas
Bewerkt: dec 13, 2014, 2:07 pm

>163 timspalding: When I came online this morning, and this evening, the talk list on the home page was completely filled with messages in chinese(? japanese? something similar?). I checked a few profiles and they all looked very suspicious.

This is keeping the not-so-very-automatic spam removal very busy!

ETA What they said! ^

171Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 2:07 pm

>170 Ennas: I put some of them into Google translate and it comes back as Korean but the messages don't make much sense.

172Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 2:09 pm

>171 Taphophile13: Spamming usually doesn't make much sense, does it? :-(

173Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 2:12 pm

>167 timspalding: Maybe a spam prevention thingy would help? A picture with numbers that you have to type before posting or something similar? Only for very new members, so real LTers won't be bothered with it.

174Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 2:13 pm

>167 timspalding:
Would it be possible to move the "Report for spam - red flag" up to the "Add to" box at the top of a profile page so that we don't have to scroll down each time? Any way we could make a sort of lightning edit to red flag all posts by bamwar hooligans?

175Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 2:14 pm

>173 Ennas: I think that's called a captcha. It might work for bots but do we know if we are dealing with machines? Humans could get through.

176timspalding
dec 13, 2014, 2:19 pm

Yeah, Seth (our systems administrator) and I are convinced these are NOT automated. Captchas, such as we have when you make a new account, do not work against people--they just slow them down. While never say never, we are fairly good against automated attacks, at least of the worst kind. (Presumably these spammers automated what they do to some extent--shortcuts and such--but they're not bots per se.)

But you can do a fair amount of damage quickly without automation—just make an account and post shit.

Anyway, I'm looking at ways to tighten.

177Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 2:19 pm

>174 Taphophile13: At least the bots would be blocked, then. It might make a difference. :-)
And would this kind of nonsense really be done by humans? What's the use!?

178Taphophile13
Bewerkt: dec 13, 2014, 2:22 pm

179Yamanekotei
dec 13, 2014, 2:24 pm

Members with isabel1118's books

weighted | raw | recent

jeffchan291 (3/5), jayarcalaguas (3/5), nicksonmary (3/5), maricel01 (3/7), judith236 (2/4), bimbi367 (2/5), vickyops2292 (2/5), janekeng1793 (2/5), john25890 (2/5), bangs0021 (2/5), agnes52 (2/5), marvinocampo2190 (2/6), jerald09 (1/5), jayvon786 (1/5), yeen009 (1/5), kirbydimarucut (1/5), randelpangan (1/5), carlmusang (1/5), lousabate89 (1/5), rainiersotto (1/5), anne156402 (1/5), marilou9917 (1/5), raymartsantos (1/5), chric741 (1/5), antonmariano (1/5), nicolemanarang3089 (1/5), cho63 (1/5), loisa7877 (1/5), jyumul (1/5), japeth943 (1/5), cellmorales17 (1/6), joshuabianson1293 (1/6), daniel753 (1/6)

I suspect most of them are spammer accounts...?

180Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 2:26 pm

>179 Yamanekotei: I recognize those names. You will see most if not all of them in this thread already.

181timspalding
dec 13, 2014, 2:29 pm

>179 Yamanekotei:

Don't worry about those guys. They'll be dead soon, if they're not already.

182Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 2:32 pm

>181 timspalding: Maybe there is a way to use that information to block spammers? If too many 'people' with the same few 'books' sign up in a very short time, they are probably spammers.

183Yamanekotei
Bewerkt: dec 13, 2014, 2:41 pm

>180 Taphophile13: I saw quite a few of them myself also. Not just flagging one user, but open and check if the members with similar library would be effective spam flagging, I assume.

>181 timspalding: I won't worry, but be bothered by them. :-/

184timspalding
dec 13, 2014, 2:58 pm

There are all sorts of automated systems in place. To some extent, they were effective. But they need to be more so.

I'm working on it today. Previous plans shelved…

185SylviaC
dec 13, 2014, 4:16 pm

>184 timspalding: For the record, this is what my talk page looked like at one point this morning:

186timspalding
dec 13, 2014, 4:48 pm

Uy.

187JackieCarroll
dec 13, 2014, 5:12 pm

I came in and saw the same talk page twice today. I'm doing my best to peek in from time to time, but it's going to take a lot of us to keep this under control.

188MarthaJeanne
dec 13, 2014, 5:23 pm

Yes, the whole page full of Korean when I came on at one point.

Can you put something in place specifically to stop Bam War?

The other thing we have talked about before is some sort of delay for new members so that each posting takes a few minutes.Without wanting to be unfriendly to legitimate new members, I can hardly think that there is any legitimate need for a new member, or an old member for that matter, to post more than one post a minute. From that screen shot you see that they were doing 4 or 5.

189zjakkelien
dec 13, 2014, 5:56 pm

>188 MarthaJeanne: I like the idea. I think I was flagging for half an hour straight, it became almost hypnotic. But the posters were faster then my flagging, particularly when I was taking time out from post-flagging to flag a profile. If they would be slowed down, then we could at least keep up.

And less clicks to flag would also be helpful. Perhaps remove the post-flag button from behind the 'more'? And the suggestion in >174 Taphophile13: sounds good too, less scrolling means faster flagging.

I'm not sure if you read the whole thread for suggestions, Tim, but it would also be helpful if after flagging a profile we could flag all posts by that profile. That would have caught all 5-6 posts by that profile in one go. Or, if you don't like the idea, flag all posts by that profile that were posted in the last XX minutes. Or give us these extra flagging options only if we are under attack (it should be possible to detect that automatically, I'd think?)

190Ennas
dec 13, 2014, 6:01 pm

"...if we're under attack...' sounds pretty ominous!

But I agree! We need some kind of martial library law when something like this is happening.

191timspalding
dec 13, 2014, 6:02 pm

The focus should be, I think, on flagging profiles. Flagging posts doesn't get rid of users, and, to avoid free speech issues, it's time-consuming and hard to get rid of posts that way. You guys did a lot of it, but it clearly took too much effort.

I think the problem is that the automatic process isn't running often enough, isn't considering enough information, or not generalizing to other similar users quick enough.

Anyway, site admins now have MUCH more powerful analysis and killing tools—tools adapted to the current problem, of non-bot spam attacks.

192Meredy
dec 13, 2014, 6:03 pm

Or give a bigger hammer and a little extra flagging power to people with established records as reliable spam fighters? I'm thinking maybe at least deputize and arm them when the alarms are sounding.

193timspalding
dec 13, 2014, 6:06 pm

>192 Meredy:

That logic exists. If you flag people and your flags end up holding up—not overturned by staff, agreed to by others—your hammer gets bigger and bigger. The bigger the hammer, the faster a flagged profile goes down.

Anyway, I'm reviewing the code to see the best generalizable responses.

194zjakkelien
dec 13, 2014, 6:33 pm

>191 timspalding: I understand your reasoning about focusing on flagging profiles, but the posts mess up our talk page... But if flagging the profiles would get rid of the posts as well, I'd be happy.

>193 timspalding: I like that idea!

195MarthaJeanne
dec 13, 2014, 6:38 pm

Part of the problem was that posts were still showing on the talk page from Spammers who had been removed. Once the spammer profile has been removed, the posts need to disappear totally like they do on the fourth flag.

198Lyndatrue
Bewerkt: dec 13, 2014, 7:19 pm

>195 MarthaJeanne: is correct. When the profile is flagged for spamming, and staff concur (or there's enough flags, or whatever the behind the scenes magic is), then the posts should be deleted as well (on the assumption that this could be automated).

A word to people who are posting Profile + Topic (or Group, or Review...):

If you post *why* it's flag-able (such as the mention of "livestream"), I will flag the profile first, before even checking on the topics. If you're someone who posts here often, and I've already seen your selections, I'm just going to trust, and I'll flag the profile. If you're new to this, I might actually look at your own profile first (you never know; there are mean people everywhere).

Right after I flag the profile, I look at the Topic (or Group, etc), and flag it if it's still there.

Death to spammers!

199tim_monster_spammer
Bewerkt: dec 13, 2014, 8:11 pm

Deze gebruiker is verwijderd als spam.

200Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 8:13 pm

flagged the profile as requested
(nice name by the way)

201MsMaryAnn
dec 13, 2014, 8:14 pm

202lilithcat
dec 13, 2014, 8:23 pm

Just flagged the profile, both still there.

203timspalding
dec 13, 2014, 8:35 pm

Dead now.

204timspalding
Bewerkt: dec 13, 2014, 8:37 pm

So, took between 12 minutes and 24 minutes.

The question is whether the process is running too seldom, or whether it's not sensitive enough to changes.

205Taphophile13
dec 13, 2014, 8:44 pm

The number of people online who recognize and flag spam could also be a factor.

206Lyndatrue
dec 13, 2014, 9:11 pm

I'm only checking in now and then. I wonder if you (timspalding) might consider weighting more strongly specific people that flag profiles that you trust, and that flagging a profile by one or more of them might trigger an extra run of your process that starts immediately (or as near as possible). I *do* think that there's more of this on the weekends, and other times, when there's less staff, and less spam fighters to flag profiles.

207tim_spammer_moster2
dec 14, 2014, 12:38 am

Deze gebruiker is verwijderd als spam.

208timspalding
dec 14, 2014, 12:44 am

Yeah, the problem is that—so far—only you have flagged me.

Help!

209timspalding
dec 14, 2014, 12:46 am

Okay, scorbet did it. Waiting…

210timspalding
dec 14, 2014, 12:46 am

That did it.

211timspalding
Bewerkt: dec 14, 2014, 12:47 am

So, eight minutes…

212timspalding
dec 14, 2014, 12:51 am

So, the major changes I've done:

1. Changed the weighting of confidence. You've all got higher scores now, basically. But newbie members with no track record do not.
2. Changed the threshold of confidence before someone is marked as potential spam.
3. Changed the process to run all parts every two minutes. Before there were three parts, and they ran every three minutes. Effectively this meant that, if the situation was ripe for removal it would take 3 minutes to decide to remove a user, 6 minutes to do it and 9 minutes to remove the content. Now the steps run consecutively, and I reduced it to every 2 minutes.

I have more ideas on how to deal with the specific situation last night, but I'm going to rest on these for now. And we'll see if they come back and how fast they go down.

213Lyndatrue
dec 14, 2014, 12:53 am

Eight minutes is a WHOLE lot better than what we sometimes see when it's early Europa time, and I'm still up (but not necessarily thinking to check here). I've seen posts here that had posted topics along with profiles, and the topic would have perhaps two flags on it (counting mine). I don't know if there's a way that regular users can see if a profile's already been flagged, and if so, how many times, but I think not everyone's been flagging profiles as diligently as they do topics.

I may be an outlier on the flag profile, then return and flag anything left, but I think after today, that may change, as it becomes more apparent that flagging the profile of the most egregious type of spammer is more useful than just flagging topics.

214Lyndatrue
dec 14, 2014, 12:54 am

>212 timspalding: Also...

Sleep well, and thanks very much for being one of the good guys, and for giving me such an interesting place to fall in love with.

XXOO

215timspalding
dec 14, 2014, 12:55 am

>213 Lyndatrue:

Yeah. Flagging topics helps, but it only helps the flagging of profiles, as it were. That is, flagged topics confirm a profile problem. But no user can have their status changed without profile flags.

I'm going to look at the wording post flagging. That should point people to flagging profiles in such cases.

216Scorbet
dec 14, 2014, 2:48 am

>213 Lyndatrue:

I tend to open both post and profile in two separate tabs, and then flag both, in the hope that one or the other will work and get rid of the spam.

I'm in China - 12/13 hours ahead of US Eastern time, so I'm awake for the whole of the US night, and definitely the spam seems to last longest during my afternoon / European morning. I try and flag when I see it, but I'm normally supposed to be working :-)

217Meredy
dec 14, 2014, 3:05 am

>212 timspalding: Cool! But I have to ask:

You've all got higher scores now

Does "you" here mean people on this thread, or members of this group only? I haven't joined the group, but I've been a fighter just the same. Just wondering how it works for those like me.

218rsterling
dec 14, 2014, 9:13 am

For those relatively new to spam hunting, or only occasional flaggers, there are two parts of the procedures above that are important (and are somewhat recent changes):

1) Flag the highest level of the violation.

-- That means if it's an otherwise normal member who posted a promotional group or thread, you just flag the group or thread, not the profile. The action is (highest level of) the violation, not the member him/herself.
-- However, if it's a commercial spammer flogging, say, viagra or streaming video, through whatever means, the highest level is the profile, since the member's whole reason for being here is to spam.

2) Once enough people flag a spammer's profile, the rest of the crap will disappear. "Sufficient profile flags will automatically result in temporary suspension and deletion of the member's activity, so use your profile-flagging powers wisely and carefully."

That's why you want to go all the way back to the profile (the highest level of the violation) for commercial spammers. (But, again, for something like overzealous authors or otherwise normal members, flag the offending post/group/etc. but not the profile.)

219MarthaJeanne
dec 14, 2014, 10:31 am

If you flag a post of a new member, it is polite to put a message on their profile explaining why. Answering the post means that the topic won't disappear.

220lilithcat
dec 14, 2014, 10:51 am

Creator of a spam venue:
http://www.librarything.com/profile/ProcessModel
http://www.librarything.com/new_pic.php?picture=4653046&flag=1
http://www.librarything.com/venue_edit.php?venue=96425

Tim - when I deleted this spam venue, the box also had an option to "Prevent this page from creating additional dialogs." What does that mean?

221Lyndatrue
dec 14, 2014, 11:41 am

>220 lilithcat: (Just trying to clarify for my own understanding) What do that mean, you deleted it? I still see a venue entitled "ProcessModel, Inc." when I look at your Edit Venue link for it. I see that there's still an option to delete this.

It seems odd (and yes, I checked the Deleted Venues, and it is indeed listed as deleted.). Does it just show because that Edit Venue link is keeping the information?

So much to learn.

Thanks in advance.

222Helenliz
dec 14, 2014, 11:43 am

223lilithcat
dec 14, 2014, 11:46 am

> 221

I think it's showing because I gave the Edit page link. If you go to the venue page: http://www.librarything.com/venue/96425/ProcessModel%2C-Inc it shows it as "archived", which is basically deleted.

224Lyndatrue
Bewerkt: dec 14, 2014, 2:29 pm

Live streaming
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184602#4953168
http://www.librarything.com/profile/oner1977

ETA: Cool. That was three minutes, from original flag, to gone, baby, gone.

225timspalding
dec 14, 2014, 2:37 pm

>224 Lyndatrue:

Heh. Good.

226MarthaJeanne
dec 14, 2014, 2:50 pm

I saw a different one. No visible flags. I flagged the post, then the profile, went back to talk and it was gone.

227Taphophile13
Bewerkt: dec 14, 2014, 3:01 pm

livestream
http://www.librarything.com/profile/apnapama
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184603

ETA: Yes! About three minutes and it's all gone.

229Taphophile13
Bewerkt: dec 14, 2014, 5:33 pm

>228 henkl: Gone!
I think Tim's new system is working very well.

230henkl
dec 14, 2014, 5:33 pm

Yes!

232MarthaJeanne
dec 14, 2014, 7:45 pm

Gone.

234MsMaryAnn
Bewerkt: dec 15, 2014, 2:42 am

>233 Mr.Durick: Gone. 3 minutes. New fix working really well. Only 62 members online.

235MarthaJeanne
dec 15, 2014, 4:55 am

The last one took 5 minutes. 77 online. This is very good for this time of day.

2382wonderY
Bewerkt: dec 15, 2014, 9:14 am

author-
last post
http://www.librarything.com/topic/183726#4952863
and
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184635

I see MarthaJeanne sent him a message last month.

239abbottthomas
dec 15, 2014, 9:30 am

Do you think he is enjoying reading his book? He must know how it ends!

240Lyndatrue
Bewerkt: dec 15, 2014, 9:39 am

The rapidity of the actual spam being handled is wonderful. Mr Author still needs one more flag on the first thing in >238 2wonderY: (the second one is gone). It always bothers me more when it's someone who has already been reminded that it's not acceptable behavior.

ETA: Already flagged out of sight. I find authors who are just making the mistake of wanting to find ways to self promote to be far different than someone who joins up here, has only his *own* books in his library, and does not otherwise participate. I'd bet that he didn't even *see* MarthaJeanne's reminder about behavior.

241abbottthomas
dec 15, 2014, 9:43 am

242Ennas
dec 15, 2014, 11:10 am

It's flagged into oblivion. :-)

244Taphophile13
Bewerkt: dec 15, 2014, 2:28 pm

248MarthaJeanne
Bewerkt: dec 16, 2014, 2:37 am

http://www.librarything.com/groups/feyetemperedglass Already gone. I think this will be easy to get used to.

250Ennas
dec 16, 2014, 4:09 am

Gone already, >249 Lyndatrue: ! B-)

2532wonderY
dec 16, 2014, 7:50 am

>251 Exlibris_88: Okay, I need to learn how to propose a work is SPAM.

254Ennas
dec 16, 2014, 8:01 am

>251 Exlibris_88: I don't see how I can flag an author as spam. Is there a button I'm missing?

255rsterling
dec 16, 2014, 8:23 am

254 - see above in post 1:
"-- Spam author names listed on a work: No current procedure. Tim has asked us not to change CK to indicate spammers, and not to combine spam authors together."

256MarthaJeanne
dec 16, 2014, 9:02 am

>253 2wonderY: It's at the bottom of the editions page.

257MsMaryAnn
dec 16, 2014, 11:15 am

258MsMaryAnn
dec 16, 2014, 11:17 am

2592wonderY
dec 16, 2014, 11:20 am

>258 MsMaryAnn: So, do we flag the profile?

260MsMaryAnn
dec 16, 2014, 11:28 am

>259 2wonderY: The profiles have commercial advertising and nothing else. I flagged.

261Ennas
dec 16, 2014, 12:04 pm

262Lyndatrue
dec 16, 2014, 12:08 pm

>261 Ennas: I'm sorry. Another one of what? I don't see anything there, other than the profile.

263Ennas
dec 16, 2014, 12:08 pm

Another spam profile!

264Lyndatrue
Bewerkt: dec 16, 2014, 12:13 pm

Please post the links for the spam, or else we start to lose credibility. I'm sure that you're correct. I believe that with the new ruleset in place, where a profile can so quickly be flagged to oblivion, that we need to be extra careful when doing this.

I am NOT doubting you, but I think we have to be like Caesar's wife.

ETA: Even worse. Whatever it was is gone (at least as far as I can see).

265Ennas
dec 16, 2014, 12:38 pm

>264 Lyndatrue: I disagree. If we flag the spam profile, the spam posts will disappear. That makes it much more effective.

2662wonderY
dec 16, 2014, 12:45 pm

>265 Ennas: Yes, flagging the profile is the new strategy, but we should still document the spam threads here. I agree with Lyndatrue.

267lilithcat
dec 16, 2014, 1:04 pm

> 264, 265, 266

I agree with Lyndatrue as well.

The problem is that if someone just lists the profile here, with no further information, others don't know why it's considered spam. Many of us are reluctant to flag profiles without that, because there are instances where profiles should not be flagged (over-zealous authors, for instance).

If you add the links, or say something like "live streaming spam", others can be confident that they are flagging appropriately.

268Ennas
dec 16, 2014, 1:39 pm

Ah. You need a reason to flag the profile. *facepalm* Of course!

277Mr.Durick
dec 19, 2014, 1:42 am

It's a tie!

Robert

279Lyndatrue
dec 19, 2014, 10:15 am

Who is the best person to notify when the scripts seem to stop running? I note that henkl's post was more than an hour ago, and yet the spam and profile are still around. I'd really like to see this working for the onslaught that tends to show up on Friday evening (Pacific Standard Time).

I'm about to drop a note on Tim's profile.

280timspalding
dec 19, 2014, 10:47 am

Thanks. It's running. But something's not working. I'm on it.

281timspalding
dec 19, 2014, 12:04 pm

Yeah, mix-up on which database wasn't in use. It's running on an updated dataset now.

287Helenliz
dec 21, 2014, 10:19 am

288Helenliz
dec 21, 2014, 4:11 pm

290Taphophile13
dec 22, 2014, 12:58 am

295Lyndatrue
Bewerkt: dec 23, 2014, 2:52 am

>294 klarusu: Wow. When you said multiple, you were serious. I'm about to list a bunch more (just in case it takes staff a bit to get to it).

BRB

http://www.librarything.com/topic/184921#
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184920#
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184918#
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184917#

and more

Here's a group, and apparently, a second spammer:

http://www.librarything.com/groups/kindleebooklending

296Lyndatrue
Bewerkt: dec 23, 2014, 2:57 am

Ugh. I hate spammers:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/184916
I take it back. the other member of that group is NOT a spammer (just in case someone is headed off to flag).

http://www.librarything.com/topic/184915#
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184914 (it's in another of those groups you have to join before you can flag)
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184913#

http://www.librarything.com/topic/184912#
http://www.librarything.com/topic/184908#

I think that's it...

297Meredy
Bewerkt: dec 23, 2014, 2:59 am

And this one:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/184912#

ETA: Your addition and my post went up at the same time.

298Lyndatrue
Bewerkt: dec 23, 2014, 3:02 am

The magic behind flagging seems slow. If the account isn't locked in another minute or two, I'll drop a note over on Tim's account. He seems to watch it very closely.

Please, if you haven't yet, go flag the profile:

http://www.librarything.com/profile/kindlebooks

300Lyndatrue
Bewerkt: dec 23, 2014, 3:08 am

Interesting. The fact that this user has been here for a bit, and has two legitimate books, seems to be preventing the automatic systems on locking the account from taking hold. Boooooo.......

ETA: It's late for me, and I'm headed off to slumberland. If I remember, I'm going to ask why the account locking thing didn't trigger, tomorrow.

>299 Helenliz: Don't forget to flag the profile for that group creator.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/Andrebutler

303lilithcat
dec 23, 2014, 10:13 am

Long past time for a new thread!
Dit onderwerp werd voortgezet door Spam reporting thread #33.