Date   

locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

On 6 Oct 2016 at 14:34, David P. Dillard wrote:

> There is another option that I would like to see implemented on this
> groups network.  As part of the members list available to owners and
> moderators, these posting controls available for each member individually.
>
> This member can post without moderation
>
> This member is moderated
>
> This member cannot post.
>
> and any other options that make sense that I did not think of.

If you're a moderator with appropriate privileges, click on an individual member and you should find:



Posting Privileges
  • Default group policy
  • Override: not moderated
  • Override: moderated
  • Override: new user moderated
  • Override: not allowed to post
  


Does that cover your use cases?


--
Jim
Poston@...

<<                         Measure twice, cut once.                           >>
  


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Jim Poston <poston@...> wrote:

What about a key that a moderator can give out that will allow immediate entry into the group?  I guess that's just as much work as approving members for a Restricted group.

If you invite someone to a Restricted group and they accept, you do not have to approve their membership.

Mark 


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Jim,

            Rollsroyceforums.com implemented a "New Member Introductions" forum about 2 years ago in response to repeated spamming incidents.

            Regardless of what one calls it, it is a separate forum that has as its intended purpose not "new member introductions" but forcing someone to post there after gaining membership before they can post anywhere else.  It acts as a non-human spam trap, since most spam originates via machine and when an enrollment comes back in the affirmative most spambots do not parse the acceptance e-mail and follow through on the requirement that one must post at least a single message to that given forum before one can post elsewhere.  They just try to spam and when it bounces they look elsewhere.

            Whether this is implemented here or not is really not of any great concern to me.  I am not a moderator nor will my time be spent approving initial posts, but if I were the "moderator" of what is an unmoderated group by actual practice and that is very high traffic I'd absolutely hate having to slog through initial approvals, the vast majority of which are not really necessary.  It's simply an option that removes human intervention to the maximum extent possible.  I don't see why a "bit bucket" group could not be set up at the top level of Groups.io such that before you could post to any other group you've joined you would have to post there.  If this were checked on a userid basis then once one had already "proven oneself" on one group you could join others without having to repeat the process.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

David P. Dillard
 

This is a very good solution, I had already implemented this on two of my lists this morning on a list that found a spam message from a new member.
The post was deleted and the spammer banned.

There is another option that I would like to see implemented on this groups network. As part of the members list available to owners and moderators, these posting controls available for each member individually.

This member can post without moderation

This member is moderated

This member cannot post.

and any other options that make sense that I did not think of.

There are reasons that members may need to be controlled in their membership posting rights that may not occur in initial posts such as plagiarism or copyright violation or use of profanity or bullying other members to name just a few without sweating to hard with heavy thinking.

Having this kind of member control will help owners keep quality control of posting and not just of new members. If I missed these features, I am sorry and will welcome enlightenment. Everyone have a wonderful end of week and weekend.




Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@temple.edu

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi All,
Thank you for all your feedback about group settings. I view the spam problem as an existential
threat to Groups.io, so I want to make sure it gets addressed correctly and quickly. Here's what I'm
doing (this only applies to parent groups right now, not subgroups):
- All new groups are created as NuM unmoderated after 1 message, as a default
- All groups must have at least one of the following settings: Announcement, Restricted, Moderated,
or NuM
- The Settings page has been changed to enforce this.
I will be going through existing groups and, for those that don't satisfy this requirement, setting
them to NuM unmoderated after 1 message. I will also send an email to the owners of those groups
telling them what I've done.
If you have an existing group that does not satisfy this new requirement and absolutely cannot handle
having your group set to NuM unmoderated after 1 message (or any other moderation setting), send an
email *DIRECTLY TO ME OFF-LIST* with the name of your group and I will set up an exception for your
group. It is my hope that the exception list will be very small.
Separately, I will work up a plan to deal with abandoned/dead groups, and post a proposal to beta@ in
the next few days.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

On 6 Oct 2016 at 10:07, Brian Vogel wrote:

>  If not, would it solve the problem since spambots can easily post an
> initial message?

Just to clarify, NuM 1 is unmoderated after one approved message, so the soammer has to send something that the human moderator judges as okay and approves.  A spammer has so many more easy targets that this will block most of them, I think.


On 6 Oct 2016 at 10:26, Brian Vogel wrote:

> I will again propose the idea of some sort of, perhaps global (as in
> not linked to any one real group), "Unlock Group," where, when anyone
> submits a request to become a group member, they are automatically
> directed that they must post there before they can have posting
> privileges elsewhere.

A global "Unlock Group" seems kind of unwieldy.  I don't see how it would be much of a roadblock unless there was a human moderator.  (Make that moderator(s), as in dozens or hundreds.)  Where have you seen that used?



What about a key that a moderator can give out that will allow immediate entry into the group?  I guess that's just as much work as approving members for a Restricted group.


--
Jim
Poston@...

<<                2400 Baud makes you want to get out and push!!               >>
  


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Mark,

             Thanks for the clarification.

              I think that you are still going to have a hew and cry from moderators of "high newbie volume" groups on this, as it does require human intervention.

              I will again propose the idea of some sort of, perhaps global (as in not linked to any one real group), "Unlock Group," where, when anyone submits a request to become a group member, they are automatically directed that they must post there before they can have posting privileges elsewhere.  This prevents "moderators" of unmoderated groups from having to have any regular intervention.  It also prevents virtually any spambot (as opposed to human, which is rare as far as mass spamming goes) from ever having the floodgates open.  I can testify that this has been very, very effective elsewhere and requires no routine human intervention.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

I agree, sounds great.
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 6, 2016, at 10:19 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

NuM 1 = that a newbie is moderated by default and then becomes unmoderated after one approved message. Correct?

And if so I think that, and all the other parameters you are establishing are great. Full support for this.

Maria 


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

Maria
 

NuM 1 = that a newbie is moderated by default and then becomes unmoderated after one approved message. Correct?

And if so I think that, and all the other parameters you are establishing are great. Full support for this.

Maria 


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

 

Brian,

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

             Am I safe in translating "NuM 1"  as "New unmoderated Member after one message is posted?"

Yes. That means that once a new member has posted one message that has been approved by the moderator, they become unmoderated.
 

             If so, would this still require human intervention from a moderator after the one message is posted?  If not, would it solve the problem since spambots can easily post an initial message?  

It's a tradeoff. This setting is the least amount of work a moderator would have to do while also providing a speed bump for spammers. The spammer would have to come up with a good initial message. But yes, after that, it could be spams away. But a moderator is always free to change the setting to something more restrictive.

My guess is that I'll also have to implement some kind of spam filter. Something like, if it's triggered, the message is automatically moderated. But first things first.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: New anti-spam measure

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Mark,

             Am I safe in translating "NuM 1"  as "New unmoderated Member after one message is posted?"

             If so, would this still require human intervention from a moderator after the one message is posted?  If not, would it solve the problem since spambots can easily post an initial message?  

             I just don't know how to read that shorthand, though probably moderators do.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked New anti-spam measure

 

Hi All,

Thank you for all your feedback about group settings. I view the spam problem as an existential threat to Groups.io, so I want to make sure it gets addressed correctly and quickly. Here's what I'm doing (this only applies to parent groups right now, not subgroups):

- All new groups are created as NuM unmoderated after 1 message, as a default
- All groups must have at least one of the following settings: Announcement, Restricted, Moderated, or NuM
- The Settings page has been changed to enforce this.

I will be going through existing groups and, for those that don't satisfy this requirement, setting them to NuM unmoderated after 1 message. I will also send an email to the owners of those groups telling them what I've done.

If you have an existing group that does not satisfy this new requirement and absolutely cannot handle having your group set to NuM unmoderated after 1 message (or any other moderation setting), send an email *DIRECTLY TO ME OFF-LIST* with the name of your group and I will set up an exception for your group. It is my hope that the exception list will be very small.

Separately, I will work up a plan to deal with abandoned/dead groups, and post a proposal to beta@ in the next few days.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

ncatt
 

I think Mark is asking for a io groups solution . . . not a single group solution.

He needs something that works for all with as little inconvenience as possible.

If someone will not even post to join, what will they ever contribute to the group, ever!
(except a member count)

The better group:
10 that often post are better then a thousand that will never
===========================================

Maybe capchas for group creation then membership approval for groups
until membership reaches a certain size
  


On 10/6/2016 11:09 AM, Robert Schechter wrote:
My group is closed. We do not need/want moderating.

-- 
✞
God Bless America
"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer."


locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

 

Sorry to be coming in late on this and I haven't had time to read the beta groups digest much lately (recently moved and started new job) so I might be speaking up unnecessarily, in which case, never mind. 

I would not want to have to moderate my group, even for new users. It takes way too much time, and for my group isn't normally needed except rarely for someone being inappropriate. I wonder why this came up at all. Surely it should be up to the owner whether their group or individuals in the group should be moderated?

As much as I adore groups.io, requiring moderation would be a deal breaker for me. 


Rae
--------------------------------------
Rachel Rice, MA 
Professional Indexer and Editor






locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

Robert Schechter
 

My group is closed. We do not need/want moderating.


locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Also, lurkers (and I've been one) who are true lurkers aren't going to be too concerned about posting, at least not immediately.  If they know what they need to do prior to posting capability being "turned on" that's generally enough to filter humans from spambots.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Sue,

           You take "new member introductions" literally.  The users on the forum I refer to don't.  There's often an "introduction" post that says nothing but "new here."  They need not be revelatory in any way and that group is largely ignored.  It exists in the most part as a spam prevention mechanism.

           I presume all groups have lurkers.  That being said, if someone's so reserved as to not be able to make a one word post to a new member forum this is not a large population.

--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

Mike Fay <mikefay8888@...>
 

Another opinion- from the owner of a group that is private and restricted. First our group/subgroups are not listed in the directory.
Second, membership is only by invitation or direct add- or if someone does somehow come across the group and try to join then they require approval.
We are a travel group, and nobody is admitted / invited unless they have been verified as being part of an upcoming trip associated with the group.
    So for a group like ours, moderating all messages or even messages from new members would be extremely counterproductive. We want members to jump
right in and start communicating and spontaneously started threads with quick repsonses from a variety of members is what our groups are all about.
No required moderation, please !

Mike Fay


locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

Sue
 

>I think this is the best idea, since one-size does not fit all.  My groups
both have open membership but all messages are moderated.

Likewise. My group requires a response from any applicant before we allow them membership and they are then moderator for a period - several messages - before we unmoderate them.  Problems with spam have been few and far between; mainly only when an existing member's email address has been hacked and then the odd spam mail might slip through but we then put that person back on moderator until such time as they sort out the problem.

>Brian's idea of "New Member Introductions" would not work at all in my
health support group, where most folks prefer to anonymously lurk and learn
until they feel comfortable enough to post, if ever.

Delightful though it would be to have everybody contributing to the group, we would have a very small group indeed if this were to be the case. We are also happy to allow long term lurkers.

Sue


locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

Linda
 

Hi Mark, you wrote: "How about I modify the proposal: All (parent) groups must either be restricted or set to moderated or NuM (or some combination thereof). In each case there's at least one approval step before a member can post."

I think this is the best idea, since one-size does not fit all. My groups both have open membership but all messages are moderated. Spam does not get through, period.

Brian's idea of "New Member Introductions" would not work at all in my health support group, where most folks prefer to anonymously lurk and learn until they feel comfortable enough to post, if ever.

I'm not even sure the members of my travel discussion group would be happy about having to introduce themselves before posting. It's like having to present your passport just to talk about travel. ;-)

Linda


locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated

Joseph Hudson <jhud7789@...>
 

Hey Brian, I think this will work very well especially for groups like mine. Going to discuss it over with my staff as soon as possible.

On Oct 5, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I got alerted to this by Joseph Lee, so thought I'd briefly jump back in on beta.

On another forum I participate on we had issues with spam that kept getting worse and worse.  The forum as a whole is unmoderated and the desire was to keep it that way.  What was done there was that a "New Member Introductions" group was created (and I'd suppose the same in the form of subgroup could be used) and new members must post there before posting privileges are opened for any other venue.  This drove spam to as close to zero as I've seen it, and very quickly, since most spam attacks are machine-driven, not done by human hands.

Something akin to that could be implemented here.

--
Brian


A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray



18621 - 18640 of 29708