This site has become worthless due to spam

[Jluke]

That would be a huge undertaking, done manually anyway.

We do need an automated system to have older threads lock themselves automatically.

There also needs to be some measures in place to stop the spammers. Approval for new members to post, a limit on the number of posts that a new member can make, etc.

yeah, it was sarcasm... of all the threads on here that could be locked, this one was ID'd.

looking forward to the site going forward and hope the long timers don't go away.

I have gained a lot of knowledge on here and enjoy the viewpoints of the contributors.

[Outdoorsygal]

That would be a huge undertaking, done manually anyway.

We do need an automated system to have older threads lock themselves automatically.

There also needs to be some measures in place to stop the spammers. Approval for new members to post, a limit on the number of posts that a new member can make, etc.

Maybe restricting new members from posting in the money making forums. That seems the place where they mainly want to place their links

[creditcardfree]

James, can you comment as to what direction you would like the forum to go in?

Yes, I agree. James did you like the way the forums were run BEFORE you were involved with Saving Advice? Is there something lacking from your perspective? I think a site where someone arrives from a Google search shouldn't look like we are selling NFL sweatshirts and promoting hedge funds. The average US citizen is lacking in financial education and guidance.

So what is the plan to fix the spam? I'm not sure there was an answer.

[Like2Plan]

Hi Guys,

Its important that folks get a chance to weigh in on what can be done to make these forums more awesome.

It would also be great if we could think about focusing on talking about money and not about how James is a quirky guy, so lets maybe think about about putting in some final thoughts here.

Otherwise I am going to go ahead and lock this thread in 24 hours or so. This will give everyone a chance for final comments and ensure that the forums isn't about a single individual.

This is hilarious. This site is filled with spam and this is the thread you would choose to lock.
There is a certain sense of irony in this...

[DaveInPgh]

1. Automatically lock threads that have been inactive for a period of time like 6-12 months so the spammers stop dredging up threads that are 5 or 10 years old.
2. Put in place some system to prevent brand new posters from making an unlimited number of posts. There's no reason a new person should be able to make 15 posts overnight. Put a limit of 1 or 2 posts a day for the first week.
3. Put in place a system to require new posters to have posts approved by a moderator or administrator before they go live. I participate in several boards that have this in place for your first 5 posts.
4. Somebody needs to be monitoring and promptly responding when someone reports a post for any reason. I've reported posts and gotten no response.

If just those few things would happen, it would take care of most of the problems.

Logging in and finding several posts bumped by the same user has me circling back to this post from Steve. I just wanted to add my two cents to his suggestions. I have no knowledge about the nuts and bolts behind the scenes, so not sure what is and isn't possible on this site.

1. Is it possible to somehow lock the old threads but still allow the OP to bump them? Perhaps require a password? There are threads where people track their progress, and even if it is an extended period of time I like when an OP circles back with relevant updates.

2 & 3. I don't agree with the low limit of posts per day, but definitely like the idea of requiring approval before the posts go live. Yes, the spammers could still cause a headache for moderators, but adding more mods would help with that situation. If a new member comes here looking for advice, they could easily have several questions that they want to post about on multiple topics. A low limit per day might put off new members that really need help, or that have some level of expertise that they can share.

4. More resources definitely need to be added to battle the problems this site is having with SPAM. Every forum I have been on usually gets several volunteers when a thread is created asking for moderators. No doubt the volunteers need to be vetted, but the last thing you want to do is overwhelm a volunteer. It is easy to walk away when you feel like you are fighting a losing battle.

[disneysteve]

2 & 3. I don't agree with the low limit of posts per day, but definitely like the idea of requiring approval before the posts go live.

If a new member comes here looking for advice, they could easily have several questions that they want to post about on multiple topics. A low limit per day might put off new members that really need help, or that have some level of expertise that they can share.

Regarding the low post limit, maybe 1 or 2 is too low but 15 or 20 is definitely too high. I can't tell you how many mornings I log on and have to delete 16 posts from a brand new user made overnight. And it's almost always exactly 16 because they need 15 posts before they can post a link so it's 15 nonsense posts and then the 16th with the link.

I see nothing wrong with limiting new posters a bit. Maybe 5 posts/day is more fair. And definitely moderate those first 5 posts.

[DaveInPgh]

Regarding the low post limit, maybe 1 or 2 is too low but 15 or 20 is definitely too high. I can't tell you how many mornings I log on and have to delete 16 posts from a brand new user made overnight. And it's almost always exactly 16 because they need 15 posts before they can post a link so it's 15 nonsense posts and then the 16th with the link.

I see nothing wrong with limiting new posters a bit. Maybe 5 posts/day is more fair. And definitely moderate those first 5 posts.

I think 5 moderated posts sounds much better.

But curious if there is a way to turn that requirement off early if a member shows coming out of the gate they are not here to spam or troll? If so, I think that is a win/win for both the moderators and new members. Of course there is some subjectivity with it, but it could lighten the load of the moderators and allow productive members the ability to participate without restrictions. Systematically possible? Thoughts?

[Jluke]

If the spammers go away, what will we talk about?

Trying to remain optimistic and contribute when I feel I can bring value to a conversation, but not seeing much activity or new threads of real substance is disappointing.

Still hoping for a comeback after summer is over.

[DaveInPgh]

Thanks for sharing this

How ironic having this thread bumped by a spammer.

[disneysteve]

I think 5 moderated posts sounds much better.

But curious if there is a way to turn that requirement off early if a member shows coming out of the gate they are not here to spam or troll?

I say keep it simple. Moderate the first 5 posts. I participate in several other forums that do that and it seems to work just fine. Assuming the moderators are on the ball, the posts get approved quickly and the new member graduates to full posting status very quickly.

[DaveInPgh]

Another option that I have seen on other sites that might help here is to have a multi-function reporting option. Mainly an option to flag spam without clicking report and typing your reason. On other sites I have been on, if a certain number of users flag a post then it is automatically removed until it can be reviewed by a moderator.

James, I think most importantly is when can you implement some of the suggestions?

[james.hendrickson]

Guys,

I have been tracking feedback/suggestions both here and via PM.

I should be able to implement some of these today or Saturday.

Unless anyone strong objects, I am just going to go ahead and make the changes, then put up an announcement after I am done - no need to over manage this, we should just get it done so we can all go back to talking about money.

[DaveInPgh]

Guys,

I have been tracking feedback/suggestions both here and via PM.

I should be able to implement some of these today or Saturday.

Unless anyone strong objects, I am just going to go ahead and make the changes, then put up an announcement after I am done - no need to over manage this, we should just get it done so we can all go back to talking about money.

I am not going to object any changes that Brian and Steve are behind. They are the people that experience the problems from both sides of the fence.

[DaveInPgh]

Also, what are your thoughts on requiring someone's first post be made in an Introductions forum (or sticky thread)?

Or can the moderators use some subjectivity as to whether a post qualifies for whatever requirement is set up?

I am always skeptical when a first post is a thank you for the information type of thing

[disneysteve]

I am always skeptical when a first post is a thank you for the information type of thing

Same here, but if they only make one or two posts like that, it's not a problem. The issue is when they make 15 of those posts within minutes, and usually done overnight by US time.