Timeline for Updated: Does the new-user URL filtering need a better error message on server fault?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 10:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 7, 2011 at 19:35 | vote | accept | Zoredache | ||
| Feb 8, 2011 at 6:00 | comment | added | Zoredache | @Mark Henderson, I guess it all depends on if you want to accept some false positives, or negatives. I doubt that spam in a code-block would be very effective, and as it stands right now we are depending on the spammers not knowing something. If the spammer is persistent they will figure the code-block thing out. But what I really dis-link the false-positives. I would prefer the occasional spam message over a person not being able to post a good first question. | |
| Feb 8, 2011 at 3:55 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | I'm not sure about your revision, because then spammers will immediately know that they can just code-block their spam and get through | |
| Feb 8, 2011 at 0:25 | history | edited | Zoredache | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 553 characters in body; edited title
|
| Feb 3, 2011 at 7:46 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | marking this completed as what you're describing does, in fact happen -- code block URLs aren't counted. I increased the non-code-block allowed URLs for new users from 1 to 2. | |
| Feb 3, 2011 at 7:45 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 2, 2011 at 0:51 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | Very often we see a newbie post a question and place the URL into the body, followed shortly after by someone with more rep needing to go in and create the link for them, just so the questions fits the general style of the site. | |
| Feb 1, 2011 at 22:10 | answer | added | Jeff Atwood | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 1, 2011 at 18:41 | comment | added | Sven | I think it is more important to allow users to ask good questions than to prevent possible spam. If this really leads to an increase in spam, I could imagine a system where experienced users (>10k, maybe >15k rep) are allowed to close/delete questions or answers by any user with less than maybe 100 rep in order to reduce the workload for moderators. This option could be disabled for a given user if he abuses this power. | |
| Feb 1, 2011 at 18:02 | comment | added | Rob Moir | I wonder if there are figures that show that autoblocking more than one link helps - I suppose it stops bots posting hundreds of link-farm style links. I have to agree, yes, there's a good portion of one-liner spam left so from that side it looks ineffective, but of course we don't know what we don't see, if that makes sense. | |
| Feb 1, 2011 at 17:55 | history | asked | Zoredache | CC BY-SA 2.5 |