I am a member of numerous Internet forums and have been using Internet forums since the 90s and none have ever included such a high minimum post requirement (100) to post links.

I understand having a certain number say "10" to weed out spammers but there is no logical reason to make it 100. All that does it make it next to impossible for new members to debate anyone. Most tech forums don't have a minimum at all and simply use robust registration policies.

Please consider changing this to a more realistic 10, thank you.

Poptech wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 4:52am:

I am a member of numerous Internet forums and have been using Internet forums since the 90s and none have ever included such a high minimum post requirement (100) to post links. I understand having a certain number say "10" to weed out spammers but there is no logical reason to make it 100. All that does it make it next to impossible for new members to debate anyone. Most tech forums don't have a minimum at all and simply use robust registration policies. Please consider changing this to a more realistic 10, thank you.

The reason is the socks. There are a LOT here. Also bots and spammers. A human gets them in then gets them to the 10 post limit then lets the bot go.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 5:00am:

The reason is the socks. There are a LOT here. Also bots and spammers. A human gets them in then gets them to the 10 post limit then lets the bot go.

I doubt this as most bots are automated and professional spammers do not waste there time manually doing anything as there is nothing special about these forums. You only have less than 2000 registered members. There are forums with hundreds of thousands of members and they do not have these problems.

If the problem is automated bots then it is a problem with the registration process.

When I see people throwing around technical terms and accusations with no evidence it is not a good sign. You cannot accuse anyone of being a sock puppet unless you can see that their IP is the same as another account. Otherwise you have no evidence and should not be making the accusation.

Poptech wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 5:10am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 29th, 2012 at 5:00am: The reason is the socks. There are a LOT here. Also bots and spammers. A human gets them in then gets them to the 10 post limit then lets the bot go. I doubt this as most bots are automated and professional spammers do not waste there time manually doing anything as there is nothing special about these forums. You only have less than 2000 registered members. There are forums with hundreds of thousands of members and they do not have these problems. If the problem is automated bots then it is a problem with the registration process. When I see people throwing around technical terms and accusations with no evidence it is not a good sign. You cannot accuse anyone of being a sock puppet unless you can see that their IP is the same as another account. Otherwise you have no evidence and should not be making the accusation.

Well you are wrong because thats exactly what happens. WTF says they are "professional" anyway?

How would you know the bigger forums dont have the problems? They do.

IPs mean nothing in australia. Most are dynamic. What country are you in? Oh I see a yank. Well things are different in australia.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 5:45am:

Well you are wrong because thats exactly what happens. WTF says they are "professional" anyway? How would you know the bigger forums dont have the problems? They do. IPs mean nothing in australia. Most are dynamic. What country are you in? Oh I see a yank. Well things are different in australia.

I am a member of numerous Australian forums with many more members and none of any such posting policy. The bigger forums deal with bots and spammers without having to restrict members to posting 100 posts before they can post a link.

What are you talking about IPs are dynamic in Australia? There is nothing special about Internet access in Australia.

Poptech wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 5:57am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 29th, 2012 at 5:45am: Well you are wrong because thats exactly what happens. WTF says they are "professional" anyway? How would you know the bigger forums dont have the problems? They do. IPs mean nothing in australia. Most are dynamic. What country are you in? Oh I see a yank. Well things are different in australia. I am a member of numerous Australian forums with many more members and none of any such posting policy. The bigger forums deal with bots and spammers without having to restrict members to posting 100 posts before they can post a link. What are you talking about IPs are dynamic in Australia? There is nothing special about Internet access in Australia.

I mean what i said. Most aussie ips are dynamic. You dont know what im talking about? Then why did you try to pick argument with me when i was only being helpful?

As for links - well just because you havent experienced it doesnt mean it isnt so. Most forum hosts have to work out whats best for themselves to stop the bots and spammers. I guess they dont consult you first huh?

SOB

We had it set to 10 (or maybe slightly higher) for a while. The bots would get in, post 10 nonsensical posts, then post a link. We have very robust registration processes that updated regularly to keep ahead of the bots. These include the custom anti spam measures you would have come across on registering, which were updated this month.

If you must post a link, put in a few spaces and make people put it back together. That is a lot easier all round than cleaning up after spambots.

I apologise for any inconvenience.

Why not just gradually increase the number to say 20 or 25 instead of 100? It makes it next to impossible for any new members to have any sort of debate here and I mean no other forum I have seen has any such requirement.

Because I didn't want to have to delete 30 spam posts. I think I did increase it fairly gradually. 100 works.

freediver wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

Because I didn't want to have to delete 30 spam posts. I think I did increase it fairly gradually. 100 works.

Sounds fair.

I'd much rather cut & paste a non-clickable link than suffer the spam-bots.

And if someone lasts to 100 posts, you/we will have already worked out what they're like.

You cannot post a non clickable link.

I you were having problems with a 20-25 post limit (doubt it) then just gradually increase it to 30-40 ect... don't jump to 100. Carefully created ban email lists stop most of the nonsense such as,

*botox*@*.*
*casino*@*.*
*penis*@*.*
*pharma*@*.*
*porn*@*.*
*ringtone*@*.*
*viagra*@*.*
*vids*@*.*
*@*4warding*.*
*@*advert*.*
*@*cash*.*
*@*big*.*
*@*casino*.*
*@*cholesterol*.*
*@*credit*.*
*@*bugger*.*
*@*free*.*
*@*hentai*.*
*@*horney*.*
*@*money*.*
*@*pharmacy*.*
*@*ringtone*.*
*@*russian*.*
*@*sex*.*
*@*shop*.*
*@*viagra*.*
*@*xxx*.*
*@*.by
*@*.cc
*@*.cn
*@*.cz
*@*.de
*@*.fm
*@*.info
*@*.lv
*@*.pl
*@*.ua
*@*.tk
*@*.tv
*@*.ws

You think you are so knowledgeable about it yet you didnt understand what I was saying. Obviously that list is incomplete and is only good along with other measures.

Also your syntax looks wrong.

SOB

Poptech, can't you write "power to the 99%" and press send, keep at it, over and over and you'd have your 100 posts up in no time.

You're already a quarter of the way there.

Poptech wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:39am:

You cannot post a non clickable link. \

Um, here you are....


http://www.ozpolitic.com/for um/YaBB.pl?num=1356720733


C&P, remove the space, and you're away.

A non-clickable link.

Just as FD explained only a few posts earlier....

You may have to separate out the www bit with a space or something like that. Poptech sounds like he would be able to figure it out. Thanks for the email filter.

I don't think I've seen a single spammer recently with any of those email masks. They tend to use web based email these days. That spam email list might have been pretty good about 10 years ago.

I don't think that syntax would work on YaBB either.

What's so important you need to post a link to now?

Jeebus is coming?

You sound like a disgruntled spammer.

In any online forum discussion I have always posted links to support my arguments. This is the only forum out of the dozens I am a member of that has such an unrealistic linking policy. It is much easier for me to simply post somewhere else where I do not have these restrictions.

The linking policy makes it impractical for new members to have a discussion, so why then would they even stay around till 100 posts? If the goal is to have as few contributing members as possible then keep the linking policy.

Poptech wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:35am:

In any online forum discussion I have always posted links to support my arguments. This is the only forum out of the dozens I am a member of that has such an unrealistic linking policy. It is much easier for me to simply post somewhere else where I do not have these restrictions. The linking policy makes it impractical for new members to have a discussion, so why then would they even stay around till 100 posts? If the goal is to have as few contributing members as possible then keep the linking policy.

Most ppl (even the trolls) have the intelligence to do a non-link. In fact some rude posters only do them anyway.

SOB

Or I can just have the discussion somewhere I can post links without the aggravation.

For the record I am incredibly doubtful of any sort of out of control spamming problem with a 25 post minimum for links as I have run various forums for over 15 years.

Poptech wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 6:54am:

Or I can just have the discussion somewhere I can post links without the aggravation. For the record I am incredibly doubtful of any sort of out of control spamming problem with a 25 post minimum for links as I have run various forums for over 15 years.

I dont believe you since you obviously know nothing about it.

SOB

Sure... [smiley=rolleyes.gif]

For what it's worth, I agree that 100 posts is a little excessive, but it's entirely the decision of the forum owner. 

PT, the upside is that if you keep complaining like this, the problem will solve itself.

muso wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 9:21am:

For what it's worth, I agree that 100 posts is a little excessive, but it's entirely the decision of the forum owner.

I obviously agree that the decision is up to the forum owner, I just do not feel it is warranted. This does not change the fact that I am sympathetic to the annoyance of dealing with spammers.

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 9:28am:

PT, the upside is that if you keep complaining like this, the problem will solve itself.

This is true but it would take a lot of bitching. [smiley=wink.gif]

Poptech wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 10:32am:

freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 9:28am: PT, the upside is that if you keep complaining like this, the problem will solve itself. This is true but it would take a lot of bitching. [smiley=wink.gif]

Don't worry about bitching that's all the neo-cons do on here.

65 posts to go....

This will be 98 for me.

This is 100.

And just about every one of them an insult or troll miss k

SOB

100 posts??

Spot does that in 2 days

All you need to be is middle aged, have no family friends or life away from the Internet and spend everyday all day on messageboards.

No bother guvnor.

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

This is 100.

Not commenting on you but many people are better off having an excuse for not being able to support their BS.