Thread: Spamming: A New (Unwritten?) Rule

I've been looking through the suggestions recently and noticed a few posts on the subject of making it more difficult to allow newbies on to the forums. I agree that we need to be careful of all we allow through the door, but we must strike a balance between keeping out the troublemakers and allowing the uniformed to join. After all, T-I was founded on the belief that no one should be elitist and everyone could use a little help sometimes.

I think this all boils down to: how do we measure a level of trust? Obviously we can't depend solely on our intros workers. This dedicated crew spends their time helping the newbies, risking being banned, and feeling the brunt of flamers upset that they weren't allowed in. They are a credit to T-I. That being said, no one is perfect. Even R*volv*r gets in from time to time. [BTW, I think this is how we should refer to him in the future]

One of the ways we measure trust is in the post count. Users cannot access the Mid-Level giveaways without 20 posts; and even seasoned members cannot access the trusted giveaway without 100 posts. This is hard-coded into T-I, no one can access them without 100 posts.

Although the post-count requirement is designed to encourage new members to post and join the discussion, it also leads to another thing. Spamming. (Some) New members do whatever they can to get their thread count up. Posting two-word answers merely clutters the thread and adds nothing to the discussion. That's spamming.

Getting to my suggestion, I suggest that we consider any post that contains less than two sentences/thoughts to be spam. Obviously, there will be exceptions, but for the most part, this will hold true. For example, "I have a 40 GB hard drive," is spam. "I have a 40 GB hard drive, but I'm looking to buy another," is not spam. Because the poster can been seen trying to further the discussion (by perhaps getting suggestions on new HDD options), he/she should not be considered a spammer.



It all comes back to who you can trust. When giving out your invites, do not assume that the post count is legitimate. By that I mean, check the member's statistics before giving out that invite. You'll be able to tell fairly quickly whether the member has spammed his way into your giveaway or if he/she has tried to add to the community of T-I.

Your thoughts?

Edit: Read Dave's response below. He makes some really good points about why spamming is not always bad.

Legitimate points however....

Forums require this continious buffer of posts whether spam or not to be seen as active. It encourages other people to join in when they search the site up from google and see millions of posts .

Clamping down hard on spamming is not only difficult but often will be detrimental to a site. Obviously excessive spamming warrents a ban.

The thing with giving away invites is you should check three more indicators ti provides. The rep count, the igiver count and the grill to ensure that members are committed before giving any invites away.

I recommend doing more than checking out the post count. Check out the posts themselves! You can see the start of each post when looking through their stats and it's pretty easy to tell if that post is spam or contains a smidgen of thought. Personally, I'd give an invite faster to someone with 10 well-thought out posts than I would to someone with 150 crap ones.

Good points and helpful things to take into consideration. However, now that I have looked at some threads about this and the problems we have as a community, that I realize that we will always have this problem. The way that the current system is set up will always lead to spammers. It's not just a problem here, but any forum that requires post counts as goals to rise in rank.

I think it may be more appropriate to increase the required membership length, even for mid level invites, the user is required to be here 1month.
That may help combat those excessive spammers since 1month is still required to get access to the section.

WaZ901: I really like your idea. But to your suggestion, may I add one of my own? Instead of 30 days, perhaps 7 or 14? Let me tell you why this might work.

As two people recently pointed out to me, my views on spamming may be a bit too strong. A Spammer might be a guy like me who just really wants that BitMe Invite (thanks, man), but couldn't resist the temptation to write maybe just a little bit about something and "spam" his way to the mid-levels. To him, he's not doing anything wrong. He just wants to get that invite. He could probably write a little bit more, but that invite is waiting. Now. In the Mid-Levels.

But perhaps with a waiting period, that same person might find some interesting things to post on, to say a little more and really join in the discussion. It would cut down on some of the spamming, and who knows? Maybe we'll get some new good people. 7-14 days would be a good balance between "Only three more days!" and "F**k I still have 24 more days to wait." If that's not a feasible option, perhaps the wait time could involve attaining 33%.

Great idea, WaZ901

Your thoughts?

I like the whole waiting idea. This has been mentioned by flutrose a few times. I think waiting alone is not enough, it has to be actively waiting.

A post here and there something like once every week for a month (at a minimum, should be more). The forum should focus on active members who consistently view the forum and have something to say; otherwise why are they here? If it's simply 7 or 14 days, what is encouragement to post at all when I can wait a week and then gain access then spam in the giveaway sections?

I just noticed this now, but the posts made in the introduction also counts towards the 20 posts (I think) so the people who messed up more in their intros (with bumps and posts instead of edits) actually gain an advantage on those who simply did it right the first time. Do this sound wrong to anybody else?

Originally Posted by AfterMidnight

WaZ901: I really like your idea. But to your suggestion, may I add one of my own? Instead of 30 days, perhaps 7 or 14? Let me tell you why this might work.

As two people recently pointed out to me, my views on spamming may be a bit too strong. A Spammer might be a guy like me who just really wants that BitMe Invite (thanks, man), but couldn't resist the temptation to write maybe just a little bit about something and "spam" his way to the mid-levels. To him, he's not doing anything wrong. He just wants to get that invite. He could probably write a little bit more, but that invite is waiting. Now. In the Mid-Levels.

But perhaps with a waiting period, that same person might find some interesting things to post on, to say a little more and really join in the discussion. It would cut down on some of the spamming, and who knows? Maybe we'll get some new good people. 7-14 days would be a good balance between "Only three more days!" and "F**k I still have 24 more days to wait." If that's not a feasible option, perhaps the wait time could involve attaining 33%.

Great idea, WaZ901

Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by AfterMidnight

WaZ901: I really like your idea. But to your suggestion, may I add one of my own? Instead of 30 days, perhaps 7 or 14? Let me tell you why this might work.

But perhaps with a waiting period, that same person might find some interesting things to post on, to say a little more and really join in the discussion. It would cut down on some of the spamming, and who knows? Maybe we'll get some new good people. 7-14 days would be a good balance between "Only three more days!" and "F**k I still have 24 more days to wait." If that's not a feasible option, perhaps the wait time could involve attaining 33%.

Great idea, WaZ901

Your thoughts?

Thanks for that, didn't really give too much though into it. I guess we do need to strike a balance between giving new users a chance and not frustrating them, in effect losing new members that may be very valuable to the community.
I think 14 days is more reasonable.

Originally Posted by OrangeTicTac

I like the whole waiting idea. This has been mentioned by flutrose a few times. I think waiting alone is not enough, it has to be actively waiting.

A post here and there something like once every week for a month (at a minimum, should be more). The forum should focus on active members who consistently view the forum and have something to say; otherwise why are they here? If it's simply 7 or 14 days, what is encouragement to post at all when I can wait a week and then gain access then spam in the giveaway sections?

OrganceTicTac, just one problem with that is to actively enforce is going to require significant staff attention and the benefits may not overcome the time and headache associated with such a course.

With your second I totally agree, perhaps something like 14 days waiting time and 25 or 20 posts.

Originally Posted by OrangeTicTac

I just noticed this now, but the posts made in the introduction also counts towards the 20 posts (I think) so the people who messed up more in their intros (with bumps and posts instead of edits) actually gain an advantage on those who simply did it right the first time. Do this sound wrong to anybody else?

Posts in the intro section do not count. That goes for people waiting to be repped in and those who are repping people in. :) The whole section is post count disabled.