« first day (978 days earlier)      last day (3755 days later) » 

10:14 PM
@JonEricson You around by any chance?
 
@HodofHod Yep. What's up?
 
Over the past month or so, one of my posts has seen 19 vandalism attempts (suggested edits that were always rejected)
Is this something I/you should be concerned about? I mean the system is technically working, in that they aren't getting through... but.
It seems strange. It seems that there could be case to put a captcha there if there isn't already one.
I figure a CM would be more appropriate than a dev to bring this up to.
 
@HodofHod Ugh. This should be something solved by @TimPost's anti-spam thingy. I bet more are blocked than even get rejected by hand.
Let me see if he can crank up the settings a bit.
 
@JonEricson That's strange. Is there a captcha for suggested edits by anonymous users?
(Ever?)
Also, I hope you don't mind my ignorance: What anti-spam thingy?
 
@HodofHod We are now blocking spam networkwide. (I forgot you are no longer a mod. When can we schedule another election. ;-)
 
10:21 PM
Lol :)
I think the current mods are doing great, and I'm not (yet) eager to jump back in.
@JonEricson But by what method? Based on links, content, behavior? Some combination that's secret?
 
@HodofHod Yes. ;-) Picking "spam" when you reject edits feeds into it.
Sorry for being cagy, but we are trying to keep the details under our hats for now.
 
Gotcha. Well, then these should be helping a lot, then. They look like bad Markov chains with buzzwords thrown in. Shouldn't be too hard to find a blocking pattern, but then, I'm not so knowledegable there.
@JonEricson No worries, this isn't the only thing that SE keeps under wraps, and it makes perfect sense to do it.
Interesting, I just noticed they're using BBCode instead of Markdown.
 
23
A: Automatically reject suggested edits where edit summary is an email address

Tim PostAs Shog said, you're pretty spot on with your observations. In fact, we had not fully realized just how much of a problem anon spam suggested edits actually were until we got the new system in place. The good news is it's working, and it's working very well. Behold, 1800 things that didn't ann...

@HodofHod That is interesting. Hmmm...
 
@JonEricson oooh! Thanks for this. It's good to see that they've seen the BBCode and email address comments too
I'm also interested in why specifically this post. It's got low views, and doesn't seem to be linked anywhere interesting (twitter once or twice, but amongst a bunch of other questions)
 
@HodofHod I think it's short. I have to look it up, but I think short answers are more vulnerable for some reason.
Wow. That's super inefficient spam, isn't it...
 
10:34 PM
@JonEricson Hm. Ok that helps, but there are still plenty of short ones out there. Oh well, we'll probably never know for sure anyway.
@JonEricson Yeah. One has to wonder how intelligent the spammers are, or at least how much work they've bothered to put into their bot.
If I were making one....
;)
Anywho, if you do get a chance to speak with Tim, I'm curious about why captchas aren't being used on anonymous editors, especially on posts that have already seen a lot of spam.
(I just spammed by own post and saw no captcha, though maybe I didn't exhibit bot-like behavior. Still, forcing it would help with these, a lot)
 
@HodofHod Good question. Of note, we know that some (most?) spam on our sites is actually posted by humans.
It seems that some low-wage countries have jobs for people to solve captchas to post spam.
 
That's mind-boggling. If they're paying people (even miniscule amounts), one would imagine they wouldn't bother with sites that never let spam through.
 
There must be weird incentives. We can track spam campaigns that last a month and then stop. (Your answer isn't one of those.)
We block/delete them in seconds and yet they continue the campaign.
I guess we break someone's sketchy business model.
 

« first day (978 days earlier)      last day (3755 days later) »