Is it possible that owner/admins of saidit may actually not want to reduce spam?

submitted by HugodeCrevellier from self.SaidIt

I wondered why the situation is till unchanged so long in, on a forum with the annoyance of the Cloudflare supposed anti-bot thing.

Reasonable-seeming explanations have been offered.

So, I was satisfied ... and kept on reporting spam, daily.

Still, I decided to random-check some notorious spam accounts:

u/johnsan: 'saiditter for 1 month', all spam.
u/daniel258: 'saiditter for 1 month', all spam
u/susanwray:'saiditter for 1 month', all spam
etc.

So, wait ... seriously?

So, there is NO automated/bot way to zap obvious spam accounts (like daily?) and to make it harder to open new bot accounts en masse?

all 27 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]dissidentrhetoric 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is like a side project for the owners, I think, they have full time jobs. It a free site with limited resources. The owners have the best of intentions I think.

[–]HugodeCrevellier[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, they do say that one should not attribute to malice that which can adequately by explained by other reasons.

[–]package 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's not that they don't want to, it's that they are incompetent both in coding and configuring the site. They simply lack the skills to make even the most basic effort to stop the spam.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't think he's a tech guy. Calling it incompetence seems a little harsh if it's just not his wheelhouse.

[–]package 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean, if you were to start a business and then run it into the ground with your lack of business skills, you'd be running the business incompetently. Same with running a website like this without being able to even configure cloudflare properly.

[–]P-38lightning 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're a tech guy, feel free to reach out and offer some help.

[–]Adventurous_Ad6212 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why don't you simp for me like this anymore jerk.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You cheated on me you dirty slut.

[–]HugodeCrevellier[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If so, then, since just as 'incompetent both in coding and configuring the site', I unfortunately can't help them there.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's the retarded policy of intentionally not banning users for posting relentless spam and trying to justify it by saying it's easier that way.

[–]SneakyBishop 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have run into that situation, too. Why not just remove those accounts that create the spam? Wasn't given a very convincing reason.

The accounts are easy to spot. I don't do any research into them, I just report the spam, block the account (for myself) because if someone is posting garbage, they are unlikely to contribute in a meaningful way. My blocklist is now up to 770 accounts, and all those accounts could be nuked.

Today I went through and reported and blocked some more. New spam accounts are being made (17 today so far), removing the old ones doesn't appear to have a downside other than someone with access has to perform that action.

[–]HugodeCrevellier[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I do as you do, but the blocking part.
I don't block spammer accounts.
I may not see them, but others will.
I feel that this kind of defeats the purpose of reporting them.

[–]SneakyBishop 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I totally get that. Since there is no plans to remove these accounts, I block so I have a better browsing experience.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

My theory is that (((cloudflair))) has magnora ensnared in a scam. They are intentionally letting spam through, and even blocking cleanup attempts. Whenever I am deleting spam the majority of it stays up. The best explanation is that cloudflair is blocking the removal data from updating the website.

But whenever magnora turns down the cloudflair shit (((they))) turn up the spam to 11. This scares him into thinking that without cloudflair the spam problem is insurmountable and keeps him caged.

Just a theory. It is odd that a lot of the spam is coming from the same accounts over and over. They should have been sandboxed a long time ago. The spam bot should be doing a better job of identifying repeat spam, especially the regular perfume shit.

[–]package 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Protip: refresh the page before reporting/voting/saving, as those functions are also affected by the cloudflare verification expiring too quickly, but unlike commenting they fail silently.

[–]HugodeCrevellier[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They are intentionally letting spam through, and even blocking cleanup attempts.

I know that my provocative title seems to imply something like this, but it's nonetheless rather unlikely.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, but I think it is more than that. There is a certain amount of time before the cloudflair forces you to reconfirm your humanity, and the amount of time I have to remove span is significantly shorter. This seems very intentional.

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have reported them by DMing u/magnora7 a few times and when he shows up he does ban them.

looking at the front page today, maybe http:// in a title should be an automatic ban

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It's not same magnora, he stopped the canary, started acting different, site got sold or just taken over

[–]Smalls 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I disagree. Has the same style in responses to me since day one. Also has the same opinions on the spam since the beginning. He, however has a life outside Saidit and understandably doesn't have the same amount of time/energy to spend on the site.

[–]Jiminy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No now he gets angry and insults if you ask him to turn off cloud flare, says it was worse before which is clearly not true, he didn't use to act so weird.

[–]Smalls 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The canary is definitely dead and he doesn't want to or can't talk about it. I think his change in attitude towards the spam is that he has his idea on how best to fight it without giving up any more control than he has to. It's like micromanaging without having the time to spend do everything yourself. I get that way sometimes.

[–]LarrySwinger2 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Proof that he insulted people? I've never seen him do that. I'm seconding Smalls's stance, he seems like the same person.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Click on his name, go looking thru his comments

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Nah you will have to be more specific than that.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm good. You're low iq and a shill.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fuck off faggot.