Spammers

[factor-fiction]

Thanks Ed for getting rid so quickly of all the questions that keep popping up about hotels/train rides/holidays in India.
I don't understand these posts at all because the spammers usually fail to return to the thread with their spam or if they do they fail to attach a link properly.

[squarebear]

Indeed. As soon as they post spam though *gone*.

[anneasquith]

good point SB. LOL at o/p best answer :)

[factor-fiction]

Re best answer- I'm not sure what's funny but it was the first answer and I later considered switching it to squarebear but then thought I'd wait until the thread finished rather than keep jumping about.

[B00]

i only paid him a fiver too Anne, bargain!

[B00]

hey!

Well i'll want my fiver back then!

[AB Editor]

I was going to suggest you shouldn't be thanking me, but to the fine mods who zapped them before I even got there.

SB - regarding removing posts without spam (but look like they will be used as a lead up to spam). This is usually done because it appears in very much the same style as previous spammers.

[squarebear]

I was always taught innocent until proven guilty but each to their own I guess. It's not very welcoming to new members to have their posts removed purely because they look as if they might be used for spam at some time in the future.

One poor poster wrote, "Where are the best locations in Goa? Should I go to the north or south" and the thread was removed within minutes.

But anyway, I don't wish to argue about it suffice to say that i for one will not be removing any of these threads unless they have actual spam on them.

[factor-fiction]

don't know what happened but the two most recent ones have gone. Did I miss a spam reply?

[joko]

i agree, theres too much kneejerk diving on questions accusing and removing them just because it 'looks' suspicious ...
amateur detectives reading into things...

[B00]

"i agree, theres too much kneejerk diving on questions accusing and removing them just because it 'looks' suspicious ...
amateur detectives reading into things... "

Which the Ed could reinstate if he thought otherwise?

I'm not saying we might remove posts that are innocent just because we believed otherwise, we're only human afterall, mistakes can and are made. What's the alternative though? Would you prefer a site that's unmoderated?

[anneasquith]

' would you prefer a site unmoderated ? ',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what about a self moderated site,

[Mamyalynne]

How does that work Anne ?? Serious question.

[anneasquith]

all members of the forums moderate the site themselves, they decide what should be removed or indeed suspend/ban a member. the only issue i suoppose re AB THAT THE SITE IS PERHAPS TOO LARGE, IE TO MANY MEMBERS

[anneasquith]

ooft, i must stop shouting !!!!!!!!!

[Mamyalynne]

Way too many Anne for that to work I think.

[Chinajan]

They're more relevant in the Answerbank than a lot of other posts simply by virtue of actually asking a question. Ahem.

[snags]

''all members of the forums moderate the site themselves, they decide what should be removed or indeed suspend/ban a member''

Yeah that'll work.

[anneasquith]

indeed, as posted, ab is perhaps too large,

[joko]

boo, no i just mean they should REALLY cross the line before theyre removed - it should be done only if no doubts at all - sometimes it seems its on quite flimsy 'evidence' and suspicion rather than actually doing anything wrong

[joko]

i once asked a question about a book called 'cooking with c u m' - i included a link to amazon where the book was for sale - it was a real genuine book and real genuine question about whether anyone had tried it or would, and the writer genuinely cooked with semen

but it was removed - and never reinstated - despite me asking why...
i am a known user, not a troll, and i never post stuff just for shock value - yet some kneejerk mod jumped in without thinking or presumably even checking the post out ...

i know the bots may have picked up the word and the word in a link - but it should have been checked an reinstated - but nope...