Validation Of New Members - And Re-Validation Of The Rest Of Us?

[sunny-dave]

Hello Ed - from a rather damp Dave

In the light of the appalling hoax perpetrated on AB (and Craft1948) by persons unknown, is it time the AB toughened up its procedures for registration of a username?

I hope that you will be asking your techies to have a dig into the details (IP Address, MAC address etc etc) used by the current hoaxer, and referring the matter to the Police if possible?

But ... I won't hold my breath for any positive outcome to enquiries.

Perhaps this will be the motivation for a change?

For example, AnswerBank (or more precisely Silverdisc) must already be set up to process credit/debit card transactions .

Requiring a card number and matching name to validate registration is a commonplace and easy to implement system - no charge needs to be made - just a pre-authorisation to confirm name and card number are valid.

How about all new usernames must do this after a maximum of five posts (or a couple of days) - with the username going inactive if they don't comply? A process of re-validation of existing members over a period of a month or two wouldn't hurt, either?

Not only would it stop some of the spammers, but (more importantly) it would weed out the serial 'returners' who cause 99% of all the grief on here?

Cheers

SD xx

PS : Still fishing, still house-hunting :)

[rowanwitch]

One issue is poor advice, if people new to the site had a way of telling who's advice in that area was trusted by other users it might be helpful. I am ok in some areas. But any advice I gave in tech for example is likely to be of lower value than someone who works in the field

[naomi24]

Prudie, //it's not about protecting an inner circle of chatterers.//

Absolutely right. It isn’t a private club but the self-appointed spokesmen/women seem to regard it as such. Perhaps the few long-term users here who regularly insult others, apparently with impunity, and without any form of opposition whatsoever should be subjected to equally rigorous scrutiny.

[spathiphyllum]

I think in hindsight common sense would have been a nice tool to use when the Craft thread surfaced. Something was mentioned on page one regarding trust of members. We can spot spam a mile of, set up spam also (two part spam) so why did we all believe a "new" member pretending to be Jan when we know Jan is well established. The user didn't even return to the thread, that is kind of thread you return to. It was almost blatantly obvious tit was a hoax (in hindsight) but due to the sensitivity of the topic people react with compassion and don't even question the legitimacy of the user or the post.

[naomi24]

//why did we all believe a "new" member pretending to be Jan//

With an almost identical user-name one realised it wasn't Jan - until the real Jan surfaced.

[spathiphyllum]

Yes, but the "real jan" wouldn't forget her username or password, so why would she set up a new account to spread the news?

No question, no answers.. I could set up an account right now called Naomi24.. if i then only posted about the death of a well established member would people believe me? Doubt it..

We all got jumped up and believed the thread... It's important in life to stop and question things, from random new members claiming someones died to our political agendas.. It's all worth a double thought

[spathiphyllum]

Naomi25*

[Zacs-Master]

When it fools ‘d’management’ how are us mere mortals supposed to spot a dodgy user.

[naomi24]

spath, people who don't use accounts for a while often forget passwords.

[spathiphyllum]

That's a fair point, but would you think Jan the sort of user to set up a whole new account (and new email bear in mind) instead of do a password reset or email the ed?

[spathiphyllum]

ZM i assume from the eds point of view (and other users) they had to show respect untill proved otherwise

[naomi24]

Spath, No idea. I don't know Jan well. The bottom line is someone set up an account in an almost identical user-name and no one spotted it. No point in dissecting it. That's what happened.

[Zacs-Master]

I think you’re being wise in hindsight, Spath.

[spathiphyllum]

"and no one spotted it. "

And that is the issue

[naomi24]

We know.

[jackthehat]

spath - it wasn't spotted because it was entirely feasible.
The poster clamed to have forgotten her login details (an often used genuine explanation) and confirmed that it was unlikely she would be back after her intial post.

Anyone, for whom alarm bells *were* ringing was completely unable to establish the truth of the matter until craft herself posted.

[spathiphyllum]

To get an account on crypto wallets (coinbase for example) you need to send them "ID" such as a driving license, passport etc.. I think ANY further steps to ensure members 'are who they say they are' would put off other existing members or potential newbies.

does it matter who people are? No

Does it matter how they act / what they say? Yes

Seems to me like strikter moderation is needed towards users who are not yet established.

It rattles me noggin when brand new users sign up, and instantly know the "low down".. WHO ARE YOU!?! WHO IS SHEEE!!!!!!

[Zacs-Master]

‘strikter(sp) moderation is needed towards users who are not yet established.

And how would that work?

[spathiphyllum]

Should have psoted this one..




Yeah that's fair JTH

[spathiphyllum]

"And how would that work?"

The moderators who should be checking user profiles anyhow (in my opinion) should see a member maybe being spiteful, malicious or just out of order, check their profile see that they joined this month of this year yet already seems to know everyone and their nan. Obvs a returning user

[spathiphyllum]

but that's fine.. As i said, it's not who the user is, but how they act and their attitude. People change