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 :)

[Baldric]

hmm, rides back on the alleged death of another ABer, seems to be habit forming.

[sunny-dave]

Baldric - thanks for your thoughtful input - I shall treat it with the contempt it so manifestly deserves.

[-SharonA-]

I am very wary of too many people knowing my card details.
There must be another suitable way.

[Zacs-Master]

Answerbank isn’t meant to be a platform for long term users. It’s meant to be a place where casual users ‘pop in’ to get an answer for something. If those users are faced with lengthy questions and having to give card detail, they just won’t bother.

No one was harmed. Craft seems to have shrugged it off. I could suggest that giving ANY personal details, especially private email addresses be more strongly discouraged.

[Baldric]

Whatever!!

[naomi24]

Potty!

[-Talbot-]

time

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdfuAMcLwxYPA2WWSVkUW8_SdSkpdn7YyEvJTDeqz9D2tsjo3Qkw

[anneasquith]

Oh my, the police ? !!!!!

[Ellipsis]

Maybe on each post, under the avatar and member name on the left, could be a "Trust" indicator/score based on stuff like:

When the member account was created
How many questions they've posted
How many answers they've posted
How recent and how frequent the last few posts have been
Badges/BAs awarded
Etc etc

i.e. the sort of stuff we would/could/should all check anyway, if we were suspicious, but there all the time.

Pretty much everybody on this thread so far would have a trust score of 10/10, i.e. it should be nothing to do with "cliques", just history. Somebody like Jan-57, who posted the fake Craft thread, would have had a trust score of 1/10 which may have helped the deception to be spotted more quickly.

[AuntLydia]

Good grief the Police? Some people take life a bit too seriously. This is a question answer Forum not a private club for those only deemed suitable to join. AB should be throwing out its net and encouraging new members, not making it more difficult to join.

[woofgang]

I am not sure that is allowed under the data protection act to use credit card details to validate identity when there is no intent to use the information for commerce.

[douglas9401]

Hmmmm, I'd say the bloom is off the rose and the search is on for new thrills. :-)

[retrocop]

I suspect there is more to this stupid idea than meets the eye. sigh.

[New Judge]

Apparently, the reports of the death of craft1948 have been greatly exaggerated.

[Baldric]

Hi NJ, that's why I put 'alleged' @ 22:08.

[Spicerack]

The auld Guiness is much stronger than people realise, you know.

[jackthehat]

//I suspect there is more to this stupid idea than meets the eye. sigh//

No, there isn't.
It is in response to the nasty hoax perpetrated on the rest of us regarding the death of craft1948. We were subjected to one, previously, about Dizmo.
I don't think sunny-d's suggestion is a perticularly workable one but I completely understand his reasons for suggesting it.
It would be nice to think that something could be done......it would be nicer to think that the eejit who gets their jollies posting 'obituaries' could have a crisis of conscience and just stop.

[AuntLydia]

It amuses me that the OP seems intent on stirring up trouble, by accusing certain users of 'causing grief'. I would challenge the OP to show what 'grief' these alleged 'returners' have caused.

[rowanwitch]

The idea behind it is valid, the proposed methodology less so. I think the idea of a trust score might be workable. Maybe best answers averaged per year not counting crosswords and quizzes because that would probably affect the balance in the results.
There definitely seems to be a need to identify banned users who bounce back even if they behave for a while it can be confusing to others if someone who seems new has obviously been around and knows too much.

[emeritus]

Police involvement !!!!are you really being serious ???