is spam really that much of an issue that we need to completely ditch cleanspeak for a custom solution???

Banana

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

everwinner64 wrote:

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

what about RNTAS

Sorry, but wdym?

random number to avoid spam

Well, I don’t see why RNTAS would change, some uses of it are legit and I don’t see on what my suggestion would change something to that.

banana439monkey wrote:

is spam really that much of an issue that we need to completely ditch cleanspeak for a custom solution???

From what I can see, Cleanspeak is absolutely ineffective against spam. It blocks almost no one. For example, take a look at Griffpatch’s profile: his comments are closed 24/7 due to spammers. This clearly shows that the system fails to filter out spam, even in obvious cases.

everwinner64 wrote:

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

what about RNTAS

Sorry, but wdym?

“Hello! I have invited you and 100 000 others to join my annoying contest. RNTAS: 103”
It means “random number to avoid spam.”

Bump

everwinner64 wrote:

Hello, I’d like to propose an enhancement to the anti-spam system that works for bots and real users: a reputation and positive activity based system.
How would it work?

1/Contribution points:
Users would earn “contribution points” by performing positive actions, such as posting constructive comments validated by the community (for example, if others mark the comment as “helpful” {by adding a voting system}).

 //asking for a vote in exchange of a follow could be prohibited

2/Comment tiers:
Based on their contribution points, users would fall into one of the following tiers (just ideas):
New users: Strict limits on consecutive messages/comments (for example, 5 comments per hour).
Active users: Relaxed limits, as they’ve shown consistent engagement.
Experienced users: No restrictions, as they’ve built a solid reputation.

3/Gradual warnings:
If a user spams, he’ll receive warnings like:
- “Your activity seems unusual. Please review your comments before posting.”
After multiple warnings, they could temporarily lose commenting rights. As it’s already the case

These points and the reputation status would be hidden from everyone

as far I know, this has never been proposed or rejected
comments = information added

It's a good idea, but 5 comments per hour for new scratchers is a little much. I'm pretty sure you have to post positive comments before you can become a scratcher, and this would make it harder for a new scratcher to become a scratcher.

Elijah999999 wrote:

everwinner64 wrote:

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

what about RNTAS

Sorry, but wdym?

“Hello! I have invited you and 100 000 others to join my annoying contest. RNTAS: 103”
It means “random number to avoid spam.”

It's not only used to advertise, but to give announcements to your contest or provide results
"Thank you for entering! Here are the results!: RNTAS: 2988“
”Hey! I changed the rules! Please review rule #6! RNTAS: 4598"

You can't always go too hard on the spam limits, because some people may need to repeat a message multiple times, otherwise its hard for them to get information out quickly

cinnamonXrose wrote:

-snip-
It's a good idea, but 5 comments per hour for new scratchers is a little much. I'm pretty sure you have to post positive comments before you can become a scratcher, and this would make it harder for a new scratcher to become a scratcher.

comments aren't required for the scratcher rank.
also, please don't quote the original post, especially if it's long.

The-Sushi-Cat wrote:

You can't always go too hard on the spam limits, because some people may need to repeat a message multiple times, otherwise its hard for them to get information out quickly

Yeah it’s why I answered

everwinner64 wrote:

I don’t see why RNTAS would change, some uses of it are legit and I don’t see on what my suggestion would change something to that.

Bumb

everwinner64 wrote:

1/Contribution points:
Users would earn “contribution points” by performing positive actions, such as posting constructive comments validated by the community (for example, if others mark the comment as “helpful” {by adding a voting system}).

 //asking for a vote in exchange of a follow could be prohibited

a) If this is viewable to users, people can judge each other or even themselves, thinking that they're unconstructive.
b) Maybe prohibit sharing your contribution score if you can see your own score?
c) It's great that you can't exchange positive voting for follows, but what about pv4pv or getting followers to ignore a specific user's posts and consistently avoid positively voting them, even if they were being constructive? This could start some unfair disadvantages.
d) Does this include forum posts? I think forum posts should be included, submitting a good post is helpful too.

everwinner64 wrote:

2/Comment tiers:
Based on their contribution points, users would fall into one of the following tiers (just ideas):
New users: Strict limits on consecutive messages/comments (for example, 5 comments per hour).
Active users: Relaxed limits, as they’ve shown consistent engagement.
Experienced users: No restrictions, as they’ve built a solid reputation.

a) These should be invisible to everybody in my opinion, do you agree?
b) 5 comments per hour is incredibly strict
c) What are the limits?
d) No restriction is too relaxed. People can switch up fast, and it's not hard to get an alt account to positive vote you all the time to build that solid reputation, then throw it away and start spamming.
e) What are the boundaries for contribution points (I think this should depend on how many points you get per positive vote)

everwinner64 wrote:

3/Gradual warnings:
If a user spams, he’ll receive warnings like:
- “Your activity seems unusual. Please review your comments before posting.”
After multiple warnings, they could temporarily lose commenting rights. As it’s already the case

These points and the reputation status would be hidden from everyone

a) Will this mute them, and would this remove some contribution points? Will this stop their comment from being posted , and will it affect their rank?
b) Can the message be a bit more specific? It's slightly ambiguous and ‘your activity seems unusual’ sounds like you're being detected as a bot.
c) How many is multiple, and how many rights do they lose? How long is temporary?
d) Okay, that's good Can prevent some judgment then amongst community members

ametrine_ wrote:

cinnamonXrose wrote:

-snip-
It's a good idea, but 5 comments per hour for new scratchers is a little much. I'm pretty sure you have to post positive comments before you can become a scratcher, and this would make it harder for a new scratcher to become a scratcher.

comments aren't required for the scratcher rank.
also, please don't quote the original post, especially if it's long.

Comments might be required. We don't know the exact requirements

sorry, you have to wait 60 seconds between posts - btw I do this to waste the 60 seconds faster :)

iiucandyfloss wrote:

a) If this is viewable to users, people can judge each other or even themselves, thinking that they're unconstructive.
b) Maybe prohibit sharing your contribution score if you can see your own score?
c) It's great that you can't exchange positive voting for follows, but what about pv4pv or getting followers to ignore a specific user's posts and consistently avoid positively voting them, even if they were being constructive? This could start some unfair disadvantages.
d) Does this include forum posts? I think forum posts should be included, submitting a good post is helpful too.

a) These should be invisible to everybody in my opinion, do you agree?
b) 5 comments per hour is incredibly strict
c) What are the limits?
d) No restriction is too relaxed. People can switch up fast, and it's not hard to get an alt account to positive vote you all the time to build that solid reputation, then throw it away and start spamming.
e) What are the boundaries for contribution points (I think this should depend on how many points you get per positive vote)

a) Will this mute them, and would this remove some contribution points? Will this stop their comment from being posted , and will it affect their rank?
b) Can the message be a bit more specific? It's slightly ambiguous and ‘your activity seems unusual’ sounds like you're being detected as a bot.
c) How many is multiple, and how many rights do they lose? How long is temporary?
d) Okay, that's good Can prevent some judgment then amongst community members

a) that’s right, it’s why I said in a precedent post in this topic that your reputation points would not be changed only with review of users, what’s more, judging himself would be blocked
b) you’ll not be able to see your score and your « rank »
c) ignoring a specific user and encouraging to that is discrimination, and sorry but what’s « pv4pv »?
d) yeah, forum posts would be included

a) as I said at the end of the first post of this topic, yeah it would invisible for everyone
b) as I said in others post of this topic, it’s just a number arbitrary chosen
c) what do you heard by « what are the limits »?
d) hmm, so we could add a small cooldown
e) what do you heard by « boundaries »? However, I think that 1 point per vote would be good

a) after multiple warnings only
d) so it could be « it seems you’re trying to spam, please don’t spam »
c) in my opinion, multiple is 3-4, when you lose your rights, it could be 10 hours, in a first time, 1 day if you continue, and 1 week of total mute if it’s not enough

Bump

Bump, again

you have to bump up your post over and over again because the majority of scratchers, or at least the majority of my friend group here on scratch dislike anti-spam measures and i am very sure that they would absoutely hate improving anti-spam. my thoughts? its anti-alts, forcing scratchers to be active if they want to make 20 comments in one hour for a MAP or something similar, and the title you put makes me want to instantly “no support without a reason” it

cake__5 wrote:

its anti-alts, forcing scratchers to be active if they want to make 20 comments in one hour for a MAP or something similar, and the title you put makes me want to instantly “no support without a reason” it

I don't think the ST really wants many unused alts anyways, so I can't see why that would factor into this suggestion.

cake__5 wrote:

you have to bump up your post over and over again because the majority of scratchers, or at least the majority of my friend group here on scratch dislike anti-spam measures and i am very sure that they would absoutely hate improving anti-spam. my thoughts? its anti-alts, forcing scratchers to be active if they want to make 20 comments in one hour for a MAP or something similar, and the title you put makes me want to instantly “no support without a reason” it

It’s your opinion. I don’t see, in what an anti-spam is anti-alt, and I’m probably not alone. I’d like to see what would you say if your profile or your projects are spammed until comments are closed…

Bump

everwinner64 wrote:

Hello, I’d like to propose an enhancement to the anti-spam system that works for bots and real users: a reputation and positive activity based system.
How would it work?

1/Contribution points:
Users would earn “contribution points” by performing positive actions, such as posting constructive comments validated by the community (for example, if others mark the comment as “helpful” {by adding a voting system}).

 //asking for a vote in exchange of a follow could be prohibited

2/Comment tiers:
Based on their contribution points, users would fall into one of the following tiers (just ideas):
New users: Strict limits on consecutive messages/comments (for example, 5 comments per hour).
Active users: Relaxed limits, as they’ve shown consistent engagement.
Experienced users: No restrictions, as they’ve built a solid reputation.

3/Gradual warnings:
If a user spams, he’ll receive warnings like:
- “Your activity seems unusual. Please review your comments before posting.”
After multiple warnings, they could temporarily lose commenting rights. As it’s already the case

These points and the reputation status would be hidden from everyone

as far I know, this has never been proposed or rejected
comments = information added

No any support. Actually, many things are prohibited on Scratch, but people still continue to do it. So, votes may be exchanged even it is not allowed. Then, no restriction is too much relaxed, they could actually spam when they are “experienced”, but 5 comments is too much restrictive. And even they'll be hidden, it's easy to discover :
New Users => New Scratchers
Active => Scratchers that do not speak much
Experienced => Scratchers that speaks very much
And losing commenting rights, for how much time ?
I think that Scratch's moderation, that is even not the best, should not be replaced by points-based moderation, then there will be many exchanging, even it is not allowed because spammers often prefer be banned on alts and be able to spam on main rather than waiting people voting.