More Sophisticated Spam Throttling

I am seldom acquainted with the 60 second rule. But when I am, it is extremely frustrating.

Now, don't view this suggestion as an attack on the 60 second rule: it is clearly an extremely helpful feature, encouraging users to think through posts, it helps prevent spam, etc.

But, simpler, although in this case pretty effective, is not always better; why not implement a different spam-control system that won't annoy users? Allow Scratchers to post some posts very fast sequentially, but then stop them if they've posted too much within too short a time.

Basically, we should only stop posts from being posted if certain criteria are met; these could be for example, “user has already had a throttling within last 5 minutes and is posting fast again,” “user has posted three posts within 60 seconds,” “user's recent average post length has been less than 50 characters and their last post was less than 60 seconds ago” etc.

This way, users could sometimes post fast, if they've seen something super exciting and want to contribute as fast as possible, for example. However, they'd be less likely to get annoyed by having their posting stopped, because the prevention mechanism would be sophisticated enough to recognise that this user generally makes thoughtful contributions and hasn't rushed posts very often recently.

Don't just close this, because I feel like all the standard arguments against changing this feature are handled well by this idea, and I would love to see this suggestion develop with useful input and constructive commentary rather than being closed immediately.

The 60 second rule is so simply beautiful. It is very effective as it is, and making it overly complicated isn't going to improve it I don't think.

Sigton

Sigton wrote:

The 60 second rule is so simply beautiful. It is very effective as it is, and making it overly complicated isn't going to improve it I don't think.

I don't feel like this is over-complicating it. I feel like this is the simplest system that would offer spam-prevention while decreasing how often legitimate users are frustrated by it.

theonlygusti wrote:

I don't feel like this is over-complicating it. I feel like this is the simplest system that would offer spam-prevention while decreasing how often legitimate users are frustrated by it.

With 3 different ways to be spamming, it isn't that simple.

Sigton

Sigton wrote:

The 60 second rule is so simply beautiful. It is very effective as it is, and making it overly complicated isn't going to improve it I don't think.

Sigton

I disagree; I know multiple forum systems that already contain “You're posting too fast”. This throttling would (seems to me) ultimately take time to produce, but greatly make efficiency in the handling of forum posts.

Also, it's not the 60 second rule that's going to exactly be changing…

I support! I don't spam, and the 60 second rule annoys me a lot. It happened to me right now, in fact!

I think the 60-second rule is fine as is and I don't see much spamming now-a-days anyway.

nickeljorn wrote:

I support! I don't spam, and the 60 second rule annoys me a lot. It happened to me right now, in fact!

I agree. I read through everything on the Suggestions forum pretty fast, and if I have to be somewhere it's annoying to wait an extra sixty seconds just for one dang post. So, support.

Sigton wrote:

The 60 second rule is so simply beautiful. It is very effective as it is, and making it overly complicated isn't going to improve it I don't think.

Sigton

Think about that phrase.

“Making it overly complicated isn't going to improve it, I don't think.”

So you do think the suggestion will improve it?

Yes, please. I often just have to write a simple reply, like “What?,” but I'm stopped because of the 60-second rule. In fact, even just allowing two posts in a row without the 60-second rule would improve my life a ton, and only increase spam by a little tiny bit. In fact, this feature would probably have almost zero impact on spam if it only was available to Scratchers - Scratchers suddenly going on a spam spree would only happen once in a rare while, and so moderation would not really become much harder.

I feel like the standard arguments (“Oh, well, the 60-second rule makes people write constructive posts”) are kind of wrong, because if somebody doesn't feel like being constructive, being forced to wait is not going to make them feel like being more constructive (in general - I'm sure some people would take the time to improve their posts a little, but I find it very hard to believe that it would have a huge impact).

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

Yes, please. I often just have to write a simple reply, like “What?,” but I'm stopped because of the 60-second rule. In fact, even just allowing two posts in a row without the 60-second rule would improve my life a ton, and only increase spam by a little tiny bit. In fact, this feature would probably have almost zero impact on spam if it only was available to Scratchers - Scratchers suddenly going on a spam spree would only happen once in a rare while, and so moderation would not really become much harder.

I feel like the standard arguments (“Oh, well, the 60-second rule makes people write constructive posts”) are kind of wrong, because if somebody doesn't feel like being constructive, being forced to wait is not going to make them feel like being more constructive (in general - I'm sure some people would take the time to improve their posts a little, but I find it very hard to believe that it would have a huge impact).

I can actually easily relate…

I've just sat around trying to make bumps on topics of my own…

theonlygusti wrote:

I don't feel like this is over-complicating it. I feel like this is the simplest system that would offer spam-prevention while decreasing how often legitimate users are frustrated by it.

I lend my support to this one - People rarely spam on this site, I certainly don't, and the sixty second rule can become frustrating. I think we should have the suggestion you came up with, as, while it would take more time to develop, it would be much more sophisticated and useful once it was complete.

While this would be a nice improvement, I don't see it happening. It would be too complicated with multiple types of spam, advertising, posting something multiple times in a row, or making irrelevant comments.

jromagnoli wrote:

While this would be a nice improvement, I don't see it happening. It would be too complicated with multiple types of spam, advertising, posting something multiple times in a row, or making irrelevant comments.

Please explain ‘complicated’. It literally is just a throttling system to prevent users from posting too many times at once; hence reducing spam.

MathlyCat wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

While this would be a nice improvement, I don't see it happening. It would be too complicated with multiple types of spam, advertising, posting something multiple times in a row, or making irrelevant comments.

Please explain ‘complicated’. It literally is just a throttling system to prevent users from posting too many times at once; hence reducing spam.

What I'm saying is that there are multiple types of spam, how will it deal with that?

Get ready for a criteria flood:
Posted at least twice within last 60 seconds, text has been less than 50 characters
This post does not contain any english words and the same applies to the previous post
Previous post is the same as the current post
Posted at least 4 times within this minute, does not matter about content.
Post contains:
A link to the poster's project OR at least 3 links
The surrounding sentences of the link have exclamation marks
Phrases such as “must see” “die of laughter” (insert a ball changing colour slowly)

chessdragon255 wrote:

I'm a new Scratcher and I found something HYSTERICALLY funny. You will DIE OF LAUGHTER!!!!!!
https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/projects/137953066/
https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/projects/116027546/
https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/projects/118068674/
This is a MUST for all Scratchers, new and old!!!!!
ChessDragon255

P.S. not funny at all
Post contains at least a four layer quote, like this:

obviouslynotaspammer wrote:

imaspammer wrote:

yay wrote:

Cat wrote:

iluv2spam wrote:

SPAM SPAM SPAM

While this would be a nice improvement, I don't see it happening.

Water you doing?

sample

a

Or a very long quote, such as the front page of a store on a forum.
Or a bump chain, like the quote spam from earlier except with bumps.
And with that, here is a lot of stuff you should consider spam. I will update this periodically.

Galleigo wrote:

Get ready for a criteria flood:
-snip-

While I think most of these are pretty good criteria, I feel like were this to be implemented it wouldn't have to be anywhere near as analytical.

Also, please be careful with your phrasing: “Get ready for a criteria flood.” It sounds like you've suddenly made yourself an authoritative figure on this subject, and other people may “No support” because of the specific criteria you've proposed, however this suggestion shouldn't attempt to create the criteria.

But having said that, I feel like all that needs changing are the time restrictions, perhaps weighted by the post's volume.

E.g. ‘you’ve posted three times within the last minute' would mean that in the next minute you can only post once.

Five posts in a row with <50 characters, next post has to be 60 seconds in future.

Just really “simple” criteria.

Of course, the implementation's specifics would be up to the ST.

Galleigo wrote:

This post does not contain any english words and the same applies to the previous post

Poor Fench people.

Sigton

I haven't used the forums much but think this looks like a good idea

This sounds like a good idea, if implemented properly. While the current system can be annoying, if you want to post twice for legitimate reasons, a new system could be exploitable if not properly designed.

Galleigo wrote:

Get ready for a criteria flood:
-snip-

You should remove the usernames from the quotes, it is known as naming and shaming. Now that I know the criteria, I think I support this spam throttling proposition.