URL Whitelist for links of new users (1 Viewer)

[ComputerVersteher]

Hi,

what about using an url whitelist of allowed links for new users? They (especially me) should be allowed post links to trustworthy sources like accessforever.org, nolongerset.com, isladogs.co.uk, rubberduckvba.blog, utteraccess.com, stackoverflow.com, microsoft.com etc.

Losing the rights to post links, as the min post count has increased, discourages me from helping!
If I don't spam to get enough posts, it will take more than a year till I reach the min count (assuming actual 3 posts per month).

Other option: circumvent the min post requirement for selected members (aka me), that have proven not to abuse links.

Everyone sharing my frustation should leave a reply to show how many users are affected. If it's only me, then of course benefit is not matching effort and I have to come to terms with it.

best regards CV

 

[DHookom]

I agree with CV. I’ve been contributing to various forums for 20+ years and would appreciate being able to post links. Perhaps I have passed the threshold.

 

[arnelgp]

Losing the rights to post links, as the min post count has increased, discourages me from helping!

you can still post links though, by replacing "@" and (.) with the word "AT" and "dot". just inform the op of the the replacement text he need to do to open the link.

 

[DHookom]

I’ve put up with the same limitation but never been discouraged from attempting to assist. It’s just been more difficult.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Our site owner, Jon, sees the site suggestions sub-form and has frequently done things based on such suggestions. I surely don't speak for him, but I would say he has a good track record on paying attention.

 

[Gasman]

I would think a list of Users would be easier to implement that trying to keep track of various sites?

 

[AccessBlaster]

A whitelist would be an excellent compromise. Some of these folks are well established within the coding community and should be made honorary VIP's upon verification. Who among us hasn't benefited from Duane Hookom, Doug Steele, Allen Browne, etc.

 

[GPGeorge]

I think a list of sites where people have posted Access questions would be virtually impossible to create, and a waste of resources to boot. Keeping in mind that everyone but the site owner is an unpaid volunteer, who would be tasked with that job? Who would volunteer for it?

As one of the administrators at UtterAccess.com, I've seen a long history of spammers. They can be very subtle and ingenious, or they can be amazing blatant.

We even experienced one episode where a team of spammers collaborated in a pattern that didn't help them evade detection at all; just the opposite. They made themselves so obvious that I could spot one of them just by their username and initial post. Sometimes consistency isn't a good thing.

But back to the point at hand. The problem is a familiar one in many endeavors, not just online forums.

A few bad actors spoil things for everyone.

There's no real way to know who's legit and who's not from the first post or two in most cases. Some are, as I noted above, so oblivious--and obvious-- that they give themselves away immediately. But most don't reveal themselves right away. And it does no good to protest that one is not a spammer. That's what they all say. The proof is in the on-going participation.
Another part of the problem is that a reputation as a site where spammers are tolerated would be a severe drag on any site.

And finally, one thing that I personally think can help is to be open about who you are and what your background is. I'll use myself as an example. I have a username that I post under in one variation or another at multiple sites, but I am also very clear about what my real identity is. I think most of us do, both here and at other sites I frequent.

However, when the only thing you can find out about a member is a username and a generic avatar, the level of trust is simply not as great.

Over the years, in fact, that's been a key indicator of potential spammers; the more generic the username, the higher the possibility that the new member will turn out to be a spammer. Like it or not, that's another consequence of the bad actors setting a precedent. When someone protests that they've been an Access Developer for 20+ years, but all you really know about them is that they call themselves, "ThatFamousAccessGuy", I'm not 100% convinced.

 

[Isaac]

I would think a case by case might be workable, but since George has a lot more admin experience than I, I defer to his opinion - that's just my gut feeling. There is a risk of a spammer convincing someone he/she is legit, but there is also a risk of rejecting useful posts by highly skilled new members and I think when I see a highly skilled newer member, it immediately adds a lot of value to the site - but as George said, Especially IF they are open about who they are. _Pete_ vs. Peter Witherington, Chestershire UK

 

[DHookom]

I’ve created almost 90 posts and was still not allowed to post with a URL. The threshold seems unreasonably high. Maybe it’s a way to get newbies to welcome other newbies

 

[GPGeorge]

I’ve created almost 90 posts and was still not allowed to post with a URL. The threshold seems unreasonably high. Maybe it’s a way to get newbies to welcome other newbies

The exact threshold is a separate, but related issue, IMO. I agree that you can gauge someone's intent far sooner than that.

 

[cheekybuddha]

I’ve created almost 90 posts and was still not allowed to post with a URL. The threshold seems unreasonably high. Maybe it’s a way to get newbies to welcome other newbies

Seems like you only have 10 more to go.

No links allowed under 100 posts due to issue with spam.

Just spam 10 useless posts now in this thread and you should be golden!

Dim i As Integer

For i = 1 To 10
  DoPostReply "spam" & i
Next i

DoPostReply "Visit https://utteraccess.com"

 

[DHookom]

89

 

[Gasman]

Hang in there.

 

[cheekybuddha]

89

Now 90!

Keep replying to me with your updated post count!

 

[Isaac]

I’ve created almost 90 posts and was still not allowed to post with a URL. The threshold seems unreasonably high.

That does seem .... well, to be polite to those who set it, I'll say ... it's quite challenging to reconcile that rule with AWF's presumed goals.

I think in a much shorter time span you can see whether someone is a spammer. And if the occasional, rare one falls through the cracks I am pretty sure it won't bring down the site by the time it's noticed.

 

[DHookom]

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the site and the people who run it. I like the opportunity to both learn and contribute.

91

 

[GPGeorge]

Plus it's fun to watch the post count grow.

 

[isladogs]

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the site and the people who run it. I like the opportunity to both learn and contribute.

91

Hi Duane
Hope all is well with you. Good to see you being so active on this forum

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I’ve created almost 90 posts and was still not allowed to post with a URL. The threshold seems unreasonably high. Maybe it’s a way to get newbies to welcome other newbies

I didn't know it was that high!

Before the site update, on the old version of the site, I think it was 10...?

That worked well for a many years!!!

In fact, you could watch the spammers creating their 10 posts, and you could practically guarantee the 11th would contain a spam link!!!

It was one of the joys of being a moderator! Waiting, waiting, waiting - Wham!!! (I am Easily Pleased!)

Got the bar-steward!

My guess is that the recent forum upgrade has a default setting, which needs resetting to 10...