I've tried about 5 or 6 times to start a thread with a link in it but it keeps disappearing
 
Where are our friendly hosts when you them

 
I just tried again.
 
Maybe I'm being mistaken for spam
 
Remind me again, how was this place somehow 'worse' before all this bollocks

 

 
Could someone else copy that link and try to post it please.

I couldn't post anything with a link to bestservice in it earlier this week. I thought it was me but Fleer tried to and as soon as it was submitted. it was gone. One stayed for a few minutes then disappeared. I got a not from Karyn about one being put back somewhere. I forgot to look. Something about links, at least some links makes posts disappear.
Jolly ho ho ho ...
J

 
Thanks Ed & Julien.
 
I guessed it must be something like that.
 
How ever did we manage before, eh?

Wow, I had a search through the trash and found 64 copies of the same post grabbed by Akismet.
 
Steve, the spam filter seems to really have it in for you today. Is there anything specific you want restoring?

I remember a Monty Python sketch where you couldn't get anything without Spam, then the Vikings started singing a song about Spam.
 
I don't know why it has you in its spam sights - your signature has had that link for at least a few days now, that I can recall.
 
I restored another thread of yours a couple minutes ago, and will try to pay attention to things for a little bit, to see what is happening to you.
 
It's not us hosts - honest - the forum software is wigging out, it appears.
 
Bob Bone
 

CakeAlexS
Of course the forum software is going to flag it when people link to lottery sites..! Totally legit in my view. Not much different from viagra spam. Am I missing something? Did I miss the Microsoft lottery? Ta.

First off, there's no need for the sarcasm mush. There's a paying customer here with a genuine moan about how these forums are functioning. The first rule of business is that the customer is always right, you'd do well to remember that when you're representing Cakewalk in an official capacity.
 
I won ten quid on a completely genuine and legitimate free-to-enter UK postcode lottery site. As part of my post, I saw no harm whatsoever in including a link, should other UK members want to see how and where I won my tenner.
 
Let's be absolutely clear about this - I would never in a month of Sundays dream of littering this place with spam, or including any link to any site that I didn't have the utmost confidence in. To compare what I posted to "viagra spam" is lazy moderation. The super-sensitive and completely unfit-for-purpose forum filter may not be able to differentiate between a bona fide website and "viagra spam", but a human being tasked with performing that very job should be able to.
 
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that, as usual, it's the completely honest, non-spamming regular members of these forums that always suffer when inadequate measures are taken to prevent arseholes from posting unwanted ads and other junk?
 
How on earth can it be right that, because of these so-called safeguards, regular members have to go through the rigmarole of contacting a host and asking that they then go and rescue their flagged posts from the forum recycling bin?
 
How is that somehow better than a few spam posts getting through?
 
If you're serious about preventing spam and deterring spammers, then simply moderate the forums properly; i.e. actively, as opposed to passively reacting to members requests to resurrect vanished posts. Or just make the criteria for joining the forum and posting here significantly stricter.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that we had some kind of a massive problem before these changes were made. A problem that's necessitated cranking up the forum defences so high as part of the solution.
 
I recall one of the Cakewalk guys saying he was previously tied up with deleting spam posts instead of doing something more productive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why one or two staff members have effectively been replaced by a significantly larger number of hosts? Surely with the manpower that now exists to remove spam and follow up flagged posts, I can't see the need to have the filters set so aggressively.
 
Finally, if linking to a legitimate site in a post or having a YouTube video in one's signature is in contravention of the COC, then I have absolutely zero problem with any of my posts being removed. If not, then I believe I have every right to expect that they are not removed, either automatically or manually.
 
Ta.
 
 
 
 

No sarcasm, I regularly get scam lottery emails every day, and I'm just saying it's just not surprising that you posting to a lottery site that it got flagged, I would expect any spam scanner to flag it otherwise it would not be doing its job. Also a host restored your links to a lottery site and they were just doing their job so there you go. Sorry for the inconviencience (again no sarcasm).

I'm sure there are legitimate viagra sites out there as well, the forum software however is not human or a medium and therefore will probably end up flagging those sites as well (but I can't understand why would people want to post to them?). Same goes for rolex watches and your long lost relative has a million dollars locked into his account.

Please be aware that these forums, as all forums that have been around for a while, are targetted all the time by automated spambots. The reason why you don't see it so much is because of this excellent software. These forums had a big and far more annoying spam issue before cakewalk sucessfully rolled out the current system. The spambots have not gone away the software just deletes them (or blocks them) before you get to see anything.

Cheers..

CakeAlexS
No sarcasm, I regularly get scam lottery emails every day, and I'm just saying it's just not surprising that you posting to a lottery site that it got flagged, I would expect any spam scanner to flag it otherwise it would not be doing its job. Also a host restored your links to a lottery site and they were just doing their job so there you go. Sorry for the inconviencience (again no sarcasm).

I'm sure there are legitimate viagra sites out there as well, the forum software however is not human or a medium and therefore will probably end up flagging those sites as well (but I can't understand why would people want to post to them?). Same goes for rolex watches and your long lost relative has a million dollars locked into his account.

Please be aware that these forums, as all forums that have been around for a while, are targetted all the time by automated spambots. The reason why you don't see it so much is because of this excellent software. These forums had a big and far more annoying spam issue before cakewalk sucessfully rolled out the current system. The spambots have not gone away the software just deletes them (or blocks them) before you get to see anything.

Cheers..

Alex, I happen to fully understand and agree with everything you say, but you haven't directly addressed any of the points I raised.
 
Like how I used to be able to post the sort of stuff that is now getting blocked? How is that better for me than occasionally being exposed to some spam?
 
How is my forum experience improved by having to go through all the rigmarole of getting a host to restore any posts or threads that get caught in the net, as opposed to ignoring or reporting any genuine spam I come across?
 
How is my forum experience improved by having to second guess what the forum software is going to consider a spam attack every time I want to include a link in a post? Again, I ask you why I should have to moderate/censor myself if what I'm posting is definitely not spam or in contravention of the COC?
 
And let's be honest for a minute here and put the spam 'problem' into perspective shall we. How many forum users do you think have actually been conned out of their dosh by any of the spam that has previously appeared in these forums? I'm guessing the answer is precisely 'none'. In other words, what we had before was not a serious problem at all, but more of a 'nuisance'. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for clearing out this crap and keeping the forums tidy and spam free, all I'm saying is that the system is not up to the job when my genuine posts are being zapped.
 
Using your email analogy, how many 'scam lottery' emails have you replied to? 'None' I'm assuming? And to extend the analogy (although to be honest, I don't think it's a good analogy), I'm guessing you have the spam filter turned on in your email account(s); I'm also guessing that you don't have these filters set to automatically delete any incoming emails that it classifies as spam - just in case it catches something genuine in error.
 
As to your comment that "the forum software however is not human or a medium", I would argue that it is this very factor that makes it unsuitable for the job, and currently unfit-for-purpose. I was led to believe that this very task of removing spam was ideally suited to be included among the duties of hosts? Somehow it's been flipped on its head so that instead of removing spam, the hosts are instead actually restoring genuine posts.
 
Isn't there perhaps some way in which the forum software could be programmed to ignore all posts authored by regular members? I'm sure the safeguards of reporting/flagging are in place should any long-time user suddenly go rogue and start posting links to dodgy or illegal sites. I'm pretty certain that within a day or two, the hosts could compile a fairly comprehensive list of genuine users who could be made immune from the spam bots.
 
Finally, correct me if I'm wrong here Alex, but when you say (specifically the statement I've highlighted), "I'm sure there are legitimate viagra sites out there as well, the forum software however is not human or a medium and therefore will probably end up flagging those sites as well (but I can't understand why would people want to post to them?). Same goes for rolex watches and your long lost relative has a million dollars locked into his account.", aren't you subjectively and arbitrarily making a judgement about what users should and shouldn't post in here? Just because you "can't understand" why someone would want to post something doesn't automatically mean they 'shouldn't' post it. Either a post is in contravention of the COC or it isn't? My argument all along is that the forum software isn't up to the job of making that decision, but forum hosts definitely should be. If the hosts were actively seeking out spam (a definite contravention of the COC) as well as responding to members' flags and notifications of such, then I believe we'd have a far more efficient system than we do at present. I for one (and I'm sure I speak for others) would offer the hosts my full support in such an undertaking.
 
 
NB: ^^^^^^ Where I use the first person in my comments, they are obviously applicable to any genuine forum user.

I believe it's possible to switch the spam scanner off for individual forums.  We could have a word with Ryan to try it out for the CH for a trial period.
 
Thoughts?   Anyone?

At the risk of illiciting a freakout I gotta say I personally am liking the new system even if there are still some kinks that need to be worked out and an ongoing learning curve for the hosts. Because I wake up ridiculously early I was one of the members spending time flagging spam posts to clear up the queue. It was time consuming and boring but if I was around I figured I might as well help out. Since they updated and reorganized the site I haven't seen any of that spammy crap and there seems to be far less sock puppet trolling going on. I think occasionally there has been a bit of overzealousness as far as moving things around but I get the impression the Bakers themselves want topics to be in their appropriate sub-forums and have mandated that as the duty of the hosts. That's kind of lame in the sense that sometimes you want to get more eyes on something in the more populated X forum but hopefully over time everyone will be visiting all the forums and the user base experiences the paradigm shift the Bakers seem to be encouraging.
 
As far as this situation... it makes perfect sense for the forum software to automatically block certain content considering the non stop onslaught of spam we used to get. This really doesn't seem like something to get so offended and angry about. The hosts restored the posts and when it comes down to it the site you were linking to actually DOES sound kind of skeevy. If it weren't you posting it or one of the other regulars I would immediately think that we were being spammed. And just because you or I have enough intertube street smarts to avoid that stuff spammers would not be in the spamming business if it didn't actually work some of the time. We have a lot of users who aren't quite as computer literate and others who aren't great at english so they could possibly succumb to crap like that because they trust this place (or perhaps they are just generally naive). The less of that crap around the less chance there is that they scoop up another victim and THAT is how you put the spmamers out of business. Denying them ANY exposure whatsoever.
 
So sorry you got snared by the filters but any properly run forum on the net these days employ these types of filters and anti-spam/phishing measures. Also most of the places I've participated in would NOT restore mistakenly removed posts or even acknowledge a complaint like this. This is really the most ridiculously accomodating and permissive forums I have ever seen on the net which is part of why it makes it a great place to hang out.
 
Seriously, lurvs ya Strumster but methinks a bit of perspective is in order here.
 
PS: That embedded youtube link in your sig seriously is choking out page load times, dude. Not telling you to remove it (or not speak your mind about whatever... because that wouldn't be very punk of me) but I find myself avoiding threads you posted or posted in specifically because of the slow load times.
 
You may hate away on me now if you like but I would prefer that you just take this as troof from one guit hound and lover of the Sonar forums to another. Peace.

Karyn
I believe it's possible to switch the spam scanner off for individual forums.  We could have a word with Ryan to try it out for the CH for a trial period.
 
Thoughts?   Anyone?

How many (legit) spam hits does the CH get on a regular basis? If its a crumload then I could see it loading up the thread list very quickly and encouraging more spam. I don't care too much and would flag inappropriate stuff again as needed (but hopefully now that we have hosts they could just wipe it out quicker than the old three strikes method) but is it worth it?
 
I guess a better question would be... how many false filter hits does the CH get compared to legit ones? Then a cost/benefit analysis could be done and perhaps for democracy's sake you could put it to a vote amongst CH members.

CakeAlexS
Odd we are having a discussion in the coffee house about this, but ok.

You think it would be better in the Sonar forum?   It's here because Steve posted it here and this is where he's having the problems, seems reasonable.
 
If Ryan agrees to it I'm happy dealing with true spam in the CH rather than restoring false positives.  I would not be happy doing that for the entire forum though. I DO remember what it was like before they turned on Akismet.
 
For the time being though, PLEASE just PM one or all of us about getting stuff restored rather than posting complaint threads about it.