This is probably useful background reading as to what is going on, up until the setup instructions. Ta:

http://www.wpbeginner.com...r-all-wordpress-users/

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.

Steve it's not occasional at all. There are far more spambots targetting these forums then you are imagining. The issue is not much different from spam email. You don't see it as a problem because you don't see the problem (which is a good thing). BTW Cakewalk does not make spam, spam scanners or forum software.

The area you highlighted in yellow, where exactly did I say you shouldn't post lottery sites links? It is my own question, why would on earth would you want to post to lottery sites? I don't need an answer btw it's more of a comment so forget it.

Nobody here has directly written that you should or should not have posted to a lottery site, I even apologised for the inconvenience (just to be nice). You had your lottery post restored as you say it's a legit website, and besides if I even attempted to moderate this forum I personally would be thrown to the hounds. So what's the issue?

Cheers..

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?

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

I don't think spambots care which forum they spam and that would probably be up to cakewalk not us. I'm not seeing much of a false positive problem as it happens only occasionally unlike spam which happens regularly (not only that we were we getting lots of complaint threads about spam last time). Appears people have forgotten just how bad the problem was (or were in a timezone that didn't effect them) if they want to turn off the spam scanner.. The fact people now want to turn it off shows how effective it is.

Cakewalk will have their own stats as to what actually gets blocked (away from hosts view).

Ta.

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.

'Because I wake up ridiculously early I was one of the members spending time flagging spam posts to clear up the queue'

Same here wasn't fun :(

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.

Just for the record as a host I will NOT be doing akismet's job! :)

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.