I wonder how many man-hours are wasted having to deal with these idiots...
 
Oh well, thanks for the effort Ryan! 

Ryan Munnis [Cakewalk]

CakeAlexS
The forums software is here, let us know what you find that will resolve this I didn't see anything...
http://www.aspplayground.net

IIS (Internet Information Server), the web server the forums software runs on, could filter this out.

That too is an extreme oversimplification. 

From the ASPPlayground Features Tour: 

The last configuration: "Post Approval Required for users w/ fewer than x posts" (where x is greater than 0).
 
Using this feature would practically eliminate our spammer friends who start their havoc by creating a new account. Since a new spam account doesn't have any posts, it would require a moderator to approve the first post - and so would remove most of the weekend spam we see here week after week.
 
Or is this your version of "MAJOR inconvenience for the average user and newcomer"? Because in truth this isn't an inconvenience issue for users - it's an inconvenience for Cakewalk. Because using this feature could require a mod to be monitoring the forum most of the 24 hours. Or it could require Cakewalk to post a notice that accounts opened during non-East-Coast-business hours may see a delay in approval. Cakewalk may very well find that inconvenient, but that doesn't seem like a MAJOR inconvenience to users. I've used plenty of forums where I had to wait for my account to be approved - it wasn't that big of a deal, and I (and I'm sure many forum users) always understood why the forum was restricting new accounts that way.
 
On the other hand, it is a MAJOR inconvenience for long-time users/customers to log on here and be faced with multiple pages of spam. THAT is a real inconvenience!

Was mentioned earlier by InstrEd... Ruben if you check the last few posts Cakewalk has just introduced a solution that could have easily sorted this problem. This way Cakewalk does not have to hire a chicken to peck an approve button every hour. Give them a few weeks to optimize this if it hasn't happened already...

Thanks Alex.

And yes it is a major inconvenience because new users would have to wait around for a moderator to approve their posts.

Ruben, I get the impression you're reacting to a single word I used and not actually considering the bigger picture here. Flagging posts, which was extremely simple to do, was and is a much better solution then people having to go through thousands of post logs to figure out what is NOT spam. In one corner you have a whole community who can fight spam, in the other you have only a few and the reality is they're not available 24/7 and should not be expected to be.

You're basing your opinion on a single picture of a single control but don't really know all the details of how every forum and sub form is actually set up. I'm not stretching the truth here, the option we chose was the best one.

I don't understand why this conversation always turns into an argument. I think the flagging solution worked pretty well considering the amount of spam that was hitting us. When it did hit, it never remained for long.

Good news is it looks like Akismet has started to filter the Indian spam already. Cross your fingers it keeps it up!

Hang in there, everybody.
 
It's a pain, but at least with folks flagging this crap and it getting deleted - even if it takes a little bit, it's enough of a stop-gap for now, while they continue to investigate additional methods of resolution.
 
Part of it is that they have a deliberate lean toward posters being able to post - and they are trying to work up a way where that can still happen, yet have the means of removing/preventing the spamzillas.
 
Between the folks that participate, most of the crap is gone by mid morning EST.  I promise to be as vigilant as I can in the mornings, or whenever I see it, while we await further implementations of preventative measures.
 
Hang in there, all :)
 
Bob Bone
 

The only problem with spam tagging is I think it's just a handfull of members who are willing to tag a dozen spam a day. You run the risk of burn out.
 

Cactus Music
The only problem with spam tagging is I think it's just a handfull of members who are willing to tag a dozen spam a day. You run the risk of burn out.

This
 
Cheers :)

Ryan Munnis [Cakewalk
Ruben, I get the impression you're reacting to a single word I used and not actually considering the bigger picture here.

 
Ryan, while I did highlight a "single word" that you used, that wasn't meant to be the focus of my post. I do see a bigger picture than that, but admittedly not the full picture that you see. My point is that there is a forum feature that could minimize spam but you (Cakewalk) apparently don't want to use it. Your (Cakewalk's) reasoning seems to be :
 

And yes it is a major inconvenience because new users would have to wait around for a moderator to approve their posts.

 
As a long-time customer and forum user, I disagree. My opinion and experience is that it is a MINOR inconvenience to wait for a new account approval (and that it is a completely understandable inconvenience) while it is a big inconvenience for your committed customers and forum users to put up with heavy spam when visiting this forum. I know how annoying it is for me to look at "Unread" posts and get a listing of multiple pages of spam, and I don't even visit here every day. I can imagine how frustrating it can get for the regular guys who visit here every day.
 
And I find your (Cakewalk's) attitude about this a bit ironic, because you guys are the DAW producers that don't incorporate frustrating and time consuming software protection into your software. Cakewalk consistently gets accolades from users regarding this choice you (Cakewalk) have made - we users really appreciate and value that we don't have to install dongles or Pace or some other obfuscating hoop to jump through, and the message that gets communicated is that Cakewalk cares more for their paying customers, and puts customers first, rather than worry about pirates. But you (Cakewalk) seem to take the opposite stance regarding forum spam - that it's better to inconvenience your forum members/supporters than offend a new account user by making her/him wait for approval. And that is certainly your (Cakewalk's) decision to make, but it's a PITA for the folks who have supported you (Cakewalk) the most.
 

Flagging posts, which was extremely simple to do, was and is a much better solution then people having to go through thousands of post logs to figure out what is NOT spam. In one corner you have a whole community who can fight spam, in the other you have only a few and the reality is they're not available 24/7 and should not be expected to be.

 
This forum software does make it quite easy to mark spam and report it to the mods, but I completely disagree with the premise that your users should be your primary way of fighting spam, and that you (Cakewalk) "should not be expected" to be solely responsible for fighting spam. While it's great that folks here join in and help remove spam, it is not our (the forum users) responsibility. It is the forum owner's responsibility, and you (Cakewalk or any forum owner) should indeed be expected to be the primary agents fighting spam on the forum. You guys (Cakewalk) choose to start this forum. You guys get the benefits of the exposure gained from this forum. And you guys should be expected to be the responsible ones for maintaining this forum. That's not to say that it's easy, or that you will always have the manpower, or that your users will always agree with you. But it's your (Cakewalk's) forum, and you should be expected to deal with all of it, good or bad. If users have the time and want to help, awesome, but as has been mentioned by Cakewalk many times, it's your "kitchen".
 

You're basing your opinion on a single picture of a single control but don't really know all the details of how every forum and sub form is actually set up. I'm not stretching the truth here, the option we chose was the best one.

 
You're correct, I don't know every facet of this forum, not even close. I wasn't attempting to boil everything down to a single control. I was just pointing to a forum configuration option that is well known by anyone who has operated web forums. It is an forum option that would most likely make a difference in cleaning up new spam accounts, and it can be frustrating to be aware of the option and know that Cakewalk has made the choice to not implement that particular control - and knowing your (Cakewalk's) reasoning makes it all the more frustrating.
 

I don't understand why this conversation always turns into an argument. I think the flagging solution worked pretty well considering the amount of spam that was hitting us. When it did hit, it never remained for long.
 
Good news is it looks like Akismet has started to filter the Indian spam already. Cross your fingers it keeps it up!

My post about the single forum configuration was meant as a solution, not an argument. But it's pretty clear, even excluding anything I've written, that this spam issue is getting some folks riled up, and as we all know, it can be human nature to argue over one's frustrations.
 
But I'm hopeful with you that Akismet will make a difference and result in a cleaner forum.

To be clear, I was saying that we (nor any moderators) shouldn't be expected to be available 24/7. I was not saying we shouldn't be responsible period. I've spent plenty of time on-the-go maintaining this forum and I know there are a number of other moderators who have been removing spam regardless of users flagging spam. We're maintaining the forum just like everyone else. It's not like we haven't been doing it.
 
What it boils down to though, is that we do not have 24/7 moderators and with the rate that spam was coming in previously we would need someone to sit around all day long approving posts. Just because it might work in other forums, in no way was this practical for how we have it set up. You're suggesting this would solve the problem, but I'm telling you it would not. I think it's a very poor solution that wouldn't work out well for us.
 
I guess we can debate about it until the end of time, the difference is I'm basing my opinion off the rate of which spam comes in, the way the logs are maintained, the way we have our forum configured, and the fact that I know people are working on other priorities versus sitting around approving posts all day long. If we implemented that control, I can promise you people would be sitting around for a long time waiting to participate. Obviously we seem to disagree on level of how acceptable that is. Hopefully the new integration will make this disagreement a moot point and we can all move on.
 
Honestly, rather then sitting around approving posts, I would like to think that Cakewalk employees should probably spend more time on things like this instead: http://forum.cakewalk.com...OFFICIAL-m3009969.aspx
 
I'm just communicating where our priorities have been, which is developing music software. It seems like the finger is being pointed at us for not turning on a control that we all agree on internally is a poor idea, versus the spammers themselves.

...What it boils down to though, is that we do not have 24/7 moderators

Ah, but you could, simply by accepting volunteer moderators from the user base.
 
We're here 7 days a week and cover every timezone.
 
You could send 'em a free t-shirt for their trouble.