[Imc-web] Re: question about IMC website

[Ricky Baldwin]

Hm.  Just a thought, in the unlikley event that it
might be helpful:

Is there a way to cut off comments when an article
reaches a certain age or (more drastically) after a
certain number?  I'm so techno-ignorant that I simply
have no idea.  Or is the total block the only way to
do it?  

Anyway, it's for you guys to decide.  Just thought I'd
mention my thought in case you could use it...

Thanks again for all you guys do!
Ricky

--- Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Ricky,
> Well, your article is back as it was. I presumed
> that this would cut off 
> the spammers from commenting, but they're back. I
> presume the only way 
> to stop new comments on an old article is to delete
> it completely from 
> the database and I don't want to do that.
> 
> BTW, this once again points out the absolutely
> critical need for an 
> update of the website software.
> 
> It may be that we need to consider shutting down the
> ability to comment 
> on all articles. Is this possible with the software
> we have? Anyone 
> know? Maybe a month-long site-wide comment shut-down
> might discourage them?
> 
> The drawback may be that the spammers decide to
> start posting their crap 
> as articles, rather than as comments, during that
> time. Then all we 
> could do would be to pull the plug on this sick
> puppy.
> 
> Which we may be looking at soon anyway, if this gets
> any worse.
> Mike Lehman
> 
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> > Thanks, Mike-
> >
> > No problem.  Can't see what possible use it is to
> > spammers to post comments to 3-4 year old
> articles,
> > but there's a lot I don't understand about
> spammers
> > (and other things :-).
> >
> > Good luck with the experiment.  Sounds like awful
> work
> > deleting all that stuff.  You guys perform an
> > incredible community service.  Thanks for that,
> too.
> >
> > Ricky
> >
> > --- Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> Hi Ricky,
> >> Yes, it's an old article of yours from 2003. I
> hid
> >> it as an experiment. 
> >> Most readers of the website are probably not
> aware
> >> of it, but the IMC 
> >> site has been deluged over the last year by
> >> literally tens of thousands 
> >> of ads disguised as comments to articles. Some of
> >> these we can delete 
> >> automatically, but many of them have to be
> manually
> >> deleted one at a time.
> >>
> >> The spammers seem to choose articles to
> repeatedly
> >> hit, apparently 
> >> either because the article was included in a
> >> database they bought as 
> >> part of their "get rich quick on the internet"
> >> package or because of a 
> >> relatively high Google ranking. A few articles,
> >> including this one of 
> >> yours, are simply repeatedly swamped with such
> crap.
> >> I decided to try 
> >> completely hiding the article -- which is
> something
> >> different than the 
> >> hiding it so that it shows up in Hidden Articles
> --
> >> as this cuts off the 
> >> ability to add new comments and might lighten our
> >> workload.
> >>
> >> It may be that the spammers simply choose new
> >> targets, in which case 
> >> we're better off leaving the old targets up. If
> they
> >> do move along, then 
> >> there are about a dozen other old articles that I
> >> may propose for this 
> >> treatment.
> >>
> >> I'd be interested in any thoughts or concerns you
> >> may have about this. 
> >> The article can be restored at any time. I really
> >> hate to hide anything 
> >> that doesn't need it, but until we get new
> software
> >> to run the website 
> >> that prevents this sort of automated spamming,
> we're
> >> kind of backed into 
> >> the corner on what we can do about the workload
> >> caused by this problem.
> >> Mike Lehman
> >>
> >> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> >>     
> >>> Hey Mike-
> >>>
> >>> I just got this and I don't know if it's
> anything
> >>>       
> >> I
> >>     
> >>> need to think about or do anything about.  I
> don't
> >>> think I've ever gotten one before.  This is an
> old
> >>> article that I think I remember writing.  Does
> >>>       
> >> this
> >>     
> >>> mean the article had some kind of virus?  Or
> that
> >>>       
> >> you
> >>     
> >>> guys are deleting old stuff?  Or something I'm
> not
> >>> techno enuf to savvy?  Sorry if I'm being dense,
> >>>       
> >> just
> >>     
> >>> wasn't sure what to make of it...
> >>>
> >>> Ricky
> >>>
> >>> --- web at ucimc.org wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> To: baldwinricky at yahoo.com
> >>>> Subject: Your IMC website article has been
> >>>>         
> >> deleted
> >>     
> >>>> From: web at ucimc.org
> >>>> Date: Mon,  7 Aug 2006 10:01:28 -0500 (CDT)
> >>>>
> >>>> Your article entitled "Pro-War Hostility On The
> >>>> Rise, Peace Group Expands" has been deleted
> from
> >>>>         
> >> the
> >>     
> >>>> newswire by ml.
> >>>> The deletion code was: Other.
> >>>> The following comments were noted regarding
> your
> >>>> article: spam target
> >>>>
> >>>> A reference to the deleted article will remain
> at
> >>>> http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/deleted/index.php
> >>>> Feel free to reply to this message if you have
> >>>>         
> >> any
> >>     
> >>>> questions regarding this action.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you, The IMC Editorial Collective.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>
> __________________________________________________
> >>> Do You Yahoo!?
> >>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> >>>       
> >> protection around 
> >>     
> >>> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>     
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> >
> >   
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com