Spam and Abuse Watch

14-Sep-21 10:00

Message Closed

modified 19-Oct-21 10:58am.

jeron114-Sep-21 10:08

jeron1

14-Sep-21 10:08

"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

Solomon Rutzky (alt)14-Sep-21 12:52

14-Sep-21 12:52

So that's it? No review process? No suspended status while the account is given a chance to explain? What kind of operation do you run here? This was my account that was erroneously removed. Did anyone even read my posts, or can any overzealous community member who doesn't spend the time to investigate get someone kicked off at any moment? Please tell me what is wrong with my post(s), what policy I violated! True, I have only posted 2 - 3 times since joining. Is infrequent usage against the rules? The comments that I have posted have been detailed and helpful, and have not had any negative language or innuendo. Yes, two of the posts contained links to information sites that I created. But, I did disclose that they were my sites, and they are just info, not selling or stealing anything. One site is my blog and one is just subject-specific info. How does any of this even come close to qualifying as spam? Or even undesirable?

Please undo my account removal, or at least have the decency to justify the removal. If the issue is the links to my info sites then I can remove those, though they are perfectly valid, non-harmful, non-deceptive destinations, so I can't imagine that they are the real problem.

This situation is certainly not making me feel like I missed anything for spending most of my time on StackExchange sites (and a few others) instead of here.

Thanks,
Solomon..

P.S. Regarding the stated criteria for flagging my comment as spam being that I was replying to a comment from 2014: Are you seriously penalizing me for being the first person in 7 years to a) understand the problem, and b) care enough to spend the time to share my knowledge of the issue with others? Is this site a joke?

jeron114-Sep-21 13:36

jeron1

14-Sep-21 13:36

The account was gone when I looked, and I merely posted as such. The short time frame to account closure suggests a site admin or the like nuked the account. Unfortunately some mistakes may be made as everyone here is human, but the vast majority of spam posts are accurate. If you believe the account closure is unwarranted maybe @sean-ewington might review what transpired and reactivate the account.

Explanation

Nelek14-Sep-21 19:59

14-Sep-21 19:59

He wasn't... I was the one reporting your message.

Member 15358241 wrote:
Yes, two of the posts contained links to information sites that I created. But, I did disclose that they were my sites, and they are just info, not selling or stealing anything. One site is my blog and one is just subject-specific info. How does any of this even come close to qualifying as spam?

It is not spam.
Trying to divert traffic to the own site to generate clicks and maybe revenue. There is a huge amount of people doing that, it is called "site driving" and it usually is not allowed.

Member 15358241 wrote:
P.S. Regarding the stated criteria for flagging my comment as spam being that I was replying to a comment from 2014:

It is not due to the 2014 question per se. That's exactly the usual pattern of the people trying to take profit from the site. They create a post in their blog (sometimes just a copy of other place's content, so add plagiarism to the list), come here search for more or less related topics with a couple of keywords and start posting messages like "this is due to XXX, for more information visit [my-link]".

Quote:
Are you seriously penalizing me for being the first person in 7 years to a) understand the problem, and b) care enough to spend the time to share my knowledge of the issue with others? Is this site a joke?

That's the problem, usually the people don't do it for "sharing the knowledge" the goal is to divert the traffic with a minimal text as a click bait.
You message was giving some technical content, yes. But the "more info in [Link]" was too similar to the usual pattern. That's why I flagged it.

Member 15358241 wrote:
Is this site a joke?

No, it isn't. And that's exactly the main reason why we, users that care about the site, try to keep it clean of spam, abuse and people trying to bend the rules to their own profit. I am just a volunteer that offers his spare time to help (same as you, but in other direction). As a normal person I am no infalible and can have errors.
I might have judged the message wrongly and I apologize for possible inconveniences. @Sean-Ewington or @Chris-Maunder will have a look and reactivate your account if they see it as my error too.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

Re: Explanation

Solomon Rutzky (alt)16-Sep-21 21:13

16-Sep-21 21:13

Hello @Nelek and thanks for replying. I appreciate and understand your various points. I wasn't aware of that trend (i.e. "site driving") and how my actions fit that pattern. I do understand that you are also a volunteer, and yes, everyone makes mistakes (I now understand that I did as well by including that helpful -- IMHO -- though ultimately unnecessary info link in my comment; sorry about that). The only part that was really upsetting (which I will mention in my reply to Chris, who also replied) was the total lack of recourse. The email notifying me of my account termination didn't include a link for "if you feel this action is in error, please contact oops@codeproject.com" or something like that. And so I came back to this site looking for Help / FAQ info on "What to do if you feel that your account should not have been terminated" or something like that, but I couldn't find anything.

Thanks again, Solomon...

Chris Maunder15-Sep-21 3:32

Chris Maunder

15-Sep-21 3:32

Hi Solomon

Your point about a suspension period is fair. Let me add to Nelek's excellent explanation a little.

We get a lot of spam. A lot. As in: hundreds of thousands of accounts getting created by spam operators that we then have to clean up and remove. Over the years they've changed their tactics, and with the rise of Content Marketing we're seeing a blurring between outright spam and content providers posting answers to questions solely for the purpose of inserting links into posts. Yes, information is provided, but if you forbid the links in the posts would that person have posted in the first place?

Your posts, intentionally or not, fit the profile of content spam. The only two posts your made included links that pointed back to your own site. As such they were flagged and your account marked because we see this constantly. We do not have the time or energy to contact every spammer or potential spammer and have a conversation because almost 100% of the time the account that posted the content has no interest in a conversation. They post, they move on.

We, collectively, have been trained to understand that a spammer will spam and move on and will not respond to our "excuse me but could we ask you to tone down the self-referencing posts please?" messages.

You've reached out to us which means you're a real person. I'm happy to be able to have an actual conversation, and would offer our apologies but would also ask you respect our experience with spam over the years.

So: if the links in your post were removed would you still wish to post your messages?

cheers
Chris Maunder

Nelek16-Sep-21 14:53

16-Sep-21 14:53

And two days later... no response Sigh | :sigh:

M.D.V.

Solomon Rutzky (alt)16-Sep-21 20:31

16-Sep-21 20:31

Dude, chill... It's only been 2 days (as you said), not 2 weeks. I have a wife and 3 young kids, am slammed with work, and yesterday was a holiday. So, 2 - 3 days is actually not so bad..

Nelek16-Sep-21 21:16

16-Sep-21 21:16

Sorry... sadly you were fitting in another usual pattern (again): People that come, complain, we try to work it out and... they don't come back D'Oh! | :doh:

About the why... I do know the reasons pretty well. Big Grin | :-D

M.D.V.

Solomon Rutzky (alt)16-Sep-21 21:22

16-Sep-21 21:22

Hello @Chris-Maun and thanks for replying. As I mentioned in my reply to Nelek, I was unaware of this new trend (i.e. "site driving") and did not mean to act in such a way as to mimic abusive behavior. I also was not aware of the scope / volume of the problem and understand your point about not being able to have personalized interactions with such a large number of accounts, especially if experience has shown such effort to mostly be wasted effort. It's your site and I do respect your rules and experience with dealing with those who are, unfortunately, spamming this site. I'm sure it's quite frustrating for you, but also for folks like me who then become collateral damage.

As I mentioned in my reply to @Nelek, the only thing that was really upsetting was the total lack of recourse. The email notifying me of my account termination didn't include a link for "if you feel this action is in error, please contact oops@codeproject .com" or something like that. And so I came back to this site looking for Help / FAQ info on "What to do if you feel that your account should not have been terminated" or something like that, but I couldn't find anything. I had to hunt around for a while before I found this forum.

The current system/process seems to assume that there are no mistakes, and though they may be rare, clearly they do happen. I completely understand not having the time to contact every spammer to have a conversation, but if they truly just post and move on, then is there any harm in proving an email address in the suspension email for someone to contact you in cases such as mine? If real spammers won't waste their time trying to justify their posts, then you will only be spending time on legit cases, right? And shouldn't there be some mention, in a publicly available page, of what to do if a person whose account has been terminated feels that the action was a mistake and/or is willing to clean things up and do better?

So: if the links in your post were removed would you still wish to post your messages?

In my most recent post (a few days ago now), absolutely yes. I was providing that link as a resource for people who have questions on that very specific topic, but that was for other questions they might have, not so much for the current question. So, while I believe my placing the link there was done in good faith, I do understand the rules and perception of such actions, and will remove the link, and would have still posted that comment without the link had I been aware of this.
In my older post, I will certainly remove the link if that is your desire. But, I just want to say that in that particular case, I feel that the link to my blog post is highly relevant to the topic and adds value as it contains additional information on the topic of that article. It's a link to a single post that is on-topic and not a link to a site with a collection of related info and links. So yes, I would still post that comment even if I was not able to include that link. But, I do feel that that particular link in that particular context does add value for readers. Your call on that one.
I have several links in my signature. Are those a problem as well? If so, can I move those to my profile?

Thanks again and take care,
Solomon...

Chris Maunder17-Sep-21 4:07

Chris Maunder

17-Sep-21 4:07

You're a gentleman and a scholar, Solomon. Thanks for talking this through. Your account is reactivated and I've left a note on your account for other admins so they can refer to this discussion if needed.

The suggestion about an email: I don't know why we didn't think of that before. I'll make that happen.

Have a good weekend.

cheers
Chris Maunder

Nelek19-Sep-21 8:42

19-Sep-21 8:42

Chris Maunder wrote:
The suggestion about an email: I don't know why we didn't think of that before. I'll make that happen.

Because he is one of the first legitime posters that complain about it? Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

M.D.V.

Solomon Rutzky28-Sep-21 8:17

Solomon Rutzky

28-Sep-21 8:17

Nelek wrote:
Because he is one of the first legitimate posters that complain about it?

Maybe? Or, perhaps I was just the first (or one of) that put in the time/energy to create a new account and question the decision? I mean, the reason for my suggestion of including a simple "If you feel this account deactivation is in error, please email oops@ codeproject.com" line in the email was because of the difficulty in finding who to communicate with. I suppose if such an line were added to the deactivation email, then you might see if this was happening more but that people just gave up sooner. I guess only time will tell Smile | :)

.

Either way, thanks for being open to discussing/resolving the issue 😺 .

Take care,
Solomon..

Nelek28-Sep-21 9:28

28-Sep-21 9:28

Solomon Rutzky wrote:
Either way, thanks for being open to discussing/resolving the issue 😺 .

You are welcome. Sorry for the inconveniences.

M.D.V.

Solomon Rutzky28-Sep-21 8:00

Solomon Rutzky

28-Sep-21 8:00

Hello Chris. Sorry for the delay, been busy. Thanks for the compliment and for reactivating my account (which I'm now posting from, if that wasn't obvious). I appreciate you and @Nelek discussing and resolving this issue.

I see that the links have been removed from my first comment (ok). But, my second comment (the one from two weeks ago) still shows as "Message Closed" in the thread, and as "Not publicly visible" in my list of messages. Can that message/comment please be made visible and either edited to remove that link at the bottom (to my .Info site), or I can remove it myself (not trying to give you more work)? I would remove it right now but I can't access it, even while not publicly visible.

Thanks and take care,
Solomon...

Chris Maunder28-Sep-21 8:15

Chris Maunder

28-Sep-21 8:15

All fixed. Sorry about that.

cheers
Chris Maunder