You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.
Reporter: AndiG88 [Submitted to the original trac issue database at 12.23am, Tuesday, 13th May 2014]
Would it be possible to implement a restriction that requires user accounts to fulfill one of these in order to make a diary post or for it to be published:
Have a certain amount of edits
Have a certain age (maybe a week)
First post requires moderator approval (basically unlocking the diary)
I think the blog is a great marketing tool to expand the community, but this spam which also ends up in the feeds (which I think are important) and then for example on Twitter really hurts those efforts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Author: TomH [Added to the original trac issue at 11.41pm, Wednesday, 14th May 2014]
By the way we sort of already do the first (in that having edits is a plus point in the spam scoring algorithm) and the other two are probably not where I would start in adding extra anti-spam features.
My first steps would be add a moderation infrastructure, with a queue of things needing to be looked at and a set of people authorised to do the moderation; and then to add a "report" button which would send something to the moderation queue.
After that I would add code to track who had reported each item, and to automatically hide things until the moderator had reviewed them if enough independent reports were received for it.
Reporter: AndiG88
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 12.23am, Tuesday, 13th May 2014]
Would it be possible to implement a restriction that requires user accounts to fulfill one of these in order to make a diary post or for it to be published:
I think the blog is a great marketing tool to expand the community, but this spam which also ends up in the feeds (which I think are important) and then for example on Twitter really hurts those efforts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: