Disable links for new users

[Jess]

I know that threads containing spam links or harmful or inappropriate links are removed almost immediately, but there should be a way to prevent new users (who might be bots) from posting links in the first place.

I suggest that users must have a certain amount of posts before they can post a link (external)

maybe [-]5[/-] 25 posts should be the limit? if someone has less than that, they will get a message that they aren't allowed to post links


edit: oh AND for the signature too. you must have 25 posts before you're allowed to post links in your sig. or maybe it should be more

[RockinRobyn]

I like this idea but I think 5 and even even 10 is too low maybe like 20-50?

[Skyhawk]

I think when they reach Junior Member rank would be much more appropriate.

[Infidelitas]

They have this implemented over at Govteen. I think this would work well if you set it to either 1) a week 2) 25 posts, because legitimate members would easily get there if they are staying, than bots who come here to advertise, work out they cant post links. I think its a great idea

[RockinRobyn]

I think when they reach Junior Member rank would be much more appropriate.


How many posts is Junior Member rank?


Edit: nvm xD its 25 because I just got it lol and yeah I think 25 is good

[Skyhawk]

How many posts is Junior Member rank?


Edit: nvm xD its 25 because I just got it lol and yeah I think 25 is good

:P

25 posts is good because it gives the new user plenty of time to get used to posting and a chance to read the rules before being able to post links.

It is also good because spambots...etc

[ShatteredWings]

We used to have this.
When I joined I think it was 5. If you posted a link, your whole post was edited to something stupid.

I don't see it coming back, not to that extent.

I wouldn't mind seeing something that *just* removed the link from posts with users under 5-10 posts, but not a clue if that's doable with vB software.

[Jess]

well I just want something to prevent new users :P when they try to submit something with a link, they get an error message. kinda like when you have too few characters

[DoctorWho]

Well the sig posting links should only be for fully membershipped people I think

[Jess]

^Yes I agree

[DoctorWho]

Yeah cuz otherwise they could send us to a pornsite and maybe a mod should check the link to be sure its valid

[ShatteredWings]

well I just want something to prevent new users :P when they try to submit something with a link, they get an error message. kinda like when you have too few characters
Hm, i'm not apposed to this idea, since it would stop bots from posting.

Well the sig posting links should only be for fully membershipped people I think
Erm...
Yeah cuz otherwise they could send us to a pornsite and maybe a mod should check the link to be sure its valid
Yeah, this isn't a problem.

[DoctorWho]

Hm, i'm not apposed to this idea, since it would stop bots from posting.


Erm...

Yeah, this isn't a problem.

So your saying people don't have links to pornsites when I found a kid who had a link to a pornsite yesterday and erm fully membershipped people do have more responisabilitys sorry but you kinda ticked me off there sorry if you had to hear that

[Infidelitas]

So your saying people don't have links to pornsites when I found a kid who had a link to a pornsite yesterday and erm fully membershipped people do have more responisabilitys sorry but you kinda ticked me off there sorry if you had to hear that

No, Kyle is correct. Bots don't usually post porn -- occasionally some people do, but bots usually don't. If people will want to post porn, they will make it to the required amount of posts in a short amount of time to do so. Then they are appropriately dealt with in a reasonable amount of time.

Alot of bots join and don't post anything, some come and make one post, and will not return, so putting up a post requirement will only stop bots, not actual humans

[Hatsune Miku]

I think this would make bots almost non existent. Requiring a 25 post count to post links is a good idea, and like some have mentioned have it give you a error if you try to post a link with under 25 posts (like the error if you don't use enough characters in a post).

I'll all for this.

[Kaius]

Hmm, while i agree with this there is always going to be another alternative to bots, they're like those illnesses that mutate making treatment difficult. I think its worth giving a try to be honest, it might make it easier for us :P

[Hatsune Miku]

Hmm, while i agree with this there is always going to be another alternative to bots, they're like those illnesses that mutate making treatment difficult. I think its worth giving a try to be honest, it might make it easier for us :P

Now that I think of it, most bots post URLS but they space it out so its not an actual link. So for example. www. y o utube.com
I'm not sure if there's a way to prevent that without adding so many restrictions.

[ShatteredWings]

So your saying people don't have links to pornsites when I found a kid who had a link to a pornsite yesterday and erm fully membershipped people do have more responisabilitys sorry but you kinda ticked me off there sorry if you had to hear that
Hon dont patronize me. People with porn in sig is rare. If you find it report it, but it's far from frequent enough to warrant no links in sigs.
Also it's a good way to ID bots by sig.
Now that I think of it, most bots post URLS but they space it out so its not an actual link. So for example. www. y o utube.com
I'm not sure if there's a way to prevent that without adding so many restrictions.
True, bots are getting smarter, but it would stop the ones w/pics which are the really obnoxious ones :)

[JackShephard]

I think this new rule should deal with amount of links and where they go to. Say someone posts 5 links in under 20 minutes that go to the same location, they will receive a temporary link ban. Also, it would be a good idea to have a sort of block list and maybe admins and mods can look up to see who's posting banned links. This way, we can zero in on who's posting spam/inappropriate links. I don't know if the admins can look that kind of information up on a user though.

Maybe it would just be easier to go with the OP.

[DoctorWho]

No, Kyle is correct. Bots don't usually post porn -- occasionally some people do, but bots usually don't. If people will want to post porn, they will make it to the required amount of posts in a short amount of time to do so. Then they are appropriately dealt with in a reasonable amount of time.

Alot of bots join and don't post anything, some come and make one post, and will not return, so putting up a post requirement will only stop bots, not actual humans

But still bad sites if you catch on

[DerBear]

It is a good idea but again chances are if someone wants to put porn or other stuff like that they will make 25 posts easily

What about something like they have with visitor messages like stuff with a link in it will not be offically posted until a mod has checked it

[Jess]

if they can make 25 posts easily, how about also add in a membership requirement? They have to be a member for a week?

[DerBear]

if they can make 25 posts easily, how about also add in a membership requirement? They have to be a member for a week?

The thing is Jess it does sort annoy people who are genuinely wanting to post a link i.e proof to back up a point in a debate or a news article---things like that

[ShatteredWings]

It is a good idea but again chances are if someone wants to put porn or other stuff like that they will make 25 posts easily

What about something like they have with visitor messages like stuff with a link in it will not be offically posted until a mod has checked it

VMs are already modereated sooooo

[Origami]

The thing is Jess it does sort annoy people who are genuinely wanting to post a link i.e proof to back up a point in a debate or a news article---things like that

They'll get over it. I joined a forum recently and couldn't post my Photoshop tutorials because they required you to be a member for 7 days before posting a link. There is nothing wrong with the idea of time/post limitations on external links. It's beneficiary and should have probably been implemented long ago. Why hasn't an admin seen this thread yet? ._.

[Jess]

yeah, I wondered why it hasn't been implemented. I hope an admin sees this

[DoctorWho]

They will

[Fourth Dimension]

i like the idea

[anon1992]

no thats ridiculous. if you dont like a link, dont click it . end of story.

the truth is: we need more users on this forum, and decreased freedoms for new users (such as that need 100 posts to private message policy) decreases the convenience of the site. it makes no sense. most new users arent trolls and they came here because of a bad point in a crisis in their lives. if they need a link to make a post , i say let them. please mods: dont make a new rule about this , i beg you. i know so many sites that have been ruined by rules. trolls will be trolls. taking away their ability to post a link will make them troll in some other way. people think that adding a rule solves a problem, it doesnt, it creates a new one most of the time. it wont eliminate trolling at all. it will create a sense to new users that they arent wanted on the site. even worse: i know from experience that this actually CREATES trolling and lack of good posts. new users will simply give bad quick answers to a bunch of people's threads to quickly "get enough posts to earn their freedoms" .

yea , soon people will be saying "that didnt solve the problem, lets make it 100 posts " . which will make it really ridiculous for occassional users like me.


YOU DONT HAVE TO CLICK THE LINK. INSTEAD OF BANNING LINKS, WHY NOT JUST CHOOSE NOT TO CLICK THEM?????

[Infidelitas]

no thats ridiculous. if you dont like a link, dont click it . end of story.

the truth is: we need more users on this forum, and decreased freedoms for new users (such as that need 100 posts to private message policy) decreases the convenience of the site. it makes no sense. most new users arent trolls and they came here because of a bad point in a crisis in their lives. if they need a link to make a post , i say let them. please mods: dont make a new rule about this , i beg you. i know so many sites that have been ruined by rules. trolls will be trolls. taking away their ability to post a link will make them troll in some other way. people think that adding a rule solves a problem, it doesnt, it creates a new one most of the time. it wont eliminate trolling at all. it will create a sense to new users that they arent wanted on the site. even worse: i know from experience that this actually CREATES trolling and lack of good posts. new users will simply give bad quick answers to a bunch of people's threads to quickly "get enough posts to earn their freedoms" .

yea , soon people will be saying "that didnt solve the problem, lets make it 100 posts " . which will make it really ridiculous for occassional users like me.


YOU DONT HAVE TO CLICK THE LINK. INSTEAD OF BANNING LINKS, WHY NOT JUST CHOOSE NOT TO CLICK THEM?????

most new users arent trolls
Are you staff on here? Have you seen the amount of trolls that pass through the site on a daily basis? How many we have banned? I guess not.
people think that adding a rule solves a problem, it doesnt, it creates a new one most of the time.
This rule will prevent most spam given by bots, as most of them only come here post once or twice, then leave. It elliminates the problem.


You have not been on staff, so you dont kow what happens behind the scene
this actually CREATES trolling

You do realise that this isn't JUST for trolling?

[Jess]

no thats ridiculous. if you dont like a link, dont click it . end of story.

the truth is: we need more users on this forum, and decreased freedoms for new users (such as that need 100 posts to private message policy) decreases the convenience of the site. it makes no sense. most new users arent trolls and they came here because of a bad point in a crisis in their lives. if they need a link to make a post , i say let them. please mods: dont make a new rule about this , i beg you. i know so many sites that have been ruined by rules. trolls will be trolls. taking away their ability to post a link will make them troll in some other way. people think that adding a rule solves a problem, it doesnt, it creates a new one most of the time. it wont eliminate trolling at all. it will create a sense to new users that they arent wanted on the site. even worse: i know from experience that this actually CREATES trolling and lack of good posts. new users will simply give bad quick answers to a bunch of people's threads to quickly "get enough posts to earn their freedoms" .

yea , soon people will be saying "that didnt solve the problem, lets make it 100 posts " . which will make it really ridiculous for occassional users like me.


YOU DONT HAVE TO CLICK THE LINK. INSTEAD OF BANNING LINKS, WHY NOT JUST CHOOSE NOT TO CLICK THEM?????

it's not ridiculous.

and there's a reason there's a 100 post requirement for PMs. there are loads of threads about it. Read them.

Most users aren't trolls?? how do you know that?

why would they need a link to make a post? unless they're providing sources for a debate or something. you don't need to have a link in your first few posts.

[DoctorWho]

no thats ridiculous. if you dont like a link, dont click it . end of story.

the truth is: we need more users on this forum, and decreased freedoms for new users (such as that need 100 posts to private message policy) decreases the convenience of the site. it makes no sense. most new users arent trolls and they came here because of a bad point in a crisis in their lives. if they need a link to make a post , i say let them. please mods: dont make a new rule about this , i beg you. i know so many sites that have been ruined by rules. trolls will be trolls. taking away their ability to post a link will make them troll in some other way. people think that adding a rule solves a problem, it doesnt, it creates a new one most of the time. it wont eliminate trolling at all. it will create a sense to new users that they arent wanted on the site. even worse: i know from experience that this actually CREATES trolling and lack of good posts. new users will simply give bad quick answers to a bunch of people's threads to quickly "get enough posts to earn their freedoms" .

yea , soon people will be saying "that didnt solve the problem, lets make it 100 posts " . which will make it really ridiculous for occassional users like me.


YOU DONT HAVE TO CLICK THE LINK. INSTEAD OF BANNING LINKS, WHY NOT JUST CHOOSE NOT TO CLICK THEM?????

Ha your new here spend some time and you will click a link

[crazyhyperway]

To be honest,
I am new here and I agree they should put at LEAST a 25 post limit before links

[Jess]

^
wow! thank you.

[crazyhyperway]

You guys dont want random people coming on posting links to things and 25 will prevent bots and people who plan to just advertise. It will most likley not drive away the people who plan on staying for a long time.

[Infidelitas]

Here is an example of most Spam Bots:
http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/KingCharlieIV/Picture9.png
This would be avoided with this limit put into place, saving time for our Mods to do other things.

[User Deleted]

Here is an example of most Spam Bots:
image (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/KingCharlieIV/Picture9.png)
This would be avoided with this limit put into place, saving time for our Mods to do other things.

And do I even need to point out all the numbers in his name? 6. The most I have seen from a non bot is maybe 4.

[Jess]

yeah I just saw that too. it's better if it's prevented in the first place!

anon1992: oh and how do we need more users on this forum? There are plenty of members

[Giles]

Don't see why it isn't already implemented.

[Infidelitas]

I think we should have minimum post limit on the shoutbox aswell...
http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/KingCharlieIV/Picture10.png

[Giles]

I think we should have minimum post limit on the shoutbox aswell...
image (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/KingCharlieIV/Picture10.png)

After seeing that... I agree.

[Jess]

yes I agree too. it can be either you don't see the shoutbox at all until you reach a certain amount of posts (and in place there is a message saying you need x posts to see the shoutbox) OR it can show up for everyone and anyone but if you have less than x posts you can't post at all in it?

[Suicune]

I like this idea. For the links and the Shoutbox. This place would be a lot cleaner without all the bots.

[MattVon]

I agree with the OP, though I think 100 posts is a minimum for this. On the forum I administrate spammers make up 25 posts in no time, but ever since I implemented 100 post required for Regular Members with below 100 posts, link spam (including image spam) has been killed off well.

[Jess]

eh...I think 100 is a bit too high...

[SosbanFach]

I think we should have minimum post limit on the shoutbox aswell...
image (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/KingCharlieIV/Picture10.png)

Does vBulletin support this? If so, good idea. Most people seem to agree that something ought to happen if possible.

[Kujiro]

Trolls may have to intelligence to bypass a 25 cap, while bots like shattered mentioned will mutate to survive in the situation.

Measures can be take to prevent but not stop. Bots and trolls are, and always will be part of a forum committee. This would indirectly cause inconvenience to genuine new users, moreover it would and may cause the site to be alittle unapproachable, which was intended to be a help medium.

That's where moderation sets in, I have an admin who rules to restricts every post till moderation is done, a good way to stop, but highly inconvenient.
And as moderators having to scrutinize every thing, with the growing population, response would be hindered as well.

It seems approachability and security are always at inverse variations.

How about moderation only if a link is posted, cap it at 250.
But that could be bypassed if they are breaking the linktexts to make them text.
Oh well, guess it up to not just the moderators, but the users to keep them inline.

[Jess]

so is this going to be implemented or not? pretty much everyone agrees with me

[DerBear]

I have not read every post in this but i would think that what if we have something like you have with a visitors message ands you can only post a link without it being moderated if you have x number of posts

[Jess]

um is this going to be added? also I think images should be disabled for new users as well...

[GummyBear]

Wouldn't this just disadvantage some new members like myself which are genuine?

[Jess]

maybe, but it's not that difficult to reach 25 or whatever the limit should be. and that's a problem too. genuine new members can't post links...

[DerBear]

what about 3 posts then cause most of them never ever post more than once twice at the most the ocasional do 3 so what about 3 posts and then you can post links

[Jess]

...I like it at 5 posts

[Foamy]

I like the thought, and yet I don't like it for some strange reason.....

[DerBear]

...I like it at 5 posts

Yes 5 would do but we may get a lot of people asking why they cant post links but considering we survived the whole "why cant I PM yet" we can survive this

I like the thought, and yet I don't like it for some strange reason.....

Is it because it is change?

[Foamy]

Sí señor.

[Perseus]

How about... we stop restricting new members? You guys make it sound like it takes eons for mods to remove for spam, but in reality, it doesn't. No body clicks on that shit because they're not stupid.