The latest spammer in gq makes me curious–once a spammer is removed, are they still counted as a member? As in, at the moment the bottom of the forums list says that there are 185,852 members, 4,725 active members and that the spammer (kiyani8793) is the newest member. Once that account is banned, will it still count in the membership numbers? And if so, is there any record of what percentage of the listed members are one-and-done spammers?[URL=“Straight Dope Message Board - Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.”]
How many spammer guests go through the trouble to become members?
Spammers in the General sense or "Racist Sexist Bigoted Homophobic Colonialist Imperialist " Spammers ?
1.) I assumed that the numbers represented all people posting to the site–have there really been over 185 thousand paying members?
2.) Real spammers–members who post a nonsense subject line followed by a series of URLs in the text.
Probably none, but isn’t everybody who makes an account here technically a member, even if they don’t buy a subscription?
The message board I’m a moderator on can completely cancel a spammer’s account, rather than just ban them. It’s as if they never signed up and we can ban their IP address at the same time.
Its called Perma Ban (but you coat the Banhammer with bleach) and put a yellow star of David on their IP …
Well, not really. A permabanned member is still on the rolls. When we cancel a spammer’s account, it’s more like wishing them away to the cornfield.
Yes. That number includes (pretty much) anyone who has registered, even if they never posted or have all their posts removed.
I haven’t tried to calculate it, but it’s pretty high.
The spammers in the last 2-3 years are more numerous than when I became a mod years ago. Mainly because of streaming spam promoting sports events.
I’d wager that spammers are possibly more than 1/3 of the people who register on the board these days. There are also another 1/3 of people who register and never post. Why, I don’t know.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just check running coach’s post count?
Doesn’t work. “Reported” posts vanish with the spammer and are dropped from the count.
Besides, I don’t get them all.
I’m sure it’s a great deal more than that, Samclem.
As a test, I picked a recent registrant, with a nice round user number.
User no 185000, registered 11-06-2016 02:16 PM (in my time zone), banned with zero posts.
I then went through the next lot of registrants, altering the URL to 001, 002 etc.
Over the next 50 registrations, I found 2 people that registered and made 1 post. One other was banned after 12 posts, presumably a sock. All the rest were banned with zero or one post.
At #052 the first relatively prolific poster, **femmejean **, followed by several guests with zero posts.
On the whole, I’d reckon that maybe 90% of members are spammers, most of whom are caught and banned before they make a single post.
One thing to keep in mind is that even those that make posts, when we ban spammers their posts are deleted so their post count goes to zero.
I’d love to actually know the answer to this question, but I can’t seem to figure out how. If I had access to the whole database I’m sure an easy count that matched the ban status with the post count would get the whole population, and then stratifying it would tease out a ballpark figure. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to figure out how.
Don’t generalize from an anecdote. You picked about the worst possible day to analyze the members who registered. It was a Sunday, football games. I have no doubt that you counted accurately. Had you analyzed the following Tuesday, your results would have been vastly different. You also picked probably the worst year in our history for spammers.
Over the 17 year history of the Board I would guess my figures are closer to reality.
Out of curiosity, I checked the registrations for the following Tuesday, November 8 (midnight to midnight). Nineteen members registered, with the following distribution:
14: Zero posts, banned. All presumably spammers or socks.
2: Zero posts, not banned
2: One post, not banned
1: Six posts, not banned
So even on a weekday, at least 74% of registrants were spammers. On weekends it’s much worse.
Certainly the problem was not nearly as great when I became a mod. The advent of the streaming spammers has made it much worse. It’s not that there’s necessarily a greater number of spammers, but that the individual spammers are ridiculously persistent in generating new names and posting more spam. Unlike most spammers, they don’t appear to care that their posts are up only a short time.
Not quite what you were going for, more of an informational post, but the way TPTB have set everything up here, your status changes from “Guest” to “Member” when you’re banned.
IIRC, the reasoning was that everyone is a ‘member’ and that ‘guest’ is a special status with some of it’s privileges stripped (post count/location viewable, PM capacity etc), when you’re banned, it goes back to the default.
By that rationale, even if you never paid, people that are banned would still be counted as members.
Having said all that, I would assume it just counts all the users in the database regardless of their status.
Perhaps they are paid by the post count, not the longevity of it.
They also have patterns to their postings. This is from memory, I haven’t taken notes so I may be off.
1 post-edit, don’t sign out
2 posts-1 decoy 1 real, don’t edit, sign out
3 posts- edit, don’t sign out
Occasionally, I have seen some cross-overs.
That’s the only thing that makes sense, but I wonder how their employers document it and why they don’t care about longevity of the post.
They seem to put a lot of effort into the posts, generating a new name, new email address, thread title, post, and then editing the post to include the spam links. Maybe some of this is automated, but it still must take some effort for minimal return.
From the differences in styles of names and email addresses I have the impression that only maybe half a dozen of these guys are responsible for most of it.
They used to try to make as many posts as possible with a single username. Then they would make just 3 and switch to a new username. My impression now is that they rarely make a decoy post, and often seem to switch usernames after one post even if they haven’t been banned yet.