A user seems to be comment spamming

November 14, 2005 5:41 AM

What's cdgold's angle? Exhibits A B C.
posted by signal to Etiquette/Policy at 5:41 AM (44 comments total)

Good catch signal. Bannage ensues?
posted by LarryC at 5:45 AM on November 14, 2005

Obtuse? Not good.
posted by OmieWise at 5:47 AM on November 14, 2005

You should probably add a little more signal, signal.

I assume you are claiming those are self links - why not say it.
posted by Chuckles at 5:49 AM on November 14, 2005

Five dollars for three comment spams? Bad marketer, no cookie.
posted by Plutor at 5:49 AM on November 14, 2005

Chuckles: they're entirely worthless links -- see exhibit B... a link to a casino for 'casino royale"? awful.
posted by boo_radley at 5:52 AM on November 14, 2005

To clarify: Cdgold is comment spamming us, posting irrelevant links to commercial gambling, porn, and music sites.
posted by LarryC at 6:06 AM on November 14, 2005

Damn. An ebay scammer and a comment spammer on the same day. It's like opening up that Google maps sex offender site and learning that you live between two child molesters.

MeFi-ville used to be such a nice town...
posted by planetkyoto at 6:11 AM on November 14, 2005

For the record, here were the three comments. I removed them, and dropped cdgold a note.

"These guys are great also find him on [spam link] my personal page"

"[spam link] Casino Royal will be the next generation of James Bond."

"What do you guys think about sites listed here: [spam link] Reviews
Are these sites legal or not? I think that these sites offer a guide how to download music/movies etc"
posted by jessamyn at 6:21 AM on November 14, 2005

What makes it worstest is that it is going to increase exponentially. The assholes have discovered they can use MetaFilter to the benefit of their pocketbook. This place is about to be raped.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:19 PM PST on October 30
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:49 AM on November 14, 2005

What makes it worstest is that it is going to increase exponentially.

I don't see any sign of this happening, and the awesome self-policing work of Signal and others makes it seem unlikely that it will.
posted by LarryC at 9:59 AM on November 14, 2005

LarryC: "I don't see any sign of this happening"

That's the same thing I thought. When it's so easy to write a blog spamming robot, or create link farms, or make fake Blogger blogs for free, it's not going to be worth a spammer's time to setup a Paypal account and spend five dollars for the chance to have their three comments deleted. But I do think MeFi's been experimented with surprisingly little. (Why only three, cdgold? Still working the kinks out of the software?) But I don't think it's really ever going to become a terrible blight.
posted by Plutor at 10:11 AM on November 14, 2005

You have got to be fooling yourself if you don't think this is going to become MeFi's biggest problem.

This is going to play out roughly as follows:

First we will have human-generated spam, like that we've seen before, where some scum purchases an account, waits out any waiting period, and then vomits PepsiBlue to the front page.

Then we will have robot-generated spam, which will merely replicate the first step using automation.

Then we will have a robot attack, where a few hundred new accounts spam hell out of MeFi for a day or two, straining the admin's ability to keep up with the shit. I expect MeFi will go on heavy-duty lockdown for a few days or weeks after that, while Matt tries to deal.

Then we will have paid subversives, who purchase accounts, participate as members, and slyly hawk product via explicit mention in threads, particularly as a "helpful" response to a topic. The smarter ones will operate in pairs or small gangs, asking leading questions so that their conspirators can legitimately respond; and praise that response so it looks like it was useful, ie. not delete-worthy.

It is going to become a blight, because web entrepeneurs can get away with abusive shit like that.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:56 AM on November 14, 2005

robot attack!
posted by sad_otter at 11:32 AM on November 14, 2005

five fresh fish -- what you're describing is only going to happen if the spammers can get more than a $5 return on every $5 investment.
posted by event at 12:03 PM on November 14, 2005

No, it is going to happen if they think they can get return-on-value. And that does not necessarily mean they need to get five bucks cash back: they may be willing to sacrifice the small dollar amount for a great gain in publicity... even negative publicity.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:08 PM on November 14, 2005

One solution might be raising the fee to $10 and requiring people sign up with an e-mail address that isn't a throwaway (ie Google, yahoo, rocketmail, etc.) Or just hunt down the spammer, behead him/her and display the trophy at the next MeFi meetup :-)
posted by Happydaz at 12:15 PM on November 14, 2005

Can you give any examples of paysites that have gone through the steps you described?

The publicity still has to turn into a return-on-investment. No matter how you work it out, if they put in $5, they need to get at least $5 back from somewhere.
posted by event at 12:37 PM on November 14, 2005

five fresh fish -- what you're describing is only going to happen if the spammers can get more than a $5 return on every $5 investment.

Hopefully someone more google-savvy than I can weigh in, but a few links from a highly trafficked website can greatly increase a site's google page rank, right? That must be worth $5 to somebody.
posted by eddydamascene at 12:49 PM on November 14, 2005

See! It's already happening!

[i kid, i kid!]

[but only a little]

Does anyone here really think that MeFi is impregnable against greed? C'mon!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:52 PM on November 14, 2005

I don't think MeFi is impregnable, but I do think that we have a little moat in the form of the $5 sign-up fee.

A very interesting, and highly relevant, article by Bruce Schneier on the economics of spam:

"Spam is such a common tactic not because it's particularly effective; the response rates for spam are very low. It's common because it's ridiculously cheap....The best solutions raise the cost of spam."

And that's exactly what the $5 signup does. If the ROI ever bumps over the $5 hurdle (seems unlikely in the near future), mathowie just ups the fee.
posted by event at 1:04 PM on November 14, 2005

Don't worry. Not only is there a moat, but Matt thought ahead and purchased insurance.
posted by emelenjr at 1:44 PM on November 14, 2005

If the ROI ever bumps over the $5 hurdle (seems unlikely in the near future), mathowie just ups the fee

If the ROI wasn't worth the $5, how do you explain what cdgold did?
posted by eddydamascene at 2:22 PM on November 14, 2005

how do you explain what cdgold did?
The $5 will keep out the smart spammers. There's no way to keep out the dumb spammers.
posted by dness2 at 2:43 PM on November 14, 2005

[rubs forehead]

FFF is most likely right. The ROI on $5 is probably good enough if you can get in fast enough, with enough force.

I'll go FFF one better: It will work at least twice, and matthowie's response will most likely have to include temporary site shutdown(s).

[rubs forehead again]

goddamn it.... this is annoying.


posted by lodurr at 3:51 PM on November 14, 2005

apple took this place over long ago.........
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:53 PM on November 14, 2005

I'll go lodurr one better than that: some malicious pervert is going to spend a hundred bucks to game MeFi for his own ends.

It'll be money well-invested: the backlinks and blog furor will be on a scale never before witnessed.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:30 PM on November 14, 2005

*listens to fff intently, rubs chin, emits absent 'huh'*
posted by cortex at 4:40 PM on November 14, 2005

the backlinks and blog furor will be on a scale never before witnessed.

the living will envy the Pwnz0red
posted by jessamyn at 5:06 PM on November 14, 2005

So why isn't it happening now? Cdgold only got away with three subtle links, buried near the end of threads, before he got busted. How much do those paid placement programs pay per link? Hell, why isn't it happening on Fark, with a much larger user base and no fee for signing up? And if it isn't happening now, how are the economics going to change to make it happen in the future?

A lot of you are smarter than me about this stuff, so what am I missing in my blissful ignorance?
posted by LarryC at 6:27 PM on November 14, 2005

I'm guessing that the Robot Wars will also bring the Second McCarthyism (already starting gently now), where any positive statement about something purchasable will be seen as subversive Pepsi Blue activities, even if coming from regular posters.
posted by Bugbread at 6:36 PM on November 14, 2005

Just that signal is, in fact, a neat bit of AI with a cute name and english-language interface. Once you know that, everything else makes sense.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:38 PM on November 14, 2005

Dang you, bugbread, now my message doesn't look like a direct answer to LarryC!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:38 PM on November 14, 2005

I have here a list of names!
posted by cortex at 6:46 PM on November 14, 2005

Sorry about that. I should change the interval setting in my post frequency config file have waited a little longer.
posted by Bugbread at 6:46 PM on November 14, 2005

*squints at list*

What the hell kind of name is "It's Raining Florence Henderson?"
posted by cortex at 6:47 PM on November 14, 2005

signal is, in fact, a neat bit of AI...

That's the nicest thing anybody (other than my mom) has ever called me.
posted by signal at 7:50 PM on November 14, 2005

I predict that fff will say something very dramatic before this is all over.
posted by Mid at 8:01 PM on November 14, 2005

Spectacularly phenomenal!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:13 PM on November 14, 2005

LarryC is right. The community is pretty good at ferreting out shills. If it gets really bad, mathowie could always lock down new memberships.
posted by nyterrant at 8:17 PM on November 14, 2005

raedyn, I was a dick. Let's never fight again, ok?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:28 AM on December 1, 2005

IIHAA 10431 + 101 = you do the math.
Raedyn may never find you here.
posted by Cranberry at 4:45 PM on December 1, 2005

10431 was an exception for NaNaWeeMo, remember?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 5:59 PM on December 1, 2005

Are we here now? I was hoping to put in a few strokes tonight, but I've got to admit to being flumoxed. Perhaps it's that I don't really have me sealegs yet.
posted by OmieWise at 7:58 PM on December 3, 2005

Now we're there. Well, you and I are here obviously, but we should probably be there. There is good.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:05 PM on December 3, 2005