Another self link

December 12, 2005 4:20 PM

Another self link. Thank you Mr. Runklfinker
posted by Dag Maggot to Etiquette/Policy at 4:20 PM (38 comments total)

How about raising the joining fee to $20 to discourage re-registration of baninated self-promoters?

I think this problem is only going to grow. What's $5 against some good quality google page rank lifts?
posted by Dag Maggot at 4:31 PM on December 12, 2005

What's $20 to a business?
posted by smackfu at 4:32 PM on December 12, 2005

can someone spell out the self-linking evidence chain on this one? My flash-enabled laptop is in the shop.
posted by jessamyn at 4:38 PM on December 12, 2005

This self-linking crap is really taking over the site as of late.

I blame thanatopsis.
posted by xmutex at 4:44 PM on December 12, 2005

They only get noticed when they're kind of sub-par. I think there are probably a few that get through and that's fine if they're good, but the so-so links always out them as spammers.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:51 PM on December 12, 2005

Jessamyn:

there is a html link to linkshard from POWzone.com "Simon Advanced" project with a linker id=70, which displays all of "Buzz Komagodo"'s posts, the most recent being the honda post that POW linked. If POW is indeed the person who runs POWzone.com, and who created the Simon Advanced project, then he posted the Honda ad at linkshard and then linked to it. Whether or not he is invovled with the linkshard project or not I'll leave up to someone else to figure out, but it's pretty likely he has SOME interest in the site, as he's got his Simon Adv project sitting on a subdomain of linkshard.
posted by fishfucker at 4:54 PM on December 12, 2005

Here is some more non-flash evidence that indicates that linkshard is POWs site.

http://www.cgchannel.com/forum/viewmember?memberid=8506
posted by Dag Maggot at 4:56 PM on December 12, 2005

If MetaFilter site is able to keep new users from posting a front page post until x happens, then it shouldn't be too much trouble to make new users' first, say, three posts go into a queue for approval from an admin before hitting the front page. How many first, second or third posts does MeFi get each week? If someone sees a problem with this, I'd like to hear it. As it is, there is just too low a bar for viral marketers. Five bucks for a few thousand eyes is ca great deal to them. If MeFi were even just a little more difficult to spam, most of the Pepsi Blue marketers would move on.
posted by squirrel at 4:57 PM on December 12, 2005

I like squirrel's idea, but sadly, I'm guessing there are a lot of first posts.
posted by tiamat at 5:09 PM on December 12, 2005

If he'd just had the sense to out himself and thank us for the traffic, he'd still be a member in good standing.
posted by languagehat at 5:12 PM on December 12, 2005

I think the current means of response is pretty good. Banination.

I there any way to tie the ban to the offender's IP? It would REALLY suck if I was a chronic self-linker and suddenly find that I can't even lurk at Meta let alone try to sign up again.

That's some tough territory though. Matt already just had a problem with the Dictionary Attack thing. I imagine he doesn't want to go around pissing off bored hackers and other assorted jack-offs.
posted by snsranch at 5:12 PM on December 12, 2005

Damn, that was supposed to go in the previous self-link post. It's so hard to keep them straight...
posted by languagehat at 5:13 PM on December 12, 2005

Nice gunbound avatar, though. And I missed that thanopopolis guy. So if a selflink is really intertaining it stays, hmm? I'll remember that.
posted by puke & cry at 5:16 PM on December 12, 2005

squirrel scribbled "How many first, second or third posts does MeFi get each week? If someone sees a problem with this, I'd like to hear it. As it is, there is just too low a bar for viral marketers"

The only problem I see is who the heck wants the job of weeding through all that cruft in search of self linkers.
posted by Mitheral at 5:17 PM on December 12, 2005

My flash-enabled laptop is in the shop

Forgive my ignorance, but what does flash have to do with tracking down a self-link? It doesn't appear to be a flash-based link . . .
posted by ajr at 5:27 PM on December 12, 2005

I'll put up a $50 re-registration fee.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:32 PM on December 12, 2005

As mathowie just said, Mitheral, a lot of marketing stuff slips through--which is fine by me, as long as it is reasonably entertaining or informative. Having a filter for the first few posts would be aimed to eliminate only this kind of flagrant abuse; no need for any kind of investigation. Banning spammers after the fact is certainly called for, but first-post spammers are like suicide bombers: as long as a few hundred people see their post before the admins delete it, they've justified their $5, so they don't care if they get banned.

We ought to make it more trouble than it's worth to post spam here, and I don't think it would be much work to do it. Someone with database search skills beyond mine certainly could tell us all how many first posts there are in an average week. I wager that the number is reasonably low.
posted by squirrel at 5:32 PM on December 12, 2005

I wasn't sure what was on the page at this link

http://simonadv.linkshard.com/

which is what runklfinker pointed to in the most recent self-link thread.
posted by jessamyn at 5:32 PM on December 12, 2005

Just think of the front page as the queue, and everyone is the reviewers.
posted by smackfu at 6:48 PM on December 12, 2005

This may not be a direction Matt whishes to go... but... I would imagine there would be a handful of established users willing to screen those 1st 2nd and 3rd posts to pass or fail them, allowing for actual work to be done by #1 and #292. I kind of like that idea in general.
posted by edgeways at 6:50 PM on December 12, 2005

squirrel scribbled "Having a filter for the first few posts would be aimed to eliminate only this kind of flagrant abuse; no need for any kind of investigation."

Ah I see what your getting at. Yes that wouldn't be too bad, it would at least raise the effort required by the spammers.

I've got to admit the $5 spamming issue is something that has often nibbled at the back of my mind. As Metafilter's profile grows there doesn't seem to be enough friction in the system to prevent FPP spam or even comment spam. Yet we see surprisingly little. I wonder if there isn't an awareness that ticking the membership off is a bad thing to do marketing wise. Then I think of Canter and Siegel and I realise that doesn't jive.
posted by Mitheral at 7:26 PM on December 12, 2005

edgeways scribbled "I would imagine there would be a handful of established users willing to screen those 1st 2nd and 3rd posts to pass or fail them, allowing for actual work to be done by #1 and #292."

How about this: Matt adds the [!] to FPPs. One of the choices is "Self link/SPAM". If a FPP gets more of those flags than the number of days the poster has been a member, the post gets removed for review by Matt who either trashes it or passes it back to the front page.

Ya the spammer still gets a dozen or a few hundred views but it could work automatically. I know if I was a self linker I'd sign up right away, post a few dozen harmless but thought out comments and then wait for some day when Matt is away having a baby or something to post my self link.
posted by Mitheral at 7:36 PM on December 12, 2005 [1 favorite]

I don't scribble, I screed.
posted by squirrel at 7:52 PM on December 12, 2005

Five bucks for a few thousand eyes is ca great deal to them. If MeFi were even just a little more difficult to spam

Well, there is the one-week waiting period. If anything, I say make that more like 6 weeks. Seriously, what's the harm? If someone has something amazing to post, it can always wait. If it's that great and that unknown it will last. If it gets posted by someone else meantime, then too bad for them but just as well for MeFi overall. 6 weeks is not a long time in this place.

I think we need to acknowledge that the long period of closed signups helped make this place what it is, and that having a 6-week probationary period, while extreme by general standards, suits MeFi just fine.
posted by scarabic at 9:08 PM on December 12, 2005

So is the Paolo Faccini in the credits at the linkshard site the person behind user P.O.W.? Whoever it is acted like a total asshole, and is clearly worthy of being bombed by search engines.
posted by mediareport at 9:52 PM on December 12, 2005

Anyone who would like to see signups closed for any period should be willing to pony up cash on the barrel-head.

"Oh Matt, these pesky newcomers are soiling my precious existence, stop accepting their money, I'm sure your baby can fend for it's self by now".

Just nail the lousy self-linkers as we have done. If you need a more absorbent cloth to soak up your tears for times gone by, try cotton.
posted by Mr T at 10:08 PM on December 12, 2005

If he'd just had the sense to out himself and thank us for the traffic, he'd still be a member in good standing.
posted by languagehat at 5:12 PM PST on December 12

That is depressing as hell. Spam away, guys.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:12 PM on December 12, 2005

I think Mitheral's suggestion is a great idea. What harm would there be? Undue FPP shame? Well worth the net gain.
posted by AllesKlar at 10:12 PM on December 12, 2005

A second for Mitheral's idea. Shall we bring it to a vote? What? This isn't a democracy? (slinks off to kuro5hin)
posted by Dag Maggot at 10:47 PM on December 12, 2005

I third...er..fourth the suggestion that a "Self link/SPAM" flag would be a good thing to have. I was wondering how to flag this one, which I saw as an obvious seeding* attempt rather than a self-link. Had Runklfinker not spotted the self-link angle, it might still be up, no?

* seeding: spreading a viral in exchange for money from the client. You knew that.
posted by dabitch at 1:00 AM on December 13, 2005

I can't speak for mathowie, but for me the "it breaks the guidelines" flags get pretty quick attention and are used often for self-linking sorts of things.
posted by jessamyn at 3:29 AM on December 13, 2005

Double pissed at him, then, because that link got blocked by my work's proxy. (Which means a log entry, which probably generates a "hmm" from someone.)
posted by knave at 5:43 AM on December 13, 2005

I like the self-link/spam pulldown, but even better: If one user flags a post this way, it's immediately removed from the front page and placed in limbo to await admins' judgment. If they judge it unacceptable, bannination for the poster. If the flag turns out to be frivolous or misguided, flagger needs to talk his or her way out of a prolonged recess.
posted by soyjoy at 8:02 AM on December 13, 2005

Ah, soyjoy... think of the people who would be happy to spend five bucks to take down every FPP in two minutes. Your suggestions is ripe for abuse.

I stick by the screening suggestion: stop the infraction before it can reap any of the value it is intended to reap. That will stop the seeders; punishment after the fact will not stop them.
posted by squirrel at 9:08 AM on December 13, 2005

There would seem to be minimal administrative work to extend the waiting period between the time someone joins and someone can post a FPP, as scarabic suggests. If six weeks is too much (I think it's reasonable, myself), then perhaps 30 days instead?

Also:

I wonder if there isn't an awareness that ticking the membership off is a bad thing to do marketing wise. Then I think of Canter and Siegel and I realise that doesn't jive

I was around during this first computer-generated spamming of Usenet. Among other things, the pair got their phone system blown out (volumewise) as well as repeatedly hacked, and their ISP's email servers were blown out by a large number of complete versions of unix installs being sent as attachments. I think they ended up switching ISPs several times, since their spam was a violation of terms of service, as Usenet users made clear to the companies involved. (More information available at wikipedia, which makes it clear that their subsequent life wasn't particularly happy.)
posted by WestCoaster at 10:40 AM on December 13, 2005

My comment on the previous self-link thread still stands.
posted by blag at 11:41 AM on December 13, 2005

Ya but I bet none of those consequences made their book.
posted by Mitheral at 1:37 PM on December 13, 2005

think of the people who would be happy to spend five bucks to take down every FPP in two minutes. Your suggestions is ripe for abuse.

I disagree, and not just about the noun/verb agreement. If we really anticipate a flood of people whose idea of entertainment is paying $5 to temporarily disable a whole page of MetaFilter FPPs, the ability could be limited to one FPP a day, or a week.

If someone (or, even less probably, more than one person) wants to keep paying $5 they can and get another shot at another FPP, but the pattern of behavior and IP addresses would soon tip off the admins and get the joker(s) more permanently banned.

I mean, I can understand the possiblity of the system being gamed, but I can't quite imagine someone being willing to pay multiples of $5 for such a lame form of entertainment. $5 for MetaFilter spamming, now that makes sense.
posted by soyjoy at 1:54 PM on December 13, 2005