So, I keep getting damn spam comments. I'd intentionally left things pretty simple for commenters 'cause I know what a pain it can be to have to register for something different at every blog just to comment, but something's going to have to change. Some options are to do what Ed's done and require TypeKey registration. I could do what Chris has done and moderate all comments, but IMO that's a bad solution for me because I'm so often away from the computer during the night and weekends (and even during the day when I'm in the lab or at meetings). So--what are your preferences? Any other ideas?
Aetiology
Discussing causes, origins, evolution, and implications of disease and other phenomena.
Profile
Tara C. Smith is an Associate Professor of Epidemiology. Her research involves a number of pathogens at the animal-human nexus. She also writes for The Panda's Thumb and previously for WIRED SCIENCE's Correlations. Please note the views expressed on this site are Dr. Smith's alone and may not be representative of the groups mentioned above.
"...a veritable expert on tawdry cosmetic procedures gone horribly awry..."--Kevin Beck
Follow Tara on Twitter
Search
Recent Posts
- Tenured and promoted!
- Waste not, want not? Poultry "feather meal" as another source of antibiotics in feed
- June's passing
- The emergence of "nodding disease"
- Great Plains Emerging Infectious Diseases Conference--Registration Open
- Holy influenza, batman!
- The human origins of "pig" Staph ST398
- Great Plains Emerging Diseases Conference
- Infectious disease epidemiology and zombies
- MRSA in pork products: does the "antibiotic-free" label make a difference?
Recent Comments
- Jo on Scarlet fever--past and present
- Jim Thomerson on Tenured and promoted!
- vhutchison on Tenured and promoted!
- Joseph Hewitt on Tenured and promoted!
- Chris Leuthold on Tenured and promoted!
- Tara C. Smith on Tenured and promoted!
- Adrian on Tenured and promoted!
- Jason Rosenhouse on Tenured and promoted!
- J-Dog on Tenured and promoted!
- Dr. O on Tenured and promoted!
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- April 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- May 2005
Infectious Disease Series
« "Catching" cancer | Main | Revamping bioterrorism thinking »
F*$&%^#g spammers
Category: Housekeeping
Posted on: February 3, 2006 3:24 PM, by Tara C. Smith
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/803
Comments
PZ has some kinda system where all comments with links are held for moderation, or something. Would that work? Or maybe a 'no hotlinks' policy?
Posted by: outeast | February 3, 2006 3:29 PM
I personally have no problem using TypeKey Tara.
And the spam is indeed darn annoying.
Posted by: Dave S.
| February 3, 2006 3:30 PM
I'd hate to take away the links. Holding comments with links is one possibility, but again, it might take a long time for me to get to them. (I don't even have internet at home right now! I know, I'll all stone-age and everything...)
Posted by: Tara | February 3, 2006 3:33 PM
Blocking links and asking for the URL spelled out in full to be cut-and-pasted on the address bar is an option. Granted, it's not as convenent as clicking a link, but if it solves the spam problem, it might be worth consideration.
Is there some kind of technogeek department at ScienceBlogs that may be of help?
Posted by: Dave S.
| February 3, 2006 3:37 PM
I'm facing the same dilemma as you, Tara. I wish we had an option to blacklist certain commenters -- that would help a lot. Perhaps we should petition the powers that be at Seed...
I don't like the typekey thing. I'm sure it's fine, but it just seems a little big-brotherish to me.
Posted by: Dave Munger | February 3, 2006 3:38 PM
typekey.
Posted by: razib
| February 3, 2006 3:40 PM
Dave S, there is a "technogeek" department, but they're not full-time until later in the month.
Dave M, I agree and that's why I've not used it yet. But I'm getting awfully sick of deleting all the Viagra spam.
Posted by: Tara | February 3, 2006 3:44 PM
You can fiddle with the "junk" scoring of different types of comments, which ahs worked well for me so far. It's in the "settings" menu under "Plugins" and is called something like "Spam Lookup Link."
Posted by: Chad Orzel | February 3, 2006 4:09 PM
Whatever you did last time made it possible for me to comment here from FF. I still cannot on three blogs here (I have to go to IE for that). Whataver option you chose is fine with me, as long as I can post comments from FF.
Posted by: fake Atrios | February 3, 2006 4:15 PM
Oooops, I see my last comment was on Pharyngula - - that last comment was mine....sorry!
Posted by: Coturnix | February 3, 2006 4:15 PM
I don't like typekey, either...I just don't trust it.
I've tweaked things a little bit like Chad suggests, and set it up so any comment with more than one link gets held for approval. It works, but there is some set of idiots who post this "this is my blog [link]" spam that gets through.
I'd like to have some sort of captcha system. It worked phenomenally well on my old site, I rarely got any comment spam, and I also got to tweak the secret words to be all biology stuff, which people seemed to like.
Posted by: PZ Myers
| February 3, 2006 4:24 PM
I'm not doing anything special at the moment in terms of comments and the spam software seems to be catching it all (including some absolutely filthy trackbacks).
Posted by: afarensis | February 3, 2006 4:43 PM
Definitely find a secret word, that cuts down on a lot of it. Even on blogger, I never get spam when it's enabled.
Posted by: Neurotopia | February 3, 2006 5:22 PM
Uh-oh.
Given that I'm going to be switching over to ScienceBlogs within the next week or two, it's good to know this in advance, now that I'm actually trying to set up my new blog. (Stay tuned, everyone; I hope to "go live" no later than Feb. 13 or 14--whether it's sooner or not all depends upon whether I can get it set up to my liking before I have to go out of town for a meeting next week. Also, figuring out Movable Type has been a bit more difficult than I had expected.)
One thing I've already discovered is that you can make a list of words that trigger filters that either hold up the comments for moderation or send it straight into the ether. I'm sure you can think of some that would catch a lot of the spam. There's also fiddling around with the "junk" scoring. PZ's idea sounds like a good one as well.
I have the same problem as you, though. Some days I'm in my office all day writing, but others I don't see the inside of my office other than to drop off my coat and briefcase when I come in and to pick them up again before going home.
Posted by: Orac | February 3, 2006 5:51 PM
Typekey has been working well here for me. I don't like moderation as it means that you have to turn this into a lifestyle choice and be tethered to your blog :)
On my previous site I used a great plug-in called SpamKarma ... unfortunately it doesn't work with MT.
Posted by: john m. lynch | February 3, 2006 7:34 PM
Whatever makes you happy. I don't have to comment to enjoy your wonderful writing and insights. In fact, this may be my first on your blog.
Posted by: Moses | February 3, 2006 7:40 PM
Spam is not that hard to control with MT 3.2. One simple thing you can do is add /A HREF/ to your keyword filter. That is common in spam but not in real comments. A further thing you can do what I've done on PT and my own blog in blocking all links that are not written in our link syntax, i.e. 'url'.
Maybe when I join scienceblogs after I graduate, I'll bring all my MT hacks and tricks with me.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright
| February 3, 2006 8:00 PM
Does the typekey mean your blog's engine is Typepad?
There's a great new opensource spam devourer developed for Wordpress blogs called akismet. It gets rave reviews. It's already being adapted for other interactive websites. I'll list them in case someone knows how to integrate it into your site.
Here's what it does
Spammers are evil.
Posted by: Cirya | February 3, 2006 8:22 PM
Hi Tara,
At Balloon Juice, where I blog, we have a pretty sweet anti-spam system running. The idea is that every new IP address and any post with three or more links goes into an approval bin before it appears in the comments. That makes it a cinch to filter out the spammers as well as making it easy to manage disruptive posters by creating an impromptu three-day doghouse or whatever, and it adds no new steps for commenters. We run on WordPress; I'm not sure what sort of options are avialable with your site architecture.
Being a scientist myself I occasionally impose a science-themed post on our political-minded commentariat. For example, you might enjoy a recent bit on prion diseases.
cheers,
Tim
Posted by: Tim F | February 3, 2006 11:21 PM
On my old Wordpress blog Spam Karma+Bad Behavior stopped spam dead. One spam post got through in eight months in spite of thousands of attempts.
I think installation of better anti-spam plugins is the way to go. I really don't lie the idea of typekey or capchas.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | February 4, 2006 8:23 AM
Thanks everyone for all the comments! I think I'll use PZ's system for now and hold comments with one link or more. The word validation would be helpful, but I don't think we have that (yet, at least--or not that I could find). Couldn't find where to put keywords for spam either. I'll reference this thread for when we get our full-time tech person so he can work on the stuff that needs a bit more technical expertise than I can muster.
Posted by: Tara
| February 4, 2006 4:03 PM
I got on a blog spammers list i think and i got pounded day and nite on one of my blogs.
Its a sad fact that people will take advantage and try and spoil everything.
All we can do is be vigilant and try and change technology more than the spammers do.
Posted by: Seoplebian the Seo Consultant | February 4, 2006 9:08 PM
Father Roderick doesn't like TypeKey because visually impared people can't post. His solution is to make his forum wide open to spammers. He has a big fan following, and a small army of volunteers from around the world check his forum for spam, approximately hourly. You may have this kind of fan base to draw from. I mean, I'd volunteer to have your next baby if it weren't for prior commitments and, uhm, well, the biological impossibility.
On my own Yahoo Groups, I have moderated registration. In the registration, the prospective new member must pass the Turing test. They have to answer the question, "What is this group about, and why do you want to join it?". If they answer 'I love this group', then they don't get to join. Not all humans are able to act as if they are indistiguishable from a human at a teletype, and they don't get to join. Oh well. So I'm more restrictive than you are. And yet, I try to have more than one moderator on my groups so that if I get hit by a bus (or something) the group goes on.
My blogspot and LiveJournal blogs both have open comments. I've not had any spam, which suggests that no one knows these blogs exist.
My favorite spammer story is that when a spammer was taken to court and convicted, his home address became part of the public record. Someone (anonymously) wrote a little script to sign him up for 100,000 snail mail catalogs... poetic justice.
Posted by: Stephen Uitti | February 6, 2006 2:12 PM
You do seem to have some problems with spam these days (and I am not refering to Dominic's comment, though it's the one that reminded me that this post existed).
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | April 1, 2006 11:33 AM
Roffle. There is a distinct irony to what this thread is about and the last two commenters.
Posted by: Joseph O'Donnell | April 10, 2006 9:42 PM