Livejournal, Dreamwidth, and spam
Nov. 10th, 2012 05:56 pmOne thing I really like about Dreamwidth is the lack of spam comments. I think that, in the 3+ years I have had a DW account, I have had maybe two spam comments. Possibly as many as five -- my memory is notoriously fuzzy -- but certainly no more than that.
By way of comparison, I just got five spam LJ comments within the span of two hours this afternoon, all from different bot accounts, all with exactly the same text, on five completely random posts from the past few years. And this is far from an isolated incident. I get spam flurries like that at least every other month, and sometimes in a more sustained way -- three to five comments per day for several days running.
I am really glad that LJ flags and screens "suspicious" comments. Yes, that policy occasionally snares perfectly legitimate comments that just happen to contain a live link to an article or picture somebody wants to share, but mostly it snares phishing scams and skeezy, manipulative ads for dating sites or cookware sites or who the fuck even knows what the spammers are actually trying to sell. And it's pretty easy to unscreen the non-spam comments.
But it would be so very nice if the spammers couldn't even get accounts in the first place.
(And now off to the service auction. Modified excitment?)
By way of comparison, I just got five spam LJ comments within the span of two hours this afternoon, all from different bot accounts, all with exactly the same text, on five completely random posts from the past few years. And this is far from an isolated incident. I get spam flurries like that at least every other month, and sometimes in a more sustained way -- three to five comments per day for several days running.
I am really glad that LJ flags and screens "suspicious" comments. Yes, that policy occasionally snares perfectly legitimate comments that just happen to contain a live link to an article or picture somebody wants to share, but mostly it snares phishing scams and skeezy, manipulative ads for dating sites or cookware sites or who the fuck even knows what the spammers are actually trying to sell. And it's pretty easy to unscreen the non-spam comments.
But it would be so very nice if the spammers couldn't even get accounts in the first place.
(And now off to the service auction. Modified excitment?)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-10 11:24 pm (UTC)Ugh
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 04:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 04:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 05:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 05:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 06:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 12:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 04:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 03:45 am (UTC)They rarely remove bot accounts. They don't kill accounts using the site as part of their spam loop. And the recent influx of spam comments is really obnoxious. I've had buckets of them. The majority are the eLiveBuy, Chinese knock-off scum, with a few variants and one idiot who created an account first (and it's still live).
Ended up locking comments off to LJ users only, but I like the suggestion of locking comments on older entries.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 04:25 am (UTC)I have a few older entries where I had to lock comments because they were getting up to three spam comments a day. This flurry has been more scattershot so far, but if any single entry gets hit multiple times, I will lock it down too. *deeper sigh*
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 06:57 am (UTC)I've missed the porn bot, but my eLiveBuy scum was hammering older posts with a run of spam. I'd get a dozen hits all 15 minutes apart. Then six hours later they'd switch to a different post.
I don't understand the bot behaviour. Yeah, hitting an old post means you have more likelihood of not being removed, but it also means less traffic and hitting the same post repeatedly is a really poor return on investment. It makes your dodgy links look even more obviously dodgy for a start and it puts all your eggs in one basket when it would be a better tactic to spread the garbage around. Stupid spambot is poorly coded.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 07:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 06:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-11 06:57 am (UTC)