[Solved] Dealing with spam posts waiting for approval

[floris v]

Not sure about what to do. I got this one: viewtopic.php?f=54&p=253669#p253669 - banned the user, moved to quarantine, and then approved it, so it would be visible for anyone with access to the quarantine. Is approving necessary in this case?

[Hagar Delest]

I don't think so.

The only problem with the disapproval of the post is that it's just deleted and the only way to see that the user has been banned is to check the moderator log. But I'm used to it now. If we decide to approve the post, it has to be moved to the Quarantine. No real need I think.

Note that if the user has not been banned (just the post disapproved), then he can post again of course. This is why the ban is needed.

Perhaps there are php mods to ease the process and do all of that at once. There is already a topic about that.

[RoryOF]

I normally ban and disapprove on the first post from a new user which is obviously spam.

[floris v]

I started doing that, then realised that if the post is deleted, your actions can't be seen - you could delete anything you like. So I started moving them to the quarantine, still banning the spammer, of course.

[RoryOF]

I understand that, but disapproving is quicker! Besides I only do it for obvious spam.

[Hagar Delest]

Indeed in the past we had agreed to move the posts in the Quarantine so that everyone has a look at the mods actions. But there was no post moderation at that time. Now that the spam is so frequent, it's too much work to approve the post to move it just afterward. I think that the mods deserve a minimum of trust in their decision. Anyway, if a user thinks he has been wrongly banned, he can complain to the mailing list (not sure if the channel for complains is really clear however). Even if the post will be lost, the account can be reactivated.

[floris v]

Okay, no problem with that, it is easier to disapprove a post, I just wanted to be sure it's fine to do so.

[acknak]

I've been "disapproving" posts also--for obvious spam, or exact duplicates, where there wouldn't be a need for discussion, and then banning the user.

[RoryOF]

I don't insist on exact duplicates as candidates for deletion; if they describe the same problem in much the same words, I zap one, sometimes transferring extra information from a "duplicate" to an already started thread on the other posting. Note that we are all(?) talking of undoubted spam, not borderline cases. I can only think of about two instances of appeal from deletion in my time on the Forum, so I suspect the Mods get it right much more often than they get it wrong.

[acknak]

Agreed. I couldn't say now why I put the word "exact" in there, apart from describing the usual case. I didn't mean it to be exclusive.