Flagging: only 1 "post" per minute allowed

R_JR_J Cheerleader & TroubleshooterMunich Moderator

This is the second time I encounter this: I open two spam posts or more and want to flag them, but the second one gives me a validation error:

  • You have posted 1 times within 60 seconds. A spam block is now in effect on your account. You must wait at least 300 seconds before attempting to post again.

I'd suppose that 1 post per minute rule shouldn't apply to flagging, otherwise flagging spammers spam posts spam blocks the spam post flaggers account ;)


Comments

  • UnderDogUnderDog Moderator
    edited October 2014

    Ok, is this on Vanillaforums.org or on your own forum? There's a text in the translation files that's exactly this text. I'll help you find it, but you need to help me by finding it first :)
    If it's on your own site, it's easily fixable. If it's on .org then we need to ask @Linc to fix it.

    Found in /applications/vanilla/models/class.vanillamodel.php line 81 through 103:

          if ($SecondsSinceSpamCheck < $SpamLock && $CountSpamCheck >= $SpamCount && $DateSpamCheck !== FALSE) {
             $Spam = TRUE;
             $this->Validation->AddValidationResult(
                'Body',
                sprintf(
                   T('You have posted %1$s times within %2$s seconds. A spam block is now in effect on your account. You must wait at least %3$s seconds before attempting to post again.'),
                   $SpamCount,
                   $SpamTime,
                   $SpamLock
                )
             );
             $Attributes['Date'.$Type.'SpamCheck'] = Gdn_Format::ToDateTime();
    

    The SpamChechker shouldn't kick in if you have certain permissions. I won't post them here, because spammers are reading this too ;-)

    Hope it helps

  • Ok, is this on Vanillaforums.org

    same with me on vanilla forums.

    I may not provide the completed solution you might desire, but I do try to provide honest suggestions to help you solve your issue.

    UnderDog
  • R_JR_J Cheerleader & Troubleshooter Munich Moderator

    @UnderDog: it's for vf.org

    My point was that I think the spam protection shouldn't kick me out when I flag spam posts. Flagging and posting shouldn't have the same time ban. I must admit I haven't searched GitHub if the flag plugin could be found and if I can find the place where I can file an issue...


    UnderDog
  • peregrineperegrine MVP
    edited October 2014

    My point was that I think the spam protection shouldn't kick me out when I flag spam posts

    Agreed, true but 300 seconds is not an eternity :wink:

    just another way spammers can tie someone up in knots.

    But at the same time, it also prevents spammers from spam reporting.

    there should be a trusted poster exclusion.

    I may not provide the completed solution you might desire, but I do try to provide honest suggestions to help you solve your issue.

    UnderDog
  • @linc what say you?

    I may not provide the completed solution you might desire, but I do try to provide honest suggestions to help you solve your issue.

  • LincLinc Director of Development Detroit Vanilla Staff

    Flagging should bypass the spam lock.

    peregrineUnderDog
  • peregrineperegrine MVP
    edited October 2014

    @Linc said:
    Flagging should bypass the spam lock.

    pseudo user story:

    as an aside I noticed a single user can flag the same comment multiple times, although it only sends out one notification but fills the table with more reports, it could be nice to have an event and only allow one report per comment per user, so something like this could be more easily incorporated.

    http://vanillaforums.org/discussion/28113/spammer-mitigation-a-mod-to-flagging-plugin-that-auto-deletes-a-comment-based-on

    I may not provide the completed solution you might desire, but I do try to provide honest suggestions to help you solve your issue.

  • R_JR_J Cheerleader & Troubleshooter Munich Moderator

    @peregrine said:
    there should be a trusted poster exclusion.

    I think that would be a good solution for that time limit generally. It would be great if it is influenced by the user role.


    UnderDog
  • vrijvlindervrijvlinder Papillon-Sauvage MVP

    This also happened to me...

    I agree that some of us who are not mods but are trustworthy ethical people, should have power to subvert the spam. Or hide it from the list once one or two of us has flagged it then the mods can decide to ban or whatever.

    Must say it was strange to get spam blocked when flagging spam..

    UnderDog
  • @vrijvlinder said:
    This also happened to me...

    I agree that some of us who are not mods but are trustworthy ethical people, should have power to subvert the spam. Or hide it from the list once one or two of us has flagged it then the mods can decide to ban or whatever.

    Must say it was strange to get spam blocked when flagging spam..

    it was this way, until some of us trusted users generated 5 points instead of one point, and then we became untrusted :wink:

    I may not provide the completed solution you might desire, but I do try to provide honest suggestions to help you solve your issue.

    UnderDog
  • vrijvlindervrijvlinder Papillon-Sauvage MVP

    But blocking spam does not generate anything afaIk ... how can we generate points ?

    peregrineUnderDog
  • peregrineperegrine MVP
    edited October 2014

    you are correct, I was pointing out when we were "trusted" for something entirely different, and when MVP's had more powers.

    I may not provide the completed solution you might desire, but I do try to provide honest suggestions to help you solve your issue.

  • vrijvlindervrijvlinder Papillon-Sauvage MVP
    edited October 2014

    Well, maybe we can't be trusted for troll spotting ? That can't be ... :D

    I can say that I can be trusted for spam flagging.

    Even if the spam is in russian I use the translator to make sure it is spam before I mark it as such. Even will visit or examine their links to be sure... so that means I am a trustworthy spam spotter and flagger...

    Besides, we can't be trusted with banning people, that is the only one they fear ;)

    peregrineUnderDog
  • Well, maybe we can't be trusted for troll spotting ? That can't be ... :D

    yes "We" spotted a "baby" troll before anyone could grok that the baby troll was indeed a baby troll >:)

    I may not provide the completed solution you might desire, but I do try to provide honest suggestions to help you solve your issue.

    vrijvlinderUnderDog
  • vrijvlindervrijvlinder Papillon-Sauvage MVP

    No that was a big troll in a small body... that is what was deceptive and only troll experts could be aware of this at the time.

    However upon reflection, that troll was also a spammer...

  • vrijvlindervrijvlinder Papillon-Sauvage MVP

    @R_J said:
    I think that would be a good solution for that time limit generally. It would be great if it is influenced by the user role.

    Yes but some trusted users are not ranked high enough yet . It would have to be specific trusted user. Like you R_J ... :)

    And peregrine and basically all of those in the top list and a few others who are trusted and visit regularly so as to be useful when spam happens. Does not happen too often though. Which is good.

  • R_JR_J Cheerleader & Troubleshooter Munich Moderator

    Naaa! I didn't mean role (although I've said it), I meant rank. Everyone except for users with the rank that new users have, should be allowed to flag as fast as they can. That's how I would configure it (but I guess there is no way to configure it in such detail by now).


  • hgtonighthgtonight ∞ · New Moderator

    Hmmm... being Verified should bypass this check, imo.

    Search first

    Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.

    Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.

Sign In or Register to comment.