TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Only one account per IP address

Go To

TheInferno |Y| = |X| Add 5 from probably on Earth Since: Jul, 2010
|Y| = |X| Add 5
#76: Jun 25th 2011 at 10:49:53 PM

In that case, you can always do http://www.asitethatalmostcertainlydoesntexist.com/reallyabsurdlylongfakepagenamefordemonstrationpurposes and just say copy & paste the URL. Or link the main site and tell people to search for something in the in-site search. Something like that. It's just that URL shortening services are a really easy way to tell someone "hey, check out this cool picture on *so and so site* when really linking to another which could contain spyware. Though that's not really related to the problem at hand.

Though I wish sites wouldn't use nearly so large UR Ls. Or maybe the parser could have a bigger buffer for that kind of thing but I'm not sure that's even possible, so *shrug*

EDIT: Wait, what? that should've been plain text! Does it not accept words over a certain length either? Still, could just put a space after the first / and that'd solve the problem just tell people to remove the space first.

edited 25th Jun '11 10:50:56 PM by TheInferno

"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - Charlatan
SilentReverence adopting kitteh from 3 tiles right 1 tile up Since: Jan, 2010
adopting kitteh
#77: Jun 26th 2011 at 9:34:30 AM

Well, the issue with the URL lengths should be fixed by the parser people. To my knowledge, and after visiting some ASP sites and cummulative logs/archives, I'm almost certain there is no technical limit to how long an URL has to be, and the "practical" limit (2k-something characters) is way beyond posting a link that encompasses two lines of text anyway.

Another way would be to have our own URL shortener, with links approved by a mod or otherwise responsible troper and a way of tagging links to avoid repetition and allow more reuse., but that's kinda overkill. Although me being a proponent of "don't depend on teh internets" I particularly don't mind...

Heck... perhaps I should move those suggestions to Tech Wishlist...

One question to the higher powers though... How much relative participation do the "creating new accounts to post and try to recover old one['s password]" accounts or puppets have in comparison to spam accounts per-IP? (or per-block?)

Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?
FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#78: Jun 26th 2011 at 9:52:32 AM

If I understand the question correctly: There are just a whole heck of a lot more spammers than there are people who can't keep track of their own passwords.wink

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
melloncollie Since: Feb, 2012
#79: Jun 26th 2011 at 10:02:31 AM

Thread Hop

So... does this mean I can't get on Tv Tropes on my own account if I'm at the place of residence of another troper?

edited 26th Jun '11 10:02:45 AM by melloncollie

TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#80: Jun 26th 2011 at 10:07:57 AM

If I understand it, it's one account per IP address, not one IP address per account.

For shared IP addresses or proxies or such...I guess it would work on a first come, first served basis, with existing accounts taking priority. If someone already "tagged" an IP you're trying to make an account on, you're out of luck.

Eddie can correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
INUH Since: Jul, 2009
#81: Jun 26th 2011 at 10:31:48 AM

^^No; it means you can't create an account while on an already-used IP.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story
FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#82: Jun 26th 2011 at 10:40:46 AM

Exactly. Once you create an account, you can use it from any IP address.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#83: Jun 26th 2011 at 11:05:28 AM

Does that mean if an established account uses an ip without an account, that particular ip now has it's one account per ip used up or is that strictly for sign up.

Who watches the watchmen?
TheInferno |Y| = |X| Add 5 from probably on Earth Since: Jul, 2010
|Y| = |X| Add 5
#84: Jun 26th 2011 at 11:09:04 AM

If it's strictly for sign-up there is still the possibility of people who can only use libraries getting blocked off (which is a severe problem) and rotating I Ps still occasionally might get hit, not as bad as I thought it was though.

"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - Charlatan
Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#85: Jun 26th 2011 at 11:17:02 AM

I like the idea of flagging edits containing external UR Ls. Especially if we combine those with what we already have (like new accounts who are already flagged) to make a series of "potential spam" edit flags

edited 26th Jun '11 11:17:32 AM by Ghilz

FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#86: Jun 26th 2011 at 11:30:23 AM

I think we'll need to do up some code that detects if an external url is added to a page by a young account, so we can flag it in Recent Changes.

The hope, though, is to prevent spamming, not to just make it easier to clean up after.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#87: Jun 26th 2011 at 12:45:12 PM

Or you know just block new accounts from posting web addresses in any form.

Who watches the watchmen?
FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#88: Jun 26th 2011 at 12:51:33 PM

Every wikiword on a page is a web address.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#89: Jun 26th 2011 at 1:00:45 PM

Crap.

Well that wont work then.

Who watches the watchmen?
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#90: Jun 26th 2011 at 1:07:29 PM

[up][up] If you can flag UR Ls in the http://www.whatever.com format, can't you refuse to let edits with URL strings from new accounts go through?

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#91: Jun 26th 2011 at 1:39:02 PM

Yes. It would only be fair, though, to tell them why the edit wasn't going through. Which would tip off the spammers to what they should do.*

I has equivocations.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
robster2001 Very Occasional Editor from Richmond, VA Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
Very Occasional Editor
#92: Jun 26th 2011 at 1:54:09 PM

Generally, spammers want to hit and run (with the occasional exception like that Mohammad Wu character). Forcing them to make a number of constructive edits (to be defined in a hypothetical future discussion) would interfere with the imperative and chase most of them away.

One thought on the one new account per IP address issue: how would that affect couples or families who use multiple computers from one home address? Or is that rather rare here?

I am not a mod, and I don't play one on TV.
TheInferno |Y| = |X| Add 5 from probably on Earth Since: Jul, 2010
|Y| = |X| Add 5
#93: Jun 26th 2011 at 2:10:25 PM

In that case they would all have to find separate places to make accounts from before they could all log in from home.

I have people who live with me who go on TV Tropes as well (they'd be grandfathered in) but that is a very good point.

"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - Charlatan
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#94: Jun 26th 2011 at 2:14:29 PM

[up][up] This is true. If accounts only age if they make edits and not just sitting there, then they'd be stuck either making regular constructive edits to the wiki, or they'd get caught and banned. If it's too much effort, they'll probably give up.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#96: Jun 26th 2011 at 2:16:50 PM

But it's only really a hassle for spammers and not for normal editors.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
TheInferno |Y| = |X| Add 5 from probably on Earth Since: Jul, 2010
|Y| = |X| Add 5
#97: Jun 26th 2011 at 2:24:31 PM

...out of curiosity, (and off-topic), could an optional e-mail linking be added for the purpose of recovering passwords? Would help a lot if we can't think of any other solutions.

On-topic, solutions-wise...

If you can make a page that shows a list of URLS (or even just the main part, like the tvtropes.org in https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Tropers/TheInferno), an "outbound links" page, we could look over them and see which ones are appropriate, and add those all to a prototype whitelist (even if there's only one external link, as long as the site is appropriate no reason not to add it to the whitelist). Once that's done and all the links are accounted for, implement the list and create a thread/page specifically for requesting a URL be cleared for external linking (once again, the whitelist would only apply to the wiki, so people could post the appropriate link on the forums).

There are a number of potential problems, for one it would be a heck of a lot of work in the beginning, and it would add in some trouble for editors. Also, any time someone made a page for a website or MMO they would have to go to the thread to get it cleared. Probably some more I haven't thought of. Still like it more than one account created per IP, though.

"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - Charlatan
defunctzombie Since: Feb, 2010
#98: Jun 26th 2011 at 3:40:53 PM

Blocking posts with links from new accounts helps out on vbulletin, it automatically moderates posts from new accounts until an admin/mod can approve them. Combine that with a new account waiting period and you get a pretty good spam buffer.

VmKid Since: Sep, 2009
#99: Jun 26th 2011 at 5:44:13 PM

In reply to the "Account Aging" problem, what about deleting new accounts that have been inactive for a certain amount of time? It'd keep spammers from creating an account, waiting their "Newbie Period" out, and spamming once it ends.

INUH Since: Jul, 2009
#100: Jun 26th 2011 at 5:46:44 PM

It'd still be possible to get around that, but I think they'd be less likely to.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

Total posts: 194
Top