Washerhelp

+Clients
  • Content count

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Washerhelp

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. I take your point about whether it's 100% necessary for me to have on if but I'm puzzled as to why guest reporting is actually part of the IPS forums. If it's crazy to allow it, and IPS's only response to complaints of it being used for spam is to turn it off why is it there? If it's such a crazy idea they need to remove it as an option. What's it for? Surely IPS thought it would be useful for some administrators to let guests report things? I would turn it off but what if someone posted something that seemed legit and was allowed? Then returned weeks or months later and edited their legit posts to spammy links or put porn photos up? I would not get notified. Nor would I ever know unless I stumbled across it. Someone (a "guest") visiting my forums from Google might see it and want to notify the owner? That would be very decent of them. So I wouldn't want to force them to register first. So if the feature of letting guests report content is a valid and potentially useful feature IPS would hopefully agree that filtering reports for spam would be helpful?
  2. Hello I'm getting repeated spam through the report something system. I must have had 50 over the last few months. I get an email saying "Guest has reported something" and the email (and the report on my forums) is just a list of blatant spam links. I've been on the IPS forums, and a lot of people have the same issue, but it seems the only response is to tell them to turn off access to guests reporting. I can't be alone in having forums that are read mostly by "guests". I would say 98% of all my readers are not members. Therefore I need them to be able to report something. My forums do not have any members actively using them. People join up mostly to ask for my help with a problem. Once they have that help they don't come back unless they have another question. So the only people "watching over" my forums are guests. I shouldn't have to ban them from reporting something nasty on my forums because some robot is filling the form in with spam links and not being detected by IPS. Is it possible to get these reports checked by the spam system?
  3. I've had another one yesterday. Just to give an example of the thing I'm getting I'm pasting it here with the links disabled of course - Guest (IP: 46.161.9.24) Report submitted 16 hours ago wh0cd71184 inderal 10 mg azithromycin online viagra buy baclofen online laxis pills buy furosemide abilify provera I'm just surprised that this isn't being picked up as 100% pure spam I do appreciate that disabling guest reporting is a total fix for many people but guests being able to report something dodgy - or possibly very offensive is a very useful thing to have on forums that are mostly used by guests rather than a tight community.There must be many forums like mine that are a help resource visited by hundreds of thousands of people after searching in Google that never become members and are therefore "guests"
  4. Thanks, but did you read my post? I want guests to be able to report. Guests make up 90% of my users. I need the spam to be blocked properly. A report that is just a list of spam links should be easy to identify and block but they are not being blocked.
  5. I'm having issues with "guests" reporting content which turns out to be just full of ridiculous spam links. It's frustrating to find this old thread and lack of a proper solution in 2017. A lot of people seem to assume everyone uses their forums the same way as they do and can't understand why their solution isn't ideal. If you run your forums in a certain way the solutions is simple. Ban guests from reporting. Problem solved. This solution is no good for many of us though because our forums are run in a different way, and this isn't being taken into account. My forums are used mostly by guests. It's a resource for helping people with white goods appliance problems. The only people that register are people who can't find a solution and want to ask a question. I have posts that have been read 10,000 times and only a fraction would be by members. The vast majority of people reading my forums are guests. Therefore, banning guests from reporting something makes no sense. I would not expect someone to go to the trouble of registering just to help me out reporting something. Having said that, adding Captcha (which can notoriously hinder some people) may also discourage them. So could the solution not be to ensure that such reports are properly spam checked? The ones I get are simply lists of up to a dozen spam links. How can they possibly be getting through the built in spam protection? So, allowing guests to report content is only silly if your forums are set up so that only members can use them. That's clearly appropriate for many, but not all. Many forums don't treat guests as suspicious characters. To me they are my users. I don't want to ban them from reporting content, so I would like a better solution to this problem Are content reports properly spam checked? If so how can a content report get through that contains no communication, no sentences - just a list of spam links?
  6. I'd just like to say that as a long time user I find support to be excellent and thanks.
  7. Hi. On IPS Board I've just noticed a less than ideal behaviour, which might be nice to adjust if practical? By default the Contact Us link opens the built in contact form. In settings - System/Contact us, there is an option to send users to a URL instead. I have selected this option and entered a contact me link from a totally different domain of mine. This link works OK. But when a user hovers over the "Contact Us" link they are shown that the link goes to MyDomain/Forums/contact - but the link is directed to the link I have specified instead which is A_totallydifferentDomain/contact.php. Although everything works. Would you agree it's not ideal to tell users a link will go to one place but send them somewhere else when clicked? I appreciate a lot of links can be redirected on the internet, but could the code not check to see if the built in form has been redirected in settings, and display the proper destination instead? It's probably not a vital issue, but what if some hacker redirected the contact us link to some reallynastysounding domain? At least people hovering over the link would be able to see and decide it sounds not right before clicking? Also, it's more courteous and good practice to show them the real destination when we can see from settings it is different? Many thanks Andy
  8. Thanks, I am the only admin for the board so all emails would come to me regardless. It's not a major thing, I just found it a bit strange.
  9. The emails are essential but it wouldn't be hard for the system to note that the report was made by an admin, and therefore it would be nice to have the option of not receiving emails about your own activity if you are an admin.
  10. Hello, I recently had a dozen spammers create accounts and I clicked the Flag as spammer button on them all so they would be deleted and banned. I then received a dozen emails telling me "someone" had reported these accounts as spammers. As I was logged in as root administrator I did not expect to be notified of something I myself did. Shouldn't there be an option to not notify admins of actions they themselves have done? It seems pointless?
  11. Currently we can have every single link nofollowed, or none at all. Can we have the ability to at least allow links posted by admins or specified groups to be followed? My help forums are part of my own site, and when answering questions I more often than not post a link to a relevant article on my main site. I don't want these links to show up as not trusted, they are my links and I whole heartedly trust them. Having said that, I'm not keen on setting my forums so that every single link is followed for obvious reasons. I need to be able to make my own links normal, and links by members "nofollow". I can always manually nofollow a link if appropriate. There must be hundreds of thousands of admins and moderators on forums who post links to trusted places or pages created by themselves who want the freedom to have those links be genuine recommendations of those pages. The current all or nothing option is a bit of a blunt instrument.
  12. Yes clarification would be a good compromise. I'm definitely not stupid and I got confused. People are often busy and scan messages for the gist of it. I don't agree that you can't allow such messages to be dismissed though. People don't need that amount of mollycoddling. If they are responsible enough to be running and controlling a forum, with all the complicated settings and decisions to make then they are more than capable of dismissing a message. If possible an "Are you sure" confirmation window requiring a second click should be enough. It seems a blunderbuss approach to display a message for potentially weeks after the user has fixed the problem. Also, what if they start to tune it out and another important message needs bringing to people's attention and they don't read it?
  13. Hi Michael. I can see how technically it can mean that, I think it isn't really that clear. As ip.board is capable of checking files (as it does with many of the security tools) it isn't clear enough that the system isn't reporting the security issue because it's detecting the vulnerable file version - especially as the message only appears after a second or so which gave me the impression it was checking. It would be a big improvement if the warning was much clearer in declaring it is just an automatic (dumb) warning that will continue to warn even when the security fix has been carried out.
  14. Thanks for your reply Ryan. When I refresh the page, or revisit the dashboard from elsewhere, the page loads without the message and the message appears after about a 1 second delay. This gives the impression the dashboard is checking which version of the file I have and reporting on it. If the message is just automatically blasting out the warning unaware if the security issue has been fixed or not surely it should contain information that this is the case? Otherwise why wouldn't many people become confused and wonder if they've applied the right patch or if something's gone wrong? The message should either say it has detected the board is running with the vulnerable file, or it should say after the warning, "You can ignore this warning if you have already updated the file". Andy
  15. Either something's wrong with the security patch notification system or it's totally misleading. I logged into my control panel just now and got the following warning IP.Board Bulletin It has come to our attention that a security issue is present in IP.Board. We strongly recommend that you follow the link below for instructions on how to patch your community if you have not already done so. I immediately downloaded the correct patch (V 3.3.4) and uploaded the new file to /admin/sources/base whereupon the message disappeared when I refreshed the page. Very pleased with myself I was just about to move on when seconds after disappearing the warning re-appeared. Bugger, I thought, I must have done something wrong. So I double checked everything and replaced the file again. Same thing happened, so this time instead of overwriting the file I deleted it first, then uploaded the new one but the warning still reappeared. After triple checking everything I had to conclude either the new file hasn't fixed the security issue - or (more likely) the warning is not actually detecting I have the vulnerable file at all and just blindly repeating the warning despite it being fixed by me. Is the warning system faulty? Is the file not fixing the issue? Or is it simply that the warning appears to users as though it's detected the vulnerable file but in fact it's no idea and is just slavishly reporting the issue oblivious to the fact it's being sorted?