We need an administrator for the group to fight spam

On 6 Sep., 17:19, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:31:12 -0400, Rob <noth...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >What has happened in the last year or so? =A0This group never had this
> >much spam when Peter was a regular contributor. =A0I thought perhaps he
> >had a hand in keeping this group free from the crap?
>
> Actually, going back over the logs [*] it looks like the rate of spam in
> this group has been decreasing. There was a peak period from late August
> until early December 2009 where there were about 50-60 spam postings per
> week. By February of this year, the rate had fallen to below 30/wk and
> then to the low 'teens and single digits since then. Hardly more than
> one/day most recently.
>
> [*] I run Hamster Playground 2.5 as a local server to pre-filter the
> news feed, upstream of my news reader. I don't add *every* faux Prada
> handbags!!!! posting to the filters but wait until a given spam source
> becomes "noticeable," so the true spam rate will be slightly higher than
> and to the left of what the logs captured.
>

looking at groups.google.com the latest post I see looking like spam
is a reply to something about natural gas for your car from august 13.

that ain't bad

-Lasse

On Sep 4, 2:33=A0am, KingOfDisaster <francescopoder...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all,
> this group needs an administrator.
> there is too much spam on it!
> this group was one of the best a few years ago and now it's just a
> damp for spam!
> Who is the current admin? do we have one?
> is anybody =A0willing to be an administrator?
> I'm willing to do as far I'm not alone.
>
> Regards,
> Francesco

Something appears to have been kicked loose with the Google groups
version.  I don't see a single spam related post on the first page of
topics.

Whenever I see a spam post, I go through a couple of the reporting
options and flag it with a single star rating.  If enough other people
are doing the same we may have hit the magic threshold for action.

Ed McGettigan
--
Xilinx Inc.

On Sep 6, 4:42=A0pm, "langw...@fonz.dk" <langw...@fonz.dk> wrote:
> On 6 Sep., 17:19, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:31:12 -0400, Rob <noth...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >What has happened in the last year or so? =A0This group never had this
> > >much spam when Peter was a regular contributor. =A0I thought perhaps h=
e
> > >had a hand in keeping this group free from the crap?
>
> > Actually, going back over the logs [*] it looks like the rate of spam i=
n
> > this group has been decreasing. There was a peak period from late Augus=
t
> > until early December 2009 where there were about 50-60 spam postings pe=
r
> > week. By February of this year, the rate had fallen to below 30/wk and
> > then to the low 'teens and single digits since then. Hardly more than
> > one/day most recently.
>
> > [*] I run Hamster Playground 2.5 as a local server to pre-filter the
> > news feed, upstream of my news reader. I don't add *every* faux Prada
> > handbags!!!! posting to the filters but wait until a given spam source
> > becomes "noticeable," so the true spam rate will be slightly higher tha=
n
> > and to the left of what the logs captured.
>
> looking at groups.google.com the latest post I see looking like spam
> is a reply to something about natural gas for your car from august 13.
>
> that ain't bad
>
> -Lasse- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Perhaps because I've recently added this newsgroup to those I report
the Google Group spam for.

On Sep 9, 6:30=A0am, Robert Miles <robertmiles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 4:42=A0pm, "langw...@fonz.dk" <langw...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Sep., 17:19, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:31:12 -0400, Rob <noth...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >What has happened in the last year or so? =A0This group never had th=
is
> > > >much spam when Peter was a regular contributor. =A0I thought perhaps=
 he
> > > >had a hand in keeping this group free from the crap?
>
> > > Actually, going back over the logs [*] it looks like the rate of spam=
 in
> > > this group has been decreasing. There was a peak period from late Aug=
ust
> > > until early December 2009 where there were about 50-60 spam postings =
per
> > > week. By February of this year, the rate had fallen to below 30/wk an=
d
> > > then to the low 'teens and single digits since then. Hardly more than
> > > one/day most recently.
>
> > > [*] I run Hamster Playground 2.5 as a local server to pre-filter the
> > > news feed, upstream of my news reader. I don't add *every* faux Prada
> > > handbags!!!! posting to the filters but wait until a given spam sourc=
e
> > > becomes "noticeable," so the true spam rate will be slightly higher t=
han
> > > and to the left of what the logs captured.
>
> > looking at groups.google.com the latest post I see looking like spam
> > is a reply to something about natural gas for your car from august 13.
>
> > that ain't bad
>
> > -Lasse- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Perhaps because I've recently added this newsgroup to those I report
> the Google Group spam for.

I was reporting spam to Google for a while and I never saw a result of
my efforts.

Rick

On Sep 9, 5:39=A0am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 6:30=A0am, Robert Miles <robertmiles...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 4:42=A0pm, "langw...@fonz.dk" <langw...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> > > On 6 Sep., 17:19, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:31:12 -0400, Rob <noth...@nowhere.com> wrote=
:
> > > > >What has happened in the last year or so? =A0This group never had =
this
> > > > >much spam when Peter was a regular contributor. =A0I thought perha=
ps he
> > > > >had a hand in keeping this group free from the crap?
>
> > > > Actually, going back over the logs [*] it looks like the rate of sp=
am in
> > > > this group has been decreasing. There was a peak period from late A=
ugust
> > > > until early December 2009 where there were about 50-60 spam posting=
s per
> > > > week. By February of this year, the rate had fallen to below 30/wk =
and
> > > > then to the low 'teens and single digits since then. Hardly more th=
an
> > > > one/day most recently.
>
> > > > [*] I run Hamster Playground 2.5 as a local server to pre-filter th=
e
> > > > news feed, upstream of my news reader. I don't add *every* faux Pra=
da
> > > > handbags!!!! posting to the filters but wait until a given spam sou=
rce
> > > > becomes "noticeable," so the true spam rate will be slightly higher=
 than
> > > > and to the left of what the logs captured.
>
> > > looking at groups.google.com the latest post I see looking like spam
> > > is a reply to something about natural gas for your car from august 13=
.
>
> > > that ain't bad
>
> > > -Lasse- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Perhaps because I've recently added this newsgroup to those I report
> > the Google Group spam for.
>
> I was reporting spam to Google for a while and I never saw a result of
> my efforts.
>
> Rick

I don't believe that Google is interested in decreasing the spam.

Google charges for advertising.  I would guess that what they charge
is related to the activity in the group.  Spam counts as activity,
reading and flagging posts is even more activity.

Google's motivation is what?  Money.  Perhaps a better way would be to
ask the ones paying for "Sponsored links" to tell Google to learn how
to correctly handle spam.

Just my feeble two cents,
RK