Jump to content

New possible Bot alert


rockhead15

Recommended Posts

My 2 caches got hit by the bot yesterday, I thought it was a real person because a few weeks ago, someone kept moving one of my other caches, and I got so mad, I emailed a few other users that got attacked and found out it was a bot. Who would do something like this? It's obviously someone really ignorant or with no life O.o

Link to comment

My 2 caches got hit by the bot yesterday, I thought it was a real person because a few weeks ago, someone kept moving one of my other caches, and I got so mad, I emailed a few other users that got attacked and found out it was a bot. Who would do something like this? It's obviously someone really ignorant or with no life O.o

 

I appreciate your emailing me Nickyide. I still have no idea what a bot IS! But thank you for your warning and also your warning not to click on his blog. So fellow cachers... I appreciate this young man caring enough to warn me! Thank you!

Link to comment

Is Groundspeak able to / or will they be deleting the logs? Not just banning the accounts?

 

I emailed as many cachers as I could this morning since most people do not come to these forums, read Facebook, or even communicate with other cachers. Many of them were newer cachers or new caches.

 

If the link is possibly infected with a virus (as I've read) then I think it would be best for them to get the logs off their website. Don't need others clicking on the links or reading the BS.

Link to comment

If the link is possibly infected with a virus (as I've read) then I think it would be best for them to get the logs off their website. Don't need others clicking on the links or reading the BS.

No... the link is not infected by a virus* in this case, but in the future, it could happen.

 

No, Groundspeak is not currently cleaning up the mess. They are only banning the account, which is a very short-lived fix, because the "bot" only needs to create another free account before resuming.

 

*actually, links are never "infected by a virus" but they can take you to web pages that may contain malicious code

Link to comment

I don't think identifying the bots has been a problem and that is what a report button would be for. I think they just need to accept that there needs to be a way that they can bulk delete logs by identified bots and get on with it. TPTB are, understandably, reluctant to get involved in policing cache logs. But in this situation it just doesn't make sense to leave it on the shoulders of the COs.

 

IMHO, this comment is spot in.

 

.

Link to comment

I think its about time to not make the site free. :lol:

 

I know that a lot of new people will not like the idea but if they are going to spam us all the time we should make them pay to do it. :lol:

 

I have also sent the blog a spam and harassment warning or what ever its called. :laughing:

 

I think we should all do it every day until he is removed. when he starts up another one we do it to that one. Eventually he will get a real website and we can spam the heck out of his e-mail address and server :lol:

Link to comment

I have also sent the blog a spam and harassment warning or what ever its called. :lol:

 

I think we should all do it every day until he is removed.

I think that is a very bad idea.

For one thing, it is highly unlikely that our "bot" person was the real Forest Defender that owns that blog.

 

For another, whether it is or isn't the same person, all you are doing is tossing gasoline on the fire. Best to just ignore. I really wish this thread could be moved to Off-Topic where it would have lower visibility, but because non-PMs can't go there, that isn't going to happen.

 

Third, that would be harassment of a member (if the person that owns that blog has a geocaching account, which, I suspect, they do) and that would put you at odds with the ToU.

Link to comment

Has anyone noticed that ForestDefenders have removed earth caches. How is this possible? They stole a freakin bridge for crying out loud! Unbelievable. I noticed this morning that yesterday they remove like 5 multis from Maine to Maryland. Can this all be done in one day!

Edited by nikkson
Link to comment

 

.......cachers will log as usual but log will not show up

CO would get notification of the log as usual and would have to click "approve", which would make the log visible

 

 

OMG!!!!! I can just see the forum thread now:

 

I logged a find two hours ago and the CO has not approved it.

 

This is a horrible idea and puts even more onus on the innocent caching community to fix a problem that belongs to Groundspeak.

 

.

 

 

no its not a horrible idea, read the rest of my post it will only be for a few of the first finds 10-15-25

 

please do come up with a better one

 

with a note informing the cachers that it may take few days would be fine

 

not any different than submitting a new cache for review

 

"not my problem, its GC's problem".."i won't do it without a paycheck" , those are the kind of attitudes that this person hopes for too

 

I don't think it's a a bad idea, other then the fact that it doesn't really punish the person that should be punished...whoever is behind all the recent bots (any speculation on whether this is one person of it's a coincidence that Groundspeak is getting hit with a rash of bots?). In fact, I suggested some sort of CO validation mechanism a couple of years ago as a means of validating virtual cache logs.

 

As I see it, when you have a cache published you take on the burden of maintaining the physical caches as well as the cache page itself, including the logs. I've heard of some COs forwarding the email notification that is produced with every log on one of their caches to a bitbucket but, IMHO, there should be a guideline which specifically does not allow that practice. While 99% of the email that I receive from cache logs is read and deleted, if it contained a "validate this log" link it wouldn't take more than an additional click or two validate a log and allow it to be posted.

 

BTW, the "I won't do it without a paycheck" as a joke. It was posted by a volunteer reviewer. Believe or not, some reviewers actually have a sense of humor.

Link to comment
Has anyone noticed that ForestDefenders have removed earth caches. How is this possible? They stole a freakin bridge for crying out loud! Unbelievable. I noticed this morning that yesterday they remove like 5 multis from Maine to Maryland. Can this all be done in one day!
Look... "ForestDefenders" did NOT remove ANYTHING!! It fact, it is highly unlikely that this was the real ForestDefenders in the first place. This was a "bot".. a script kiddy... that has been using a plethora of names (yes, a "plethora"... good word, huh?) for his stupid antics for some time now. These are just logs.
Link to comment
Has anyone noticed that ForestDefenders have removed earth caches. How is this possible? They stole a freakin bridge for crying out loud! Unbelievable. I noticed this morning that yesterday they remove like 5 multis from Maine to Maryland. Can this all be done in one day!
Look... "ForestDefenders" did NOT remove ANYTHING!! It fact, it is highly unlikely that this was the real ForestDefenders in the first place. This was a "bot".. a script kiddy... that has been using a plethora of names (yes, a "plethora"... good word, huh?) for his stupid antics for some time now. These are just logs.

 

So...wadda ya wanna bet the next incarnation will be named "Plethora"?

Link to comment
Has anyone noticed that ForestDefenders have removed earth caches. How is this possible? They stole a freakin bridge for crying out loud! Unbelievable. I noticed this morning that yesterday they remove like 5 multis from Maine to Maryland. Can this all be done in one day!
Look... "ForestDefenders" did NOT remove ANYTHING!! It fact, it is highly unlikely that this was the real ForestDefenders in the first place. This was a "bot".. a script kiddy... that has been using a plethora of names (yes, a "plethora"... good word, huh?) for his stupid antics for some time now. These are just logs.

 

So...wadda ya wanna bet the next incarnation will be named "Plethora"?

:lol:

 

No bet. :lol:

Link to comment

If the link is possibly infected with a virus (as I've read) then I think it would be best for them to get the logs off their website. Don't need others clicking on the links or reading the BS.

No... the link is not infected by a virus* in this case, but in the future, it could happen.

 

No, Groundspeak is not currently cleaning up the mess. They are only banning the account, which is a very short-lived fix, because the "bot" only needs to create another free account before resuming.

 

*actually, links are never "infected by a virus" but they can take you to web pages that may contain malicious code

 

Coincidentally, I visted a site that I've been to many times in the past (a site which provides online ordering and delivery from local restaurants). As I was entering my order my brower completely froze up and the system become unresponsive. Eventually a dialog box popped up indicating a severe security breach had been made, identifying some file a a trojan horse then the "Security Center" app provided a scan button with a number of sites which could clean up the trojan horse. The "Security Center" app, was actually a fake security center app that looked "almost" identical to the real one. The real app provides links to sites for removing a trojan horse and the fake app adds 4 others that actually download more malicious code. Getting rid of the fake security center program (which did some pretty nefarious things as well) wasn't that difficult but it was the first time I'd seen anything like it on the system I was using.

 

As I was cleaning things up I was certainly thinking about this thread, and could easily see how the creator of the bots may get tired of creating yet another free account and escalate their attacks to include a denial of service attack or injecting a trojan horse like the one I dealt with last night onto the grounspeak site. That's why, instead of passing the problem from cache owner to Groundspeak, going after the person or person responsible for the bots is the only way to really stop them.

Link to comment

I checked my caches that where logged by Defenderbutt and they are fine its just bogus logs nothing else...

 

 

one solution to this would be to require the first 25-50 logs of any new member be approved by the CO before they actually show up on the cache page

 

where CO are not active a system can be in place where the Reviewers in the area would approve those logs

Ummm, no thanks. Not without a paycheck.

 

how many inactive CO's still have caches out there? can't be that many

 

and how many new members sign up in a week in an area?

 

if you don't want to do it without a paycheck that's fine, a lot of people would be happy to help on volunteer basis....i would

you intentionally left out the rest of my post, is GC "closed" for accepting help from the community?

 

GC has to do something and really soon

 

and on that note they should mass email an official message about what's going on

so many CO's don't visit the forums to see this thread so they have no idea wth is going on

some caches now have up to 4 logs

Link to comment
Has anyone noticed that ForestDefenders have removed earth caches. How is this possible? They stole a freakin bridge for crying out loud! Unbelievable. I noticed this morning that yesterday they remove like 5 multis from Maine to Maryland. Can this all be done in one day!
Look... "ForestDefenders" did NOT remove ANYTHING!! It fact, it is highly unlikely that this was the real ForestDefenders in the first place. This was a "bot".. a script kiddy... that has been using a plethora of names (yes, a "plethora"... good word, huh?) for his stupid antics for some time now. These are just logs.

 

So...wadda ya wanna bet the next incarnation will be named "Plethora"?

:lol:

 

No bet. :lol:

 

And the log will be all about her evil box.

Link to comment

intresting that the forestdefender external crap blog site

is similar to this forest defender site with owner name... what do you think - if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck its a duck

 

http://www.blogger.com/profile/12446895155381138844

 

and his blog site http://forestdefender.blogspot.com/

 

 

Besides ETLogEater there is also ForestDefender - see the logs on GC2G2J9.

At the time of the above post I believe ForestDefenders' find count was somewhere below 100. Now it's 3423.

 

All logs are:

[Found it] October 4 by ForestDefenders (3489 found)

 

Stop littering and destroying our fragile ecosystems!

(including an external link)

 

And now the found count is 3489....

 

Domo!!!

 

I just got a whole bunch of bogus find log notifications from this "ForestDefenders" loser, with a link to his self-centered ill-justified 'Hate' blog.

 

Already sent Groundspeak a 'Ban' request.

 

Poor guy, living a life only full of hate, hate, hate... Why not hate himself...

 

Happy caching everyone, and don't forget to CITO!

 

~ Dr.MORO

Edited by EvilTree
Link to comment
Has anyone noticed that ForestDefenders have removed earth caches. How is this possible? They stole a freakin bridge for crying out loud! Unbelievable. I noticed this morning that yesterday they remove like 5 multis from Maine to Maryland. Can this all be done in one day!
Look... "ForestDefenders" did NOT remove ANYTHING!! It fact, it is highly unlikely that this was the real ForestDefenders in the first place. This was a "bot".. a script kiddy... that has been using a plethora of names (yes, a "plethora"... good word, huh?) for his stupid antics for some time now. These are just logs.

 

So...wadda ya wanna bet the next incarnation will be named "Plethora"?

:lol:

 

No bet. :lol:

 

And the log will be all about her evil box.

Actually, I was thinking more of pinatas:

 

Jefe: We have many beautiful piñatas for your birthday celebration, each one filled with little surprises!

El Guapo: How many piñatas?

Jefe: Many piñatas, many!

El Guapo: Jefe, would you say I have a plethora of piñatas?

Jefe: A what?

El Guapo: A plethora.

Jefe: Oh yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora.

El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?

Jefe: Why, El Guapo?

El Guapo: Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

Jefe: El Guapo, I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education, but could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?

Link to comment
intresting that the forestdefender external crap blog site

is similar to this forest defender site with owner name... what do you think - if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck its a duck

 

http://www.blogger.com/profile/12446895155381138844

 

and his blog site http://forestdefender.blogspot.com/

Speculation like that has gotten similar thread shut down by the moderators in the past.

 

Besides, have you read the entire thread? It is extremely unlikely that the recent bot attacks have anything to do with that person. Don't give him more credit than he is due.

Link to comment
I don't think it's a a bad idea, other then the fact that it doesn't really punish the person that should be punished...

but it's not possible to punish the culprit. the punishment is the banning of their account, but they don't care about that because they can just go ahead and create a new one. so it's not about punishment, it's about prevention. throttling, moderating or otherwise limiting the logs or logging capabilities of new users would be a good way to prevent bulk logging like that.

 

PS: PHP Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 45 seconds exceeded in E:\Inetpub\forums\GC\ips_kernel\class_db_mysql.php on line 457 PHP Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 45 seconds exceeded in E:\Inetpub\forums\GC\sources\ipsclass.php on line 1111

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
I don't think it's a a bad idea, other then the fact that it doesn't really punish the person that should be punished...

but it's not possible to punish the culprit. the punishment is the banning of their account, but they don't care about that because they can just go ahead and create a new one. so it's not about punishment, it's about prevention. throttling, moderating or otherwise limiting the logs or logging capabilities of new users would be a good way to prevent bulk logging like that.

 

PS: PHP Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 45 seconds exceeded in E:\Inetpub\forums\GC\ips_kernel\class_db_mysql.php on line 457 PHP Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 45 seconds exceeded in E:\Inetpub\forums\GC\sources\ipsclass.php on line 1111

 

But it is possible to hold the perpetrator responsible. It is called a law suit. The problem is that they need to identify who it is. In the mean time I think they should ban and delete. No sense in punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

Link to comment
This is not true. The report button is working.
Just not properly.
Yes, it will look like it failed, but it will have gone through correctly.

so the whole forum also works, because even though you get an error message when posting, the post still went through (causing all the double posts), right? :lol:

Link to comment

 

.......cachers will log as usual but log will not show up

CO would get notification of the log as usual and would have to click "approve", which would make the log visible

 

 

OMG!!!!! I can just see the forum thread now:

 

I logged a find two hours ago and the CO has not approved it.

 

This is a horrible idea and puts even more onus on the innocent caching community to fix a problem that belongs to Groundspeak.

 

.

I agree, and I also agree that GS needs to get a way to fix this in place right away...or people will actually start looking at other places to play the game.

 

On another note, I'm not a programmer, but I have been thinking a lot about what damage could be done by a bot like this, and I think whoever wrote it has really failed in thair attempt to stir things up. Firstly, it seems that the thing works pretty slowly, instead of doing thousands in a minute or so, and secondly, there are far more damaging and irratating things they could have used the bot for, but I'll not post any ideas. Haha, they are even a loser at causing trouble.

 

I will repeat what I said before though, that all the logs NEED to be deleted, either by GS or by the CO, so that there cannot be an autoedit bot later that will turn the harmless ones into something bad. I'm not sure if getting banned will prevent that.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment
This is not true. The report button is working.
Just not properly.
Yes, it will look like it failed, but it will have gone through correctly.

so the whole forum also works, because even though you get an error message when posting, the post still went through (causing all the double posts), right? :lol:

It is the act of refreshing the page following a timeout that causes the double post, not the error message itself. Once I learned to simply link back to the forums after a timeout, I stopped having dupes.
Link to comment
This is not true. The report button is working.
Just not properly.
Yes, it will look like it failed, but it will have gone through correctly.

so the whole forum also works, because even though you get an error message when posting, the post still went through (causing all the double posts), right? :lol:

 

Thanks. I missed this reply.

 

No, it doesn't. If it did you wouldn't get multiple reports from the same people. Hopefully this to will be fixed with the updated forum software. Some day, maybe, if we ever actually see it.

Link to comment
This is not true. The report button is working.
Just not properly.
Yes, it will look like it failed, but it will have gone through correctly.

so the whole forum also works, because even though you get an error message when posting, the post still went through (causing all the double posts), right? :lol:

It is the act of refreshing the page following a timeout that causes the double post, not the error message itself. Once I learned to simply link back to the forums after a timeout, I stopped having dupes.

 

No matter how you look at it things do not work properly, they are broken.

Link to comment

No matter how you look at it things do not work properly, they are broken.

I totally agree with you, and I am extremely skeptical that going to a new version of the software is going to fix anything. Much more likely that a new version will require even more hardware resources, which is what I think is the root of the problem (that, disk partitioning, etc).

 

But... how about these new bots? Pretty exciting, huh? :lol:

Link to comment

No matter how you look at it things do not work properly, they are broken.

I totally agree with you, and I am extremely skeptical that going to a new version of the software is going to fix anything. Much more likely that a new version will require even more hardware resources, which is what I think is the root of the problem (that, disk partitioning, etc).

 

But... how about these new bots? Pretty exciting, huh? :lol:

 

Well look who's a mod now. :lol:

 

Yeah, they are. But to be honest I don't expect TPTB to do much more than they have about addressing the forum problems. They'll just keep banning user accounts and leave all the work on the cache owners. But we can always hope.

Link to comment

Coincidentally, I visted a site that I've been to many times in the past (a site which provides online ordering and delivery from local restaurants). As I was entering my order my brower completely froze up and the system become unresponsive. Eventually a dialog box popped up indicating a severe security breach had been made, identifying some file a a trojan horse then the "Security Center" app provided a scan button with a number of sites which could clean up the trojan horse. The "Security Center" app, was actually a fake security center app that looked "almost" identical to the real one. The real app provides links to sites for removing a trojan horse and the fake app adds 4 others that actually download more malicious code. Getting rid of the fake security center program (which did some pretty nefarious things as well) wasn't that difficult but it was the first time I'd seen anything like it on the system I was using.

I bet you got that from an advertisement. I used to get them from bad ads on site. It stopped happening when I started running ad-blocker. What a pain. Edited by Knight2000
Link to comment

 

BTW, the "I won't do it without a paycheck" as a joke. It was posted by a volunteer reviewer. Believe or not, some reviewers actually have a sense of humor.

 

i know who he is and i very much doubt it was a joke, and if it was a joke the timing was really off

Link to comment

I did a keyword cache search on barf and sure enough ILNOIERUWHERUYI has logged all of the ones I checked.

 

Is the only way to log Member Only caches as a non-Member by use of field notes? Sounds like clue as to how it is done. If so, red flags to the field note logger could be large distances in a short time on multiple field notes log attempts

Link to comment

 

BTW, the "I won't do it without a paycheck" as a joke. It was posted by a volunteer reviewer. Believe or not, some reviewers actually have a sense of humor.

 

i know who he is and i very much doubt it was a joke, and if it was a joke the timing was really off

It was a way of saying what I thought of your idea without criticizing the idea too strongly, or the person who came up with the idea. Others have since voiced the same concerns that I have. My priority is making the website and the forums accessible and welcoming to newbies. Captchas and log approvals and throttles run counter to that goal.

 

I could have said "Volunteer Cache Reviewers are not the log police." Yeah, I'll go with that.

Link to comment

My priority is making the website and the forums accessible and welcoming to newbies. Captchas and log approvals and throttles run counter to that goal.

 

Therein lies the crux of the matter. We're experiencing the usability vs security aspect of life with computers.

 

We have a "malware" problem (spamming bot) which is pushing the community to demand more security (bot prevention). At the same time we want to have a system that is easily accessed by the "users", with minimal complexities.

 

We definitely do not want to push away the new users, or the existing ones for that matter. But at the same time, we don't want our listings to be spammed into oblivion (or we have a full time job keeping them clean). The usability/security balance may need a slight tweak to keep everyone happy.

 

I'm sure by now this is being discussed at the Lillypad in some form, and a solution is in progress.

 

Or.... hopefully this bot author gets bored and finds a new hobby. Like counting lichen somewhere in the Arctic Tundra.

Link to comment

We got hit by a bot here on the east coast, from Md to Maine, this week. Although it was really disturbing when I saw the logs, which was actually a link to another website, I was glad the only hassle was deleting the logs.

I have a few caches right close to my house so when I went out just to be sure there was no problem I checked them & they were fine. SO the PITA remained the fake logs. Not the worst thing in the world for sure.

 

The main concern was that we HAVE had a problem with someone trashing about 75% of the area caches so it did raise the concern flag at 1st.

 

All is well now it seems.

Edited by Mother Wolf
Link to comment
Why so much consternation over something that is so simple to fix?

 

Simply add a validation code entry box to all the log entry pages. Ta-da! Bots are stopped.

 

You can see an example of one on pages like this...

 

http://geocheck.org/geo_inputchkcoord.php?...e3-134b2afbe676

That's essentially what people mean when they refer to CAPTCHA. What is the largest number of caches you've found in one day? I have a friend that gets 60-80 or more every time he goes out, which is every Saturday and Sunday, as well as vacation days. Yeah, it may be nuts, but its his choice. He also takes the time to write unique logs on each cache. You want to add the burden of a validation code for each cache?

 

Besides that, much more complex validation codes than your example can be broken programatically.

Link to comment

Why so much consternation over something that is so simple to fix?

 

Simply add a validation code entry box to all the log entry pages. Ta-da! Bots are stopped.

 

You can see an example of one on pages like this...

 

http://geocheck.org/geo_inputchkcoord.php?...e3-134b2afbe676

 

So you want to inconvenience/punish tens of thousands of cachers in order to stop one bozo?????

 

That is even more onerous, and horrible, than asking the CO's to delete the bot's logs.

 

What is wrong with asking GS to take complete ownership?

 

Edit to add: I did notice that yesterday's update included a CAPTCHA to query downloads for non-premium members. That should help a little bit.

 

 

.

Edited by Tequila
Link to comment

 

What is wrong with asking GS to take complete ownership?

 

 

Most likely the ratio of volunteers to cache logs on a given day:

 

In the last 30 days, there have been 4,228,638 new logs submitted

 

That's a lot of filtering by reviewers to keep it away from the COs. A lot.

 

--

 

The ideas of CAPTCHAs and such are simply us brainstorming potential methods to help keep the burden down on the volunteers, and the cache owners.

 

The "found it" or "write note" logs are merely a distraction that the COs can ignore. When the bot uses NM, NA type logs it gets a lot more annoying as the caches affected now get action items against them.

Leave a cache with NM on too long and your reviewer may archive it. Not to mention, I'd rather the reviewers are not flooded with bogus NA logs, when they already have enough emails to look at in a day.

Link to comment

 

What is wrong with asking GS to take complete ownership?

 

 

Most likely the ratio of volunteers to cache logs on a given day:

 

In the last 30 days, there have been 4,228,638 new logs submitted

 

That's a lot of filtering by reviewers to keep it away from the COs. A lot.

 

--

 

The ideas of CAPTCHAs and such are simply us brainstorming potential methods to help keep the burden down on the volunteers, and the cache owners.

 

The "found it" or "write note" logs are merely a distraction that the COs can ignore. When the bot uses NM, NA type logs it gets a lot more annoying as the caches affected now get action items against them.

Leave a cache with NM on too long and your reviewer may archive it. Not to mention, I'd rather the reviewers are not flooded with bogus NA logs, when they already have enough emails to look at in a day.

 

And that is why they need to come up with a way to bulk delete logs by identified bots.

Link to comment

For anybody that thinks that a CAPTCHA type solution would work, please Google the phrases 'CAPTCHA WORKAROUND', 'BREAKING CAPTCHA', 'CAPTCHA OCR',and so on.

 

Doesn't really matter though, anyway. Groundspeak doesn't look to the forums for technical suggestions. They're going to come up with their own solution, whether we like it, or not. This conversation really is rhetorical when it comes right down to it.

Link to comment

 

What is wrong with asking GS to take complete ownership?

 

 

Most likely the ratio of volunteers to cache logs on a given day:

 

In the last 30 days, there have been 4,228,638 new logs submitted

 

That's a lot of filtering by reviewers to keep it away from the COs. A lot.

 

--

 

The ideas of CAPTCHAs and such are simply us brainstorming potential methods to help keep the burden down on the volunteers, and the cache owners.

 

The "found it" or "write note" logs are merely a distraction that the COs can ignore. When the bot uses NM, NA type logs it gets a lot more annoying as the caches affected now get action items against them.

Leave a cache with NM on too long and your reviewer may archive it. Not to mention, I'd rather the reviewers are not flooded with bogus NA logs, when they already have enough emails to look at in a day.

 

To clarify, I was not suggesting the reviewers have any onus on this situation beyond simply reporting a bot when it might be brought to their attention.

 

My suggestion is that cachers (owners, non-owners, reviewers) keep a vigilant eye for a bot. That process seems to be working quite well ad demonstrated by how quickly they are reported to this thread.

 

Once a potential bot is identified GS takes over and deals with it.

 

.

Link to comment

For anybody that thinks that a CAPTCHA type solution would work, please Google the phrases 'CAPTCHA WORKAROUND', 'BREAKING CAPTCHA', 'CAPTCHA OCR',and so on.

 

Doesn't really matter though, anyway. Groundspeak doesn't look to the forums for technical suggestions. They're going to come up with their own solution, whether we like it, or not. This conversation really is rhetorical when it comes right down to it.

 

I'm convinced that they hardly look at the forums at all.

Link to comment

Lackey participation in this thread demonstrates that the prior post is wrong. In addition the volunteer moderators and cache reviewers regularly bring issues to Groundspeak's attention based upon forum discussions. I've done that behind the scenes for seven years plus.

 

Pretty dadgum limited. What has been said has suggested that GS has no intention of helping out the COs with deleting these bogus logs. So thanks for the help. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Lackey participation in this thread demonstrates that the prior post is wrong. In addition the volunteer moderators and cache reviewers regularly bring issues to Groundspeak's attention based upon forum discussions. I've done that behind the scenes for seven years plus.

 

Pretty dadgum limited. What has been said has suggested that GS has no intention of helping out the COs with deleting these bogus logs. So thanks for the help. :rolleyes:

Eventually the bot will post profanity in the logs, or a link to a porn site, or a link where the unsuspecting will get to participate in a zombie network attacking the GS site, or worse. It will be interesting if GS will still maintain the it's your problem attitude.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...