LDraw.org Discussion Forums

After getting a report from a user, I tried to fix LDView's website link on its LDraw Wiki Page (since I moved it from sourceforge to github), but this simply resulted in the following after I checked the Captcha box:



Side note: I couldn't find any obvious way on the LDraw Wiki itself to "please inform an administrator". Maybe I'm just blind.

(2018-09-04, 20:05)Travis Cobbs Wrote: [ -> ]After getting a report from a user, I tried to fix LDView's website link on its LDraw Wiki Page (since I moved it from sourceforge to github), but this simply resulted in the following after I checked the Captcha box:



Side note: I couldn't find any obvious way on the LDraw Wiki itself to "please inform an administrator". Maybe I'm just blind.

This is a result in the anti-link spam measures I've put into place. It limits placing/changing external links in wiki pages unless you meet certain criteria. I'm loathe to change them since they are effective but I can do the edit myself.

(2018-09-04, 21:41)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]

(2018-09-04, 20:05)Travis Cobbs Wrote: [ -> ]After getting a report from a user, I tried to fix LDView's website link on its LDraw Wiki Page (since I moved it from sourceforge to github), but this simply resulted in the following after I checked the Captcha box:



Side note: I couldn't find any obvious way on the LDraw Wiki itself to "please inform an administrator". Maybe I'm just blind.

This is a result in the anti-link spam measures I've put into place. It limits placing/changing external links in wiki pages unless you meet certain criteria. I'm loathe to change them since they are effective but I can do the edit myself.

Edit made and I'll explore making the spam filter less restrictive.

(2018-09-04, 21:49)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Edit made and I'll explore making the spam filter less restrictive.

Thanks. Making the links less restrictive might do more harm than good, but the current behavior is (IMO) anti-social. It asks the user to validate as a human via ReCaptcha in order to make the link edit, and then, as soon as they do that, it tells them they are suspected of being a spammer anyway. In my opinion, showing a ReCaptcha, and then telling the user they're hosed anyway after they successfully pass ReCaptcha, is not so nice.

(2018-09-05, 1:14)Travis Cobbs Wrote: [ -> ]

(2018-09-04, 21:49)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Edit made and I'll explore making the spam filter less restrictive.

Thanks. Making the links less restrictive might do more harm than good, but the current behavior is (IMO) anti-social. It asks the user to validate as a human via ReCaptcha in order to make the link edit, and then, as soon as they do that, it tells them they are suspected of being a spammer anyway. In my opinion, showing a ReCaptcha, and then telling the user they're hosed anyway after they successfully pass ReCaptcha, is not so nice.

Good point. I’ll dial back the reCaptcha. I threw everything at the wall to see what stuck and the only thing that worked was the abuse filter.