Spam reporting thread #73

Dette er en fortsættelse af tråden Spam reporting thread #72.

SnakSpam Fighters!

Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg

Spam reporting thread #73

jan 4, 8:40am


Distinguish between the following, and flag the highest level of the violation:

-- Type 1: Irredeemable commercial spam: make sure to flag the member's profile, as well as the spammy activity. This type includes things selling strollers, pharmaceuticals, live-streaming sports games, porn, and/or trying to create traffic/links to sites for such things. Sufficient profile flags will automatically result in temporary suspension and deletion of the member's activity, so use your profile-flagging powers wisely and carefully.

-- Type 2: Teachable moments: DO NOT flag the member's profile, but DO flag the violating activity (e.g. self-promotional Talk post, group, or local venue). This type includes promotional activity that violates the Terms of Service (TOS), but where the member is potentially redeemable, e.g. overzealous authors, overzealous publishers, or other members with small TOS violations but who are otherwise using the site legitimately. These cases should be reported to staff (by sending a message or email to staff and/or or posting on this thread), so the member can be taught how to use the site.

Specific procedures:
-- Overzealous authors or publishers (these fall under type 2): do NOT flag the member's profile. Report to staff here or privately. You can also send the member a polite message pointing them to the terms, mentioning the "no promoting" language, and pointing them to the Do's and Don't page for authors:
-- Suspected sock-puppetry to promote a book, write fake reviews, and/or stack ratings: do not flag the profile, but report to staff here or by message, so staff can investigate. This is a serious violation for which members can be permanently banned.
-- Profile flags for commercial spammers only (type 1): On the member's profile page, click on the "report for spam" link, then follow instructions to flag the member. Again, this is only for commercial spam, not for "overzealous" authors, publishers, or booksellers, which should be reported to staff instead. See Talk post:
-- Spam or promotional posts in a Talk topic (type 1 or 2): flag the post as an abuse of the terms of service.
-- Spam or promotional groups (types 1 and 2): flag new groups using the "flag this group" link.
-- Spam lists: report in this thread, and flag the member if it's commercial spam.
-- Spam works (type 1 spam): flag the work as spam on the work's editions page, and then vote on proposed work spam. Make sure to read the guidelines before proposing or voting, especially for what is not spam. Voting page:
-- Spam in a review (type 1), or an explicitly promotional review (type 2): flag the review as an abuse of the TOS, using the red flag.
-- Spam or promotion in "published reviews," or other CK fields (type 1 or 2): post here and/or delete.
-- Spam or egregious promotion/advertising in venues or events (type 1 or 2): post here and/or delete. Note that authors are permitted to add events for their books.
-- Spam in book links / quick links: post here and/or edit to remove spam.
-- Spam author names listed on a work: No current procedure. Tim has asked us not to change CK to indicate spammers, and not to combine spam authors together.
-- Not sure if it's spam? Post here, and explain why.

Please note that Tim has asked us not to use either CK or the combining system (whether works or authors) for spam fighting.

For more information see these wiki pages:
Procedures for flagging and reporting spam:
Spam works, guidelines for flagging and voting:

(A copy of these guidelines, for pasting in new threads, can be found here or at the top of previous threads.)

Redigeret: jan 5, 4:55pm

jan 7, 1:07pm

Review by author encouraging sales; violates TOS

jan 7, 2:06pm

>3 2wonderY: The thread already has both posts flagged, but posting here for the sake of tracking purposes:

And Profile (Already noted, do not flag)

Redigeret: jan 12, 3:45am

Topic is

Message and profile gone now.

jan 14, 5:19am

Enthusiastic Author:

Warned once before, but not flagging profile

Redigeret: jan 14, 5:26am

>7 gilroy: He's forgotten since October?

BTW, message 7 in that topic is very bad spam. is offering reviews etc. for sale.

jan 14, 7:31pm

>8 MarthaJeanne: No, I was feeling generous when I posted that this morning. Also I think he got spam flagged off and brought back the last time.

feb 1, 11:09am

>11 MarthaJeanne:

At least he's asking if it's okay.

feb 1, 12:22pm

In theory yes, but the link is in there.

feb 1, 12:42pm

I wrote him a more complete message.

feb 5, 11:03pm

>16 Taphophile13: ETA she delete the message

feb 8, 2:31am

Redigeret: feb 12, 3:50pm

Redigeret: feb 16, 8:34am

>24 2wonderY: And six other threads - Gone.

feb 19, 11:11am

>27 gilroy: That group can't be viewed without joining

feb 19, 11:17am

>27 gilroy:, >28 SandraArdnas: Group has been flagged and user has been removed.

feb 19, 11:18am

>27 gilroy: I can’t even see who admins that group. Did you want the group flagged? 351 messages and 351 topics - seems a very exclusive group.

feb 19, 11:27am

>30 2wonderY: The group was flagged out of existence before I could post the rest of the information. It had 1 user, 1 post.

feb 22, 5:42am

>32 karenb: Gone now.

feb 24, 10:21pm

>36 karenb:

Gone now.

mar 2, 4:19am

>40 2wonderY: left a comment

mar 4, 9:08am

>42 haydninvienna: And both are gone.

Redigeret: mar 5, 4:30pm

author advertising book

Edit: was warned before. I didn't flag the profile nevertheless

ETA: Gone already

mar 6, 10:29pm

This overzealous author just spammed my neat-and-tidy challenge thread:

Redigeret: mar 7, 2:04am

>46 Cecrow: Messages are gone. After seeing the one message and his entry of the book I looked up the URL. My goodness! He does not seem to write standard English.

I put a comment on his profile.

mar 10, 9:20am

All works have met the threshold and are suppressed. I think staff need to take down the profile though.

mar 10, 9:39am

>51 2wonderY:

Profile is gone.

mar 19, 5:42pm

>56 karenb: in general I don't flag profiles if there is no other advertising, but for some things I'm willing to make exceptions.


mar 22, 5:53am
Enthusiastic Author (Do NOT flag. Message already on profile.)

mar 22, 6:23am

Redigeret: mar 22, 8:31am

See the spam in the profile pictures

mar 22, 9:42am

>60 2wonderY: is gone, but >59 karenb: isn't.

mar 25, 12:24am

Less than a minute!

apr 6, 7:05am

Redigeret: apr 17, 3:39am

>75 Nicole_VanK: We got rid of that one very quickly.

Redigeret: apr 17, 7:09am

>74 lilithcat: Did anyone leave a note on her profile?

ETA: OMG, never mind. I found her tirade thread.

Redigeret: apr 19, 4:00am

>78 2wonderY: also

Both this one and the one in 78 are gone now.

apr 20, 9:11am

review: (to get flagged out of existence before marking the work as spam)

apr 23, 6:34am

>81 MarthaJeanne: She seems to have paused; but she’s already removed my message to her. I came here to record her profile just in case...

apr 23, 6:41am

I know there were more than those 6. Anyway, all the ones I know about are gone.

apr 23, 3:34pm

>82 2wonderY: I guess she really gave up. It must be discouraging to delete a message about spamming just to have someone else add a similar message. Anyway, my message is still there.

apr 23, 3:40pm


Redigeret: apr 23, 10:27pm

apr 23, 10:42pm

The Eric Arnold author page is mostly books for children.

maj 5, 10:48am

The account is adding spam published reviews. See:
The account has a bronze medal for adding published reviews so there are at least 25 of them out there somewhere.

maj 5, 10:53am

>93 norabelle414:

Looks like he and his reviews are now gone.

maj 5, 12:27pm

>93 norabelle414:
This account is doing it too:

Both are using the published reviews to promote something called novelstar (sometimes spelled "n0velstar" with a zero)


afaik there's no way to search or see a list of recently added published reviews, right?

maj 10, 3:35pm

We have plenty of items in the spam works section that need to be voted as No. Some users have chosen to catalogue their cell items with full description, but they aren't actively trying to sell these things, that I've seen (If I'm wrong, I'll change my stance on these.) If all they did was catalogue, then these are NOT spam and should not be marked as such.

maj 10, 3:56pm

>98 gilroy: But then adding a cover of an existing book to cell items ...?

Redigeret: maj 10, 4:06pm

>99 FAMeulstee: I would say that they had a faulty upload with something.

If they aren't actively pushing things for sale, they are not violating the TOS and as such it is NOT spam.

Redigeret: maj 10, 4:34pm

An awful lot of them are ghost editions anyway.

Others are bad Amazon entries.

Redigeret: maj 10, 9:37pm

>98 gilroy:
Yes, over forty were already passed as spam. There are over 100 left.

>100 gilroy: What gilroy said: possibly iffy, but not spam.

ETA: Dubious may be a better word than iffy.

maj 11, 6:57am

maj 11, 8:21am

>103 MarthaJeanne: Hmm. Admin option to remove the post doesn’t work the way I thought it should.

maj 11, 8:25am

Does joining a group protect a profile from being removed by flags?

maj 11, 9:27am

>105 2wonderY: My guess, based on all the accounts I found above, is that *new* accounts can be suspended with just one or two flags but older accounts require at least many more flags if not site admin intervention.

maj 11, 9:56am

There was a period of looking for old Spam accounts and they disappeared quite readily.

maj 11, 10:17am

>107 2wonderY: I think that was before the site went fully free - previously, free accounts would be dispatched quickly and paid accounts took extra effort. But now all accounts are free (with all the privileges of a paid account).

Redigeret: maj 13, 4:45am

Re >105 2wonderY: This one isn't going either, so I would guess that it is length of membership. Which is funny, because if this member had just joined, I would not have flagged. It was no activity in over a year since joining that convinced me that the whole purpose of joining was to post that ad in Vietnamese. And in fact it was to get that content and their website link counted. As spam goes it doesn't interfere with people using the site, so I guess it comes down to how Tim feels about LT being used to up people's counts.

maj 17, 7:37am

old, but still worth flagging?


(work is possibly fake but not spam)

Redigeret: maj 18, 8:52am

maj 22, 5:39am

I seem to have lost my flagging powers. Usually one flag will disappear profiles. Not today.

maj 22, 8:38am

>120 2wonderY:

They're gone now.

Redigeret: maj 24, 12:25am

Author spam

And while you are there, message 37 could use another flag.


Redigeret: maj 26, 9:12am

maj 26, 9:30am

>126 lilithcat: But if they aren't advertising a cleaning service, they are allowed to catalog anything they want...

Redigeret: maj 27, 2:06am


as >127 gilroy: notes, the related works are technically not spam, nor is the user. So close, though. The review definitely is spam.

(And yeah, it was possibly a bad call on my part for >125 karenb: . I'm trying to be more cautious these days.)

maj 27, 4:25am

>127 gilroy:, >128 karenb:. I believe when the joining and adding spam links in places like reviews, the work and the profile should be flagged as Spam too.

maj 28, 12:56am

(work already marked as spam)

maj 28, 2:19am


Please let the review become flagged out. I'll mark the work as spam later.

maj 28, 6:22am

>130 karenb: Also author spam here:

I don't know how to deal with that.

maj 28, 9:29am

>134 spiralsheep: Take a look again. Does that work, at least until timspalding, et al. can address it otherwise?

maj 28, 9:34am

>135 jasbro: As mentioned in the first post here (I know it's kind of hidden toward the bottom), Tim has asked us not to change CK to indicate spammers. Once a spam author page has no works on it, it vanishes into the ether (technically still exists but there's no way to find it). There's no need to add a canonical name, and that can make things confusing in the future.

maj 31, 10:14pm

(work already flagged as spam)

Redigeret: jun 1, 2:36pm

jun 1, 9:05pm

>136 norabelle414: Thanks - I had missed that.

Redigeret: jun 9, 5:06pm

on George Saunders, A Swim in the Pond on the Rain - Published Review
Suggesting using a site called

I see this has been reported on other accounts by others eg >96 norabelle414: and >97 norabelle414:

jun 9, 5:30pm

>145 elkiedee: I have deleted the review.

jun 9, 11:49pm also entered a ad in published review.

Redigeret: jun 10, 5:35am

>148 MarthaJeanne: >149 gilroy: Both gone. Sorry, I don't hang out at the Green Dragon.

Should we do anything about the caption to his author picture?

jun 10, 6:18am

>150 MarthaJeanne: I uploaded the picture again and flagged the original.

Redigeret: jun 10, 8:12am

>150 MarthaJeanne:

i generally drop a comment asking the uploader to remove the biographical/promotional material, and directing them to the information on the "Contributing Photos to LibraryThing" wiki page. If they don't do so within a day or two, then I'll re-upload it and flag the original.

I think it's appropriate to give the person time to fix the issue, and they often do. I've occasionally received very nice "Thank you for letting me know" responses.

Redigeret: jun 10, 9:09am

Flagged the message, giving the profile the benefit of the doubt for now (but will be watching).

ETA Doubt resolved--same message popped up in a group I don't hang out in. Flagged.

jun 10, 9:19am

>153 haydninvienna:

What was the message?

jun 10, 9:57am

It's gone now but something about Google paying, and what looked like bits of an ad for a gym. Plus a link.