2151 posts
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Posted 11 June 2014 - 08:49 AM
So I've been working on my not that top secret project and I noticed that one user,
Monenlite, has 3,907 profile views. Obviously this isn't right, few people have over a thousand and only 6 of the probably hundreds of users I have indexed have more profile views. He/she has been receiving regular profile views, here's a graph generated by the site. Do note that the timescale on this graph is not linear, there are some large gaps where I've had the server off.
So yea, I smell something fishy.
Edited on 11 June 2014 - 08:13 AM
1281 posts
Posted 11 June 2014 - 10:12 AM
I'm honestly wondering why you would care lol. It's not like there's someone having secret meetings, scheming to take us down on his profile…
Also, your link is just a hyperlink of his profile views. Try this instead
http://www.computerc...4809-monenlite/Edited on 11 June 2014 - 08:13 AM
2151 posts
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Posted 11 June 2014 - 10:18 AM
I'm honestly wondering why you would care lol. It's not like there's someone having secret meetings, scheming to take us down on his profile…
Also, your link is just a hyperlink of his profile views. Try this instead
http://www.computerc...4809-monenlite/
Well it's odd that's all. It also just makes the statistics look completely incorrect.
I mean, why would you got out of your way to get 3,900 profile views?
Here's the list of the top profile views. (only showing people who've been on when my server has been on)
7083 posts
Location
Tasmania (AU)
Posted 11 June 2014 - 11:01 AM
Couple of points of interest: his last login is listed as "today", and other recent visitors to his profile include other zero-posters who also logged in today. They
all stink of being Xrumer related, but whatever spam protection measures are in place on the boards are doing their jobs quite well.
… there are some large gaps where I've had the server off.
Oh so
that's why computercraft.info is down for a couple of hours every day… Methinks you're pressing the wrong "off" button. ;)/>
3790 posts
Location
Lincoln, Nebraska
Posted 11 June 2014 - 03:06 PM
You can safely ignore this user. They've been flagged as a spammer for the longest time, and can't make any posts. The profile views are likely the bot that keeps logging in, and trying to post unsuccessfully.
2151 posts
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Posted 11 June 2014 - 11:52 PM
You can safely ignore this user. They've been flagged as a spammer for the longest time, and can't make any posts. The profile views are likely the bot that keeps logging in, and trying to post unsuccessfully.
Shouldn't this user just be banned then?
8543 posts
Posted 12 June 2014 - 12:26 AM
They effectively are; what further steps do you think should be taken? They more they try to use flagged accounts, the less they can use other accounts or create new accounts. I'm perfectly fine with them wasting CPU cycles trying to use accounts that can't affect the forum in any way.
2151 posts
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Posted 12 June 2014 - 12:57 AM
Well, it's just some users, such as
this one, are marked as banned. If it's possible to ban them I just don't know why we wouldn't that's all. Otherwise it just creates unnecessary traffic, as this has shown.
7083 posts
Location
Tasmania (AU)
Posted 12 June 2014 - 01:29 AM
Because the bot software can tell the difference between a banned and unbanned account, but seemingly not between an unbanned account that can post and an unbanned account that cannot.
The traffic is going to occur regardless - the thing about bots is that they don't get bored and give up. It's best that it be directed where it can do no harm.
2151 posts
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Posted 12 June 2014 - 01:50 AM
Actually that's a fair point. I guess I'll just have to add a blacklist system.