Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, All,

SEO bots join the website just to post irrelevant links, and they are very sneaky about it. With the improvement in bots like ChatGPT, this problem of fake content with links is only getting more difficult to catch and moderate.

For example, I just today saw a plagiarized post on our forums that was manually checked and approved by a human moderator despite having a sneaky spam link in it because the link was hidden with a period mark, like this. Do you see the link in the previous sentence? That is an example of how the bots and spammers will sneak links in their post to get it through even manual human moderation.

It takes a lot of work to moderate the website, and the moderators are unpaid volunteers, so it's especially troublesome and unfair to expect the moderators to moderate posts with links at all, let alone to catch sneaky hidden links.

Premium members will continue to be allowed to use links.

I do hope to soon program a new link and fact check feature that will allow members to submit allegedly credible sources for alleged facts (along with the alleged fact itself) for whitelisting. The working title for this new feature is "MetaFactCheck", with the focus being on approving the objectivity and credibility of the source of the quoted alleged fact rather than solely the accuracy of the alleged fact itself. This will make it very different than all the other fact checking websites and services.

With that new feature, members (even non-premium members) will be able to indirectly post links to pre-approved whitelisted sources. That will save the forum moderators from having to check links in posts at all, since any such links will have already been pre-approved and whitelisted.

Premium members will remain able to post links regularly and will see no reduction to their access or permissions.


Thank you,
Scott

[LuckyR]

Hey Scott, thanks for the update.

[Sculptor1]

Why not kill the forum?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Why not kill the forum?

Good question. I've thought about it. I might.

If I do, I'll refund any premium members for their payments.

But a middle-ground for the time being might be to just get much stricter about banning any posters who violate the Forum Rules at all in the slightest.

[LuckyR]

To be honest I don't really like clickable links, mostly because I am much more interested in what a Forum member concluded about data than just raw itself. Secondarily there are security concerns, though I'm not so concerned about that.

[Leontiskos]

Today I tried to cite quotations from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and an online edition of Cicero's De Officiis. Except I couldn't, because we can't post links. So we are now unable to cite or link to commonly available online sources, which is a pretty significant problem on a philosophy forum.

I do hope to soon program a new link and fact check feature that will allow members to submit allegedly credible sources for alleged facts (along with the alleged fact itself) for whitelisting. The working title for this new feature is "MetaFactCheck", with the focus being on approving the objectivity and credibility of the source of the quoted alleged fact rather than solely the accuracy of the alleged fact itself. This will make it very different than all the other fact checking websites and services.

With that new feature, members (even non-premium members) will be able to indirectly post links to pre-approved whitelisted sources. That will save the forum moderators from having to check links in posts at all, since any such links will have already been pre-approved and whitelisted.

Thanks, this is a good idea. Another suggestion would be to allow users with > X posts to post links. Any appreciably large X will solve the problem of bots and spammers without preventing aspiring philosophers from making their sources available to their interlocutor.

[Consul]

Premium members will continue to be allowed to use links.

Well, so we're a two-class society now.

I'm one of the non-privileged, but would you please allow me to use inactive URLs in a modified form? For example:

https:// plato.stanford. edu/entries/material-constitution/

As you can see, I created two spaces: one between "//" and "p", and one between "d." and "edu". The result is an inactive link that cannot cause any technical problems. If you want to visit the website, you can use the copy-paste method, or proceed as follows:

Select URL > Use mouse: right click context menu > Search Google for "https:// plato.stanford. edu/entries/friedrich-lange/"

Note that Google Search tolerates the spaces!

[Consul]

Thanks, this is a good idea. Another suggestion would be to allow users with > X posts to post links. Any appreciably large X will solve the problem of bots and spammers without preventing aspiring philosophers from making their sources available to their interlocutor.

Yours is a good idea too!

[Consul]

https:// plato.stanford. edu/entries/material-constitution/

As you can see, I created two spaces: one between "//" and "p", and one between "d." and "edu". The result is an inactive link that cannot cause any technical problems.

No bot posts inactive links looking like the one above!

[Consul]

For example:

https:// plato.stanford. edu/entries/material-constitution/

As you can see, I created two spaces: one between "//" and "p", and one between "d." and "edu". The result is an inactive link that cannot cause any technical problems. If you want to visit the website, you can use the copy-paste method, or proceed as follows:

Select URL > Use mouse: right click context menu > Search Google for "https:// plato.stanford. edu/entries/friedrich-lange/"

Using my other example above, it should read: … > Search Google for "https:// plato.stanford. edu/entries/material-constitution/"

[Consul]

I'm one of the non-privileged, but would you please allow me to use inactive URLs in a modified form? For example:

https:// plato.stanford. edu/entries/material-constitution/

Note that if I'm not even allowed (as a non-premium member) to post such inactive URLs, I can no longer post any quotations from other websites, since doing so requires mentioning the source of the quotation!

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Well, so we're a two-class society now.

If you remove the word now, then yes.

It's nothing new.

In analogy, if four of my friends and I rent an apartment together and split the rent, and you and a couple others come over as a guests and maybe even crash on the couch for a few weeks rent-free, there would be two classes: rent-payers and those staying rent-free in the house.

You get the benefit of not paying.

Some would say that puts you in the higher and more privileged class.

I'd say that each class has its pros and cons.

Even if you refuse to chip in for a pizza we are ordering at a party, us pizza buyers might choose to give you a slice free. But there's still going to be fundamentally two classes: those who paid for the pizza, and those refuse to pay but would still like a free slice.

Maybe your slice is smaller. I wouldn't complain that it's unfair.

I don't go to a hotel, ask for the cheapest room, and then complain that it's smaller than the VIP suites. Maybe in that scenario dollar-by-dollar I'm getting the better deal.

[Consul]

I just noticed that I cannot even post images anymore. Why not? No links, no images allowed—is this your way of urging members to become paying "premium members"?

[Consul]

You get the benefit of not paying.

Well, and you get the benefit of me and many other non-paying members having provided content for many years that keeps the forum interesting and thriving.

I don't go to a hotel, ask for the cheapest room, and then complain that it's smaller than the VIP suites. Maybe in that scenario dollar-by-dollar I'm getting the better deal.

You own this website; so if you plan to commercialize the whole forum, you're free to do so. However, there is something wrong with your comparison: Running a hotel costs a lot of money, whereas running this forum doesn't. The domain + webspace don't cost much per year, and the phpBB software costs nothing. I know no other phpBB forum where members are expected to pay for getting the "VIP suite" privilege to use basic functions such as posting links or images.

[Consul]

…I know no other phpBB forum where members are expected to pay for getting the "VIP suite" privilege to use basic functions such as posting links or images.

I could understand it if they weren't part of the free forum-software package—but they are.