denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (me, standing outside a broken phone booth)Denise ([staff profile] denise) wrote in [site community profile] dw_news,
@ 2011-12-03 05:46 pm UTC
  • Previous Entry
  • Add to Memories
  • Tell someone about this!
  • Next Entry
It's that time of year again -- the calendar year is drawing to a close, the end-of-year holidays are nearly upon us, and Dreamwidth would like to say "thank you" to everyone who decides to give their friends (or themselves) a holiday gift of DW paid time.

From now until the end of December, all orders made in the Dreamwidth Shop will receive a 10% points bonus for future use. For instance, if you buy yourself a 12 month paid account (350 points), we'll give you 35 points to spend later when you complete your order.

This is our way of saying "thank you!" to everyone who helps to support Dreamwidth, and helps us to continue being independent, user-supported, and ad-free. Our commitment to remaining free of fiscal pressure from outside interests and 100% devoted to providing our users the best service possible is only possible because of you, and we'd like to thank everyone who supports us.

Happy holidays from Dreamwidth!

(Read 65 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (me, standing outside a broken phone booth)

Re: re-using account names


[staff profile] denise
2011-12-05 01:22 am UTC (link)
Hnm. I've never seen a system that wasn't vulnerable to grudgey stuff unless it had massive human oversight, but then again, spamreports do have human oversight to begin with...

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 


azurelunatic: cameo-like portrait of <user name="azurelunatic"> in short blue hair. (_support, cameo)

Re: re-using account names


[personal profile] azurelunatic
2011-12-05 01:39 am UTC (link)
We do!

On the one hand, under normal circumstances the journal owner is the only one who can delete comments -- or the comment creator, in case of non-anonymous comments.

On the other hand, when an account is suspended, all of that account's comments go away, without the permission of the journal owner.

On the gripping hand, what the spammers are after is visibility, and screening a comment based on crowdsourced input and human antispam review, and allowing the journal owner to confirm-and-delete, or deny-and-unscreen, sounds like a case of least-possible-harm to me.

I wouldn't want the team to have to do twice the work, so my proposed workflow involves creating some sort of a "verified spam by the antispam team" flag that would be attached to the comment while it was screened and sitting there, so that when it was then deleted-as-spam by the journal owner, it would not wind up back in the queue.

*ponders*

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


(Read 65 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)