Using phpBB http://www.phpbb.com/ and a mod called "textual confirmation" http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=463860 no bots have successfully signed up for the forum for my non-profit organization although there are sometimes hundreds that attempt to daily. It's simple to use and very flexible.
Currently I pose a simple arithmetic question (eg. 3+8=_ _? or 15-3=_ _?). The questions are selected from a list so there's little risk of the bot "learning" the answer. Alternatively you could offer a question that has a deliberate cultural bias (Jack and Jill went up the _ _ _ _?) or really any question of your choosing (What is the fifth word from the second paragraph on the home page _ _ _ _ _?).
Please don't take my pronouncement of ZERO bots as a challenge but feel free to test this very easy-to-use tool by registering for my forum regarding Teen Dating Violence: http://www.jenniferann.org/forum
If BitTorrents were ubiquitous I guess it would be a lot tougher to identify (& hinder) "bad" v. "good" usage. I'd love to see product updates, open source d/ls, trial s/w, etc. migrate to this - not just because it makes more sense from a network prospective but also indirectly supports net neutrality.
Would you expect an article in Encyclopedia Britannica about your daughter? If so, would you read book upon book of similar bios? Everyone in the world who has ever been murdered, and had a charitable fund spring up after?
Would anyone 50+ miles from you care about the subject? I'm just a couple states over from you, and I certainly don't care in the slightest. No way the rest of the world would.
Though I'm not going to get involved in the issue on Wikipedia, I also agree the subject doesn't need an article, as her death is the only noteworthy event in her bio, and even that isn't significant enough to warrant more than a few sentences.
Of course you hate me now, because it's a very, very important subject to you. Unfortunately it isn't necessarily important to anyone else.
No, I don't hate you but will point out your ignorance.
(1) Wikipedia isn't the Encyclopedia Britannica in many ways - one of those ways is that additional articles incur a negligible cost. The impact of this is that you have an encyclopedia that is more universal in scope.
(2) Had you read (& parsed) the article you would realize that many people do care about the "subject." Two pieces of legislation have been passed in the State of Texas based in some part on her murder - I even mention this in my comment.
(3) You don't address my point - notability is subjective.
Rather than discuss my argument you took the high-brow route of being rude. Good for you.
Wikipedia already has a guideline that articles be well-sourced and as long as this criteria has been met I don't understand why they shouldn't be included. I have run into this myself and it was a very frustrating experience.
In 2006 my daughter was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. We had created a non-profit group and memorial fund in her memory and many media outlets had reported on the murder but some editors at Wikipedia did not consider an article on her to be "Wiki-worthy."
One jackalope, in his successful attempt to delete the article, stated "Wikipedia is not a memorial. Murders of this type are lamentably common. Even the existence of memorial funds/scholarships does not confer notability."
This article was also nominated for deletion with the comment: "Blatant promotional page."
Fortunately I was successful in my continued attempts to keep the articles - but only after we had worked to get two pieces of legislation passed, including one named for her.
The process that I had to go through in order to convince people halfway around the world that this subject was "notable" was profoundly frustrating. The qualification to be fully-cited is an understandably objective criteria but to then apply a notability test is not only completely subjective but also thoroughly unrealistic.
Yesterday was the two-year anniversary of my only child's murder.
Within days of my daughter's murder somebody posted a message to me on a public forum stating "that bitch got popped."
Do I think that this person literally thought of my daughter as a "bitch?" No, but I do think that the opportunity to feel empowered by pissing me off was hard for them to resist. Unfortunately a lot of people are pricks and if there's the chance that they can appear to be some cool badass by showing how much of a prick they are then they'll jump at it.
Do I truly care about Steve Fossett's death? No, I didn't know him and frankly have far more to worry about. But do I have a sense of decorum when it comes to appreciating the pain that his friends and family are going through? Absolutely - and this wasn't a revelation I arrived at while I grieve but rather my basic human ability to empathize for others.
But then again I have many ways to feel personally empowered without needing to resort to "whogivesafuck" tagging.
Obviously this question would be limited to those with a knowledge of Western culture and nursery rhymes but that's easier for me than culling the bot accounts.
On another site a sample question is:
2 x 3 = _ ?
I'm unaware of a limit to the number of questions that you can input. They appear to cycle sequentially.
This won't prevent humans from creating accounts but has so far stopped 100% of the bots.
1 - not really, I guarantee you have at least 10 unauthorized credit report requests on your report. Go ahead and check, we will wait for you. Are you shocked yet?
You're wrong. Any hits that I would not previously be aware of are "soft hits." When a lender pulls your credit report these "soft hits" aren't shown - only the consumer sees this info. The most common soft hit is for pre-approved offers. In this case the credit offerer ordered x1,000 consumers that met specific criteria. This does not reveal any credit data about the consumer. "Hard" hits are what we're concerned with and do reveal credit data. This is what the potential employer would want to see and would legally need an authorization from the consumer under the FCRA.
Oh, btw, by submitting your resume you give us the right to do this, hope you did not put in a real application with the resume as that gives us legal right to do almost anything.
This is also wrong. An applicant has to give explicit approval under FCRA. If you know of employers that are pulling credit reports based on resume submission alone you should inform your state attorney general.
...you are simply unfamiliar with how things really work.
Again you are wrong. I have been through lending school, been a retail bank manager, consulted for both subprime and "standard" credit card companies and managed online credit decisioning projects working directly with Equifax, TransUnion and Experian.
Slashdot Mirror
Using phpBB http://www.phpbb.com/ and a mod called "textual confirmation" http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=463860 no bots have successfully signed up for the forum for my non-profit organization although there are sometimes hundreds that attempt to daily. It's simple to use and very flexible.
Currently I pose a simple arithmetic question (eg. 3+8=_ _? or 15-3=_ _?). The questions are selected from a list so there's little risk of the bot "learning" the answer. Alternatively you could offer a question that has a deliberate cultural bias (Jack and Jill went up the _ _ _ _?) or really any question of your choosing (What is the fifth word from the second paragraph on the home page _ _ _ _ _?).
Please don't take my pronouncement of ZERO bots as a challenge but feel free to test this very easy-to-use tool by registering for my forum regarding Teen Dating Violence:
http://www.jenniferann.org/forum
If BitTorrents were ubiquitous I guess it would be a lot tougher to identify (& hinder) "bad" v. "good" usage. I'd love to see product updates, open source d/ls, trial s/w, etc. migrate to this - not just because it makes more sense from a network prospective but also indirectly supports net neutrality.
(1) Wikipedia isn't the Encyclopedia Britannica in many ways - one of those ways is that additional articles incur a negligible cost. The impact of this is that you have an encyclopedia that is more universal in scope.
(2) Had you read (& parsed) the article you would realize that many people do care about the "subject." Two pieces of legislation have been passed in the State of Texas based in some part on her murder - I even mention this in my comment.
(3) You don't address my point - notability is subjective.
Rather than discuss my argument you took the high-brow route of being rude. Good for you.
Wikipedia already has a guideline that articles be well-sourced and as long as this criteria has been met I don't understand why they shouldn't be included. I have run into this myself and it was a very frustrating experience.
In 2006 my daughter was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. We had created a non-profit group and memorial fund in her memory and many media outlets had reported on the murder but some editors at Wikipedia did not consider an article on her to be "Wiki-worthy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ann_Crecente
One jackalope, in his successful attempt to delete the article, stated "Wikipedia is not a memorial. Murders of this type are lamentably common. Even the existence of memorial funds/scholarships does not confer notability."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Ann_Crecente
I then took a different route and instead created an article about the charity I founded in her memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ann's_Group
This article was also nominated for deletion with the comment: "Blatant promotional page."
Fortunately I was successful in my continued attempts to keep the articles - but only after we had worked to get two pieces of legislation passed, including one named for her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer's_Law
The process that I had to go through in order to convince people halfway around the world that this subject was "notable" was profoundly frustrating. The qualification to be fully-cited is an understandably objective criteria but to then apply a notability test is not only completely subjective but also thoroughly unrealistic.
Within days of my daughter's murder somebody posted a message to me on a public forum stating "that bitch got popped."
Do I think that this person literally thought of my daughter as a "bitch?" No, but I do think that the opportunity to feel empowered by pissing me off was hard for them to resist. Unfortunately a lot of people are pricks and if there's the chance that they can appear to be some cool badass by showing how much of a prick they are then they'll jump at it.
Do I truly care about Steve Fossett's death? No, I didn't know him and frankly have far more to worry about. But do I have a sense of decorum when it comes to appreciating the pain that his friends and family are going through? Absolutely - and this wasn't a revelation I arrived at while I grieve but rather my basic human ability to empathize for others.
But then again I have many ways to feel personally empowered without needing to resort to "whogivesafuck" tagging.
And - I'm not a prick.
Drew Crecente
Director, Jennifer Ann's Group
http://www.jenniferann.org/
Fight Teen Dating Violence!
http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=472 940
On http://www.saveirelandbaldwin.org/ a sample question is:
Mary had a little _ _ _ _.
Obviously this question would be limited to those with a knowledge of Western culture and nursery rhymes but that's easier for me than culling the bot accounts.
On another site a sample question is:
2 x 3 = _ ?
I'm unaware of a limit to the number of questions that you can input. They appear to cycle sequentially.
This won't prevent humans from creating accounts but has so far stopped 100% of the bots.
You're wrong. Any hits that I would not previously be aware of are "soft hits." When a lender pulls your credit report these "soft hits" aren't shown - only the consumer sees this info. The most common soft hit is for pre-approved offers. In this case the credit offerer ordered x1,000 consumers that met specific criteria. This does not reveal any credit data about the consumer. "Hard" hits are what we're concerned with and do reveal credit data. This is what the potential employer would want to see and would legally need an authorization from the consumer under the FCRA.
Oh, btw, by submitting your resume you give us the right to do this, hope you did not put in a real application with the resume as that gives us legal right to do almost anything.This is also wrong. An applicant has to give explicit approval under FCRA. If you know of employers that are pulling credit reports based on resume submission alone you should inform your state attorney general.
...you are simply unfamiliar with how things really work.Again you are wrong. I have been through lending school, been a retail bank manager, consulted for both subprime and "standard" credit card companies and managed online credit decisioning projects working directly with Equifax, TransUnion and Experian.