Not trivial, no. But Spam Watchlist is actually doing just this (in general terms). :-)
So it is not exactly beyond Ning/Glam's area of expertise.
What is (still) missing is ability to automate deletions based on suspected matches: while functionality does exist, it is not exposed directly to network creators. Rather, NC has to request Advo to enable auto-suspension -- this because of false positives (non-spammer getting accidentally caught). A small number of networks are using this (and all succesfully); so anyone who is really getting badly burnt should talk to Advocacy and see if this is a good option.
I disagree but fine...
Facebook, I get next to no spam.
Google+, no spam.
Twitter, a fair amount of spam, not enough to be debilitating.
Reddit, no spam (another social network and they don't even require you to use a valid email to sign up).
And contrary to your assumption, these companies largely rely on technology, not humans, to get rid of spam. I'm sorry but there are almost definitely things Ning could be doing.
I already suspend for spam. Every. Single. Spam. Account...I suspend for spam.
I have top ranking places on Google for my network, and this may be the cause of a great deal of the spam. Perhaps your network doesn't show in top listings on Google. I don't know what your network is so I can't tell.
Anyhow, I realize you'd like to give Ning the benefit of the doubt here. And so would I in some respects. But I've been signed up with Ning since year one. I've watched them screw up about a dozen things (promise of networks always being free, how is there not a class action law suit over this yet?), and their history plus what I know about other companies dealing with spam makes it very hard for me to believe that Ning is performing the correct actions against spam.
I hope you meant you disagree with Speedracer? lol
Yup. If I were replying to you, the comment would be nested in further. Like this one.
I sincerely wish these things I do worked for you (and everyone else who constantly battle it). Good luck, Sidian.
Great replies SpeedRacer, and useful stuff on the "Suspend for Spam" technique. I've just been denying them. Accept and Suspend from now on.
P.S. Are you now telling me that twixxie675 doesn't really love me?
She'll be the first to go.
You don't even have to accept them. You can suspend right from the moderation page.
Q. Why do you allow them in in the first place ? - Just approve members after reading the answers to their profile questions... and ban the present ones...
Remember, the only ways bots can get in is if you LET them...
We charge a nominal fee so we don't get any people joining whose sole aim is to spam other members.
When members sign up one of the profile questions explains that we charge £1.00 (approx. $1.50) per month for membership (payable by annual subscription). They are then sent a link to pay via PayPal/Credit Card. Once we have the subscription notification we accept their membership. The subscription gives members a free month before their payment is taken. They can cancel their subscription within the first month and pay nothing and their membership account will be closed.
This works for us.
I've certainly considered this, thank you Alexander.
My group is small and is focussed on a particular subject matter. I have not had any spammers at all, just a few individuals who wanted to used my site to advertize their own website. The measures I've used to stop spam are:
1. moderated membership. with captcha, and profile questions that only someone with a genuine interest in the subject matter would be able to answer. If there is anything questionable about the profile answers I email the person directly in an attempt to elicit more information. If the email address itself is suspicious, or if all the profile questions have the same answer, I just delete the membership request.
2. If someone posts advertizing type comments, as opposed to informational comments I tell them once not to do that. If they keep on doing it, I delete them, no argument, no appeal. Gone.
3. Each group has the option of allowing or not allowing members to post messages to multiple recipients. I disable that. That way the only conversations going on that I can't see are private emails between members who have "friended" each other.
4. I have the activity feed posted top center on our MAIN page. I have it set so that nearly everything is reflected in the activity feed. Exceptions: comments on members' profile pages, when members "friend" each other. I have the activity feed set so that it reflects all new content - photos, videos, comments- and all comments on new content. This way I know what is going on. Also if a member gets nasty with another member I can spot it through the activity feed and deal with it. So far that hasn't happened. A few have gotten nasty with me, but not with each other.
But everyone's network has different goals and purposes. What works for me won't necessarily work for everybody. My network is public because I want the world to have access to our content (it is an educational thing). It is not intended to be a money maker. We support it by member donations. I don't need to have it grow to 20,000 members. (We have just over 400.) The purpose is to create a place where individuals interested in our subject matter can meet and converse with like-minded persons. It will never be huge, because of the subject matter, and that is OK.
I do exactly every one of these as you do. EVERY ONE of them. I have ZERO spam. But, unlike you, I DO allow comments on members profile pages to show in the activity feed. This is where I catch people being snarky with people they're mad at. (I have a bunch of teens on my site and they're the worst for doing this.) After fussing at a couple of them, that very rarely happens anymore.