August 22, 2014, 06:22:54 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - CR Backup Admin

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 52
61
Site Information / Buddies / Ignore List
« on: June 21, 2013, 12:38:26 PM »
If you want to ignore a poster, just add him to your ignore list.

Click on profile / account settings / buddies/ignore list / edit ignore list and add the user name.


62
If they couldn't be bothered to read the manuals then what can one say.

Software programs overriding manual control is nothing unusual, it ends up saving lives more often than not - humans are humans after all.

In aircraft, that is true, its the extent of computer control that is the issue.  Sometimes tha ability to put a plane into a dangerously steep dive to avoid a accident will save a few hundred lives.  Sometimes the ability to override a malfunctioning instrument will save lives. 

With a aircraft, there are just so many possibilities that letting a computer over ride a pilot should only happen in very few cases. 


There are plenty of pilot caused accidents, but the computer caused ones are painful, particularly when the pilot is not able to over ride it.


Someone who thinks that a pilots manual covers all the tiny technical details needs to read one.  They can't possibly be large enough to cover everything, and they don't. A pilot needs to be able to find information reasonably quickly.  That was definitely a abnormal thing for a pilot to do, but it should not have resulted in a accident.  I'll bet the software was revised quietly later on.  The FAA and EASA don't like computer software to promote accidents.

63
Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors
« on: June 18, 2013, 02:12:21 PM »

I actually think "banning" someone is itself kind of childish

Its the only way to stop some individuals who do not respond to repeated warnings and make the forum a miserable place to post by continually calling members names and berating them.  THATS CHILDISH!!. 


Why do you think its childish to issue bans as necessary to keep a forum a good place to visit and to give value to members.


Other than spammers advertising things like purses,shoes or porno, we only issue permanent bans to a extreme few users, maybe 2-3 at most in a year, and we agonize over those.



The sequence is usually issue a warning or two, then a 3 day or 10 day ban, then permanent.  Even then, they have been reversed or let expire.

64
Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors
« on: June 18, 2013, 02:02:05 PM »
MODs seem to have no problems that some turn this into an off topic fest.... well i won´t call it double standards.

canon-f1 informed he has registered a new account and will use that one from now on.
so the thread can be closed.

I monitor all new member signups, and he has not signed up a new account since the ban.  However, there are two other existing members who use the same IP's as he does and who post similar sounding comments, but have not quite crossed the ban threshold.



65
We are cleaning out spammer accounts, 99.9% of them are inactive, but occasionally come to life.


Some members who signed up over 45 days ago but never logged in again may get caught up.  The account can be recreated, nothing is lost, since nothing was posted and no one logged in.  We had robots signing up thousands of new accounts each day, and intend to remove as many as possible.

As long as you log in once a month, or if you have at least one post, you will not be affected.

This will be happening slowly over several weeks.

66
Site Information / Re: Classified for Sell Section on CR
« on: June 15, 2013, 10:19:00 AM »
Not sure if this would create additional work for the admins.  As for conducting a reasonably secure transaction goes, all of the transactions I've ever participated in have usually involved PayPal or some payment vehicle agreed to by the buyer and seller.  I realize that not everyone has a PayPal account but many of us do.

IMHO I don't think having a classified section is unreasonable, or unusual and I'd hate to see this suggestion die on the vine.  It would be great if CR members showed more interest by voting instead of just reading this post.  If strong interest and support were demonstrated by CR members, it just might influence a positive decision.



Its been previously discussed.  It brings on a lot of work for the Admins, who already work for free.  Without some type of oversight and control, the wolves would be out picking bones in short order, and CR would get a bad reputation. 
 
FM has a small charge for hosting images, which also lets you list items for sale.  Even so, occasionally buyers are unhappy with a deal, or to lose their money, and FM does a exceptional job of keeping things in order.
Fred also has a feedback system for buyers to report on a seller, but it does not always work, some with good feedback have stiffed buyers.
 
If a way to help buyers and sellers conduct a reasonably secure transaction could be had, I'd support it.

I'm pretty sure it would create a lot of additional work for us.  We are not setup to moderate sales, but will be expected to help everyone who feels cheated to get their money back.  You only need read the posts on FM to see it happening.

FM gets around directly charging to sell items by requiring a photo upload fee to list items.  This helps make it difficult to file lawsuits against him. 


67
Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors
« on: June 14, 2013, 08:50:06 PM »
There are a lot of borderline cases, and its very disappointing to see a long time member making subtle comments that goad another member into posting something offensive.

I think I'm Guilty of this, nothing else mind, but "subtlety" is a fine art, not many are good at it.

In any case I think CR Admin does a reasonable job in difficult conditions.

Unless you Ban me for my Aussie Jokes and flagrant "poor taste" Images of Squirrels.

We are all imperfect.  we admins also do not "WANT" to ban or warn members, and only do so reluctantly, often after discussing it among ourselves. 


The situation I was referring to about goading members refers to those who continually push another member who has perhaps a short fuse into posting something improper that he might not have posted otherwise. Sometimes more than one jump in to pile on the snide comments.
 


68
Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors
« on: June 14, 2013, 08:28:16 PM »
With the exception of spammers, we do not ban members unless there is a long history of rude posts, complaints from members, warnings, and usually temporary bans.   

I have tried to find any reason for the ban Crasher8 refers to, and could only surmise that it was done in error at a time when there were a ton of spammers and I or someone else did it by accident.  I tried to get old posts back, but couldn't. 

The admins are pretty forgiving, if a banned member were to contact the Admins and discuss the issues and make a commitment to follow the rules, we would likely give yet another chance.  That has happened.  Some chose to burn their bridges by sending a bunch of name calling e-mails, which only serves to assure us that we made a correct decision.

It does not help his cause to have someone posting a one sided view on his behalf, it does not tell the whole story, and its not the place to discuss specifics about a member in any event.

A very good way to get a quick warning or a ban is by insulting members or CR administrators in a public post.  I try to remove insulting posts that directly call someone a name, but obviously we do not read every post and rely on members to report serious issues. 

There are a lot of borderline cases, and its very disappointing to see a long time member making subtle comments that goad another member into posting something offensive.


The thing to do is to flag the comment as offensive, and let the moderators decide if it should be removed, and possibly a warning issues.  Firing back with a even more inappropriate comment does not work.

69
That's fine, but you quoted the wrong person, I didn't have the issue.

Your post was quoted in its entirety just as posted - READ IT!!


Quite Honestly your attitude & response in this instance disappoints me, but I'll get over it.

Sorry if you were offended, I get tired of inane posts repeating the same thing over and over not willing to have the bank trace the transaction because they will charge him!  That's a issue between him and his (unknown) bank.

No one removed any of his posts, it was not productive to continue, and is still not productive, but I let it continue because there is interest by the members.  I am a CR Assistant Admin, and I do not get paid, nor do I have any income from advertising, but I do try to keep things from getting out of hand.

70
Oh, one more thing, doesn't anyone else find it strange that the previous thread regards this issue was locked out ??, immediately after the very helpful Helen from Adorama had her final say on the matter ??

And here we are another 3 pages of comments on the matter but a different Thread.

I understand commercial interests etc, but it's a bit Sad to find that CR will lock out a Thread based on what might be perceived as Bad Press involving a Client or Potential Client. My Safari Browser locks out commercials so I don't see if CR handles Commercial Advertising for Adorama.

Personally i could see nothing wrong with the Ops statements, nor any of the responses, either for or against.

In any case it's a "Good Ending" story with a few life lessons in there.

Banks are fallible
People are fallible
Big Business is fallible
Do a wire Transfer get a MT103
Believe Helen from adorama, just add 24 hours
Be careful what you Post on CR, You could get a warning, or locked out, or taken down
Dont believe it when ANYONE states "The Cheques/Checks in the Mail"

I closed it, because CR is not a proper place to solve your issue.  Now you are trying to blame it on CR. If your bank could not solve it for you, get a new bank.

You did not seem to figure that out, even though other members told you to go thru the banking system.

Its unfortunate that you had a problem, and it would have likely happened anywhere.  I had a wire transfer hang up for three weeks because a bank mistyped the receivers name.  It was horrible getting it fixed, it took two tries.  It wasn't even my bank, they sent it typed correctly.  It was a lot of money. 

I did not complain on a internet forum, but just worked thru the issue with my bank.

Just blame everyone, and your issue will be solved.

71
Site Information / Re: Forum Down Briefly for Maintenance
« on: May 31, 2013, 08:29:23 PM »
Happened again, maintenance froze the site up for several minutes.  - Sorry!

72
Site Information / New Member Signup Code
« on: May 17, 2013, 11:25:21 PM »
If you are signing up to be a CR member, the VERIFICATION CODE required on the signup page is intended to stop Spam Robots from logging in. 
 
It is not there to discourage new membership, but to make the forum a more pleasant place for valid users.
 
Please cut and paste the following verification code into the question on the signup page.
Do not include the * Characters.
 
***Canon70D***

73
Site Information / Re: Membership Approval Now Required
« on: May 11, 2013, 04:14:55 PM »
I think it is a right step forward. My nickname here is pedro. It refers to my affinity for latin america. And it is also linked to me as an enthusiast photo amateur. Once you want me to change it into "Peter Hauri Enthusiast Photo Amateur", just mail me  ;D Oh, as long as I keep my posting credits, though... 8)
The type of weird user ID's the spammers use are like "#nbhiortn[hysqwuiolv]"  Actual ID :)
 
 
No problem with a ID like Pedro, we have contacted only one member and changed their display name for them, since it was a web site .com name intended perhaps to boost their google ratings?  We do let people link to their web site in their signature.  This is what many spammers try to do, so we watch for that.
 
Email addresses like kuzynnickpppeppxeeppzxp@gmail.com  are a dead giveaway.  Even more obvious emails are from   baituole3@mailondandan.com or zczcvtrzs@mailabconline.com or
xvswvwsfws@shoeonlineblog.com
 
 
We can block domains that are big offenders, which is why 98% use gmail.
 
 
Users can go to their profile and change their display name without affecting their user id.  This is simple and easy to do.

74
Site Information / Re: Membership Approval Now Required
« on: May 10, 2013, 02:37:44 PM »

We will not approve membership if the account name looks like a advertisement, is a e-mail address, or just sounds phoney,  It is definitely better if a account name has some recognizable link to photography.

This is way too subjective and what may be an advertisement / email / phoney to you may just be perfect for someone else. Compound this by the fact that the username will be rejected after one day I doubt a genuine user who is rejected will bother to try again (I certainly wouldn't, but that's just me).

IMHO a captcha is a better idea as suggested above.


Of course, we use captcha. 

With human assisted spambots, its no barrier, and most robots read it as well.  Those who think captcha is fool proof are out of date, 10 years out.  Captcha is like a screen on the front end, each step filters out a few potential spammers.  We don't reject someone unless their user name is clearly out of line.  Rules are not posted just to help spammers get around them.

We check new signups for duplicate ip's, internet providers, and a warning pops up if they have been banned before.  Its far from fool proof, just another screen to filter out what we can.

75
Site Information / Re: Membership Approval Now Required
« on: May 10, 2013, 10:25:51 AM »
Well, as an already registered user I don't mind this, but why are you not implementing a Q&A process? Ask a specific question during the sign-up and tell the users that the answer is on your help site and not on the register page. Anybody answering that question correctly will have been a human and not a bot. Should weed out quite a bit of the bots. (Got rid of 99.99% of all SPAM accounts on my two forums)
Those who sign up must answer two questions.  Robots unfortunately know this and have a ton of questions and answers programmed in to them.  They are always one step ahead.
 
There are huge halls full of people working for spam companies who do nothing but create accounts.  I mentioned Robots, but its those human assisted robots that are the issue.
 
They concentrate on the larger web sites because that's where the exposure is.
 
We have other measures taken that keep them from posting, but they are loading up the server with almost 1/2 million user accounts, and 90% of the online users were spammers.  That's already down to 10% or less.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 52