Home > Metablogging > FAQ 1

FAQ 1

January 4th, 2006

Andrew Reynolds suggested I prepare an FAQ for the blog. Easily the most commonly asked question is

Q: Why was my comment moderated/rejected ?

A: Except in rare cases, this reflects the operation of antispam software. My host rejects some posts and comments particularly those including words related to c*sin0s and g@mbling. There’s nothing I can do about this. In addition, some comments are automatically moderated because they contain key words or resemble spam (as far as my software is concerned) in some other respect. I check these and approve the false positives, but you usually have to wait a few hours and sometimes longer.

Categories: Metablogging Tags:
  1. January 4th, 2006 at 14:53 | #1

    You should just get rid of that software and use an authorisation code instead. It stops Spam completely and also gets rid of false positives.

  2. Terje Petersen
    January 4th, 2006 at 15:46 | #2

    I think that a static page would be better than an article for the purposes of making an FAQ.

    It should include info on formating and plus acceptable usage policy.

  3. Andrew Reynolds
    January 4th, 2006 at 15:51 | #3

    James’ piece on formatting would be a good start on formatting and several of the sections you have written on acceptable language would be a good start on the AUP.

  4. wilful
    January 4th, 2006 at 16:34 | #4

    No No No, it’s because you’re an evil commie control freak! Admit it, you hate and rigorously censor absolutely anybody who dares contradict you.

    At least, that’s what some of the politer comments have said.

    What else will be in teh FAQ? How about why you have a blog? Your research interests? And the obvious regarding acceptable behaviour and matters of general interest that you’re likely to post on.

  5. January 4th, 2006 at 21:32 | #5

    Yob’s right.

    See your previous post, it is now infested by some spambot.

  6. jquiggin
    January 4th, 2006 at 22:04 | #6

    I dislike authorisation codes and often don’t bother commenting at sites that have them. But maybe I’m overly picky in this respect. What do other people think?

    It would certainly save me some work and eliminate the false positive problems

  7. Terje Petersen
    January 4th, 2006 at 22:34 | #7

    You already have a code of conduct. There are things you won’t accept. All that a written code of conduct does is make your existing expectations explicit.

    The main thing I think an FAQ should offer is formating tips.

  8. Andrew Reynolds
    January 4th, 2006 at 22:54 | #8

    PrQ,
    I have no real objection to authorisation codes, but I note that Catallaxy no longer uses them, where they did in the past. Any idea why they dropped them?
    If they stop the spambots they cannot be too bad. I cannot think of any privacy or other concerns.

  9. Ernestine Gross
    January 5th, 2006 at 07:57 | #9

    I am indifferent to an authorisation code.

    Given the information on this threat sofar an authorisation code would be a Pareto improvement.

  10. Bosco
    January 5th, 2006 at 09:24 | #10

    I have no idea what you are all taking about !

  11. January 5th, 2006 at 11:47 | #11

    I’d suggest installing Akismet, John. It’s by far the best anti-spam programme I’ve seen, and is an intelligent programme which can be quickly taught that false positives are not spam. We’ve had one spam comment get through out of 2790 attempts since we installed it. There’s no need for commenters to register or type in a code.

  12. January 5th, 2006 at 16:07 | #12

    Authorisation codes may be annoying, but not being able to comment at all because the site thinks you are a spambot is a lot more annoying.

  13. Terje Petersen
    January 6th, 2006 at 09:23 | #13

    JQ,

    Can you explain why old topics get closed for comment. For instance I can’t comment on the following topic:-

    http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/03/15/negative-income-taxes/

    Regards,
    Terje.

  14. vee
    January 6th, 2006 at 12:14 | #14

    I often use non graphic compliant browsers or have images disabled and I would abhor an authorisation code as it would require me to chop and change image settings to post a comment.

  15. Will De Vere
    January 7th, 2006 at 16:07 | #15

    I love the Brave New World of software talk. Has this disk been scanned for viruses?

    ‘We must launch, Mr President. The First Lady is in Canada. We only have 7 minutes before our major cities are hit. As Mr Eddy MacGuire says, “We are locked in” .’

    ‘Nah, these authorisation codes are annoying.’

  16. January 7th, 2006 at 21:48 | #16

    On my browsers (both of them) I can load images for a particular screen as a one-off without having to make a change to the modes. Or I can load a single image. Then the only difficulties of that sort I get are from idiots who don’t put alt tags on their links.

    Terje, if you wanted to follow up any of my comments on that thread, feel free to conatct me. I notice the last one there was mine.

Comments are closed.