The forum applies an automated spam/ham check to posts. For obvious reasons, exactly what defines ‘spam’ is not made public; best not to make it too easy for the baddies by listing all the traps they need to avoid!
As automated spam checks are far from perfect, producing many false positives, suspect posts are blocked temporarily for a human moderator to decide. Nothing personal about spam checking: an automated checker typically runs through a long list of checks, perhaps building a ‘likely to be spam’ score based on origin and other metadata (suggesting a bot), the use of banned words, use of irrelevant words, dodgy images, and the presence of external links.
I think Jason is correct: Joe’s post consisted entirely of links, which a spam checker is likely to consider suspicious, and then Ian’s post triggered the same alert by repeating them. The software is unlikely to be smart enough to recognise that the links were approved in an earlier post – it just rescans the text of anything new.
Three of Joe’s links are extra suspect because they’re not encrypted, using http: rather than https. This may be what triggered the block. Un-encrypted links caused a lot of security problems in the early days of the internet, and have been strongly discouraged for over a decade. They’re typically found on either:
- elderly or poorly maintained web-sites, often where the owner did a good job donkeys years ago, but has now run out of enthusiasm or money.
- new sites, probably created by an amateur who hasn’t read the security and privacy chapter, or finks it’s all too complicated.
- new criminal sites, deliberately set-up so the owner can take advantage of the security loopholes.
Debatable as to whether nanny forum should protect members from dodgy posts or not; some folk believe personal freedom overrides all other considerations. I think that’s extremely naive and am grateful that the forum provides a basic level of protection, even if it is over the top sometimes.
Dave