[ckan-discuss] Despamming datahub

Tue Mar 19 10:26:46 GMT 2013

I'd also support some higher entry barrier for long-term deposits of
metadata or data.

In terms of being open - I think it is valuable to have a site which users
can access and upload data or links to straight away in order to see what
the possible features and benefits are. Maybe this could be some demo
feature - where such "experimental uploads" are deleted after several hours.

For groups and communities which are using / would like to use Datahub as
an actual portal and metadata repository, some user verification process
should not be a problem, it would not reduce openness in my opinion.

Velichka Dimitrova
Open Economics Project Coordinator
Open Knowledge Foundation
http://okfn.org | http://openeconomics.net

On 19 March 2013 10:17, Ross Jones <ross at servercode.co.uk> wrote:

> No problem, I wrote some code to do it.  It isn't a perfect solution, a
> lot of users creating these groups need to be deleted, and I am nervous
> about doing that without better heuristics than their choice of email
> provider.
>
> I think it might be better to force users through either an email
> verification process, or to provisionally put their first group/dataset
> creation into a pending state for moderation.  I realise this would reduce
> how open the site is, but I can't see another viable way to reduce all the
> spam.
>
> Ross
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Velichka Dimitrova <
> velichka.dimitrova at okfn.org> wrote:
>
>> Excellent work, Ross! I agree with Mark.
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>> Velichka Dimitrova
>> Open Economics Project Coordinator
>> Open Knowledge Foundation
>> http://okfn.org | http://openeconomics.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 March 2013 15:28, Mark Wainwright <mark.wainwright at okfn.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This is great, Ross! Thanks for this. The spam groups have been
>>> disfiguring the DataHub for a while. Now the groups page looks much
>>> happier:
>>>
>>> http://datahub.io/group
>>>
>>> >>  Would it be possible for someone to turn off group-creation until the
>>> >> datahub gets migrated to 2.0?  I guess any urgently needed groups
>>> could
>>> >> approach the list of ask in the meantime.
>>>
>>> Hopefully one of the devs will step in ...
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/03/2013, Ross Jones <ross at servercode.co.uk> wrote:
>>> > Hi Sara,
>>> >
>>> > It shouldn't be an issue on 1.x, it depends how open you want it to
>>> be, but
>>> > as it is probably best to be working with 2.0 now...
>>> >
>>> > It should certainly be less of an issue on 2.0, unless you leave it
>>> open to
>>> > anybody to create a group.  I guess ideally for open systems it should
>>> be
>>> > possible to have the group go into a pending state for verification
>>> before
>>> > it was created.  I haven't checked whether this is the case or not yet.
>>> >  Even if not in core it should be possible to do this in an extension.
>>> >
>>> > Ross
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Sara Farmer
>>> > <sara.farmer at btinternet.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>  Phew...  Does that mean that spammers using fake groups won't be an
>>> >> issue in 2.0?
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm asking because I just set up my own CKAN node and am clunking my
>>> way
>>> >> through getting it working for me... I locked it down because I saw
>>> all
>>> >> the
>>> >> spam on the datahub, and wasn't quite sure what the best way to avoid
>>> the
>>> >> same fate was (and as the receipient of more than one "we've closed
>>> your
>>> >> site because of spammers" message from providers in the past, this
>>> scares
>>> >> me a little more than most).
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Sj.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 3/18/2013 10:04 AM, Ross Jones wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >>  I've started de-spamming the datahub, there were *lots* of fake
>>> groups
>>> >> created, and as there are some fairly easy heuristics in identifying
>>> them
>>> >> (thanks hotmail) I've written a script that'll mark them all as
>>> deleted.
>>> >>
>>> >>  I'm only soft-deleting them (just in case) and unfortunately users
>>> don't
>>> >> have that option so I've erred on the side of caution and temporarily
>>> >> left
>>> >> them (until I can come up with a safer set of rules).
>>> >>
>>> >>  Would it be possible for someone to turn off group-creation until the
>>> >> datahub gets migrated to 2.0?  I guess any urgently needed groups
>>> could
>>> >> approach the list of ask in the meantime.
>>> >>
>>> >>  Ross
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> ckan-discuss mailing
>>> >> listckan-discuss at lists.okfn.orghttp://
>>> lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
>>> >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-discuss
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> No virus found in this message.
>>> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> >> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6183 - Release Date:
>>> 03/16/13
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> ckan-discuss mailing list
>>> >> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
>>> >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-discuss
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ckan-discuss mailing list
>>> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ckan-discuss mailing list
>> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ckan-discuss/attachments/20130319/f7e08e57/attachment.htm>