Is this spam? #9

This is NOT the Spam Reporting Thread.

This thread is to discuss whether a particular post/profile/group is spam.

Posts/profiles/groups should NOT automatically be flagged based solely on someone asking here whether they are spam. READ THE DISCUSSION and make a considered judgment first.

Thank you.

Thoughts on this group? https://www.librarything.com/groups/squid It's probably not officially spam but I'm pretty sure it breaks ToS on the whole pointless group thing...

>2 .Monkey.:

Looks pointless and random to me.

>2 .Monkey.: That was my thought, too.

Bored pre-teen?

>2 .Monkey.: Also saw it and definitely seems pointless & random.

>2 .Monkey.: Marked it as something to watch, but harmless

Here's a new kind of profile

http://www.librarything.com/profile/Doom-4-Crack-3DM

I think it's spam.

>8 2wonderY:

I agree. "Download this" is pretty much always spammy to me.

>8 2wonderY: I had just been about to flag it (after looking at it), but I'm too late. It's already suspended. For those that may not have seen it, there was a URL shortener hiding a potentially unpleasant link. I never ever click on anything shortened, nor do I use them. all that bit ly and goo gl stuff is just filled with unpleasant potential.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/141754

This looks like it's supposed to be an intro post, but it reads like it's book advertising. So I'm not sure. (The response to it... Yeah, I'm leaving it alone.)

>11 gilroy:

Do you mean the first post in the thread? Although it's pretty clearly self-advertisement, it's also ancient! If it hadn't been pushed up by carusmm's response, I'd be inclined to leave it alone, but now that it has been, I do think I'll flag it.

carusmm seems to be going around resurrecting old threads in a couple of groups, for reasons best known to himself.

>12 lilithcat: Yeah, that's the one.

Carusmm's messages seem to be totally meaningless, so I have set a few groups to ignore just to avoid them. If he comes up with something flaggable, I would be glad to help.

Yeah that person is irritating the crap out of me, resurrecting craploads of long-dead threats to post random single lines on them. I don't know what is going on but I want it gone! ><

>14 MarthaJeanne:, >15 .Monkey.:: Agreed! I've also had to put some on 'Ignore'. Wish it was flaggable. No idea what that user hopes to achieve.

>14 MarthaJeanne:, >15 .Monkey.: >16 klarusu: Yes! I'm also ignoring that member. Seems like very juvenile behavior.

ETA: Just saw that over three dozen threads now have a comment from carusmm. Maybe it's time to ask staff for an opinion?

>17 Taphophile13: Please? There's a point at which it becomes spam, or at least an analog of it. Perhaps they can "persuade" him to stop.

OK. I just sent a private message to Lorannen. I counted sixty message today alone.

Please forgive me, but outliers and oddities used to be part of my job, and I'll probably be noticing anomalies until I'm in a state where I notice nothing at all.

Here's some odd data:

Carusmm has little personal information, except for a "favorite" author. That author is represented here on LT precisely once (it's in the library of a collector, or perhaps library of, Tasmanian and Australian authors, TasWriters, and no, I don't think that account has anything to do with Carusmm, just pointing it out).

http://www.librarything.com/work/11546654/book/76624000

It's not available for purchase anywhere that I can see (and was added to that library in 2011, when TasWriters first joined).

Molly Guy is a real person, and has a pretty strong footprint on social media (albeit not as an author). Here's her web site (http://stonefoxbride.com/); warning, it's instagram heavy. She has a facebook page, although it hasn't been updated since December 2015, where she states that she's an author.

There's something really odd going on here (please note, I do NOT claim, at all, that Molly Guy is, or even knows about, Carusmm).

Thank goddess I'm not the only one that's getting annoyed by that user. I was considering poking into one of the forums they've invaded...

carusmm had a Goodreads profile as well. (Past tense there is deliberate and significant.) The link is dead, but Google still has a cached version at the moment:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z7Kzd9wLeyIJ:https://www.g...

It appears that he (based on the pronoun used by Goodreads and on the G+ profile of 'carusmm' who may or may not be the same individual) was engaging in similar behavior on Goodreads, and got booted for it (and that his posts were deleted with no evidence they have ever existed; compare

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.goodreads.com/t...

and

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/18096979-is-the-bible-bad-poetry#comment_id...

and note the scrubbed comments.)

>20 Lyndatrue:, >22 lorax: Thanks for the additional info. I updated Lorannen but have not heard back from her yet.

>20 Lyndatrue: http://www.librarything.com/topic/18341#5586269, just posted a few minutes ago, might reveal a connection. And at the rate the member is posting still, I think we may see further evidence of the connection.

>24 rybie2:

Based on the Facebook activity, I think carusmm is a fan (the Goodreads location of carusmm matches that of one of the posters on Molly Guy's page, and the image that poster uses on Facebook matches carusmm's image here), but not actually the author.

I think it's past time that this was fixed. Further information, should Lorannen happen by. The list of groups that said creature is subscribed to has changed, although I'm not sure whether any are missing. I dunno. I'm grateful I'm only subscribed to one of those. I guess it could be worse, right?

>26 Lyndatrue: I agree. Whoever this is is spending hours spamming the threads. I think I'll go re-read the TOS and see if I can flag the profile on some sort of technicality.

>27 yolana:

If you find one, let me know! In the past the staff have been pretty hard-core in favor of posters of drivel and have warned longtime members not to say anything negative about them, but this is more extreme than any case I can remember.

I can't find a loophole sadly. There is a' do not subvert or misuse site features' but it's not listed under the spam rules. But the the hell with it, I'm flagging anyway.

Aaaaaannnddd... It's gone. I love seeing that little tombstone. :)

I go away for a few minutes and come back to see the Talk page looks like a cemetery.

I'd love to know what made the staff decide this guy was over the top. I've always been too chicken to flag cases like this, what with the "flagging that staff thinks is inappropriate is a violation of the TOS" clause, so having some guidance about where the line actually is would be appreciated.

It is deeply satisfying to have him gone.
>32 lorax: I usually don 't flag in cases like this either, but this guy passed abusive so long ago, that it was hurting my hands not to flag.

Oh, not flagging in cases like this is nothing but paranoia and self-preservation on my part. I don't want to be the one slapped with a TOS violation when they decide this guy's just an innocent newbie and that my flagging was abusive.

>34 lorax: I'll do it for you. I flagged a couple of his posts, finally, myself. I couldn't take it any more.

ETA: I just spent a pleasant few minutes, un-ignoring all sorts of things. :-}

I've asked Loranne to look into this and/or to tell me what went on. His/her posts are odd, and may violate the TOS, but I'm not sure.

>36 timspalding: Looks like they were also a poetry fan while on Goodreads. Google still has some info indexed, but I can't get to their GR profile (get a "user does not exist" error).

Technically, out of the chunk of their posts that I've managed to read so far (157 total, posted over the course of 31 hours), they're not, individually, clearly violating our Terms of Use. However, I could see a case for this falling under the "don't subvert or misuse site features" clause. They are essentially flooding specific groups (some of which were long-dormant, or for example, this one which had one spammy, promotional post 3.5 years ago and just baffles me) with one short post each. They clearly didn't take the time to actually read some of the topics in which they posted, beyond the title of the topic—they had posts following upon posts every three minutes or so.

So, I'd say, on the whole, definitely flaggable, but someone we'd be willing to welcome back after having a chat with staff.

It looks like he is a self-published poet, in which case he was probably spamming LT with his "works".
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/carusmm

So, I'd say, on the whole, definitely flaggable

Thank you. This is a case where rationally I'd have said the poster was obviously flaggable, but without a clear line in the TOS to point to, and given the dire warnings against inappropriate flagging, I held back. This gives me some reassurance that if a similar situation happens again I'm not going to be the one slapped with a TOS violation if I do flag the poster.

Initially I thought they were just somebody who just discovered LT and was overly enthusiastic, then I couldn't decide whether they were a nut or up to no good. Glad they're gone that were botching up the threads I follow.

two threads with same subject (not a new member)

http://www.librarything.com/topic/223634
http://www.librarything.com/topic/223635#

She doesn't give any clue what the book might be about so I'm not interested in the youtube link. Don't know if it's her book or a friend's or what.

She's been around since 2007, without a lot of activity. Could it be a hack?

I'm having a bit of trouble with this:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/223635
http://www.librarything.com/topic/223634

It's a valid member account (sort of, since the library is private), but those two topics both contain a link to youtube videos (not the same one).

I'm flagging them, but not the profile:

http://www.librarything.com/profile/pangirl

PLEASE DON'T FLAG THE PROFILE. It's here only for the sake of completion.

ETA: Funny. I see I'm not the only one this bothered. I still say to flag the topics.

>43 Lyndatrue:

I think I'm the other bothered one. ;-)

It seems highly unlikely to me that this person is not the author, editor, or publisher -- and they are probably all three! -- but I wanted to give them an "out" if it just happened to be book trailers they personally like or find intriguing for some reason.

>44 amysisson: I'm fine with people having private libraries. I'm not so fine with them posting those kinds of comments, without a way to see if they're the author, or if the books are in their catalog, or...

Flag them both. pls.

ETA: After reading previous comments on her profile, this is clearly standard procedure. I'm about to head outside and get busy (I'm running way behind), but someone ought to suggest to the powers that be that perhaps pangirl might be happier at another site. I'm not flagging the profile, but oh, I want to.

I see she has been warned before about spam/adveritizing so i'm flagging.

Topics flagged, profile left alone for now.

>45 Lyndatrue:
>46 Taphophile13:

Ahh, that makes a different (prior warning).

Flagged and gone.

It says this right in her bio: "I am an avid reader, in the process of having one of my deceased mother-in-law's books published."

She has three prior warnings by my count.

I think this bears watching--new member as of today, with a user name suspiciously similar to the name of the author the book she's asking about...and wanting to discuss a book on curriculum in the Green Dragon (which he/she is not a member of)?

http://www.librarything.com/topic/223638#

https://www.librarything.com/topic/223666

I think I would have let it go if he hadn't mentioned his booth.

>52 MarthaJeanne: I'd be inclined to do (almost) anything to encourage independent booksellers - they are an endangered species. Well, they are in the UK, maybe not in the USA or Austria even?

They are definitely limited everywhere, though they do better some places than others. I happen to know of two small 2ndhand + one indie new book sellers in my area, who all seem to do enough business to keep their doors open, at least.

Also this "Cascade" place is apparently some sort of association of sellers and not a single shop, so I'm not sure if that makes me more or less inclined to let it go, lol.

>52 MarthaJeanne:

I'm inclined to let that one go. He seems primarily interested in informing people about the book fair generally, and his booth only incidentally.

>51 Marissa_Doyle:

I was tempted to leave a snarky* comment, but that would just leave the thread visible, so I didn't.

* ""Curious if anyone has any thoughts on it?" Yes, I wondered how you are related to the author."

>43 Lyndatrue: And others, I've gone ahead and temporarily suspended this account, and sent the member an email explaining why I've done so. They've received multiple warnings over the years, and the majority of her Talk posts have been flagged and removed as spam. The account will be reinstated one week from today.

This one is on the Spam list. It looks like spam, but I can't see anything commercial about it.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/223752#

Robert

>58 Mr.Durick:

I can't see anything commercial about it

That looks like the sort of post that'll turn into download links.

Keep an eye on this -- the post has nothing to do with "Book Talk", and the new user profile makes clear this is an advertiser. Not sure it's flaggable yet -- thoughts?

http://www.librarything.com/topic/223833#

Ha, I posted on it in the Spam topic. Willing to bet it will soon be flaggable.

>60 amysisson:

Dunno. The post is gone and you didn't link to the profile, so, having no idea what either is about, I have no thoughts on the matter.

>60 amysisson: Well, that lasted all of three minutes! Looking at the OP's profile it could not be read as anything but an encouragement to visit their website to access "free" on-line games. Commercial enough, I would have thought - I wonder it the member is still there?

>62 lilithcat:
>63 abbottthomas:

Yeah, sorry I missed posting the profile!

Someone has flagged https://www.librarything.com/groups/bibliotherapy2

I think it looks suspicious, but not really flaggable. Maybe an attempt to get traffic at the blog?

The group title specifically says BOT in it, which I'm sure is a glitch on the user's part. Not sure it's flaggable, but definitely worth watching.

>66 gilroy:

BOT being an acronym for the group, I'm guessing she doesn't know the meaning of the term.

She's definitely trying to push traffic to her blog. I don't know that it's against the TOS to use your personal website or blog as the group's, but I do find it incredibly obnoxious.

Since the group no longer shows on the 'newest' page, it has effectively disappeared unless she posts.

Weird. She hasn't added a book since 2008. I had to look several times at the creation date on the group, just to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. Unless she posts, I'm not sure I should care. But weird.

what do you think? the creator of this group has no books listed.
http://www.librarything.com/groups/xoomtrainings

>70 torontoc: As clear a case of spam as I've ever seen; flagged the group and http://www.librarything.com/profile/triptijha for creating it.

>71 rybie2: Ditto

thank you!

How do we feel about this one?

http://www.librarything.com/topic/224347#

just joined, no books, we can use this to "promote our own work on Inshares"
I'm not familiar with Inshares but it looks like he is using LT to send traffic to them.

>74 Taphophile13:, just noticed that one myself. I felt it should at least have gone to one of the Authors groups, not general book talk.

Edit: uh-oh, his second post there is flogging his own work.

>74 Taphophile13: >75 Cecrow: I'm inclined to flag the posts and leave a comment on the profile...

Apparently others chose to flag the profile as well...

>74 Taphophile13: >75 Cecrow: Aaaaand gone. All of it and him.

Before someone else posts it.
http://www.librarything.com/profile/SinexVisionIndia
http://www.librarything.com/venue/101393/Advertising-Agencies-Digital-Flex-Print...
First I said spammish... then I said it's sort of remotely relevant, and seems to be related to the Rajasthan Award account... then... hmm...

>78 davidgn: Looks to me like a purely commercial posting with no relevance to LT's purposes. Why not put it on the Spam Reporting thread?

>78 davidgn: >79 abbottthomas: They left a comment on their own venue they created, "Complete advertising solution" ! It's all spam to me, so I'm deleting the venue and flagging the member, and will welcome others in the Spam Reporting thread to flag as well.

Watching this one:

https://www.librarything.com/profile/stepmedical

It could go either way. So far, no advertisement, no links, no address. Possibly meant to catalog books.

>81 2wonderY: With the advent of TinyCAT, there's definitely a window of doubt on this kind of thing as small libraries may appear odd at first.

I wonder about an LT member ( since 2008) who joined a group, posted that the only reason for joining was to sell books from their collection- is this allowed?

I assume you mean http://www.librarything.com/topic/224764.

I am a member of that group, and am inclined to let it go. I don't think you can really call it 'commercial', as for at least some s/he only wants postage.

It certainly fits the group, and there is a fair amount of looking for books and offering books in the group.

Yeah I also just ignored the post.

Thanks!

Was doing some venue linking and noticed that when searching for a venue in NYC, most of the local events seemed to have to do with watches and shoes and such:

http://www.librarything.com/local/place/10003

>87 omargosh:

That's definitely spam, no "?" about it. This has been a recurring problem recently.

>87 omargosh: I'd contact lorannen about it.

Ok, I don't do much with spam, so whenever I come across something fishy I usually just post it in here. And y'all are experts in getting rid of such stuff. Look like you've already taken care of some of it. :-) Thanks!

>91 Collectorator: Yup. And I just deleted it. Not a description of the book.

ETA: Project Gutenberg boilerplate is all well and good, and I suppose the same can be said for Gutenberg derivatives' boilerplate, but neither of the above belong where you found them.

The question is, as with various pest infestation, for every one you see...
Any sign that there are other instances?

I sent a note to Loranne.

>94 davidgn: Responded via note, and posting here for all to see as well. Thanks bringing this to my attention! I've contacted the (well-meaning, I think) member in question to make sure they're aware of how CK works, and to let them know I'm removing this description they've added.

ETA: They've done this to hundreds if not thousands of books. It may take me some time to clean up, but I'm working on it!

>97 Collectorator: Yeah, I was hoping to find an automated way to do it, but there doesn't seem to be an easy one without dragging devs in to help me. We've been in a big meeting today, hence the delay in figuring that out. I'll post over in combiners about it, unless you'd like to spearhead the effort (for badge credit, of course ;) )?

>97 Collectorator: I can't get the page to load, either.

*rushes to Ben & Jerry's*

>99 Collectorator: and >100 rybie2: It looks like this is tied to our (ongoing) server lag issues. We're working on getting the server back up to speed but I have off and on been having trouble getting that page to load, as well.

What I don't get is why someone would do this. It had to take forever, no?

>100 rybie2:

Pick me up some, too, okay? ;-)

>102 lilithcat: You and me both. Seriously.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/225658

This one is sitting on the edge of my spam slam notes. It's kinda self promotion, kinda not. I'm not real sure. Anyone else want to chime in?

>104 gilroy: Enthusiastic-ish author. Probably should be directed to an author friendly group

>105 lesmel: Right, then. Where should I send him/her?

If it were only asking about how to find a publisher, with a general idea of the kind of book I would say okay but by going into a lot of detail, title, etc. it gets very close to the line. Definitely spammish feeling. Would be better in the Hob Nob group.

ETA: just posted to that effect. Member has been here for a while.

>106 davidgn: Hobnob with Authors? Uh. I think there are a couple other author friendly groups.

>106 davidgn: Yes, also directed her to Writers Brag and Drag group.

is this an author trying ti get some press?
http://www.librarything.com/topic/225860#

Hard to say. The poster's name is not the same as the author's.

says it is quite short, 12 pages according to the description

maybe a friend trying to help the author?

Nothing conclusive, I think. I didn't even think that I had grounds to ask what his connection was with the author.

Robert

>110 torontoc: I think it's a bit suspicious, especially since he included a link to Amazon in one of his posts.
http://www.librarything.com/topic/225861

If a new member is posting multiple messages about a book, then I think flagging is called for.

(Not the profile http://www.librarything.com/profile/AnthonyHerrera, of course.)

https://www.librarything.com/topic/225859#

Definitely flag the posts, but leave the poster for now. Here's a third link.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/225955#

Poster https://www.librarything.com/profile/Borisbas is a new member, hasn't even bothered to enter this book.

Kees de jongen

Since it's just a free thing that appears to be a random for-fun project for them, I just let it go.

Message #5 here is straying into iffy territory, I think...?
http://www.librarything.com/topic/218052

She's not advertising services, really. I'd say no. Which was why I replied.

She is, though, she's soliciting for money to read the thing posted about. I say spam.

I agree with >120 gilroy:. She's responding to a request. It's not as though she came on and posted an advertisement.

No, but she's still trying to solicit money for it, which is certainly not something the OP said.

>123 .Monkey.: That was my take on it.

Her post was flagged so she came back to explain it this way:

My "fee" is a positive or negative review of my work. I have to mention a fee. It's complicated.

Too complicated for me. I don't understand what she is saying.

0.o

"Trading" a review for a review is still payment, just payment in kind. It's not complicated at all.

ETA: I also said about this same thing, just now, over on the thread itself.

Paid reviews are not allowed on LT.

"I have to mention a fee. It's complicated."

That's weird.

>129 lilithcat:

Apparently it's fairly shady; she explains later in the thread that she must "actively seek work" for unemployment compensation purposes, and considers saying she will review books for an undisclosed fee to cover that ground.

>130 lorax:

I saw that; I highly doubt that that is what the unemployment comp people consider "actively seeking work".

Hmm, in fact, I know it's not, in her case. "What constitutes an adequate job search depends on your field." According to her profile, she was a nurse.

Of course, with her strange qualifiers and "explanations", she's kind of shot down the theory that she's looking for remunerative employment. But even beyond all that, it was worded as a commercial solicitation, which I assume is a TOS no-no...?

I think she's just walking back the idea. Personally, I feel that she meant fee, as in money, in her first comment, and when she saw the response, she started altering what she'd said, and what a fee meant (and I'm REAL sure what "fee" means). She'd have been much better off to own what she'd said, apologize for doing it, and move on.

Well, she just backed off with a never mind post...

This is gonna be a problem.
https://www.librarything.com/topic/226103

I could go either way, but it's gonna get flagged.

>135 davidgn:
just joined
no books catalogued
mentions website and kickstarter
"chance to support our efforts" and help us grow
wants ideas/advice - vague, non-specific

not liking it

>135 davidgn: Whatever it was, it's gone.

Probably a harmless one (no hyperlinks, and the profile doesn't log the story in question), but posts like this always make my spam meter tick:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/226204

>138 Cecrow:

I don't think it is. The member's been around for a fair bit, has a variety of books catalogued. I'm wondering if s/he meant to post in the "What are you reading now?" group, as s/he's a member there.

>138 Cecrow: Yeah, I glanced at that and left it alone. Figured it was a mispost or something non-spam related.

It was also a member giveaway.

>138 Cecrow:

Agreed that it seems like a misplaced post rather than anything spammy. (For one thing, the review is balanced rather than gushing praise.)

I don't get why it is misplaced. The group is book talk. The poster is asking if anyone has read the novella. Where's the misplacement?

>143 lesmel: It could have gone to a few of a different groups. What are you reading now? being the best possible source, though not necessarily the right spot in the user's mind. This is also why I included "or non-spam related" in my response to leave it be.

>143 lesmel:

I thought that might be the case because the member belongs to the What are you reading now? group, and the content of the post seemed as though s/he was talking about current (or very recent) reading.

>146 MarthaJeanne:

Definitely spam: https://www.librarything.com/topic/226272#

There wasn't a topic there when I saw it.

>148 MarthaJeanne:

I figured that.

Just joined and apparently wants to talk sports:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/226389#

No links, but might bear watching.

ETA: was removed for spam as I typed.

Looks like overzealous author/promoter? https://www.librarything.com/profile/b1boso_mar
https://www.librarything.com/topic/227121

>151 davidgn:

It's an overzealous author. The post can be flagged, but the profile should not be flagged.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/227955

Translator looking for a publisher http://www.librarything.com/profile/GoetzKluge

>153 MarthaJeanne: Google translate says: "I once had for the fun of the picture book (for Japanese children who already can read something) Mushamusha Musha translated from Japanese into German. It's about a chomping Musha (a kind of samurai) who applied a rather idiosyncratic mediation approach: He ended an argument by saying that he swallowed the disputants, they characterized along forced into his stomach and then, well, on the appropriate natural way (with the corresponding noise) was again on its own. Once again, the people did not experience that. A pretty book for adults for Conflict Management and Mediation. Could there be a publisher who is interested in it?"

I'm going to flag it. Could you leave a comment in German on his profile?

I agree, it's spammy, but you could almost feel sorry for the guy. To think he could find a publisher by posting on an LT forum, that's really pretty pathetic.

>154 Lyndatrue: I could have sworn I put a message up, but didn't bother trying to write it in German, as he obviously reads English, or at least has entered a lot in English. Did I not hit save?

>155 lilithcat: And a German publisher at that!

>156 MarthaJeanne: I didn't see any comment on his profile. Perhaps you made it private?

Either I didn't hit save or he has already deleted it.

>159 Collectorator:

Sure looks like it to me.

Spam? https://www.librarything.com/work/8365026
It's certainly a less-than-ideal use of the work system. I flagged it, so it's up for a vote now.

>162 davidgn:

I don't consider that to be spam. "Litter", certainly, but it is not obvious and unquestionable commercial promotion of something unrelated to books, so it doesn't meet the threshold for spam. I'd leave a profile comment for the member politely suggesting that sort of explanation is better placed on their profile or TinyCat page.

I have no idea what "SFPL gifts" are, but this looks like a way to attract business - Spam in my book.

I just don't think this is spam. Dumb, maybe, and showing a complete lack of understanding in how LT works, but it doesn't seem deliberate, and there's no link back to anything that promotes anything. Please note that this single work was added back in 2009.

https://www.librarything.com/catalog/ccsfgifts/yourlibrary

I'm pretty sure that ccsfgifts hasn't been on the site for years.

>164 abbottthomas:

San Francisco Public Library? The "author" of the book is listed as "Karen Saginor", who is a librarian at the City College of San Francisco. Hence, "ccsfgifts". They were apparently using LT as a way of tracking donated books.

Nothing to do with attracting business.

>166 lilithcat: Fair enough! I'll change my vote.

>167 abbottthomas: Ignore me. I've been in the sun too long. It's still not spam, and I wish others would go and vote likewise.

OK. For the record, I voted it un-spam as well.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/GrandBlancCounseling
Profile looks spammy, but maybe they're planning to start cataloging an office library?

I'd say if they haven't started throwing out posts into Talk, leave them be. See what happens

I would keep an eye on them. If they aren't adding books, it might be just advertising.

see the tags he's got on his profile picture and his homepage url:

http://www.librarything.com/profile/Demidoff777

>173 2wonderY: Nope. Was already flagged as spam 20 minutes after you posted...

https://www.librarything.com/groups/qwerty

Saw this group on the feeds, and grew curious, now I am kinda suspicious...
Including the only two group members:

https://www.librarything.com/profile/qwerty001
https://www.librarything.com/profile/qwerty002

>175 gilroy:
Looks odd but not seeing any overt spam, at least not at this point. I noticed 002 also started this group:
https://www.librarything.com/groups/stylex

They have a link to CafePress and Buzznet on their profile page as well.

I would just keep an eye on them for now. Other opinions?

Watchful waiting.

>175 gilroy: >176 Taphophile13: It might be worthwhile to point this one out to Tim. The URLS in their profiles look to be currently malformed, but also seem to be considered attempts to accomplish something. I'm not sure what, exactly, but I don't like it much.

>178 Collectorator:

"I can't find the rule that states don't make stupid groups."

There isn't one. There's a rule against "pointless," "meaningless" or "random" groups, but not against "stupid" groups. I often think that's a pity. ;-)

Hmm. The group mentioned in my >176 Taphophile13: has been deleted (but not the qwerty group).

>181 Taphophile13: They'd made a couple of others as well. Those are gone, which is as it should be. They're also now on the radar.

>179 Lyndatrue: Okay, I left a note on Lorannen's profile, so we'll see what happens now.

>183 gilroy: I'd already left a note earlier for Tim. I'm expecting that had an effect.

An update on >175 gilroy: The member who created this group seems to have been using it to test an issue on the site. Kristi's been emailing with them about the issue they found, so I've asked her to check in with them about the groups situation, as well. Tim has, in the past, allowed groups members use for testing Talk features to stand, provided they're private groups.

If I hadn't known that the member had contacted us, I would have suspected this as a test spam attack, checking the limits of Talk, so thanks very much for looping me in on this one!

>185 lorannen: Fascinating. I'm glad they were smart enough to contact staff before (or perhaps during) testing. Strange business, though. Glad it had a good outcome.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/PinkLisa - Woman linking to a website where she accepts donations on account of the size of her chest, which she displays in clothed photographs and videos.

>187 davidgn: Directing traffic to a web site for the purpose of making money = spam, in my opinion.

>187 davidgn: Stupid, tacky, pointless (and it's seven years ago, so who knows what she looks like now). Not spam in my book, though. YMMV

http://www.librarything.com/profile.......

Sounds like mommy did it... then it's ok?

ETA woops, its not a spam. TOS

Certainly not spam. It is not a good idea to point out this kind of account in talk. A private message to a suitable staff member is the preferred option. Maybe Lorannen?

>191 MarthaJeanne:

Thanks, I edited my post above, and sent a pm to Lorannen.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/TheJohnKirk

Okay, so they're selling bookmarks not books, but I still find myself strangely reluctant to flag the profile ... I'll let someone else decide ...

The profile has been here since 2011, and according to the site they're not even in business (of supplying bookmarks to libraries) any longer, so, eh.

After five years of no activity, I don't think it matters one way or the other.

Now that I've started to look at profiles... where do we draw the line between spam and spammy but legitimate members/authors?

https://www.librarything.com/profile/gojawar
https://www.librarything.com/profile/joyalatta
http://www.librarything.com/profile/ronabboud
https://www.librarything.com/profile/adle_international

All these are spam in my eyes, but so are some posts and members that I know are OK by the TOS.

>196 anglemark: The second profile is already suspended, so my guess is that one qualified. I dunno. Personally, I find not one bit of use in any of those, and note that "Ron Abboud" has anointed himself an author, even though there are ZERO works here on LT by him. I'm hoping that the profile isn't removed until someone makes the effort to remove the author page. He even did my very least favorite thing, which was to set his name with a canonical name (in silly lowercase). You'd think he'd have bothered to upload a book instead.

Just in case, here's the "author" profile in question:

http://www.librarything.com/author/ronabboud

(I don't know that I've ever seen an author profile that was the same as the profile of the user. Weird.)

>196 anglemark:

I don't see any of those as spam (well, obviously can't tell about the second). It's perfectly within the TOS for authors to join, and list no books, or just their own books.

>197 Lyndatrue:

note that "Ron Abboud" has anointed himself an author, even though there are ZERO works here on LT by him.

He is an author. People who write journal articles are authors, even if they don't write books.

>198 lilithcat: I suppose my opinion is colored by seeing his many other links, including Twitter and LinkedIn. I've just never seen an author page with no works. I'm still tempted to go in and change the canonical entry to make his name capitalized, rather than lowercase (please note, I said tempted, not on my way to doing it).

I'd left a note on Lorannen's profile about that profile, pointing her to this thread.

I don't flag most of the profiles others are identifying as spam unless they've done other things (such as make spam groups, or post topics that are spam). I'm sure that most deserve it, but I'd feel the need to check on them, and life is too short for that...

>198 lilithcat: All of them are keyword-laden pages designed to improve indexing on Google (well, with the old algorithms) and include contact information. I understand that they may not be spam under LibraryThing's ToS, but believe me, I used to chase spam for years as a dmoz.org meta editor for years and those pages are only intended to make money. That's why I'm curious where we draw the line, so thanks for clarifying.

https://www.librarything.com/profile/civitasgalleries - antique coin dealer

Ah! Never mind. He's cataloging books.

>196 anglemark: Most of these are over 4 years old. If they haven't spammed us by now, leave em.

>202 gilroy: The profile pages are the spam. I'm perfectly fine with leaving them there, but I get a feeling that the nature of the spamming isn't understood. But perhaps I'm just being slow today. Never mind.

https://www.librarything.com/profile/liasmith
the only catalog item has been suppressed as spam.

>196 anglemark:
My two cents:

https://www.librarything.com/profile/gojawar
Not spam. Yes, keyword-heavy, but the member is clearly an author. "He has authored and published over 20+ paperback, audio and ebooks" -- 'nuff said.

https://www.librarything.com/profile/joyalatta
Flagged down already, so can't say.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/ronabboud
Tough one! Definitely keyword-laden, even sends a message to himself with additional keywords. This barely avoids flagging in my book because the website it links to is a personal website with a URL composed of the member's personal name. The website itself, while also spammy-looking, is in substantial part composed of the member's C.V..

This is a case where the guidance note I added regarding links to URLs composed of the member's real name really comes into play: it's precisely examples like this one that I had in mind when I added it.

Finally, let me note that in my book, the member does *not* qualify as an author on the basis of having written a few articles (for which we have no indication of their having been published anywhere besides the author's own blogs or marketing material), and I'm sparing this profile for other reasons.

ETA: I would not blame anyone for flagging this. That was my first instinct, and it was only after some pondering and investigating the link that I realized his obsession for lame SEO tactics and keyword stuffing extends even to his own personal website where he hosts his CV. That's just embarrassing. It makes me think that this is a case of someone who has read too many SEO guides and now supposes that this is simply how personal profiles and websites should be written.

https://www.librarything.com/profile/adle_international
Not spam. Linked website is defunct. Plausibly claims to be a bookseller, and with no functioning website to investigate, this cannot be gainsaid.

ETA >203 anglemark: "The profile pages are the spam." -- Precisely. The backlinks and keywords are all in place and influencing the spammer's search rankings positively, and the end result (for the spammer's purposes) is about the same as with more visible forms of spam, like works or talk posts. When spam profiles stay up, the spammer counts this as a "success" and is incentivized to come back again and again: spam unvanquished begets more spam. That's a major plank underlying this enterprise: reinforcing LT's reputation as a place where spamming doesn't pay.

Should this new member be rescued from the Spam pile?

https://www.librarything.com/topic/232469
https://www.librarything.com/profile/NarendraV

He joined, added a book, started a group. Not spam yet.

I'd say save. But then I'm generous.

I threw it the lifeline, but will watch it to make sure it doesn't switch.

>207 2wonderY: Didn't stay rescued, and the topic's gone. Pity you didn't put a link to the group (although I'd suspect that's gone too).

>210 Lyndatrue: Yes, the group is also gone.

>210 Lyndatrue: Clicking the topic link in >207 2wonderY: leads to
"This group has been deleted.

This topic has been deleted."

Spamish, maybe?
https://www.librarything.com/topic/134686#5730770

https://www.librarything.com/profile/amber012 sent me a spammy private message. The writer is obviously not who she says she is, as there are several contradictions built in.

Hello Dear,

I'm Amber Lynn, From United States of America. I am a Blue Angels United officer working at US Navy Base camp in Syria, I saw your profile now on (librarything), I am interested on you, contact me on my private email i have something serious and private that i would love to disclose to you, It's due to my job that i don't want to talk much here on the site, I will introduce myself better and send you my picture as soon as i receive your mail.

Thanks,
Amber Lynn.

----

Good, she has been suspended.

I got the exact same message...

I got it too.

They never pick on me. :(

>218 Collectorator: Nope, corporate author. It's even got an ISBN.

>218 Collectorator: And other members had already added other kits by the same author name.

https://www.librarything.com/profile/esskaram - while I don't read Arabic, it looks like this fellow is sharing a few personal ebooks. I don't see the commercial angle. No.

https://www.librarything.com/profile/abdelazizebeid - Google Translate reveals this is about live streaming broadcast channels. Yes.

https://www.librarything.com/profile/geming.leader - the Arabic site is down, and the English site is private, so it's impossible to investigate their contents any further. Based on the profile alone it could go either way, so I would say No.

https://www.librarything.com/profile/ertqaaa - seems to be something to do with Google AdWords (as stated repeatedly), ergo online marketing, ergo commercial (even though the link is down). Yes.

I can't see the commercial angle here, but this (ostensible) kid has a lot of profiles, all referring (but not linking) back to his Youtube account.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/honda86
http://www.librarything.com/profile/kennykk
http://www.librarything.com/profile/buno7646

Probably doesn't qualify as spam, but might be worth administrative attention.

Probably not spam, but duplicate accounts like these are frowned upon.

Private member has this work:

http://www.librarything.com/work/13481489/editions
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAG_(Air_Travel_Intelligence)

Not sure if it's being catalogued as a resource or what. If it's intended to drive traffic, linking it to a private account is an odd way of accomplishing that...

Private member could also be a spam account already flagged away. Actual spam content could also already be gone.

https://www.librarything.com/work/18332914
https://www.librarything.com/work/18342761

Not sure how these were spamified, but they are. Sadly, their owners appear to be legit.

>227 davidgn: That's really weird

Crap. I found more.

https://www.librarything.com/work/15282898
https://www.librarything.com/work/15282897
https://www.librarything.com/work/15282893
https://www.librarything.com/work/15282895

http://www.librarything.com/profile/Jim3335Horn
http://www.librarything.com/profile/JDHunley
http://www.librarything.com/profile/uiueia

I am not sure about these accounts. Could be genuine accounts with no books listed, but I don't know.

>230 Yamanekotei: All are definitely keepers.

https://www.librarything.com/profile/kryssi
https://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=kryssi

So I'm looking at the reviews on this profile, then looking at the profile. The reviews all state Courtesy of All Things Urban Fantasy yet the profile doesn't mention any link to said website/magazine/whathaveyou.

So I'm wondering if this is a TOS breach or if someone knows more than it revealed...

>232 gilroy: First thought: maybe the member needs to be advised of the existence of the "published reviews" feature?
Second thought: hmm.
http://allthingsuf.com/2015/03/review-phoenix-fortune-monster-haven-6-r-l-naquin...

Looks like she's reposting reviews she write herself for this site, with the permission of the site, which presumably has the copyright for her reviews. Which is a totally fine thing for her to do.

>232 gilroy: Well, it's not spam, but it *is* odd. There's a site for "All Things Urban Fantasy" (http://allthingsuf.com/), and there's a profile over on Goodreads with that name.

http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/2732683-all-things-urban-fantasy

I'm thinking that "Kryssi" is also that site, or at least knows them. I'd still call it a TOS violation, myself. It's an odd thing, really, since the user seems to have been active in 2008, vanished, and then shows back up in 2014 (which is when all the "reviews" started showing up). Maybe we just weren't interesting enough.

Yeah, apparently, all of the ATUF group have been posting reviews here, or people are copying them here as their reviews with them tagged. Found another user:

https://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=Capnrandm

It's not a TOS violation to copy your own reviews from another site. It is a violation to copy someone else's reviews. Problem with the ATUF stuff is that when the review says "courtesy of ATUF", I can't always tell whether it's the poster's review or someone else's.

>236 lilithcat: That's the problem I'm running into, which is why I asked here.

>227 davidgn: It's the ISBN being added to the bogus item that is allowing it to auto-combine. I've reported it before, but it's an Amazon issue as well. I've been thinking this might be a project for you after you clean up the rest of the world.

>238 2wonderY: Hmm. You'll have to tell me more.

Meanwhile, going through Georgia, I found this.
https://www.librarything.com/profile/Javacatscafe
It's not really bookish, but in my book, it's sure as hell not spam.
Sharing for awesomeness. Don't you dare flag it! Maybe even leave a nice note of support. :-)
ETA:

Our Mission

"To bring the citizens of Atlanta joy through the love of an adoptable cat and food provided by homeless locals in the process of getting back on their feet."

I don't think this is spam, but I don't know what it is either. https://www.librarything.com/work/14039716/99941996

>240 davidgn:

It's a book. Well, a pamphlet, really. Published in 1656, and reprinted in the Harleian Miscellany.

>239 davidgn: It was discussed just a bit in an older thread:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/201419

posts 5 through 8 and 51-59. Some of the profiles still exist, and their catalogs interlink with each other and more members. The data tracks back to Amazon data, with non-book items being allowed to list ISBNs, most often with low ISBN numbers that associate with Italian works. I threw up my hands; it is so complicated. Every now and then I go back and gingerly do some separation.

"Celebrity Author Barry Donadio" is using his author page to promote his book:

https://www.librarything.com/gallery/author/donadiobarryr

new profile:

https://www.librarything.com/profile/blackgermanshepherd

I'm not flagging this one, but I will check back to see if they move into spammy actions.

>243 2wonderY: Mildly annoying, but not out of bounds. (Even though I'd recommend Kristina Borjesson's work instead.)

>243 2wonderY:

That's annoying, but the fact is that there is no limit* on the number of photos one can upload, and we've always let pass short descriptions such as the ones he has there.

And he did remove two photos that I flagged as not being images of the author.

* I wish there were, though. I know why an author would upload slews of photos, but other people do it, too. It's particularly silly when there are only minor differences, such as a bit being cropped or the author having slightly changed position.

>241 lilithcat: Thanks. Good to know. :-)

>246 lilithcat: I usually try to be selective, but sometimes my wee-hours Wikimedia Commons-raiding fits devolve into rote adding. Also, sometimes I'm viewing and adding images sequentially, and each appears to be an improvement on the last -- which I can't be arsed to go back and delete. Not ideal, but there are worse situations. At least I try to set the best one as the default.

Is Pete a spammer, or can anyone see a reason for this to be on LibraryThing?

https://www.librarything.com/venue/107217/Petes-Dueling-Piano-Bar
created by
https://www.librarything.com/profile/PetesPianoBar

Looks like spam to me. There seems to be no book-related activity at this place.

Is this profile spam? It's late here and I can't make enough sense of the word salad to decide if he's selling anything.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/keithspringer

>250 casvelyn: I just flagged it. The web site is commercial, and so is his badly formed spiel.

This profile appears to be a sock puppet for an author:
http://www.librarything.com/profile/Wendy_Keran_Gloss

>252 2wonderY: Huh. Not only that, even the author's personal profile reads like a sock puppet wrote it.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/ChristinaEngela

It always cracks me up when they put up a photo on the profile, and then don't bother with putting up that SAME photo on the author page.

http://www.librarything.com/author/engelachristina

The "reviews" for the books (written by Wendy) are mostly of the one-sentence, gosh/wow type, with poor sentence structure and an inability to properly capitalize (it hurts my eyes to see it, when I am still drinking coffee). Remind me not to hire Wendy as my shill, should I ever write my memoirs.

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=Wendy_Keran_Gloss

I dunno. I may come back and flag the profile later, after more coffee (I lack kindness or compassion at the moment). I'd think that someone ought to point it out to staff, and leave it in their lap. It's Monday, after all.

>253 Lyndatrue: I tried to ignore the bad grammar as it being a secondary language, since both Christina and Wendy seem to be South African.

>254 gilroy: Oh, sure. I normally give the benefit of the doubt, unless it's of the sock puppet sort of thing. If you're going to write a bunch of fake reviews, at least be courteous enough to do it well.

New topic time.

sorry.