OLPC talk:Spam patrol: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(style=display:none) |
(does it / will it help?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
"Maybe we could block edits with <tt>style=display:none</tt>?" |
"Maybe we could block edits with <tt>style=display:none</tt>?" |
||
:Not quite sure how this would help? Would this actually eliminate the text or just its display? I don't think spammers care about the latter. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 08:17, 5 January 2007 (EST) |
|||
::Unless you use the [[Special:Recentchanges]] and use the ''diff'' link, you won't see the 'invisible' spam. By forbidding the <tt>style=display:none</tt> the offending spam would be visible (allowing more people to patrol the site). On the other hand, spammers will probably switch to other techniques... |
|||
::On a related track, does it help to report spam in the table? or it just adds workload? I would erase the spam, but I think that a revert is a better (cleaner) solution.--[[User:Xavi|Xavi]] 08:30, 5 January 2007 (EST) |
|||
Revision as of 13:30, 5 January 2007
"Maybe we could block edits with style=display:none?"
- Not quite sure how this would help? Would this actually eliminate the text or just its display? I don't think spammers care about the latter. --Walter 08:17, 5 January 2007 (EST)
- Unless you use the Special:Recentchanges and use the diff link, you won't see the 'invisible' spam. By forbidding the style=display:none the offending spam would be visible (allowing more people to patrol the site). On the other hand, spammers will probably switch to other techniques...
- On a related track, does it help to report spam in the table? or it just adds workload? I would erase the spam, but I think that a revert is a better (cleaner) solution.--Xavi 08:30, 5 January 2007 (EST)