test

Aside from the fact that you're not Einstein, I would observe that you're not really responding to what I've said. But that's OK, as I'm not looking to pursue this, and won't be.

@joshl If your reference to an "attitude" is referring to my previous post, you're mistaken—I was simply seeking clarification. In any event, I understand your and rafaelluik's (assuming that you've correctly reflected
what he meant) point, but I'm not convinced that that theory, an Opera-friendly theory, as I would expect from rafaelluik, actually explains the difference in spam thread rates that I've noticed. And it is only a theory, a theory for which no hard numbers—and there is more than one number that might be relevant—were provided. Furthermore, blackbird71 said earlier in this thread that, "Both Opera forums are/were continually being attacked by spammers, and what I've seen occur in both places are much the same as each other". As it happens, I don't agree with that, but blackbird71 was certainly a regular, thoughtful presence on the old forum, and if it is true, as he thinks it is, that the amount of spam on this new Windows forum is the same as it was on the old Windows desktop forum, then your/rafaelluik's theory is nullified. In any event, it's only a theory, and it may be valid, but then again, it may not be. I still maintain that there's considerably more spam on this forum than the old Desktop forum and that Opera ASA is to be faulted for failing to do more about it.

Have you read my post and actually thought about what I said?

I really don't have anything else to say about the forum spam issue, but since you've asked me a direct question, I'll respond. You are directing me to your previous post, where you said, "There were many more other sub-forums for spammers to abuse back then..." What's your point? What is it that you think I've missed? I'm talking about my experience with the old Desktop (or whatever it was called) forum, and am saying that this new Windows forum has a much greater spam problem than that old Windows Desktop forum did. Your objection to that statement is what, exactly?

@linuxmint7 You guys are quick, that's true, and I applaud your efforts. But I still think that Opera ASA is to be faulted for neglecting the forum in such a way that it's necessary for you and other mods to have to play Whac-A-Mole with spammers whose thread titles clearly indicate spam.

Here's six more that have popped up in just the last few minutes:

I've spent considerably less than an hour here today, and look at the number of spam thread titles that I've copied and posted in this thread. Spam threads were not occurring at this rate on the old Opera Windows Desktop forum. The failure to filter this stuff is ridiculous. It's Opera ASA's job to address this, but I'm skeptical that they care enough to do so. I've made my point, and so will say no more.

I appreciate what you're saying, joshl, but why wouldn't Opera ASA configure filters in such a way that new threads whose titles clearly indicate that they are spam never appear in the first place? Why should mods or other forum staff have to waste their time playing Whac-A-Mole with spammers whose thread titles shout "spam"?

Well, haavard, it didn't take long for some more to appear! Here are the titles of two spam threads that are on the Windows forum as I write this:

love vashikaran specialist baba ji +91-9982487292

intercast Love Marriage specialist by V.K baba ji +91-9982487292

Why Opera ASA is not filtering in a way that would automatically prevent this---the two thread titles above have phone numbers and the words "love" and "marriage" in the titles!---I don't understand.

haavard,
Hello. I've been a user (though not continuously) on Opera forums for over ten years and have always appreciated your efforts.

Regarding the issue of the amount of spam that appeared on the old Opera forum, I need to say that my observation about it is based on my experience with the Windows desktop forum (only), where I was a daily visitor between May of last year and January of this year, usually several times each day, beginning in the morning and ending in the late evening. So, I have a reasonably good basis upon which to make my observations about the amount of spam that appeared on that particular forum during that period of time. And I stand by my statement that, during that period of time, there was considerably less spam on that forum than I have seen on the new Opera for Windows forum, which I began visiting immediately after it launched, a few months ago.

It has been my experience that the new Opera for Windows forum has one or more spam posts on it almost every time that I visit it. I visited this new Opera for Windows forum daily for a few weeks after it launched and subsequently have visited it only occasionally. However, the fact remains that, measured in percentage terms, I am seeing spam on this forum considerably more frequently than I saw it on the old Windows desktop forum.

Regarding your comment that you did not see any spam on the Opera for Windows forum today, I can assure you that there was at least one on this forum this morning, a post that included the word “sex” in the title. (Would it really be so difficult for Opera ASA to filter for a title like that?) Yesterday there were at least four other spam posts near the top of the thread list when I visited there. If you have any further questions about this, I presume that you could obtain the relevant information from the mods who deleted these spam posts and/or the logs of activity for this forum, which I presume would include this information.

Thank you for your reply and interest.

We mods do our best ...

And it's appreciated, sgunhouse. My point was that Opera ASA has failed to effectively implement spam-reduction measures of the sort that don't require human intervention and consequently has made viewing the thread list on the Windows forum an experience akin to dumpster-diving. The general inferiority of this forum experience compared to the previous one and what that says about Opera ASA's attitude was the main point.