| Multiverse Feedback: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Upcoming releases | Skeleton |
|
CardName: Sabotage! Cost: B Type: - Concern Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: I don't know if cmeister2 is messing around with his own account, or if someone else is sabotaging his work, but his 5 normal cards have become experimental garbly-gook. This could bode unwell for the editable format. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Multiverse Feedback Common |
History: [-] Add your comments: |
Would it be wiser if anyone could add to editable sets, but only the author of the card could edit it, to prevent sabotage?
It does indeed look like there's been a spam attack. The problem is that the cardset specifically has "Allow editing by" set to "Anyone", not just "Signed-in users". It does seem like this setting comes with a significant risk of spam attack. (I've not yet seen a spammer try to create a user account, although I should perhaps add some kinda of CAPTCHA to make that less likely.)
I've turned off editing privileges for non-signed-in users on all cardsets in an attempt to deter the spammers.
That sounds fair. I like my suggestion of making an editable format where people can submit cards, but can't edit each other's cards, but, ultimately, this sounds like a pain to code. I'd also make some sort of suggestion about being able to reference all previous incarnations of cards so that cards can be reverted to previous versions, like a Wiki, but never mind the pain to code that sort of thing, I assume you wouldn't have the server space for those kinds of memory issues.
Database space is indeed the principal reason why I don't store previous revisions of cards. When I move off Heroku's free plan (which will have to be soon - I'm approaching the limits of the 5Mb free database already) then I might look into storing previous versions. It would certainly make this kind of spam easier to revert.
Maybe as an option for clearing some space if a set only has a few cards (less than 10?) and hasn't been added to for 4-6 months it could be deleted?
There are a lot o sets on here where peole have created the set & maybe a card or two and then ...disappeared.
That's true, but they take up correspondingly less space. There might be a role for some way of filtering out "inactive" cardsets, but if people are looking at the "Recent updates" view, that kinda comes for free already.
No, I think I'm happy with the amount of content being stored on here; 5 Mb in 9 months isn't too bad. I just need to either get my own server, or start paying Heroku something to host this site :)
I'd hate to have created three cards, be really proud of my work, then come back 2 years later to discover my work was considered derivative of the site. I only submitted one article on uncyclopedia.org, but I check on that thing every year. I really liked that one thing I did...