Housekeeping: Regarding Lost Comments – Hopefully No More, But They Might Get Hung Up Awaiting Approval

There’s been a substantial increase in lost comments here at CC. We think we know what the problem was: Our setting on our spam filter for borderline spam was to automatically discard it. That must have happened along the way, because we used to have them go in the “Comment Pending” file. We’ve switched back to that. Which means that if your comment doesn’t show up, it will once someone approves it.

Here’s how to reduce the likelihood of that happening:

1. Too many links. I’m not sure of the exact number, but more than a few.

2. Long, complex, dense verbiage:  This came to our attention the other day when Daniel Stern couldn’t get the following comment to post:

It’s easy to call the headlamps inexcusable, but they were exactly the opposite of that: excusable, i.e., they met the legal requirements. The last time the minimum acceptable headlight performance was increased in the US regulations was mid-1978, and the new-for-1979 halogen sealed beams were quite a bit higher above the minimum threshold than the Chrysler cloud cars (and the first-generation LH cars big and small, and the ’96-’00 minivans, and the ’94-’02 Dodge Ram trucks…). This remained the case through two and three revisions of the US/Canada/Mexico headlamps, and it was also the case with the Europe/rest-of-world headlamps. They were all far too small and cheap to do any better than provide the bare legal minimum performance.

As for the rest of the car: great big step up in modernity and driving dynamics versus the predecessor AA-body Spirit-Acclaim-LeBaron cars…and equally great big step down in durability and repairability.

No links, but something in this comment did not pass the spam filter. One of us even broke it down into four parapgraphs, and three would work, but one, in bold, would not get through:

 

It’s easy to call the headlamps inexcusable, but they were exactly the opposite of that: excusable, i.e., they met the legal requirements.
 
The last time the minimum acceptable headlight performance was increased in the US regulations was mid-1978, and the new-for-1979 halogen sealed beams were quite a bit higher above the minimum threshold than the Chrysler cloud cars (and the first-generation LH cars big and small, and the ’96-’00 minivans, and the ’94-’02 Dodge Ram trucks…).
 
This remained the case through two and three revisions of the US-Canada-Mexico headlamps, and it was also the case with the Europe and rest-of-world headlamps. They were all far too small and cheap to do any better than provide the bare legal minimum performance.
 
As for the rest of the car: great big step up in modernity and driving dynamics versus the predecessor AA-body Spirit-Acclaim-LeBaron cars, and equally great big step down in durability and repairability.
I can only assume that there’s something about the way that bolded paragraph is written that makes it seem like spam. Looks like someone is trying to sell headlights for certain model year cars? Who knows.
The point is this: if your comment gets held up, it will eventually get approved. But during the day if I’m out working on one of my houses or such, I don’t check on the Comment Pending file except when I get back home. One of the other Editors might catch it and approve it.
Sorry, but spam is a huge problem, and our spam filter catches a vast amount of real spam every day; hundreds per day on some days.