Akismet review

I’m not too impressed. Since moving to WP2, I thought I’d give akismet a try, since Dan always raves about it, and I was occasionally seeing the odd comment slip through my current SK2 setup.

So, I disabled SK2 and just went with only Akismet for the last couple days, and I still saw one get through in just that short amount of time. So, it seems to be no better or worse at catching spam than SK2, but does have some drawbacks.

I think I will probably go back to SK2, and maybe modify it to use an Akismet check as a part of it’s karma algorithm.

UPDATE: another one just slipped through… maybe I’ll have to move back to SK2 sooner than I thought.

One Trackback

  1. Spam at Dan Cameron 2.0 on May 3, 2006 at 9:21 am

    [...] I’m just stuck, I don’t like having to delete the few comments that stray by Akismet and it’s also annoying to approve comments from people that have been here plenty of times before. And before Jared says SK2, I can’t use it with my K2 base, something to do with the AJAX commenting. I wonder if there is another solution or somehow reset what WP2 looks up for approved authors so it fixes itself. [...]

9 Comments

  1. Dan
    Posted April 18, 2006 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    I prefer Akismet rather than SK2 because of the configuration and it seeming more logical to have a larger db of spam to compare to. I never said it was any better at not letting spam through, I occasionally get some spam through but it’s rare and it seems like the fly by person not a bot. But if you want better control or better blocking use the built in WP filters as well.

    I’d also like to say I rather have a few comments through then having my ‘real’ commenter completely blocked or giving errors after a comment, like I’ve experienced with SK2 here.

  2. Posted April 18, 2006 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    I don’t think the SK2 that was on here ever blocked anyone from posting. The one time you got that error was because I incorrectly typed in a regular expression pattern into the filter, not because of SK2.

  3. Dan
    Posted April 18, 2006 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    But it was SK2s fault for allowing you to do that. Even though all those incidents were associated with one problem it happened a lot until you fixed it, not just one comment.

    Anyways, do what you want. Akismet will only get better with more users and SK2 will get better with the user’s use. So who cares? I’ve just had better experiences and aren’t as picky.

  4. Posted April 18, 2006 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Uh, yeah, it was SK2’s fault for having too many features. Not being able to modify any settings at all is always a feature I look for in products… not.

  5. Dan
    Posted April 18, 2006 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Sounds like a reason against Apple but the _too many_ features caused you –an advanced user– to mess it up so I wonder what a normal user.

  6. Dan
    Posted April 18, 2006 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    hmmm.

    Sounds like a reason against Apple but the “too many features” caused you *an advanced user* to mess it up so I wonder what a normal user would do.

  7. Posted April 18, 2006 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    A “normal” user wouldn’t even be trying to add their own custom regular expression patterns, so they wouldn’t ever see that problem.

    They’d probably just leave it at the defaults that come “out of the box” and protect better than Akismet.

  8. Dan
    Posted April 19, 2006 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    you just think that to make yourself feel better.

  9. Posted April 19, 2006 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    I don’t just “think” it, that’s been my objective experience.

    I’ve been using Akismet through this day, and I’m still getting multiple spam comments slipping through every day, which is far more than I was ever getting with SK2.

    Adding an incorrectly formatted custom regular expression pattern is the only thing that ever caused SK2 to go wrong for me, and regular users would never even attempt that, so it’s a non-issue.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*