Discussion:Problems logging onto TA

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> General Chat --> Problems logging onto TA


Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

15 November 2013
Is anyone else having problems logging on and moving around in TA? For the last week or so the log on process has been painfully slow and most of today I've not been able to get into the program easily or once there, log in so I can respond to anything.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

15 November 2013
I've been having the same problems. If you click on the 'Recent Changes' link on the left, you'll see that spammers have been hammering TA.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

15 November 2013
Discussion: T/A keeps bankers hours

Yesterday was 8:57 again and today was more like 9:01. I always love the wording "Mediation Guru" which appears under the message that the site is not available.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

15 November 2013
I noticed Wednesday night that about 10pm I was no longer able to access any pages. I assume that is related.

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

15 November 2013
Just had a contest between the State of Hawaii and TA to see which one actually came up first. I was on hold with the state over half an hour - they said it would be a 12 minute wait. TA won. Now I need to go to work.

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

15 November 2013
One of our brethren commented on another thread that TaxAlmanac, or maybe just the tax forum, was headed to hell in a handbasket. Was this sign-on, move around problem what he was talking about, and if it is spammers, pure and simple, isn't there a solution that an *interested* proprietor would find?

If Intuit is no longer *interested* they should just tell us that, and we'll stop wasting their website and their time.

Just an opinion, I'm not ready to punch anybody out, not yet...

Nilodop (talk|edits) said:

16 November 2013
What, if anything, is the benefit to Intuit for running this site, whether done well or not?

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

16 November 2013
If Intuit chooses not to support those products that don't benefit them financially, it says bad things about them and I hope their beer is flat.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

16 November 2013
I am looking at Recent Changes which show 50 postings between 15:27 and 15:33 (not sure whether this is GMT or what time is being used), all of which seem to be pure spam. Could it be someone else is trying to disable the site with a spam attack?

Nilodop (talk|edits) said:

16 November 2013
and I hope their beer is flat. And I read somewhere that flat beer causes flatulence, which is also wished.

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

16 November 2013
Four pounds of yogurt per day causes flatulence. I wouldn't know about beer, gassy or not gassy, however; I don't have a control group to compare to. Intuit has its head in the sand. And, I think they still offer TaxAlmanac as a "benefit" alongside their other, paid-for, products.

I had better not catch them advertising something that's not available. I will send my one share of Intuit stock back to the company!

Smokeytax (talk|edits) said:

16 November 2013
This is such a valuable website. I wish Intuit would charge for it - even $10 or $1 would have to reduce the spam.

Nilodop (talk|edits) said:

16 November 2013
And reduce the posters.

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

17 November 2013
I don't know what spammers get out of posting here. I checked the "Recent Changes" and can see they are active, but I don't see their posts, so what are they doing and what do they get out of it? It makes no more sense than the people who create damaging viruses.

As for Intuit charging for this site, that is a double edged sword. It would probably serve to curb the spam, but then Intuit has a well documented history of going to very high levels charging for stuff. They'll start out with a reasonable fee then over a short period of time, they'll be charging a fortune for it and will price a lot of people off this site and that wouldn't be a good thing either.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

19 November 2013
My understanding is that Trillium was doing his clean up and monitor duties for free and I don't blame the moderator for going on strike for a wage; and make it a living wage. Again, I don't know the facts for sure, but you get what you pay for.

The site is being taken over by weeds and now it is choking on them. Mackelheny was denied entry the other day because he could not log on. What if there had been an emergency and we were without our unofficial Chaplain?

On top of everything else, we are probably being targeted by NSA and DIA (i.e. Spy), and therefore Anonymous has also targeted us (Spy vs. Spy), so there is likely a spy war slowing down the site and we are caught in the middle of it until they move on to some other prey.

P.S. Kevin was also trying to help clear the weeds from the site, but I think he's on strike also due to the sites "Terms of Use" Policy; again, I do not know the facts, just a guess on my part.

Uncle Sam (talk|edits) said:

20 November 2013
First of all, Trillium is a her, not a him.

What gives you the impression that the moderators are on strike?

This place has become more of a "politically correct" gossip site with all the side discussions of social issues, rather than what it was meant for - a professional tax and accountant support group.

So keep on with your daily activity here until you self destruct.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

20 November 2013
Sam, it is politically incorrect to refer to a woman nowdays as a "her". They like to be called "hims" now; that's why we use "Ms." instead of "Mrs." or "Miss". I don't open the door for a woman. I am proud to say that I have never opened the door for my wife, even though I knew her before I knew what political correctness was.

Your personal attacks on a Martian are absurd, please discontinue your attacks or you will be reported to the moderator, even if he is on strike.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

20 November 2013
Kevin once posted how many hours he and Trillium spent cleaning up what you see on the Recent Changes page and just stopped because of how labor intensive it was. As long as the moderators are doing this work for free, the owner of the site has no incentive to modify the site to reduce spammers.

Uncle Sam (talk|edits) said:

20 November 2013
And who appointed Gazoo as the substitute moderator to determine what and how someone expresses him/her self on this board?

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

21 November 2013
Sam, take the biggest grain of salt you can find, double it, and take it with anything TheZoo says along with a full glass of water.

More to the point of this post, I've just navigated through three pages with the fastest speed I've experienced in weeks.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

21 November 2013
I am proud of my record of predictions around here. I think I've been right more than I've been wrong. My mind is unclouded by Fox News and the National rectum (i.e. talk radio).

Unless and until we get a fat pay package for the moderators, there is simply no reason they should knock themselves out trimming back the weeds around here. We also need new technology on the site and a "Web Czar" like Obama has appointed to fix healthcare.gov. (A day late and a dollar short, of course).

Without a payment of a living wage to the moderator(s) and a website techno revamp, we will continue to remain clogged.

P.S. Do not offend a Martian. At the snap of a finger, I can send a thousand little green men to remove your liver and we will perform extensive tests on it before returning it to its rightful place in your body.

Nilodop (talk|edits) said:

22 November 2013
I've just navigated through three pages with the fastest speed I've experienced in weeks. The time of day or night seems to make a really big difference. I find that early morning is not even worth trying.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

22 November 2013
Tonight still seems to be faster than the last few days. I've also noticed that pages load faster when I open every link in a new window. Clicking the 'back' button times out about every fourth time.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

25 November 2013
Cathy's Taxes is correct. I predicted the slowdown months ago when Trillium and I stopped blocking the spammers. The spam posts take up valuable resources, preventing us from navigating (and even accessing) the site.

What they get is a 'link-count' to their spammy sites, which raises their value in the eyes of google. Thus their sites come up more often when you are looking for a coach bag or Viagra. Or both.

I've all but given up on this site.

Smktax (talk|edits) said:

25 November 2013
If they used a CAPTCHA to create accounts, they could reduce this spam significantly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

25 November 2013
"...months ago...."

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

25 November 2013
And the spammers are motivated, but Intuit isn't. Makes me mighty cynical, mighty fast.

Uncle Sam (talk|edits) said:

25 November 2013
This doesn't make this site a viable site anymore

Might as well advertise "Spammers Welcome Here"

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

26 November 2013
slow slow slow today

LMCPA (talk|edits) said:

26 November 2013
I noticed very slow this morning too, although in the last five minutes it's been responding pretty quickly. I do hope we are able to save this website; I don't understand everything behind it, but I really enjoy the time that I do spend here and appreciate the advice doled out with a touch of comedy :-)

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

27 November 2013
Discussion:The End of the Forum :(

Jglas (talk|edits) said:

3 December 2013
Resolved

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

December 3, 2013
"Resolved" I wonder about that. According to posts here, there has been a lot of spamming going on. Can you imagine if this had happened in March or April? We need to let Intuit know that it's important to us that only legitimate posters be allowed to use the site, and one way to make that happen is to require a captcha for login. Many other sites are using captchas these days. It's even free! I'll get Intuit started with a link [1] on how to set it up.

Please let Intuit know that we support this addition to the forum.

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

3 December 2013
How do we do that? That might be a good solution and make life easier for those who monitor this like Kevin and Trillium.

However this was fixed and whoever did it, thanks so very much for the effort.

Taxaway (talk|edits) said:

4 December 2013
I was getting this Wiki something or other error trying to access the site. Wow, went through withdrawal symptoms for a couple days! I appreciate the site, even if most of the time I silently read and learn.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

4 December 2013
Who knows how long this will last. The spammers are still hammering us.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

4 December 2013
I've have a middle aged dog I've trained to watch the site and to bark when it comes to life. I plan to sell him to an internet start-up when I have him fully trained.

Taxaway (talk|edits) said:

4 December 2013
Middle age is the time when you need something to alert you that something has come to life.

Trillium (talk|edits) said:

5 December 2013
IIRC, Tim's tech team at Intuit felt that the spammers were not accessing and posting to the site the same way we do, i.e, they don't go through the "log in" or "create a new user" pages, and they don't use the posting boxes or the edit this page functionality. They're somehow adding the spam behind the scenes in the wiki. Therefore, the recommendation he was given was that adding captchas would be completely meaningless to the spammers, as all the captchas do is limit access to the normal login and editing tools. What the tech team had hoped to work on was walling off that behind the scenes access, instead.

However, I hasten to add that this is all info I'm pulling out of memory from months ago (a year ago?) when the spam volume had first increased. I could be recalling it incorrectly, or missing half the info that should have been included to make what I said above make sense to the techie types among us.

I have no recent update, in any case, about what they've tried or whether they're still even trying. I share the concern that Wiles posted on the other discussion, I'm sad to say.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools