This is a bayesian classifier of online comments. It was trained with youtube comments , but it could be used on any online commenting system. It is not affiliated in any way with Youtube.com or google.
It is an implementation of Paul Graham's algorithms and techniques for classifying spam: www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
Using the youtube api I trained the classifier with about 30,000 youtube comments. The api tells you whether a certain comment has been marked as spam or not by other youtube users.
spamcheck.py is the main tool here. If you give it a comment via stdin it will give you the probability that the comment is spam. Probabilities are between 0 and 1.0.
$ echo "Go to my youtube page and check out my videos" | ./spamcheck.py 0.999964931472 $ echo "Great video! Loved it" | ./spamcheck.py 0.222768242843 $ echo "Please go to my webpage and buy my software" | ./spamcheck.py 0.997404774789 $ echo "worst video ever" | ./spamcheck.py 0.338513134698
I ran the classifier on 3 popular videos outside of the ones I used to do the training. Here were the results:
total comments: 2936 Spams: 434 Not spams: 2502 Marked as spam: 417 Marked as notspam: 2519 False positives: 153 False negatives: 170
So it caught 65% of spams with a 5% false positive rate Not very good. Not very good at all.
You can kind of dial these values around. By modifying the thresholds I was able to get up to 75% of spams caught, but at the cost of a 15% false positive rate.
The data is really fuzzy… the 'spam' comments are ones that youtube users mark as spam. So sometimes they will miss a comment that is spam, sometimes they will mark as spam a comment that is really just a troll, sometimes the trolls will mark a legit comment as spam. If I went through all of the comments and manually marked spam vs not spam I could have some better training data as well as better data with which to score the classifier.
Use capitalization data - right now I convert everything to lowercase. But anecdotally it seems like spams have a higher chance of being in all caps.
Use punctuation - the classifier doesn't really use punctuation, this is most likely a mistake because spams seem to have a lot of weird punctuation and ascii art.
Search for keywords - just tokenizing the comment isn't the best because a lot of spam comments look like “pleasecheckoutmyfacebookpageatwwwfacebookcom/blah”