Comment author must have a previously approved comment – Check the box to insure comments are only posted if the comment author’s email address matches the address of a previously approved comment, otherwise, the comment is held for moderation. Comments from blacklisted email addresses (those listed in the Local Spam Words Text Box) are held for moderation regardless of whitelist status.
However, we’re seeing that if a commenter enters a comment with an email address that has been used on a previously approved comment BUT their name is entered differently (say they used their first name on the first comment and their first+last on a subsequent comment), the comment goes into moderation.
The documentation clearly indicates moderation hinges on the commenter having an email address that matches the address of a previously approved comment.
Doing some research, I found a single reference to this from a thread in 2007, so this isn’t a new issue.
I don’t know if this is simply an error in documentation or an error in implementation. Any thoughts? And, depending on which it is, where should I report it?
The topic ‘Comment Approval for Previous Commenters with Same Email but Different Name’ is closed to new replies.
(@mburtis)
10 years ago
We’ve recently discovered a quirk with how WordPress handles comment moderation that is different from what is stated in the Codex.
According to the Codex (https://codex.wordpress.org/Settings_Discussion_Screen):
However, we’re seeing that if a commenter enters a comment with an email address that has been used on a previously approved comment BUT their name is entered differently (say they used their first name on the first comment and their first+last on a subsequent comment), the comment goes into moderation.
The documentation clearly indicates moderation hinges on the commenter having an email address that matches the address of a previously approved comment.
Doing some research, I found a single reference to this from a thread in 2007, so this isn’t a new issue.
I don’t know if this is simply an error in documentation or an error in implementation. Any thoughts? And, depending on which it is, where should I report it?