Bitcoin Forum

This is getting weird.

Need some definitions opinions  ;D about spam or insubstantial posts.

Should a campaign kick out members who do:
1. Forced posting? (i.e. making constructive posts for the campaign alone)
2. Make posts that he usually do but are not exactly constructive.
3. Somewhere in between constructive and not constructive.
4. Kicked by another campaign for spamming. But does not seem to be spamming as per the views of this manager?


Obvious spams are easily found and removed. But I am having trouble with the above ones.


Thanks :D

https://i.imgur.com/jpVYZAG.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam)

There's the official definition.

But for signature campaigns we need to look at other kinds of spam.

lol. :)

Can this be considered spamming?  :-\ ???

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=252562;sa=showPosts

I know.  Didn't really have anything really useful to add as I've not long been awake.  So I thought I'd throw the spam I had at it.

Is that you?  Doesn't attach the name.  There's a ton of posts though.  You could be the forums most wanted.

I basically consider spamming.  Meaningless, gibberish, time wasting and complete utter shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eacxC3D4uo


I hope opinions are fine as well.


I wonder how you would detect that. This would imply that you could somehow reveal the intentions someone has when posting. I dont think this is possible and wild assumption would only get people pissed of.


I would not force someone to change their posting habits. Maybe talk to them about those cases and discuss a different pay rate. This would certainly require more work unless you could settle for a general terms, e.g. -10% off on all posts, but the unconstructive ones still count.


Since there is no fine line I would give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to improve. Tell the participant openly what you think could be improve or what should be avoided in the future.


In this case its probably a good idea talk to the manager what exactly they thought was spammy. It might be possible that the spammy posts had been removed by mods or the user in question.

generally, spam = sending the same message over and over again.
nonconstructive and short posts are not spamming, they're just worthless. much like spams.

though if I was managing a campaign, I'd disqualify the "thanks for this and that", "denied", "repaid", "bid" posts too.
basically, everything that's not going to do any good to the conversation shouldn't count.



P.S.
I hate it when 5 replies were posted while I was typing.  :-[

No. Certainly not me lol.

He was reported as spamming.?

A thing to add to your list, which is my personal opinion... someone who does not care about adding punctuation, correct spelling, texting lingo, and especially those who don't capitalize. I mean, spam is usually made really fast by the user because they do not care about wasting their time on a constructive post. A few errors here and there are fine but if it is all errors then it bugs me. When people delve into using texting lingo like, "U R a gr8 m4n", it shows that they do not want to waste their time making a non spammy post.

EDIT: Improper Grammar also bugs me.

No, no, no, no.

To say that people are not going to be influenced to post when they are receiving payment for doing so is just ludicrous.

It isn't realistic that every single post that someone makes is going to be written by a genius. It needs to be understood that people are going to maybe not be the best writers/posters and may not be able to make the best quality posts but still put in the appropriate level of effort into posting. There is no reason to discriminate against them.

His all posts aren't spammy but a few might be.

You maybe talking about this.

lol. That is what I meant. ;)
OP updated.



Dunno. That is why I asked. Glad to see someone who thinks like me. :)




I don't really like that idea though. It would be mean giving people I like higher rates than those I don't. Plus, everything will be too much in my hand. Don't want dictatorship. ;)



Yeah, that is what we have been doing till now. Now going to make enrollment a little stricter, since we are 80% plus full. :)




Yeah.

Thanks for your opinion. :D

this guy have it worse by faaaaar.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=301123;sa=showPosts

last hundred posts are written in one line. didn't bother to check the rest

I had removed that part from the campaign definition of constructiveness, simply because it won't be fair to ban all those who may not have a good knowledge of English. That would be unfair, IMO. :)

I just can't wait until Earth gets one Universal language so then my Empire of Grammar Nazis will Rise.

I suppose Spam post (supposing you are referring to "signature  spam") is anything you post just for the purpose of getting paid and contains nothing constructive. In simple:
Posts that you wouldn't post if you weren't getting paid but you are posting just because you are getting paid ;D

PS: This post is short but not spam because it contains my personal opinion :D

The (modified  ;D) question is, if the participant is really taking the effort in making the post, and the post is constructive, but he is making it look so, and he is posting actually for the campaign alone, will that be spam?

For me spam is:

1. Posting on a job topic when they aren't interested in the job. It sometimes gets irritating as people fill the pages of such threads with just their opinion and people who re genuinely interested in doing the task ignore it or think that the OP isn't paying. I find several users doing this just to make fun and increase their post count.


2. Posting in a news article topic and then replying to off topic posts. Sometimes it's likely that a user can go off topic when it comes to sensitive issues but that is not always the case.

3. Posting long replies but when you look at the reply, there is not even a single sentence that truly makes sense.

4. Posting too many emoticons.


5. Posting by just reading the title and not the content. (sometimes the title and the content does not match and that happens when the OP itself is a troll)


I wouldn't consider user asking questions in thread (if they don't understand the content of a topic) as spam as they genuinely may be interested in gaining knowledge. Sigs shouldn't restrict them from asking questions. Also, the above points are for both users (with/without a sig). Am not saying that I have never done the above as I am also human and I do make mistakes.

I don't clearly get you! You are saying the post is "constructive" and you are asking if it is a spam! How can a constructive post be a spam  ???

What the forum sees as spam is basically an unwanted/not needed post that is still posted.

Many posts are masked to be seen as constructive when they're clearly not (and are full of fluff, random words to up the post count, etc).

Fitting example:


All of that didn't make sense and/or wasn't at all needed to be posted.

My thoughts conveyed perfectly.

Not sure I entirely agree on that point. I do know some users on other smaller forums who don't get paid (there isn't anything like a signature campaign there) but post because they love the interaction and are genuinely interested or provide unique perspectives, and post in much larger volumes than 50 per day. I don't think you can necessarily set an arbitrary absolute value as the maximum posts people can do before creating spam - instead maybe assess them on the quality of each individual post?

TBH though, the way I see it, it is incredibly hard to continuously moderate people who don't have constructive posts per se, but do post in length. Even then length isn't always a determining factor - sometimes short witty responses have themselves been thought provoking and useful.

I don't agree as I am normal and make 100+ posts mostly on another forum. I interact with the users and this might be considered spamming but still I do it and it's done in a Chit Chat thread. Would you consider tweets, FB replies, Chatting as spam? That's what normal beings do.

Here some do it because they get paid but some do it because they love it. The latter isn't considered spam though.

If I can say my opinion, it is impossible to write all constructive posts. It's normal that each of us will write at least 2-3 'insubstantial posts', this is a forum not a place of genius and writers (as shakespeare). Take an example of my personal situation here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1022225.0   In that case the problem was only the signature ad, but I am sure that if someone who was not wearing a sig ad (did the same thing) it would not have happened.

Yeah, that is right. :)

Actually, as a campaign manager, I expect to see a small number of posts that are insubstantial.

But, what to do with someone who does not post something like a thank you or congratz or a simple question that normally one would post (it may not be counted, but it is not really spam, unless he makes a lot of that kind of posts), just because he is part of a campaign and thinks that it will be called spam and will result in removing the participant or something from the campaign?

IMO, certain posts are considered spam because they are wearing a signature. And people who are in a signature campaign force themselves to make longer posts (in an effort to make it constructive), which is actually not a requirement at all.

In that case the problem is only the signature ad ad not the post itself. Because if someone make the same thing but he is not wearing a sig ad, then in that case I am sure will not be "valued" as someone who is wearing a sig ad.




But if a mod or admin will see a lot of short line/posts he will be sure take action against you, maybe you are right when you are saying it is not a requirement for the various signature campaigns but it is a problem for the forum.

Sorry. forgot to add unless he makes a lot of that kind of posts.. I added that only to the first paragraph.

I meant to say, posting once in a while like 1 in 20 or so, is normal.
If he makes a lot of short useless posts, he won't get paid and he will also be very likely be banned.

Spamming means replies within a minute.
As long as it keeps on topic, we can spam everywhere and everytime. But if we spam because we were being forced to then we must avoid this spam for good. Being campaign manager is the hardest one to handle this problem especially when this sig pay a quite big of amount per post

searching for thread to post should not be counted as a spam, i was posting like 50 post a days and more(without any payment) when the alt-section was very active, because i loved that section so much, now it's just full of virus...

i don't agree with the "feel forced issue", now one is forced here, we are just joining more discussion, because we are payed, the problem occur when there are newbie that make the same thread over and over again(those newbie are probably sockpuppet of members that carry sig), and in that case we can choose to not post or reiterate(we are forced to do it, because that thread treats the same argument, not our fault...)

so...as long as there are no reiteration of any kind, this is how i see it

reiteration, non-constructive and off-topic reply are spam, everything else isn't

Makes sense, especially considering (which I did not when I wrote my reply) that constructiveness is certainly relative. I wonder though if someone would not be perfectly fine with no payment for such posts. E.g. I used to post at least once a day in the free hugs thread. I would not expect any payment for these posts as its borderline spam. I do however like the idea and would not want to be banned from a campaign for these posts.


I dont know about 50 a day, but 20 are certainly possible if someone spends a whole day (10+ hours) on the board. This might happen even quicker if two people are engaged in a back and forth discussion. This would certainly not be the norm though. These posts would serve a purpose though, but as I wrote above this depends on the person judging.

I reason that 'spam' is ADVERTISING THAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES NOT WANT


Anyone referring to anyone else as a 'spammer' is almost always hypocritical, because they usually advertise somehow themselves, or they receive the proceeds of advertising, their pay.

Thanks :)
That is exactly what I am looking for. :D :D



There are already a few in the campaign, that are simply not quality posters, and is actually posting as they usually do. But there are also the other kind, who is trying to boost their post count.

The issue is when checking, both of the posts are almost exactly the same quality. atm, I am simply judging by the effort into making the posts, but I am looking for a more efficient way to distinguish between them if possible.

Thanks :D

Here are some points that I think should not be relevant in judging the above. (Not in order of relevance)

1. English, grammar, punctuation. (unless some weird words are used - like spouse, contacts,..  ;D,  or it is illegible)
2. Number of posts. (It just depends on how much time you spend here and how active you are in discussions, generally)
3. Time between each posts. (If you know of a topic, well enough, the time factor may not be that important as some consider.  But there are exceptions)
4. Length. (as long as the message is conveyed, and is relevant)
5. Sarcasm/jokes (but not too often.) (it is often misinterpreted as useless. and sometimes considered as off-topic if the reader doesn't exactly get what it meant)



Should be relevant:
1. Simply rephrasing something said by someone else.
2. Posts that no one else knows why it was made. (tho the person in question will come up with a brilliant theory regarding that)
3. off-topic
4. Posts that contain ref-link
5. Posts that violate any rules. (esp. if it is done more than once)
6..Posting too many posts in a row. (Added later)
7. ?

I think that something like that shouldn't be allowed either-> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1029097.msg11131472#msg11131472 This user Sithara007 wrote 5 (sic!) consecutive posts one after another in a row. Is is a prime example, but there are many more users who seems to not use EDIT function at all.

You don't need to worry about those spammers! Marco has already rejected to pay sithara007 due to excessive signature spam :)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg11125786#msg11125786

Check that :) Spammer Busted!

I saw many posts which is made by looking the title but not OP. Some of them isn't considered off-topic! ??? For example, if someone wrote a problem with Android wallet, some users spam the thread with Android wallet names. One or two get deleted but not all.


There are some exceptions in this rule. Post containing referral link are spam if it was made only for advertising referral link or if it is off-topic or if the user is spamming with it.

This is a huge problem too.

You should report all those posts and if them will not removed try send a PM to BadBear, I am sure he will take an action against those forum users.




4. - // If I can say my personal opinion, I don't think it is to be considered "insubstantial" post a post with a ref. link (you should manage case by case).
6. - // I don't think it is wrong (if you do it only to make more easy the legibility of what are you saying)

I agree, IMHO the beginners and help section is very bad in that regard. Many posts there have page after pages of the same rephrased answer. My impression is that people read the title and (maybe) the OP and just answer without reading any of the previously given answers. Sometimes the answers are not even correct. Its very tiring to read and I have mostly given up on the section. Once a thread reaches a certain number of posts I just stop following it.

How to handle that though? Should we (or rather the mods) discourage newbies from posting by deleting their first post here just because they did not read a possibly 20 pages thread first? Most of these posts are only spam and reiteration in the context of the thread.

Normal newbies don't go to every thread in beginners & help and post a random reply, they are usually starting the threads we're talking about.

Take a look at this member for example (I don't care if it's another campaign's member, I'm just looking at spam)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=359716

I looked his/her posts. You are right.

See this for instance:


The question is already answered there, obviously a few times. I don't even understand how the bolded part can be true. :-\

P.S. Although this is a discussion forum, not a Q & A type forum(eg:- Stackexchange), there should be an option to mark a post as answer and locked when it is done. It will reduce spam.

Noted.

Thanks to marcotheminer for reporting him. :)

Decided to make this happen:


I hope this move will aid in the forum becoming readable again.

That might be a good move. :)

I was considering excluding Politics and Society for some time. Still considering..
Meta is actually irrelevant to the campaign, but most of the quality posters are posting there too. If that is excluded, lol, payouts will almost go down by 30% or so.

I had to rule out excluding Beginner's and Help though I was considering it.

I am surprised to see Meta in this list. If you feel that not enough hits are being generated from signatures in this particular board, then it is okay.
I don't think there is too much spam in Meta, unlike the other boards.
If a person spams in Meta, he would get banned very quickly.

Meta is actually the board that is most tolerant towards bullshit of any kind. The main reason is that mods to not want to censor valid criticism on their actions that is presented in an immature way.

Removing meta from the list of boards that get you paid certainly makes sense from an advertising point of view. Meta is probably used by the same group of people with the occasional exception when someone is complaining about a mod action.

I've been a member of many popular forums in the past. None of them ever had signature campaigns, therefore my posts which ran into the thousands on each forum were never considered as spam.

I was temporarily banned for spam on this forum and 1 other forum. However, what that forum considered as spam was posting referral links and advertising (which I did). On this forum, it seems that people aren't allowed to make "small talk" posts which I have never come across anywhere else before.

"Small talk" responses has been my usual style of conversing on forums for years unless of course there is a topic or discussion that I have a connection with where I feel the need to respond by explaining something in an in-depth manner to someone. Since this forum doesn't support that and considers it as "spam" especially once you are wearing a signature, I have resolved myself to simply posting in threads that mean something to me for example a payment processor issue that concerns me.

Even so, I got banned here for "spam" and when I asked for an explanation, random people highlighted posts such as one where I supposedly responded to a thread as if I were pretending to be a member of the site mentioned in that thread's OP. The commenter said he doubted I was actually a real member of the said site. I had to post a picture of my account to disprove him.

The point is a lot of assumptions are being made about people's intentions which are simply not true! This is why I say that you can't really assume that a person is simply posting to boost his post count.

One thing I am actually happy about with the Dadice signature campaign is that there is no minimum posting threshold required to get paid. A threshold actually encourages either spam or dilution of posts, so please don't change the current policy.

That may be true, but you would still be attracting attention to yourself.  :)

You will attract attention to your posts in meta, yes, however the standard of something being considered a "shit post" is going to be a lot higher (or lower depending on how you look at it) for posts in meta. In other words a post needs to be a lot shittier for it to be considered insubstantial