Bitcoin Forum

I have seen a few older members complaining about the quality of posting declining and also a movement to ignore signature posters. I do not agree with some of them, but I

also feel something must be done to improve the quality of the posting. There are too many one liner signature posting, that add no value to the discussions or are merely a

repeat post of a previous posting.

I have a suggestion for the people that feel strongly about this matter and want to do something constructive to improve this matter on the forum.

Why not fund a monthly prize pool from these members and the forum, towards a "Best forum poster, without a signature" prize pot. If the incentive is big enough, people will

abandon signature campaigns to compete for that monthly prize. They will also have to make sure that they post constructively or they will not win the prize.  ;)

So let's discuss this, and see how strong people feel about this.  ::) The forum members funding the prize pot, will also be the judges for the final decision on who will receive

the prize.  ;D

I also feel the same :)


I agree. But it should be also noted that not all one-liners are spam.




 ::) ::)

You're saying this and you are yourself wearing the signature.

But I don't think that the "Best Forum Poster, without a signature" would really help./ Considering the number of active people on the forum, the odds will be significantly less and this will not stop from spammers spamming the forum.
But i think we should start making a "Blacklist" for the people who spam the thread from now onwards. And the members on the blacklist shouldn't be allowed to join any sig campaigns. What do you think?
  :)

*Edited

I would say that is quite ironic because of two things:
1) You have not read the forum rules and guidelines (thread is in the wrong section);
2) You have a signature yourself.

While your intentions might be pure, and I agree that there is a problem, this is not how to proceed. Obviously just banning signature participants will not help as they keep coming back after the ban or via a new account. I'd propose that someone makes guidelines for the people that want to make a signature campaign. If the manager lets people that post very useless posts, then he should be punished as well. A cooperation between the staff and managers should possibly fix this problem. Regardless of this, there are some pretty good posters (rare, but there are) with a signature.

Signature campaign participants (the bad king) especially love threads that involve drama where they can 'stay on topic' easily while bumping their post count.

I think this is a stupid idea (not an offense to you). I have reported the thread because it is in the wrong section, however ... the problem is not only the signature campaigns but also all the users who enroll and participating to gain few btc.


The use of the ignore function can help in this case.... 

I have no problems with signature campaigns and with people who participate in them. There are lots of people who participate in signature campaigns, who still post

constructively and still add value to the forum. I am just thinking of possible solutions to improve the overall experience for everyone, not just the signature posters.

So let's not debate the fact that people participate in signature campaigns, because that add lots of value too. Let's see if this suggestion could solve one problem for a

group of people, who has a problem with non-constructive posting.  


It's fine, I do not get easily offended. At least I am trying to improve something for people who has a problem with this. And I can bet you, none of them will be willing to fund

this effort, they will only complain and ignore people. Let's see if I am wrong.  ;) The mods can decide if this is in the wrong thread.. if it is, please feel free to move it.  ;D

Ignoring people is not the best solution. There are people on here, who participate in signature campaigns with valid questions and suggestions, and they are simply ignored

because they decided to join a signature campaign. Let's find some real solutions for this problem.. feel free to add your own suggestion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am breaking no rules by suggesting something to improve the forum and discussing something that would add value to Bitcoin discussions.

I am also not automatically banned from making a suggestion, if I participate in a signature campaign.

Edited : Done... No need to bump my post count... I have no need to.  ;D ;D

You can reply to 2 or more posts in one unique reply, you are trying to boost your post count with this 'practice' (maybe I'm wrong). You can move your thread, search 'move topic' it's in the left corner at the bottom of this thread.

What are you talking about? I have never said that you are breaking any rules by suggesting something. I said that you have not read the rules & guidelines that contain help in regards to opening new threads. This thread should be in meta and I have reported it as well. Nobody said that you were banned from making suggestions either. My suggestion is that we do something in regards to the managers as well.

Yes, updating posts is better than replying sometimes. I do it often as well.

that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.

That .... and I think we should also bring back the orange ignore button. If you remember this feature, as more and more people ignored the poster, the ignore button became a deeper orange. It was very easy to see who the shit posters were.

I believe it was removed because of the amount of CPU resources required to compute it. However I believe that it can be properly re-implemented without taking up massive amount of computing resources.

To stay on topic, I think the OP's idea is approaching the problem from the wrong direction. We don't need more good posts - we need less garbage posts. Every now and then I see a good thread but very soon it gets moved to the second page by garbage threads and dies off.

yes, that feature was nice!
maybe in the new form... (lol)

Good idea, let's see what theymos or BadBear will say.





I don't remember this function, I would like to ask you: when was it removed? *The period/date.

Say someone has something personal against you, so they could make alts and ruin your reputation , something like alts ruining your rep from negative feedbacks but in this case every ignore would be significant

that is easy to counter: ignore count could ignores from brandnew/ or newbie accounts.
and if someone really buys lots of higherrank accounts, well... if he is willing to spent that much time or money to ruin you he'll find a way.

Maybe sometime in 2012? Here people were still talking about it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109833.0

That only works if people use the ignore list as intended! I don't know if I'm unique in this regard, but I misuse the ignore list - there are plenty of good posters on mine, simply because currently they're mostly talking about things that don't directly affect me (for example, the blocksize debate - I follow the debate periodically, and use my ignore list to screen out people who regularly or mostly discuss the debate. That's no reflection on the posters I'm ignoring, simply something I do to make it easier to focus on other things. And, obviously, I remove people from my ignore list almost as frequently as I add people).

This won't be much successful as majority would think that "they don't have any chance winning the bounty so why don't just earn small via signature campaign only?"

There must be something like a Blacklist like someone stated over here earlier. Or all signature campaign managers can keep small bpounty for those who catch the spammers and inform them about the spammers.
This will reduce spams to some nice extent.

Sorry to interact people but this could be real, ignore button can be abused most especially by people with nothing to do.

I think it is a bit harsh to put the blame of reduced post quality purely on signature campaigns.. There are enough people that do not max out their weekly/monthly limits at all. Of course a lot of shit is being posted by them, but also by others.

I'm thinking about newbie accounts saying bitcoin is doomed.
Newbie accounts saying bitcoin is going to skyrocket.
This alt will beat this alt.

The list is endless.

Part of the reduced post quality, in my opinion, also can be explained by the increased number of persons involved in bitcoin. At first you had the real enthusiasts and tech savvy people who really understood the basics of bitcoin. Now the majority is just normal users who are posting here. Ofcourse the quality will be less.

well i like more the constructive post of knowleage from older activity users but some above 100 activity are all good the newbies or juniors or members like me its the ones who post with significative need of improvance for the better information into the comunity and theres also philosophers

Thanks and I am still thinking that function could be re-added. The newbie (sock puppets/alt) users who ignore someone else will not be a problem, why? Read here:

Why do you think one line/one word replies are not constructive? Maybe a newbie is askin a yes or no question, and I'm answering  "yes" or "no", Only 2 or 3 letters. How can you say that's not constructive?

Or do you need a Wall Of Text to answer a simple question? Most of one line replies are more constructive than WOTs.

When sig spammers think that "long sentences are more constructive" they're starting to post shits. A simple question doesn't need a WOT. It needs a proper answer, nothing more.

IMO anyone who is part of a a signature campaign and asks a question that has been answered a lot of times, is using it to bump their post count (read next sentence). In other words, any question that requires a simple use of the search function or a search engine (where usually the first result contains the answer) is most likely the result of wanting to bump up one's post count (for signature spammers). Besides if you have any questions, how about asking someone directly, who is willing to help out, via PM (e.g. me, shorena, etc.)? If you really need to make that post, then find a thread about it and post in it. The worst part about is the repetitive opening of threads discussing the same subject.

This is not a solution that would improve the post quality either. Basically you're trying to make people ignore the bad posters. Anyone new will see those posts though.

The monthly best poster prize wouldn't cause people to leave their signature campaign. The pool of money isn't going to be huge and it isn't going to give everyone BTC. Members would rather go for stable and guaranteed signature campaign than non guaranteed ones. The ignore list isn't going to work very well either, taking a look at dannyhamilton's ignore list, I admit that it does reduce the amount of spammers that can be seen, it also potentially blocks out good posters. The main reason for signature spam is largely due to the automated signature campaign. They are nowhere as accurate as human checking. Perhaps the forum can implement an regulation for signature campaign operators to check the post manually.

Check post manually? It will be really an hard work for the various sig. campaign maintainers ;D.

So? That's their job, is it not? Are you saying that moderators should be checking each member individually to identify spammers? Anyone that lets their participants spam, or post posts of very low quality should be punished accordingly along with the user(s).

---

---

Update: I had not realized that you were being sarcastic. Anyhow, banning participants obviously has not shown to have a big impact. People tend to come back with new accounts or multiple accounts and join the same campaign (or different one).

Yeah, it is. :)






Certainly not!

It was a sarcastic post http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/nonciclopedia/images/1/13/Asd.gif/revision/latest?cb=20071018154810. The work of a mod is to moderate the users posts (through the reports that they receive and/or surfing the forum itself and 'moderate')




Obviously : no, they should not check each member.

The sig spammers are here to stay so it is pointless to care. Yes I have a sig, but get a flat rate before you say "you got a sig stfu". The issue is paid per post causes the spammers. I think the wall of text spammers are worse than the 1 -3 word spammers. The forum does not mind sig posters even when they admit publicly they only post for pay. I think the more posts the forum gets the better it is for them (more ad revenue). Just ignore people and signatures if they bother you...forum not going to change it. I gave up caring about spam once I realized it will not change.

Thanks a lot to the people making positive and constructive suggestions to this thread. My intention was to open this up for debate and to test the water regarding a reward

system for good posting. There are many posters on this forum, who participate in signature campaigns, who really post good quality posts and I feel they need to compete in

a contest to get them rewarded for their good participation. When other people see this, they might improve their post quality to also receive these rewards. I am a moderator

on another forum, and I know quality poster draw in the crowds, because they bring value to a forum. The high quality posters need to be rewarded for their effort.

I spend hours on web sites and forums to research anything to do with Bitcoin and listen to podcasts and watch video's on the subject to further my knowledge and to

contribute positively to the Bitcoin community and this forum. I also think high quality posters need some kind of reward, to retain the high standards of their posting.

My gratitude goes out to those people here... Please keep it up. Let's hope some of the early forum members see my vision and decide to support it. We could test it for one

month, to see if it would help in any way possible.  ;)   

Every post you write is spaced out, why ? So that your campaign manager would qualify it as a constructive post or what ?
I understand the importance of spacing when you need something to be pointed out,or divided into two "sections or topics" but what ure doing is very anoying at the least.

As far as your suggestion goes, it's not a good one. It would only divide spam to sig. campaign spam and your "reward" idea spam imho.

It's probably just something about his device that he used to post; it's not necessarily him trying to make it a constructive post.

I disagree with this idea; most people would just stay with their campaign anyways because there would be too much competition.

Yeah, it is his 'writing system'. @ajareselde check his first posts on this forum I'm sure he is doing it 'unintentionally'.

lol what do you mean by that ? Is he typing on a malfunctioning machine typewriter or what ?! I really don't know what to think about it now.


Whatever it is; it's still quite anoying, atleast to me. First post on that account, yes.

It's just my typing style, everyone has something that makes them unique, that is just the way I choose to do it. My apology if it's annoying to you.

I write like this on many other platforms too... It's just easier to read than the wall of text we are confronted with, when we paragraphs everything together in the

normal way. I should think the personal attacks on me should not be necessary, it just deflects from the subject at hand. The primary goal should be to reach a solution that

would fit the majority of the users here. #1 = Less Spam / #2 More constructive posting / #3 Rewarding people who create high quality content for the forum.

Let's just concentrate on that for now please, and leave the personal attacks for another time. I really want to contribute to a good experience for everyone.  ;)

I believe they will have somewhat of this idea implemented on the new forum.  One can upvote or downvote others if they like/dislike their posts and it will be public, so signature campaigns can look at only the quality posters.

I don't think so.
There're people who has enemies on the forum. Those enemies can abuse this system with shill accounts.

I have so many signature campaign morons on my ignore list that sometimes I feel like it's just Vod and me here on bitcointalk.  And he can grate on the one nerve I have left that isn't fried and I'm very tired of that licking my boob thing. 

There is way too much crapola posting here.

Put a stop to board account sales. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1185281.0)

I think that the BTCTalk community administrators need to establish rules for signature campaigns. Managers have to check the quality of each post and remove every one line spammer from the campaign list. Automated post counting scripts could no longer be used since a script or bot could not check the quality of posts. If a campaign manager does not remove spammers from their campaigns, the forum admins should ban the campaign manager and effectively end the campaign. I too am getting sick of the spammers and lazy managers only in it for the money and not discussion about earning/improving the bitcoin network.

You can always PM the manager of the sig campaign that has user missbehaving/spamming etc.. Just include post/s that you find unworthy as reference and i'm sure action will be made.
Also, there's that report to moderator thingy on the right of posts, if the post is in violation of forum rules. A lot of people lost their spamming account due to this.

Yeah, but there are the signature campaigns like YoBit that basically promote signature spammers; the majority of the posters enrolled in their signature campaign are very LQ posters, and since their payments are counted by a bot, you can't report them to a campaign manager.

I say that we should get rid of bot-counted signature campaigns altogether.

Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these

campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of

the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their

campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.

I dont think a high max number of post is a problem in general. I see the main problem with campaign managers that just dont care if they pay for spam or not. As you say carra23 does a very good job and so did(does?) ndnhc, I think marcotheminer improved on this as well as I rarely see bit-x participants spamming which was a big problem in the past.

Exactly, campaigns that have a lot of participants that spam or post useless stuff should be closed by admins somehow, maybe banning the campaign manager for not doing his job, also most campaigns accept people without even looking at their post quality or quantity plus some of them allow newbies aswell which makes it easier for people to create new accounts if they are banned.

For what it's worth,  I'm ok with kprawn's spacing.   It's easier on the eyes than a tombstone-like wall of text.  This isn't YouTube where we're limited to a certain number of characters.

I dont think we should rely to heavily on staff either. There are many voices that say signature campaigns should be forbidden in general and if spam gets too bad because of them, staff might change their stance.

I hope they first consider the impact of that decision on the site traffic statistics and also banning campaigns that encourage spamming. A mayor attraction for advertisers

here are the traffic this forum generates and I  guess a lot of that has to do with the signature campaigns and the activity that adds to the traffic. A lot of people will stop

using the forum or move to another forum where signature campaigns are allowed. I still say a reward system will keep people here and encourage them to post more

constructively. {This can be funded by the forum or a advertiser or a group of concerned members}

Just change the rules about signatures so that links to sites are only permitted if the domain is owned by the poster.