Bitcoin Forum

As a lot of you are aware, there is a ton of spam on this forum consisting of one-liner posts and/or nonsense topics being posted all for the sole purpose of boosting profits for the mentioned poster. To make matters worse, people are coding bots with poor-to-moderate AI making automated replies or posting new topics. To curve this problem, I suggest the board's staff implement the following:

• Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members
• Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign.
• Automatically ban users with too much negative rep
• Ban campaigns that are poorly managed

Having both a trust and a reputation/thanks system will give us a better picture as to who is spamming campaigns and who isn't. A rep system will allow the staff to get a quick glance who is contributing to the forum and who isn't. Other forums, such as BHW have done this and the spammy/meaningless replies/posts are minimized. These are my suggestions. Comments?

You have a great suggestion about restricting sig campaigns, and I think the details of your suggestion are also very good.  I try very hard to contribute something when I post, and it has always driven me nuts when people get paid to shitpost.  And if you're creative and talented enough to make a bot with AI to automatically post, just think how much you could add to the forum!  But no, people are 1) Lazy, and 2) Greedy. 

So I strenuously agree with this.  I wouldn't even change a word of how you suggested this.

Have to much negative point doesn't necessarily mean that you are a spammer or post low quality posts, right ? A good example is : Quickseller. I agree with your other suggestions, waiting to see more...

1. susceptible to abuse.
2. might work.
3. that will make scams/scammers indirectly moderated. I don't see the need for this as we can always add campaign that accept negative trusted users to [4].
4. might work.

I like the thanks button & rep feature though. just as long as it is not used for deciding who's constructive and who's not.

"Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members"

I think it would be good if all posts had up/down arrows on them you could click similar to reddit that users could use to vote on good and bad posts.

If you like the post and think it is quality then click up, if you feel that post is spamming click down. Next to where trust is displayed you could also display a post quality count that adds all the +1's and -1's for your score.

Then the sig campaigns would have the option to base there pay rate on the quality of the posts as apposed to just the quantity and rank.

And I would suggest that this needs to change.  Scammers don't need to be in signature campaigns--if they've done the community wrong, they should be sanctioned for it, within limits.  And I think whatever limits there are should be defined by staff.

If you make Full members the accounts that are the lowest but can still get signatures, they'll be alot more expensive than they already are. This price could in turn encourage the trade of accounts for signature campaigns, giving us MORE potential spammers.

I have some ideas.
First, signature campaign managers are "supposed" to be the ones who ban people from campaigns.
Second, signature campaigns should pay people based on the quality of their posts (not on number of posts).
Third, payments shouldn't be made for signature campaigns if they adopt one of the following strategies:
  • Posts must be more than 75 characters.
  • Posts must be more than 3 sentences
They should add another one for pots being on topic with the OP.

Finally, users should NOT be paid based on rank, but on loyalty to the campaign.
Example: a user should have their payment increase by, say, 5% per payment.

Or, there could be fixed payment systems (that paymore than payment per post, that are more efficient)

There are plenty of posts that are more high quality than those with 100 characters/10+ sentences. Oftentimes you'll see shitposters try and cover themselves up by rambling on over... and over... and over...


So a mediocre poster barely passing on through each period could be paid more than someone actually caring about what they're posting? Plus, it's discouraging campaigns to continue on for a while because those like Bit-X would be paying some people 200%+ the normal payment.

No.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.

That's just too paranoid; I don't think that this is going to happen. Some views are weird to me:"We're not doing anything -> let's complain about doing nothing"; "We could do something -> let's complain that it will do more harm"; ergo let's do nothing? We can't know until we try something out.

The kind of signatures you can have depends on the rank of the member. For higher ranks, they will have colour and bigger space.

Nope. I guess this would actually work a bit.
You only decrease the number of people who can wear signatures, and thereby reduce the number of potential spammers.

I think only fixed rate campaigns should allowed, pay per post campaigns makes more spam on forum.Everyone in rush to make posts because they get paid more when they post more but fixed campaigns will reduce spam on forum and users will make posts only that is good.

So what prevents me from creating 10 accounts and using each of them to make 20 posts per week instead of 200 posts with 1 account? Nothing. Let's move on; this idea won't work. This especially has no effect on the quality.

I'm not sure why the minimum requirement isn't at least Senior Member.

Good point. That's why I kept no slot for full members in my campaign.

In fact, implementing a parameter like "karma", similar to that available in Reddit would be great for demarcating quality posters. I hope it gets implemented on the new forum software.

But the fact that a trust system is here, would be useless if there's an auto ban for negative rep members. This is what I contradict from the above suggestions.

i only agree on the second point, is the best one to reduce the spam, but do it under senior member, and you will see a real spam decrease

I find it good to have a minimum amount of character and/or sentences!

After all, if your answer is too short, that means you add nothing to the thread. So that you shouldn't post at all.
That will limit spam, not only for sig campaign but for everything!
I like this idea a lot. But not the 3 sentences part cause sometimes you make just one super ultra fucking long sentence xD

Your post is false and longer than the usual cut-off limit, albeit adds nothing valuable to the thread. Let's follow your logic with an example:
According to you, this post adds nothing to the thread.  ::)
The length of a post has nothing to do with its quality. A post containing a few words can be much more valuable and accurate than one containing a hundred words. Stop supporting this illogical and harmful idea.

Well my answer added my support to this idea and launched a debate between you and me from which might emerge additionnal content and reflexion. So it was not that useless ^^

Your example is a good one indeed! You see here the Expert answered quickly to the newbie. And I'm willing to bet that this answer is not enough! But with the minimal of 75 characters maybe he would have taken the time to answer:

I believe this answer is more detailed and would probably help more (maybe my explanations are not the best, I'm not an expert ^^).

The main idea is if you create the necessity of the 75 characters, it will reduce spam (cause spamming sig campaign would become more expensive in time) and people would get used to answering in a more detailed way. Which can't be a bad thing in my opinion.

Wrong. Your answer is a straw-man. The newbie did not ask what a decentralized currency was nor how it works. He only asked 'is Bitcoin one'; that's a yes and no question that can be expanded, albeit it would be redundant in this case. Imposing a character limit will not reduce any sort of spam but would rather negatively effect users that contribute by excluding their constructive albeit short posts. Spammers would just re-write more of what others posted to get above the limit (pretty simple actually).

Nowadays it is a profitable trend to farm accounts and sell them or join them into a signature campaign.

That is where the majority of the shit posting come from and that is why I agree with Amph.

If you make signature campaigns only available for at least Sr Members, then 50% of the spam will be gone.

If you make signature campaigns only available for at least Hero Members, then 75% of the spam will be gone.

allow only full or senior member and above to join signature campaign and allowing only fixed rate campaign will reduce scam a lot.

You said
Yes you can create 10 account but can you make them all senior ? NO
if someone makes new account it will take them time to get senior rank where they will allowed to join signature campaign


these 2 things can control spam on forum

• Disallow eveyone under "Full or Senior Member" from joining a campaign.
• Disallow Pay Per Post signature campaigns.

someone explain to me why fixed rate sig campaign will decrease spam.
as I see it: pay per post with limit = can choose to post only when you want to. fixed rate with quota = have to force yourself to make XX number of posts if you want to get paid.
am I wrong?

normally fixed rate campaigns need 50-100 max posts per month
pay per post campaign you joined pay you for upto 640 posts per month

now see the difference yourself
fixed max 100 posts per month
your campaign max 640 posts per month

which one is more spammy?

IMO both are equally spammy because not all participants of pay per post campaigns makes 20+ posts a day.
and there's nothing stopping the fixed rate campaigns from increasing their quota for the super active users.

the solution for this is to limit the maximum number of counted post for all kinds of sig campaigns. there.


edited

Wouldn't say a straw-man, more like a deduction. He asks if Bitcoin is decentralized. That means he doesn't understand how it works, because if he understood how it works he wouldn't ask if bitcoin is decentralized as it's the obvious consequence of the way it was created.

Imposing a character is the same thing as putting a captcha before the faucets. It doesn't make it impossible to farm it, but it makes it more costly to farm it in an industrial way. And let's face the truth if you take all the messages of less than 75 characters I'm pretty sure 90% of them will be spamming answers. (Though I never did any stats of that it's just an impression :3 )

So you gave him a misleading and wrong answer that might result in more confusion in the future. Bitcoin is not Litecoin and some of the other things you wrote are at the very least misleading if not plain wrong. Its a great example that length does not equal quality.


No, it changes the message, a captcha does not.


Key presses are not expensive, valuable, constructive content is. Its expensive because it requires experience and or thought. Pressing buttons in itself does not. All you do is force button pressing.


Maybe, the majority of short answers are already lazy spam and worthless junk, but I dont think a higher number of symbols will change it. If anything it will change the noise to signal ratio to the worse.

Never said that length is similar to quality, that would be stupid of me!
But that a short answer can always be transformed into a longer one and you'll always have a better one. My answer is misleading you find? Maybe it's because I don't understand well the differences between cryptocurrencies or because I lack technical knowledge I don't know, but what's interesting it's that if my answer is more detailed, such incoherences will appear so other users will have the occasion to correct me.
I'll learn something and the user asking the original question will have more elements. It's a win-win for me :)

And key presses are expensive in time. I'm pretty sure lots of sig spammer posting only 20 characters answers or even less do it only because they want to maximize profit. I find it a good way to counter them is to put a base characters limit.

But you're right in the fact that contrary to captchas it does change the message. I just have the feeling it can't really change it in a bad way and can't think of a situation where it would be. Maybe I also lack imagination  :D

I don't want to waste too much time on the same thing. TL;Dr; length limits are a very bad workaround that really don't have an effect and can be easily cheated. The length of a post is not directly related to its quality. A very short post can be much more useful than a very long one. This is not happening, let's move on.

I think that it would be really effective if the limit was Sr. Member and above; there are already a lot of full members, albeit decreasing the spam for the newbies and jr. members would be good too.

No, but it is fairly easy to 'level-up' 10 accounts to the rank of a full member. Additionally they could just go and buy them all and start spamming.

Better in what sense if not in quality?


Yes, there is no scrypt in bitcoin.


I disagree.

I dont think you are correct.

I think your assumption is false and your conclusions are faulty.

None of these version costs me significant time to write. The thing that takes time is thinking about the answer and understanding your post. Neither is something you can enforce with requesting any number of symbols.


If you cant see how a long chain words that say nothing is bad, I cant help you.

ON the first place who can give the reputation and who cant ? I can find a user spamming with a legendary rank under his name and on the other hand a classic poster who is still a Member,What relation does an account rank has with post quality ?
Disregarding the possibility of abuse from sock puppet/alternate accounts the new system will again result in variety of group's supporting each other and fighting over it, just like ...........

Now,do you seriously think thermos has no other work ? IMO he simply ignores the thread if it's subject is related to spam.Be honest and say would it take more than 3 years of prolonging ? There are much bigger/important things to care of for those who have the cards.

Why ? because the owner doesn't has 12+ hours a day to waste them on creating a spreadsheet full of useless data and spying on users for 3 cents ?
They don't hire a guy for that because many people don't like dealing such silly drama and the mentality to establish dominion over other users,thus a bot helps & I don't think there should be any problem with that unless thermos is getting annoyed and wants them to come up with some alternatives.

Here we go again, arguing  abut how to stop the spam. And I will tel you this: you can't stop spam completely - not if you reached certain number of users and forum is very popular.
Even if you ban every signature campaign, spam posts are here to stay.

The only valid solution I found in this thread is: Allowing only Full member to join Signature Campaign.

The quality of a post does not depend on the length of it. For example "I like your project" is the same quality as "I like your project, I really like it, please keep up the good work admin". So the length doesn't really matter... And a restriction on length wouldn't necessarily help to cut spam.

+1 Dude you rock!







































 :D





















http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/images/4/49/Antispam.png/revision/latest?cb=20110316072453



<Back on topic>
A reputation/thanks system can be abused by the same people who are juggling multiple sock-puppets to milk the current system.
After allowing a "free market" for so long, how can you ever do anything else?

Wait... what do you think if someone befort use the reputation system must first pay a little fee (each reputation/thanks)? In this way we will avoid the various sock-puppets because it will be very expensive for their.

I'll say this one more time, and the reason behind someone's post is going to be obvious if they choose to ignore it. It is highly improbable that theymos is going to add another reputation system/replace the current one. One of the primary reasons for this is that people keep talking about better systems but are unable to propose one that is actually better (@all DT replacement proposals).

Which is basically what I've been arguing about in the thread.

This is horrible idea and would be flawed because people are flawed. The only way that it could maybe work if we implemented something very strict such as the way that Stack Overflow does.

So far after reading the replies in this thread, I have come to realize that there is not a lot more we can do to fix the spammer problem. Take away sig campaigns? Heroes go hungry and decent posts who post for the benefit would probably go down.  Blackhatworld imposes a bunch of rules and regulations suck as no links, signatures or offensive language being used (our equivalent being newbies asking for loans). I do like the 75 char minimum. Sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few with a signature campaign and not post nonsense.

It's is already fixed.

True,I would say you are definitely one of the top 3 poster's on forum.Keep up the good work.

It is not.
You can't be serious?

Nothing is preventing it now nor would it be prevented in that case. I'm saying that it would not work as it can be abused.

Anyone who posts because of the "benefit" is posting for the wrong reasons. I've been in favor of a ban for quite some time now.
I've already explained why that is a bad idea and so did Shorena.

Yes It Is.It's just that you need to keep on work, for it to remain fixed.

http://richestcelebrities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Morgan-Freeman-Net-Worth.jpeg

Well you could ban all gambling site promotions. :)

Actually they aren't too good for the rep. of Bitcoin.

I don't think you are noticing how much spam we're letting through, especially signature spam. I'm not surprised though. The issue is nowhere near of being "fixed".

That would only reduce the amount of posts that were concentrated in a single section. What about all the other ones?

Most signature campaign managers kick crappy posters out of their signature campaigns. If the people posting very poorly with low quality have no campaigns to join then this issue will go away.

Surely it's the signature campaign managers responsibility to the forum to police their posters?

Also most of the really low quality posters are Full Member & below so maybe signature campaigns should only allow Senior Member & above to represent them.

 

Edit/Delete your post already cause I got to know about bitcoin because of Gambling and of course nothing other than that can have such amount of influence,bitcoin must become a religion otherwise.

Time for a revolt against him ?

The issue will never go away cause who is going to judge ? if the community is going to, then there will be people saying Oh Fuck that is spam even if the post contains 50,000 words and is written in the most perfect English in the history of mankind while being on-topic.

The personal interest and experiences might change the opinion/decision of the guy judging.If a handful of people are doing that then there is no guarantee that it wont be bias and ignoring that there will be conflicts among them too.
If theymos gets mad and starts banning the Siggers then maybe but that's a different story.

Rank Racism ? Do you know master-P was trading/dealing/farming/Trust abusing with Level 2 accounts since years,do you know what that means ? how many Level 1's are bought or are alt's ? Hence, the Logic is flawed.

I do like the payment and the contribution I am making to this forum.

My 75% char minimum by Yobit is quite good and satisfying to know you get 0.001BTC for posting 5 posts on the forum.

Pay monthly/weekly are not very good though (ou still have to post a certain amount and some will probably end up posting 100 nonsensical messages at the end of the month in order to get payments of more than 0.04BTC for established members!

Isn't just banning the spammers a better solution?

We can also make up a set of general guidelines for signature campaigns like discouraging rules like having minimum x amounts of characters in a post, and encouraging incentives that encourage better quality posts. Encourage fixed rate campaigns over pay per post.

Members of the community should not over stress the earnings component of a post. (Many respectable members of the community does not wear a paid signature.) No posts should be made simply because the person is participating in the campaign but because he wants to post, share his/her views, join the discussion.

There are so many problems with signature campaigns it's unbelievable. We can't ban sigs either because legit users need money. This forum is in such a quagmire.

That's a bad reason. How about they actually get a job?

How is it a solution? The staff has been banning spammers for years. Do you see any improvement? It is an endless fight if we only resort to banning.

I agree with guidelines but don't agree with the number of characters in a post. We have already demonstrated on a small example why a short post can be constructive. I'd say introduce maximum number of posts/users per campaign and minimum rank required to join a campaign. This should somewhat reduce the spam.

FTFY
BTW, now that I think of it, even my own argument that many people would leave bitcointalk if short posts or signatures aren't allowed, seems stupid, seeing how well Quora is doing. Not much logical thinkers in bitcoin community I guess

If you want to lower spam you must talk with campaign managers.
 They must decrease number of posts per day or per week. I think best number is around 5 posts per day maximum.
This is best solution.
You also have lot of spam and without signatures am i right?


Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign. +1

Not correct at all,  Spammer with sig. ad > Spammer without sig. ad   ,  I think we can agree about this or no ?





I think you are a 'Member'  ;D , so why have you voted for || Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign. +1 || ?

From my standpoint i can wait till i become full member.(2x14 days from 02.16.)
But problem with spam will be regulated only with reduction of number allowed posts.
So all is at management of S.C. and forum staffs.

But i hope this witch hunt will stop.
I don't like to be member and at the same time second-class citizen.
My opinion is always wrong as i am lower ranked member.

Proposition:
To be banned from signatures (no matter what sig) for some time, open topic of  shame and add users who are deliberately spamming.
Punish them:
( like sentenced 30,60,90 days) and if he continue using sig. during sentence - ban

First time caught 30 days forbidding using signatures.
Second time 60 days and simple warning about possible ban.
Third time 90 days and warning before banning

After this no much talks, multiple crimes permban

What do you think?
This will be cure for many and end of road for some..

The current bans (ban from posting, not just removal of signature) are harsher than what you are proposing, but have still not stopped spamming.
What makes you think your measures will be effective?

If you ban someone he will create new account simply.

If you sentence someone he can't do nothing until..everyone like to get second chance this is psychology.
This is like vaccination you'll immunize system from within.

Imagine if you got banned from signature you wont be able to post 30 day and be paid,
also every other (yours) alt accounts related will be more careful be sure in this!

Also he wont be able to sell it because he is on list of shame..so there will be less scams.

Admins can and would, find and ban the alts if they put effort into it. What makes you think, admins will put effort into what you propose?

It is very simply and one topic will blow all those spammings.
One good manager as Shorena or you Mexxer can accomplish this task..
This is best punishment, signature is illness they must cure illness.
+
Under full member not allowed in campaigns.


edit:
Member caught date 02.15.. sentence first time 30 days by banning from signatures.
And if you caught him using signature during sentence BAN!
After sentence is ended he is free but he will be more careful in future..
Or he will sell his account, but everyone will have chance to see this topic before buying.
Believe me 50% of spam caused by signatures will vanish buy first 30 days of trial period.

How this work?
Easy don't ban people make an example..And when people realise how many fuders and spammers are caught they will stop this madness. System used till now is good but there is no lessons learned and examples for others members of forum..

second edit:
This is cheaper solution that don't involve many staff for hunt.
I believe this is probably most fer system where you can employ one or two members of forum for caring all this and other staffs only need to watch and arbitrage situations if needed to prevent abuse..
Everyone can report spam and everyone can defend himself and improve.

Well, I'm quite tolerable in terms of sig spam. Although I'd expect half the people to be banned if the limit for a ban, I believe , would've been implemented. Also pretty sure Shorena wouldn't spend his time witch-hunting for spammers.

Some things I guess, have to be tolerated(upto a certain extent)

Much spam comes from 20 posts per day.. or more.. Just quit this practice paying per day and per post.
Best is paying per week or per month.
Number of posts must not be over 5 paid posts per day.

All is on managers and Admins..

What are you basing these numbers on? Are you trying to tell me that nobody is able to make more than 5 highly contructive posts per day? If so, then this is a case of faulty generalization. Take for example Shorena. Should we punish them and reduce their payout just because 99% of other people are spamming in signature campaigns? If we're going to put up limits then the limits have to be right.

You're weak; my cat does not like weak people. I'd start with a 1 year signature removal with the first ban.

Many posters are here only because of paid posts not like Shorena.
I think many can post quality posts but this is only opportunity for those with bad intent..
If you limit paid posts you will get more quality. At least you will have 4x less posts.
I don't mind if you ban someone for a year, but ban him from signature if we talk about signature spam!

I've learned to accept that things won't change here, which is why I do the least I can do, report the worst of the spammers.

That would make a good speech phrase, but seriously no ones gives a damn right now, the ones who do either themselves wear the signature or have left a the community long ago.

Aand another point for mesmer speech. Mesmer -1 Cat -1(Strength)

So the solution is to punish people like Shorena because of the people with bad intentions? That's not really the right way forward. Either we remove them completely or work out a really good set of restrictions.

I didn't say ban them for a year, I said remove their signature for a year.

There won't be many changes if the community does not do anything.

You're saying that we should give up?

Understand this, I do not.

Managers of those campaigns must find better solutions for validation of members and their posts.
Shorena shouldn't be paid as others, posts history can determine price for example.
 So more you give more you get..

I don't see the end if you hunt people and punishing them for posting low quality.
Try to stimulate people through system of rewards, and disqualifications from game.
You have here clear example: of math:

(number of posts/day)*number of days = low quality from majority.
( pay/week)+bonus for quality =quality improving
pay per month based on quality = clear quality

They already have limits per week or month..

Give me  0.01 or more  ;D  per week and i will give you quality, if not good buy..
So i must prove to management of S.C. that my post are worth something.

*Cough* The sig spammers are "the community"

Considering the authority doesn't want to do anything about it, just bickering among ourselves for sure won't solve the problem

So what, i can still spam those 5 posts if i have to ? and 5 spam posts from 50k people is like 250000 spam posts a day.Do you think this is going to work ?

Many of the reputed people around were banned in their past and some even multiple times.People get banned and they learn to post.It's just a forum with people.Pupil are not even losing their shoes dirt.This is just overrated.

The Community ? The Revolution ? The Change ? The Apocalypse ? -- just stop dreaming and start thinking :)

Then how do we show we are better than them  :P :P :P  I don't want to be a human , I am GOD  >:(

Well I tried it with reporting users, from the way it was received I'd say I did something of significance.

I think that definitely helped to clean up a bunch of those Off-Topic, 2 word spammers, but it seems that new spammers continually pop up even as the old ones are banned. Seems that the most problematic campaigns are the massive ones (like Yo-Bit) where there is very little or no policing of posts going on - I think that's the real root of the problem. If they did some manual work looking at the post history of some of their participants, and removing the spamming participants on their own that would benefit all of us.

Maybe alt's of the old banned users ?

Why should they ? It's not their job.

How ?

Well they did hire hilarious for signature campaign managing, so... any new spammers are on him I guess

The problem is deciding whether to reward for posting, or post for rewards. Thequality of posting can be different for each. You also have to consider the economics of running the forum, If its income isderived from ppi, then spammers help the board, but not if they drive away quality members. The answer could be heavy modding for the tech and information boards, and a more relaxed attitude to some of the other boards.

That's fair, but it gives their site a poor reputation. After seeing users spamming posts while wearing signatures of websites, I'm definitely not interested in visiting or using the site being advertised. I suspect there are other people who would feel the same way about this.

Do you appreciate reading through threads when a good portion of the posts are spam or make no sense? I don't, and often that's what signature campaign spammers seem to do. If you cut down on the spamming signature campaign participants, I think you'd be cutting down on these sort of spam posts too. Obviously not all of them, but a good chunk of them.

Since when the signatures are being run for reputation.Every withdrawal or typical problems reported by users on yobit has been sorted out pretty quickly.I would say the guy is active and the exchange is not a scam to this time.

I don't think that is a wise decision cause there is more than 60,000 btc trade volume on Polo and pretty huge on Trex too, but i don't see their signatures at all ? Do you think that betcoinTM,Polo,Trex owner's are going to visit the forum to police the posts ?

The company's advertising manger could be a lazy guy or something similar but there is no point to judge their brand based on that.Sometimes the owner might not even know what the manger is doing or where he is promoting.

No I don't ,but it is not my job to read those posts cause i have a right to ignore them or even the whole board.Why should i involve myself into that ? I might report if someone is abusing terribly or wrong sectioning, other than that PAID staff is there.

This is very inspiring but it is less helpful.

This is what i'm talking about you won't accomplish anything with this.
But managers can and must.

Yes this is their responsibility in majority cases!

Yes this is why they have managers for campaign and they must take justice in their hands, instead they do nothing at the moment..They are paid i think. If they don't have managers they must hire some.

Conclusion?

@Mexxer
You could be great supervisor for those signatures campaigns?
You could be paid from managers, as "quality checker" for what you are doing now, i suppose?
 ;)

I did offer my services as a campaign manager, no site would be interested in quality campaigns however(except ones run by zengry and Carra) as most favor quantity for sticking their ads up your face. Nothing will change unless administration(forum) decides to make it strict. Personally Quora's rules seem awesome

What is inspiring ?

I said that because reputation and spam are two separate things.

So Quoraing instead of Signaturing ?

I was sarcastic. I don't know why alway someone must say things like you did ?

We just talking about this, and i think we all can contribute solving this problem.
I don't know what is that? An how this is going to help?

Just see any thread/post in Quora and tell me if thats not the type of posts you want to see.

Its too awesome to speak of in one post, here: https://www.quora.com/What-are-major-policies-and-guidelines-on-Quora

That is absolute nonsense and ironic coming from a Yobit campaigner.  You can certainly make 20 constructive posts and more per day if--and this is a big if--you take your time and think about what you're writing.   But a lot of posters obviously don't.   But that doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means some folks are lazy and like to do the absolute minimum ( or less).

Many of us are trying to give more than 50 characters in posts..
And English is not my native, and much time i have grammar in my hands..
(As member i can accumulate about 1$ per 20 posts, i wont tell you how much time is needed for this. Is this worth of it?)
But i enjoy talking to others so i can learn more and also contribute to topic.
That's my motives.
Thanks.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-07-11-1436583300-383638-willsmithpursuithappiness-thumb.gif

Start the mission,let me see where you can take this  :-\

I don't think i'm on the mission and i certainly won't be persistent furthermore.
just tried to talk about practical things. Admins will take care for this anyway.

i like that idea and i think that it could work
but what if there was a captcha that you had to answer after every x amount of posts
that could eliminate the automated bots at least

Trust feature is enough and high ranking members will farm that thanks system as if right now, they were farming their trust by using it to send unnecessary and nonsense feedbacks to the members if the post they saw was not fitted to them. I hate that kind of members.

Almost all of the signature campaign right now do not accept members with negative trust.

My suggestion was to have a captcha for posting to lessen the bots and without removing the post duration restriction.

This could be very annoying. I don't like this idea.
Yes this could be end for most of bots, but i will "survive" if something like this become mandatory.

The bots only post 1-3 posts until they are nuked, they have to solve a captcha to register a new account. I dont think its a solution.

I don't think you understand the situation on the forum well. You should avoid posting in such threads and focus on reading. The fight against signature campaign spammers is going on for a few years.

This effectively does nothing. It is quite rare for a bot to go unnoticed for a longer period of time.

You should be rewarded for posting. Once you start posting for the rewards the likelihood of a ban increases significantly.

But that is what the forum moderator does, he deletes posts that are irrelevant and considered as spam. I do not see low quality posts in the ones I've been reading thus far.

Don't forget that the different membership tiers also encourage spam! People trying to get their postcount up to be able to put better signatures / make more BTC off the signature campaigns

One post a day is hardly spam in itself. Rank do not increase based on the post count, but on activity. Since activity is capped at 14 every 14 days I dont see your point here.

If anything, the different membership tiers discourage spam. Higher ranked members make more from signature campaigns. You wouldn't want a hero account (for which you have put in a lot off effort) to get banned. You wouldn't care if a newbie account gets banned.