|
Title: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: TheBeardedBaby on September 08, 2019, 09:01:15 AM The cat and mouse game with the thread bumper continues now with the fake conversations.
After the bump-and-deleted situation, the multiple newbie alts spam, they always find anoter way to keep polluting the forum and get paid for it. Here is the last example in the Services Ann section. ★ Coinsbit.io - Cryptocurrency Exchange (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4971628.0) I have more than 300 good reports solely for the past 3 days from this thread. 3-4 Full-Sr. Members are talking about the weather, new news and all other things than the exchange itself. Even if I get the posts deleted after a few hours, they have already bumped the thread. How can we fight them now?? Please add some kind of temporary ban for those accounts. Like ban then from posting in that section for a two weeks or something. It's just ridiculous how they go around with it. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: Sharon121212 on September 08, 2019, 09:20:17 AM Firstly those notorious users can be placed on you ignore list as first measure to tackling it.
I have just gone through the thread and I can see you brought their notice to something Quote You were warned a few times from the community, now the forum took some actions against the useless conversations here. This was just the first wave of spam cleaning, there are more to come. Read the forum rules! > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 OP should be in control of there Ann thread and always monitor it(like deleting irrelevant reply) if not the whole thread would be deleted this would put them on their toes Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: dkbit98 on September 08, 2019, 09:38:33 AM Totaly agree with @iasenko
Same person with farmed accounts talking to himself. TEMP BAN is needed, or some other restriction for Newbie users. Recently I saw same thing on one of my Topics with this members: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2657070 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2645954 It is connected with many other accounts I reported to moderators... Few more: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2665632 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2643589 Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: Bttzed03 on September 08, 2019, 09:48:49 AM They are bought or hacked accounts. They don't even care about the feedback left by adolfinwolf. No one has reported the thread for allowing incentivized posting yet?
Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: xolxol on September 08, 2019, 10:19:42 AM you cant fight them maggot,theymos wont stop these spammers because they are the reasons why bitcointalk.org has a lot o traffics.Theres no existing spam-free forum FYI.
Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: LoyceV on September 08, 2019, 11:51:31 AM Here is the last example in the Services Ann section. I'll list posts from remaining users:★ Coinsbit.io - Cryptocurrency Exchange (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4971628.0) Quote Even if I get the posts deleted after a few hours, they have already bumped the thread. I don't think that's going to matter much, if they run out of Full Member accounts, they can continue with an unlimited number of Newbies.How can we fight them now?? Please add some kind of temporary ban for those accounts. Like ban then from posting in that section for a two weeks or something. It's just ridiculous how they go around with it. I'd be in favour of permbanning them though, especially if they're hacked accounts. At least it clears the pool of higher ranking spammers. The list The following users have posted x times in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4971628.0 This does not mean they're all bad users. Merit is based on last Friday's data dump (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3078328.new#new). I only show Merit if there has been at least 1 transaction. If it shows 0 Merit, that means the user has sent Merit, but didn't receive anything. Trust is only shown if it's non-neutral. 1. 255x (Full Member) OmDaN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1098615) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1098615) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1098615.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=OmDaN)) 2. 240x (Sr. Member) JollyGood (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1016855) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1016855) +3 / =0 / -0) (89 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1016855.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=JollyGood)) 3. 177x (Sr. Member) Crypto_Boss (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=900857) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=900857) +0 / =0 / -1) (5 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/900857.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Crypto_Boss)) 4. 173x (Full Member) Dorvei (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=825838) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=825838) +0 / =0 / -1) (10 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/825838.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Dorvei)) 5. 158x (Full Member) kypbep (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1113183) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1113183) +0 / =0 / -1) (8 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1113183.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=kypbep)) 6. 138x (Sr. Member) LilitKha (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1014849) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1014849) +0 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1014849.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=LilitKha)) 7. 112x (Full Member) sashu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1175031) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1175031) +0 / =0 / -1) (19 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1175031.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=sashu)) 8. 60x (Jr. Member) COINSBIT.IO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2419450) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2419450) +0 / =1 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2419450.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=COINSBIT.IO)) 9. 48x (Sr. Member) 1977Vlad (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=105089) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=105089) +0 / =0 / -2) (3 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/105089.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=1977Vlad)) 10. 17x (Member) 11. 16x (Newbie) 12. 16x (Member) oficman (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1232342) (0 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1232342.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=oficman)) 13. 16x (Legendary) AdolfinWolf (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=877396) (532 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/877396.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=AdolfinWolf)) 14. 10x (Member) 15. 9x (Member) ZloiRediska (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1265394) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1265394) +0 / =0 / -1) (12 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1265394.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=ZloiRediska)) 16. 9x (Member) 17. 9x (Member) 18. 9x (Member) 19. 8x (Full Member) 20. 8x (Full Member) 21. 7x (Member) gansbit (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1077369) (0 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1077369.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=gansbit)) 22. 7x (Jr. Member) 23. 6x (Newbie) 24. 6x (Jr. Member) m1xmee (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1805081) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1805081) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1805081.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=m1xmee)) 25. 6x (Jr. Member) 26. 6x (Jr. Member) 27. 6x (Copper Member) konungbarber (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2393536) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=konungbarber)) 28. 5x (Newbie) 29. 5x (Jr. Member) 30. 5x (Jr. Member) 31. 5x (Jr. Member) 32. 5x (Jr. Member) 33. 5x (Jr. Member) 34. 5x (Jr. Member) 35. 5x (Jr. Member) 36. 5x (Jr. Member) 37. 5x (Jr. Member) 38. 4x (Sr. Member) 39. 4x (Member) 40. 4x (Jr. Member) Sevreki (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2258677) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2258677) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2258677.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Sevreki)) 41. 4x (Jr. Member) 42. 4x (Jr. Member) 43. 3x (Member) XiMiK1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2223956) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2223956) +0 / =0 / -1) (10 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2223956.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=XiMiK1)) 44. 3x (Member) Adpump ICO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1170628) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1170628) +0 / =0 / -2) (0 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1170628.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Adpump ICO)) 45. 3x (Jr. Member) Dinosaurhaus (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=511399) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=511399) +0 / =0 / -1) (2 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/511399.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Dinosaurhaus)) 46. 3x (Jr. Member) Tamandrac (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2258644) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2258644) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2258644.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Tamandrac)) 47. 3x (Jr. Member) Fedianex (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2258576) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2258576) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2258576.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Fedianex)) 48. 3x (Jr. Member) Garahain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2246313) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2246313) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2246313.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Garahain)) 49. 3x (Jr. Member) 50. 3x (Jr. Member) 51. 3x (Jr. Member) 52. 3x (Full Member) scherbachek (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=644332) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=644332) +0 / =0 / -1) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=scherbachek)) 53. 2x (Sr. Member) Tearz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=369932) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Tearz)) 54. 2x (Newbie) Emily2H (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31109) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Emily2H)) 55. 2x (Newbie) uli1965 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1273184) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=uli1965)) 56. 2x (Newbie) 57. 2x (Newbie) 58. 2x (Newbie) 59. 2x (Newbie) 60. 2x (Newbie) 61. 2x (Legendary) TryNinja (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=557798) (961 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/557798.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=TryNinja)) 62. 2x (Jr. Member) undisclosed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25502) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=25502) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/25502.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=undisclosed)) 63. 2x (Jr. Member) coinman76 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2337381) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2337381.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=coinman76)) 64. 2x (Jr. Member) Ondrakel (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2328872) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2328872) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2328872.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Ondrakel)) 65. 2x (Jr. Member) Phileste (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2252895) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2252895) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2252895.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Phileste)) 66. 2x (Jr. Member) Salichex (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2222295) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2222295) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2222295.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Salichex)) 67. 2x (Jr. Member) 68. 2x (Jr. Member) 69. 2x (Hero Member) stomachgrowls (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=815243) (45 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/815243.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=stomachgrowls)) 70. 1x (Sr. Member) dkbit98 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1410401) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1410401) +1 / =0 / -0) (288 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1410401.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=dkbit98)) 71. 1x (Newbie) fedorow (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=398945) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=fedorow)) 72. 1x (Newbie) micoz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2659970) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=micoz)) 73. 1x (Newbie) SweetyFairy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2643558) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=SweetyFairy)) 74. 1x (Newbie) MartyMoriarty (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2643556) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=MartyMoriarty)) 75. 1x (Newbie) GrettaOil (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2642379) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=GrettaOil)) 76. 1x (Newbie) YanaKay (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2642369) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=YanaKay)) 77. 1x (Newbie) VladCoinstelegram (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2627734) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=VladCoinstelegram)) 78. 1x (Newbie) ali.hyu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2606533) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=ali.hyu)) 79. 1x (Newbie) Dave.mm (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2604409) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Dave.mm)) 80. 1x (Newbie) cryptobooya (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2499604) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=cryptobooya)) 81. 1x (Newbie) tmk_w (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2449812) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=tmk_w)) 82. 1x (Newbie) youngmoolye (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2430740) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=youngmoolye)) 83. 1x (Newbie) WinLikeStupid (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1156304) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=WinLikeStupid)) 84. 1x (Newbie) 85. 1x (Newbie) 86. 1x (Newbie) 87. 1x (Member) ChakDeFatte (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1250950) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=ChakDeFatte)) 88. 1x (Member) 89. 1x (Member) 90. 1x (Member) 91. 1x (Legendary) SFR10 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=521899) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=521899) +16 / =0 / -0) (200 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/521899.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=SFR10)) 92. 1x (Legendary) felicita (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=493181) (31 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/493181.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=felicita)) 93. 1x (Legendary) Patatas (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=385855) (105 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/385855.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Patatas)) 94. 1x (Jr. Member) Stnev89 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8408) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8408) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/8408.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Stnev89)) 95. 1x (Jr. Member) h3llo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78634) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=78634) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/78634.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=h3llo)) 96. 1x (Jr. Member) _Anonimus_ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507557) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=507557) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/507557.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=_Anonimus_)) 97. 1x (Jr. Member) Caliesnat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2252896) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2252896) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2252896.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Caliesnat)) 98. 1x (Jr. Member) 99. 1x (Jr. Member) 100. 1x (Jr. Member) 101. 1x (Jr. Member) 102. 1x (Jr. Member) 103. 1x (Hero Member) dopey (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=193769) (6 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/193769.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=dopey)) 104. 1x (Hero Member) iasenko (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1291828) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1291828) +4 / =0 / -0) (1189 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1291828.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=iasenko)) 105. 1x (Full Member) TheWolf666 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1099056) (102 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1099056.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=TheWolf666)) Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: hilariousandco on September 08, 2019, 12:42:45 PM I banned Dorvei & Crypto_Boss. This is one of the things that should be looked into by an admin but it likely won't.
Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: suchmoon on September 08, 2019, 12:53:39 PM I'm also reporting a bunch of them although that seems utterly pointless. No offense to the mods - they're doing their job - but what really needs to happen is a change in bumping (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5082936.0) that would make these "conversations" no longer effective. There are a few very proficient bumping circles, probably service-for-hire type of thing. I did catch some of these users with plagiarism but they'll just come back with new accounts since rank/activity/merit/etc doesn't really matter here.
Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: DaveF on September 08, 2019, 02:10:54 PM I posted something similar about fake conversations with sig spammers last month:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5164260.msg52191148#msg52191148 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5164260.msg52191148#msg52191148) Yes I am a hypocrite since I am wearing a sig and posting here, but looking through other bumped threads it is very similar. So, instead of a sig, if they get $0.25 a bump and you have 4 accounts that are all you talking to each other it's easy to make a couple of dollars an hour talking about the weather. You can ban sigs, you can't ban bumping. You can't even slow it down w/o permabans and more mods. The other issue remains of if you penalize threads that have more then a certain percentage of removed posts, how quickly will people message bomb threads they don't like with newbie disposable accounts to hurt the OP of the thread. No idea on a good solution other than more mods removing messages and more bans but as I said above. If I they can't make money bumping, they might go away. -Dave Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: LogitechMouse on September 08, 2019, 02:11:31 PM What if just delete the thread completely to prevent these spammers to bump the stupid thread? Isn't it possible?
Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: TheBeardedBaby on September 08, 2019, 02:13:06 PM I banned Dorvei & Crypto_Boss. This is one of the things that should be looked into by an admin but it likely won't. Great but what about the others? It's just a matter of time the other "suspects" to join the conversation... I'm talking about : 1. 255x (Full Member) OmDaN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1098615) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1098615) +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1098615.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=OmDaN)) 6. 138x (Sr. Member) LilitKha (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1014849) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1014849) +0 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1014849.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=LilitKha)) 7. 112x (Full Member) sashu The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis... 2. 240x (Sr. Member) JollyGood (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1016855) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1016855) +3 / =0 / -0) (89 Merit earned (history (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1016855.html))) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=JollyGood)) Note: some of the user info format is taken from LoyceV's post :) Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on September 08, 2019, 02:19:04 PM Firstly those notorious users can be placed on you ignore list as first measure to tackling it. I would agree with you except I do think these idiotic posts should be reported. It's still very annoying to pull up a thread and see that most of the posts in it are people on your ignore list--and that's exactly what's going to happen in the future if these posts aren't reported and no action is taken. Only on bitcointalk do you see these types of shenanigans. I've never seen a forum where people utilize multiple accounts in order to hold a fake conversation among them. It's almost a LOL, except it's really annoying. I banned Dorvei & Crypto_Boss. Nice. Haven't seen you around lately, and it's good to see you haven't disappeared.Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: LoyceV on September 08, 2019, 02:38:07 PM The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis... JollyGood is very persistent in posting many times to expose a scam. I don't think he gets paid for bumping the threads.Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: DireWolfM14 on September 08, 2019, 02:52:32 PM JollyGood is very persistent in posting many times to expose a scam. I don't think he gets paid for bumping the threads. I don't want to speak for iasenko, but I don't think he is accusing JollyGood of being a participant in the bumping scheme. I think what iasenko is saying is that JollyGood's efforts might be counter productive by giving the scammers someone legit to argue with and instigate. I tend to agree; the best thing to do in situations like that is to report the offenders and post as infrequently as possible in the thread. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: The Cryptovator on September 08, 2019, 02:52:46 PM My most of good report from that kind of thread. But lately I am not reporting much (also I have lack of time) because even there is obvious spam admin not encourage to temp ban. At least spammer could learn from it and spam will stop for a week by that user. Because when someone will get temp ban then he will be careful next time. If I am not wrong I have proposed temp ban for that kind of user. Reporting them is one kind of useless activity since thread already bumped and that user could bump it again. So I believe there should be some restrictions.
Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: marlboroza on September 08, 2019, 04:39:44 PM The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis... I talked privately with JollyGood last year and I can tell you that I am pretty sure that he is not doing that, although his methods are strange. Btw, these fuckers are sending army of their shills when someone ask them legit questions, I remember one thread (I will have to find it, can't really remember which one it was), I asked them few questions and bunch of accounts start spamming thread, I was reporting them in real time to moderator (they posted some crap and I instantly reported them) and eventually I gave up (maybe I reported whole thread afterwards, can't remember, it was a year ago). It's just like a defensive mechanism, call them scam and they will "hide" your post, if you know what I mean... Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: Lucius on September 08, 2019, 04:41:48 PM How can we fight them now?? Please add some kind of temporary ban for those accounts. Like ban then from posting in that section for a two weeks or something. It's just ridiculous how they go around with it. What about temporary freezing of account (automatic by forum) if users is reported for spam more then x/xx times in one day? But to prevent abuse only selected users report could automatically freeze someone account until mods decide what to do with it. This is not something that exists, but perhaps it could be implemented in new forum. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: TheBeardedBaby on September 08, 2019, 05:06:32 PM The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis... JollyGood is very persistent in posting many times to expose a scam. I don't think he gets paid for bumping the threads.I do not accuse him because I didn't have time to look at his post history but referring to his positive trust ratings I assumed he was from the "good side". I didn't reported any oh his posts. But again 200+ posts in this thread is a bit suspicious even though he has a positive trust rating. My other assumption was if the spammers/bumpers have one "good" account just to fight with and make kind of legit bumps. This should not be the case with JollyGood just that's where I got the idea from. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: dkbit98 on September 08, 2019, 05:09:08 PM What about temporary freezing of account (automatic by forum) if users is reported for spam more then x/xx times in one day? But to prevent abuse only selected users report could automatically freeze someone account until mods decide what to do with it. This is not something that exists, but perhaps it could be implemented in new forum. This looks like something from Sci-Fi movies... ;D and even if I would like to see this integrated in forum, I don't think it is probable. People are slow in making changes, and forums even slower. https://i.imgur.com/7Hyatl1.png Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: coinlocket$ on September 08, 2019, 06:47:52 PM If you have time to spend you may also want to look at those accounts.
They were old account bumper to create fake conversations, some of them can be now banned or sold. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3063184.msg31554397#msg31554397 Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: otrkid1970 on September 08, 2019, 06:56:14 PM Just nuke the thread and be done with it.
Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: TheBeardedBaby on September 08, 2019, 07:18:13 PM Just nuke the thread and be done with it. If everything was that easy... I would love to get it trashed but you need a proof that those accounts are really connected to the service otherwise you are just shooting in the dark. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: marlboroza on September 08, 2019, 09:59:27 PM Just nuke the thread and be done with it. If everything was that easy... I would love to get it trashed but you need a proof that those accounts are really connected to the service otherwise you are just shooting in the dark. If they are not reporting spam they are very likely using bumping service. It doesn't need to be trashed, just locked for few days. If "they do it again", it can always be locked for more days and this would make payed bump services pointless. It can be done like this: 1) report thread which you suspect it is being bumped by "fake" accounts 2) don't report spam accounts 3) let moderator do the rest of the job If they continue doing so - trash it. Less work for everyone. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: TheBeardedBaby on September 09, 2019, 05:32:53 AM Just nuke the thread and be done with it. If everything was that easy... I would love to get it trashed but you need a proof that those accounts are really connected to the service otherwise you are just shooting in the dark. If they are not reporting spam they are very likely using bumping service. It doesn't need to be trashed, just locked for few days. If "they do it again", it can always be locked for more days and this would make payed bump services pointless. It can be done like this: 1) report thread which you suspect it is being bumped by "fake" accounts 2) don't report spam accounts 3) let moderator do the rest of the job If they continue doing so - trash it. Less work for everyone. Thanks, I've tried that as well but my report was marked as good but the thread is still open, so I decided to focus on the spammers instead because I see no other option. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: LoyceV on September 09, 2019, 09:29:43 AM If they are not reporting spam they are very likely using bumping service. It doesn't need to be trashed, just locked for few days. If "they do it again", it can always be locked for more days and this would make payed bump services pointless. The risk of doing this is that it can be abused to lock a competitor's thread. It's virtually impossible to prove OP is the one who hired the bumping "service".Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: tmfp on September 09, 2019, 11:15:41 AM I gave up reporting this type of abuse a while ago. Sometimes I noticed that between making the report and it being actioned, pages of further crap had been posted. On some threads where I think there is a risk of a very questionable scheme's bumping service actually succeeding in boosting credibility, I periodically post summaries of the spam and a warning about it, but rarely go to the lengths that JollyGood has on the basis that Never wrestle with a pig. You get covered in shit and the pig enjoys it. This is one of the things that should be looked into by an admin but it likely won't. This. If the senior management of the forum doesn't consider the thousands upon thousands of spam posts being made (solely to distort visitors' perception of the popularity of usually dubious schemes) to be a threat to the forum's credibility, then this conclusion seems inevitable Quote theymos wont stop these spammers because they are the reasons why bitcointalk.org has a lot o traffics. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: dkbit98 on September 09, 2019, 12:09:24 PM If the senior management of the forum doesn't consider the thousands upon thousands of spam posts being made (solely to distort visitors' perception of the popularity of usually dubious schemes) to be a threat to the forum's credibility, then this conclusion seems inevitable Yet they consider a spam opening new general topic in Local forum... where is the logic there I wonder ? Talking more about it seems futile and energy wasting Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: Bitlover10 on September 09, 2019, 04:09:40 PM I would like to mention this ann thread too which have a same position... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182833.msg52395669#msg52395669
Lot of spam going on their. So many newbies accounts making low quality post their and I wonder that OP of that thread is the staff member on this forum. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: nutildah on September 09, 2019, 04:37:30 PM I got sick of it the cheesy thread bumper army being deployed by this company (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5160199.0), so I started tagging them for scam promotion (as it turns out a couple of projects they were hired by were indeed scams, as probably are most others who hire them), and lo and behold, they stopped posting with them. And started posting under other accounts. I haven't checked up on them recently but my policy is any time I see one of their accounts with a post county above 40, I tag it.
The weirdest part is, they don't create new accounts. They bought a batch of 200 or so with little-to-no activity and creation dates between 2012 and 2018. At least a couple projects have fired them probably over my making a regular stink about it. Spammers-for-hire just annoy me. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: JollyGood on September 10, 2019, 10:47:58 AM The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis... JollyGood is very persistent in posting many times to expose a scam. I don't think he gets paid for bumping the threads.I think it is my persistence in posting many times to counter the scam post that maybe raised a few eyebrows of suspicion towards me. As for those that know me, I do not get paid for bumping threads however I did receive two very kind donations from users who I helped during their fight when they were scammed. One fortunately receive all of his funds back and he made a donation to many people that helped in his thread, even after I declined to receive it he insisted to send it. The other, unfortunately is still waiting for his funds to be returned but insisted on sending me a donation and I accepted. Apart from those two donations received which were as a thank you for helping in their fight, I have never been paid to do anything and if I was offered money to bump threads I would decline and report the user. JollyGood is very persistent in posting many times to expose a scam. I don't think he gets paid for bumping the threads. I don't want to speak for iasenko, but I don't think he is accusing JollyGood of being a participant in the bumping scheme. I think what iasenko is saying is that JollyGood's efforts might be counter productive by giving the scammers someone legit to argue with and instigate. I tend to agree; the best thing to do in situations like that is to report the offenders and post as infrequently as possible in the thread. I completely agree with you. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. In future I would probably not post so often in a scam thread and rather post a few times here and there to highlight it as a scam (or potential scam) and just report it. Maybe posting in the scam threads can be seen as counter-productive especially if sock-puppets pounce and start "conversations" and "debates" and try to legitimise their scam, therefore I will change my approach. I appreciate the comments. The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis... I talked privately with JollyGood last year and I can tell you that I am pretty sure that he is not doing that, although his methods are strange. Btw, these fuckers are sending army of their shills when someone ask them legit questions, I remember one thread (I will have to find it, can't really remember which one it was), I asked them few questions and bunch of accounts start spamming thread, I was reporting them in real time to moderator (they posted some crap and I instantly reported them) and eventually I gave up (maybe I reported whole thread afterwards, can't remember, it was a year ago). It's just like a defensive mechanism, call them scam and they will "hide" your post, if you know what I mean... I was and still am grateful for the advice you gave me when I needed help. You have my total respect. Yes my methods might be somewhat strange or unorthodox but I have taken on-board the comments in this thread and will change the way I try to expose scammers. Regarding the army of shills episode you mentioned, the same technique is commonly applied by so many scammers. The forum is full of "projects" that claim to be genuine but have a team of sock-puppets. In the case of coinsbit they ensured none of the sock-puppets posted in the p2pb2b thread because it would arouse suspicion of a connection even though they denied it, investigations showed enough evidence to give way beyond reasonable doubt that the two projects were owned by the same team. Both websites became super-active in this forum around December 2018 as soon as IEOs started being the chosen method of making money. There are several other projects out there that have hired or own sock-puppets to attack anybody that asks questions, one example is in the Bankera/Spectrocoin threads. The situation with JollyGood is a bit weird, he is accusing them of being a scam project but in a way that he is provoking again hundred useless bumps. He maybe trying to prevent some newbies from falling in the scam trap but still, it can be aslo a new technique for advanced bumping service, having someone to argue with. This is just a hypothesis... JollyGood is very persistent in posting many times to expose a scam. I don't think he gets paid for bumping the threads.I do not accuse him because I didn't have time to look at his post history but referring to his positive trust ratings I assumed he was from the "good side". I didn't reported any oh his posts. But again 200+ posts in this thread is a bit suspicious even though he has a positive trust rating. My other assumption was if the spammers/bumpers have one "good" account just to fight with and make kind of legit bumps. This should not be the case with JollyGood just that's where I got the idea from. I can understand where the hypothesis would come from and I have decided to modify my approach from now on. I think fighting the scammers with regular counter posting does inadvertently bump the thread and it is something that needs to stop. The scammers and spammers will be reported as and when I see them, that is a far better approach to help clean up this forum and protect it from the modern day thieves that have infested it. I gave up reporting this type of abuse a while ago. Sometimes I noticed that between making the report and it being actioned, pages of further crap had been posted. Thank you for the comments tmfpOn some threads where I think there is a risk of a very questionable scheme's bumping service actually succeeding in boosting credibility, I periodically post summaries of the spam and a warning about it, but rarely go to the lengths that JollyGood has on the basis that Never wrestle with a pig. You get covered in shit and the pig enjoys it. This is one of the things that should be looked into by an admin but it likely won't. This. If the senior management of the forum doesn't consider the thousands upon thousands of spam posts being made (solely to distort visitors' perception of the popularity of usually dubious schemes) to be a threat to the forum's credibility, then this conclusion seems inevitable Quote theymos wont stop these spammers because they are the reasons why bitcointalk.org has a lot o traffics. This made me laugh. Your advice seems to be a cross between something Master Yoda would say and a Chinese proverb spoken by an old wise man ;D I think it is important to expose the scams and scammers but there is a way to do it and I certainly will not wrestle with those scammers again. I will report them and see what happens. As for the perceived lack of action by the forum owners/moderators - if it is as simple as allowing spammers and scammers to operate here with almost impunity just because of the traffic flow then that would be a very sad conclusion to the situation. I feel there may be more to it than that. I prefer to believe the forum will put a stop to the spammers and scammers because those thousands of spam posts being made on a weekly basis which are clearly designed for the sole purpose to fool (investors, newbies and gullible) people - must be stopped otherwise it is true the credibility of this forum will be on the line and community cannot allow that to happen. Just nuke the thread and be done with it. The good news about coinsbit is that the thread has been removed from the forum but their other scam thread (p2pb2b) is still there.Hopefully that too will be shut down soon. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: stompix on September 10, 2019, 12:36:22 PM I gave up reporting this type of abuse a while ago. Sometimes I noticed that between making the report and it being actioned, pages of further crap had been posted. Slowly but surely I'm giving up also. In my case, I also don't even have the time to browse all the topics I would like to read so I only target lately topics opened in the wrong sections or pure garbage ones. Waging war against is those farms is close to a Sisyphean task or a battle with the hydra, as long as there are stupid "dev teams" or whatever paying for this garbage there will be hundreds of posts and threads bumped. Probably they will only stop when they realize their topic bumps are not helping the "project" at all. Check my friends from ECOS for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5156577.320 Probably they paid for two months of bumping, the pyramides quotes stopped on the 1 and there is no single legit user posting anything in 10 days ;D ;D ;D Checking some of them it seems they are unemployed for the time being ;D Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: actmyname on September 10, 2019, 01:49:32 PM Newbies/Jr. Members' posts should not bump a thread back to the top.
Users with ranks higher than the above should be able to bump a thread N times per 24h based on some arbitrary criterion (e.g. merit, activity) Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: dkbit98 on September 10, 2019, 03:20:34 PM Newbies/Jr. Members' posts should not bump a thread back to the top. Users with ranks higher than the above should be able to bump a thread N times per 24h based on some arbitrary criterion (e.g. merit, activity) I agree with that 100% and I also think you will see some 'member right foundation' comments, and how that is violation of their freedom etc... Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: LoyceV on September 10, 2019, 04:06:15 PM Newbies/Jr. Members' posts should not bump a thread back to the top. The fact that this hasn't been implemented might mean it's not that simple to implement on SMF.Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: dkbit98 on September 10, 2019, 04:10:53 PM Fake conversation detected on this scam Ethereum Classic Atlantis ann:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182187.0 Posted on scam accusations: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5183449.0 Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: actmyname on September 10, 2019, 04:25:57 PM The fact that this hasn't been implemented might mean it's not that simple to implement on SMF. Apply Occam's razor to all but this (and the "upcoming") forum.There's always an easy solution stuck in the sands of common sense, but it may be buried under the waves of entropy. Title: Re: @theymos.Fake conversations becoming a serious issue. Post by: suchmoon on September 11, 2019, 01:46:56 AM Newbies/Jr. Members' posts should not bump a thread back to the top. The fact that this hasn't been implemented might mean it's not that simple to implement on SMF.Damn right... I'm on my second beverage and still haven't made sense of it but I'm sure it's great: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5183553 |
