Hi Loyce. Hi ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) Can I get a list of users that :
>Have posted at least 10 posts in the Indian board (including any of its child board) in the last 6 months This is suchmoon's thread, not mine, but your request would require scraping many posts on those boards.
|
|
|
Anyone wanna make a merit coin token with me? Will it be airdropped 1 to 1 to all Merit owners on Bitcointalk? ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
|
|
as well as with Loyce It was before you joined:
|
|
|
Doesn't "recent" show only the most recent post in each thread? You're right! Mind blown :O I never knew that. I'll edit the title to my new question: how do I get all posts? This messes up my data projects.
|
|
|
While scraping recent, I noticed I missed some posts. My logs show this: Downloading recent.html 1. userID: 819696 - username: Hypnosis00 - msgID: 52615289 2. userID: 2286354 - username: FrequencyRules058 - msgID: 52615288 3. userID: 662400 - username: kzv - msgID: 52615287 4. userID: 1226689 - username: phoen - msgID: 52615285 5. userID: 93751 - username: ltcdice - msgID: 52615284 6. userID: 947291 - username: Polar91 - msgID: 52615283 7. userID: 2480302 - username: Bullrunking - msgID: 52615282 8. userID: 543165 - username: citronick - msgID: 52615281 9. userID: 2294946 - username: reena024 - msgID: 52615280 10. userID: 1000199 - username: krogothmanhattan - msgID: 52615279 The post ending on 86 this post is missing. I missed another post from the same thread too. I don't have the board on ignore, some other posts in the same thread show up as expected. It's missing from half way the recent-page, and I have the same post missing a few seconds earlier or later too. That means the post was really missing from the page, which makes me think it's a bug in "recent".
|
|
|
I struggle to understand how browsing an external site is more convenient than browsing the actual thread... Everything is on one very big page, that's all.
|
|
|
At NeuroticFish's request, I made this: All posts in the Wall Observer thread in the past 1h, 24h and 7dAll posts in the past 1 hour: WallObserver.tk/1h.html (updated every 3 minutes). All posts in the past 24 hours: WallObserver.tk (updated every 30 minutes). All posts in the past 7 days: WallObserver.tk/7d.html (updated every 2 hours). Domain WallObserver.tk expires a year from now, I'll see by then if anyone uses it. All times are set to Amsterdam time. Limitations: Images still go through Bitcointalk's image proxy, and they don't load when there are too many on one page. In Firefox a fix is to go to the URL-bar a few times, and press Enter. Just "Reload" doesn't help. I'm just leaving it here in case anyone things this is useful ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) If not, please ignore it.
|
|
|
LimitationsI scrape a maximum of 500 pages per topic (sorry Wall Observer). If it's not too much work, maybe you can do something like http://loyce.club/show/178336.html?last=10 to help people catch up easier with the last couple of pages (it can be useful exactly for WO) without killing your scrapper or the browser? And another 80 minutes wasted ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) How's this: All posts in the Wall Observer thread in the past 1h, 24h and 7dAll posts in the past 1 hour: WallObserver.tk/1h.html (updated every 3 minutes). All posts in the past 24 hours: WallObserver.tk (updated every 30 minutes). All posts in the past 7 days: WallObserver.tk/7d.html (updated every 2 hours). Domain WallObserver.tk expires a year from now, I'll see by then if anyone uses it. All times are set to Amsterdam time. Limitations: Images still go through Bitcointalk's image proxy, and they don't load when there are too many on one page. In Firefox a fix is to go to the URL-bar a few times, and press Enter. Just "Reload" doesn't help.
|
|
|
I think Yobit should be in a much better place if they had a max 2 post per hour limit in addition to reducing the max post count down by a bit. Although slightly off-topic here: I think that's terrible for real users, while account farmers just set a timer and move to the next account to continue spamming.
|
|
|
I think there should be a rule regarding maximum number of eligible posts. You're mentioning the campaigns that pay an actual coin with value. As much as I dislike the current Yobit spam: at least it has a cost to them! The bounty campaigns that pay in worthless made-up Tokens cause much more spam, but it's mainly restricted to the (totally lost) Altcoin boards. If theymos doesn't want to stop those, I don't think he'll implement stricter rules for Bitcoin-paying campaigns either. But if they push their luck, the entire campaign will get banned, and I'm pretty sure that's the only reason for Yobit to hire a campaign manager this time. Think of it this way: the Yobit campaign is a good chance to get some high ranking accounts banned. And thanks to the Merit system, they can never farm another account with a high rank. I do hate it though: the number of posts in the past week is up by 5000 since the start of the Yobit campaign, and I notice there are more BS-posts in topics that didn't have them before. If they pay more than others, they can attract the best users like what ChipMixer is doing.
This is not the reason why Chipmixer has some of the best posters on the forum Yes it is. Part of it is management but the fact is that the more you pay, the better people you can get. In the short time I was managing a signature campaign last year, my best posters always moved to ChipMixer the moment they had the chance. Just like in any other job, the right management can only attract the best people if they pay the best rates. That "pennies" thing just isn't true, though. Even if a campaign pays a few thousand sats per post, it adds up pretty quickly. These things are extremely lucrative, especially if a participant is living in a poor country with high unemployment. It's no wonder there are so many applicants as soon as a new campaign pops up. It's so dumb though: so you're living in a poor country and you get an opportunity to earn $30+ per day just to post on a forum, and the first thing you do is spam 20 posts in a row to get your $30 one day, and get banned the next day? Any sane person would take that opportunity and work very hard to produce the best possible posts, and get maybe $10 on a day, but it'll add up to $300 per month. And that's still more than the average income in many countries. If Yobit and ChipMixer had the same posting requirements and paid the same amount per post and per participant do you think that the members promoting ChipMixer would switch sides? Even if Yobit paid more do you think those users would advertise a site like Yobit? ChipMixer is also a very long running campaign. Even if another campaign pays more, you wouldn't get back in with ChipMixer when that one ends.
|
|
|
On a side note LoyceV is planning on adjusting the wording on their custom trust list viewer to try and clarify the meaning behind inclusions and exclusions. Sample: LoyceMobile Trusts these users' judgement: Instead of: LoyceMobile Trust: Theymos describes it like this: List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line. Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network. If you want to trust someone whose name begins with a tilde, prefix their name with a backslash. But who even reads that? I would like to see the difference between "Trust lists" and "Feedback" explained more clearly on the forum: Don't confuse your Trust list with Feedback though: - Feedback: people you trust (or don't trust: red)
- Trust list: people who's judgement on others you trust (or don't trust: ~)
But I'd also like to see custom Trust lists promoted the way the April Fools joke was promoted on top of each page. That would be a good way to reach many users who haven't created their own Trust list yet. Currently, only a handful of people create their first Trust list each week, and most users have never edited it at all. As long as it's on the user's Trust page then I think it's fine. Agreed! It also wouldn't hurt if we could see how someone has voted (supported/opposed) on flags (others have raised this elsewhere previously). See Personal Trust Flag viewer for malevolent (although I agree it's not ideal this isn't shown anywhere on the forum).
|
|
|
Almost all the posts means the same while translated through Google and they do seem to be not necessary right at the moment. You can report the posts: 27. Using automated translation tools to post translated content in Local boards is not allowed.
Just a thought: I could make a list of active posters in the past 1h/24h/7d, dedicated to only a certain signature campaign. All it takes is a list of participants. I could also make my own version of patrol for only one campaign (say: yobitpatrol.tk). I think this would be a great tool for finding spammers, but getting an updated list of campaign participants isn't always easy.
|
|
|
8,046 sgbett 8,193 gentlemand
Most likely outcome....
Don't be a bear, be a bull ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) I still have more than 11 hours to win this: $18,700 ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) This is why: In Q1, I asked my wife to make a prediction. She predicted $7,800. In Q2, I used the same value. It turns out my wife's prediction was totally accurate, just about 6 weeks too early. So, clearly, she needs some calibration ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) I've now asked her to predict the price half way November, she said $18,300. But when I told her that's very close to other guesses, she changed it to $18,700. And that's what I'm entering here ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) I didn't expect BTC to be this close to my (wife's) Q2-prediction in Q3 though.
|
|
|
While we are on the subject I would like to ask what is different about this campaign vs any other campaign being run on the forum? I don't think this was a rhetorical question, although it feels like you gave the answer already: I know everyone is gonna say 20 posts per day cap, but if those participants are posting constructive replies(yes I know a lot aren't), if they're not breaking any other forum rules, and the campaign is paying how is it any different? I'll answer anyway: the main difference is that users can start getting paid before having their post history checked. I think that's similar to most bounty campaigns that pay in Tokens (created out of thin air and therefore don't cost the campaign anything), but the bounty spam is more or less limited to the Altcoin boards. Yobit is all over the forum. And that's probably why theymos banned the campaign last time, while other campaigns don't get banned. If this campaign runs long-term, I expect many dormant accounts to wake up, make 20 posts while you're sleeping, and get paid before you wake up to ban them. The next day they'll use their next account. My suggestion would be to stop accepting everyone (and subsequently blacklisting the spammers), and switch to the system most Bitcoin paying campaigns use: only accept people after reviewing their post history. Or as I've suggested to Yobit before: if they really insist on automated enrollment: add at least an earned Merit requirement. That would instantly disqualify most inactive and many spamming accounts.
|
|
|
I really like that. I'll add it next week. Considering how often people refer to my Trust list viewer, it might actually help them to better understand Trust lists.
|
|
|
what about the others Verify Services in the web You're compromising your privacy if you use those to verify a signed message.
|
|
|
I probably trust some people who have ~ him so that’s why he’s done it. By now it's virtually impossible to make a Trust list without conflicting Trust relations with other people. Say: A Trusts me but Distrusts B, I Trust B and C, and C distrusts B. You can't make everyone happy with your Trust list. I'll take some time to think on it but my initial thoughts are referring to this as a "Persona Feedback Network" "inclusions" and "exclusions" would be fine with almost no negative connotation. What's the 4th category? I'm on mobile at the moment. How about this:
|
|
|
Seeing as you put it out here though I don't follow this line of thinking; it just seems retaliatory. It would have made sense to me if you had thought more on OG's feedback and inclusions to decide if you agreed with it or not. Agreed. Trust lists should ideally only be based on how you value the other person's judgement. I always feel like "Trust backstabbers" are the most sincere form of Trust list usage. As an example, these are all "Trust backstabbers" on theymos' Trust list: (quote heavily cropped) When evaluating someone's judgement, you should also look at their stance on Flags. For example: OgNasty's Personal Trust Flag viewer (to my surprise he's not supporting any Flags) LFC_Bitcoin's Personal Trust Flag viewer (a very long list ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) )
|
|
|
|