I notice many usernames like "gegfdvxvxc1, nmgfsdnfgwjio, njklhwioa, dfwafgdge, ghfgdasfaw, jmkljioew, fqhuqryfhjq11, klgeroghei, hujgubgfgs". Any serious user who joins a forum would at least create a normal name, not something that instantly shows they don't care about the forum. My guess is this is what happens when account farmers have created so many accounts that they ran out of ideas.
Yeah, I can normally tell just by looking at the name if they are a bumping bot or not. Its normally gibberish or a first name, and second name combined. Sometimes with a space. Its painfully obvious, but I guess they don't actually care what the username is, because they usually get banned whenever found. Unfortunately its just too easy to create accounts here. |
|
|
|
And where is it stated that one must make a long, drawn out comment?
I don't know what the comment was exactly, but it sounds like you did a simple "Thanks" comment or something along those lines. They generally aren't accepted, and are considered low content. You don't necessarily have to make drawn out comments, but they need to have a point, and add to the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Even though Liverpool didn't play to their standards they still defended pretty decently if we don't count the mistake by Alison. The thing is they haven't hit top gear yet, and they are still taking all 3 points. When that front 3 start to hit it off with Keita feeding them they will be scary good.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is just normal behavior of SMF. What you could do is hold CTRL + Click "report to moderator", and report it that way. Then you can just switch tabs once you've sent the report. That's how I used to report anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Indefinitely.
There's no telling when/if your account will be recovered. There's currently a huge backlog in account recoveries, and there's been users that have been waiting 6+ months. Some are probably even over a year now.
|
|
|
|
If you had said at the start of the season "Pick 4 teams that would be joint top after 3 weeks", how many of you would have included Watford in your selections?  Its early doors yet, and they've had a fairly easy fixture list. Should all change tomorrow when they come up against Tottenham, and then the following round they have Man Utd. Although, I would expect them to lose again Spurs they might actually beat Man Utd the way they are playing right now. (I may of forgot to select picks last week  just realized No Script Suite stops the saving of results  ) |
|
|
|
|
Negative trust only prevents high ranked accounts from operating though, and that's assuming the advertiser cares about trust. A lot of them don't, and only care about exposure. Anyway, even if we did neg all the bounty campaign spam managers then they would just create a new account, and post it as a Jr member. The users that are participating in these campaigns don't really care about the rank of the manager.
|
|
|
|
Maybe go one step further - allow bounty managers to moderate those people that carry their signatures. (feature for new forum ?)
A demerit system that determines which page the bounty shows on depending the amount of demerits their participant generate. The more spam a bounty generates - the further back their bounty shows. (Shitposter bounties are shown on page 5 or further back)
I think we can all agree that campaign managers need to start being held accountable for their participants. Howeer, I'm not sure allowing them to moderate their participants is a good idea. If they are getting punished then they don't need to moderate anything, but who they accept onto their campaign. |
|
|
|
Can you elaborate, how would you think community should point out these members? With trust?
I can't answer for Piggy, however bad management of campaigns is certainly a trust system related thing. Unfortunately for us there's just so many different users posting bounties everyday that tagging all of these would take a huge amount of time, and they'll just make a new account, and thread anyway. |
|
|
|
I'm guessing a lot of his posts have been deleted already since he registered almost 4 months ago and is now on 2 posts/activity, you'd think they'd learn a bit faster. I'm not sure if it is that user but a newbie last month posted the same sort of thing "I'm new around here, can someone elighten me" and it gives you nothing to respond with as it's so unspecific.
No doubt he'll move to spamming the altcoin section for airdrops in no time...
That account is probably part of the "family's" that tend to come here, and spew out the same sort of shit. Probably just spinning their own posts every month trying to get activity. I didn't see the previous post so can't make a judgment, however I've definitely seen several accounts spinning content that they posted months ago. |
|
|
|
There are alternative ways to check if the bounty manager is good or not. First, check his/her recent projects, if he/she has a good success rate then he can be qualified as one of the best bounty managers. Why would you make another system about campaign if you can personally check his/her background on bounty managing.
I don't get it, do you really want to avoid spamming in threads or check if the bounty managers are qualified to handle a good campaign and gain a sure profit to them because they have the license?
We already know who the good campaign managers are. That's not the problem here. The problem is that anyone can be a campaign manager, and the people behind the funding of the advertising don't care who the bounty manager is, and whether there's spam or not. Okay, not entirely true. Some projects do tend to hire more trustworthy, and ethical managers, but the majority won't. |
|
|
|
I've also reporter over few k of posts but right now I'm asking one thing:
Are our reports something really useful or is it just a waste of time? Not just our time,(since we spend hours to report thousands of messages), but also waste time for moderators.
The only solution is to prevent the problem, if we limit ourselves only to limiting spammers we will never win this battle as they can create "infinite numbers of accounts with virtually no limitations".
At the end of the day you're making the threads cleaner. If you don't want to spam the rest of the mods, and clog up their queues you can pm the thread or I'll make an active effort to check this thread more regularly now that I should have a little bit more time. |
|
|
|
If we will ever have one thing like this, we will have over 50% of managers here without licence.
I don't think it will never happen, I hope it will happen but I can't see who decide the licences.
I'm seeing some managers with red trust account(s) but they post new campaings with no problems, so clearly the red trust does not limit them, perhaps other measures are needed.
Well, it would have to be theymos that decides on who can post, and who can't. I think just implementing restrictions on who can create threads in the bounty section should be more than enough. That way we aren't selecting a few to license, and only restricting it by rank. Then we should actually punish the campaign managers that aren't looking after their campaigns, and quite honestly promoting spam. |
|
|
|
Seriously though, I think the amount of merit sources or people actually giving merit is actually an issue right now. I don't really care that much about receiving merit personally because it's useless for me as Legendary now (unless additional ranks or badges are awarded for high merited users), though it is nice to know people have read and appreciated your posts, but there's a lot of quality posts I see that just don't get merited at all. I think even decent/great posters will struggle to rank up to levels of Hero and Legendary if this doesn't change, especially those users just signing up. Hopefully theymos will add users more frequently but this is one more issue that will likely be put on the backburner of things to do but never get done.
Yeah, I've noticed some very good quality posts never receive any merit whatsoever. Its not like they aren't being seen either. There's a few posts in the serious discussion section which I think deserve a few merit. The recent discussion on the tax debate has some interesting replies. Probably a bad example because they have received quite a bit of merit since I last checked, but there's a few other topics, and replies in that section which seem to just be glanced over. |
|
|
|
I don't think that his record is unbreakable, remember LoyceV on fell short of only 4 days which is really near and LoyceV is also very active in the forum currently and to top it off he is also a merit source which means that there is a high chance that the one he has sent the merits to has a certain influence on returning back the favor. I don't know when but I am sure that nullius' record is nowhere untouchable and someone will break it someday.
Generally, requires a very high quality member for that to happen though, and there aren't too many that are near that standard. Plus, it also depends on how much sMerit users have to distribute at the time. You could get lucky, and a lot of merit sources recently got their sMerit back or you could be completely unlucky, and they have already ran out. There's a little bit of luck required too. |
|
|
|
This bounty topic that I reported is still unhandled, I guess it needs more evidence. The good news is, I already caught one, the only problem is, how should I connect it to my previous report, so they will be handled both at the same time.
Since you posted this, I will continue reporting posts from Alt Ann. Hoping that theymos will incentivize users with 1m good reports an "x" amount of BTC(I hope, no one has ever reached that amount of good reports). I don't see reports from the bounty section, and I can't tell you why its still unhandled as I'm not sure what evidence you provided. So, you could message those with jurisdiction over it with the new evidence if you wanted too. Haha, I wouldn't count on that. Would be a highly impressive thing to achieve though. |
|
|
|
Bitcointalk has no authority to license anyone for anything, and I'm sure if the government found out about anything like that happening, they'd take a very keen interest in it.
I don't think he meant a license as the literal sense. Probably, just whitelisting certain members to be able to run campaigns rather than allowing everyone, and anyone like it is right now. theymos would be perfectly in his rights to limit who can, and can't run campaigns on the forum. Although, I doubt that it will happen. |
|
|
|
What concerns me the most is necro bumping on threads, these threads that died down from 3 or more months (or even years) are brought back to life because of this low ranked members randomly reading the title thread and then try to make a post in it. These threads will of course be put back in the first page of the section and a chain of members will follow and try to post some more spam in that old thread. I just wish there is a feature where threads (on certain sections) that didn't receive any new post for a given period of time will not be eligible to be bump in the first page anymore.
If reported they are usually deleted. Unless, they are offering something new to the discussion, and it wasn't worth opening a new thread about. Otherwise, the initial necrobump, and the replies that follow are usually removed. I don't tend to have too many reports about necro bumps though. Only a few a day. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
