A more effective way to reduce signature spamming

[alexrossi]

Instead of banning the whole account, wouldn't be more effective to just remove the signature for a period of time? This will result in a denied payment from signature managers, and also should raise the posting quality, instead of creating more spamming sockpuppets from the banned users.

In case of repeated spamming i would continue to perma-ban as it already happens.

[1714865340]

1714865340

[1714865340]

1714865340

[1714865340]

1714865340

[1714865340]

1714865340

[Lauda]

Well the worst part of it all is that whoever joins the signature campaign wagon is put in the same bag as spammers. Sometimes, maybe accidentally, even good posters get banned due to them having a signature. It's quite obvious who's spamming who isn't. Spammers should be categorized, which currently they are not. Banning someone who writes 1 liners and who writes 4 paragraphs (even though it's a spammy post) should be different.
Anyhow I think that this is a decent idea although I seem to have a better one (at least in my mind). What about just putting restrictions or guidelines for the campaigns. There should be a minimum rank, maximum number of users, stricter policies and such. I mean, who really needs newbies posting for money?  

[redsn0w]

Instead of banning the whole account, wouldn't be more effective to just remove the signature for a period of time? This will result in a denied payment from signature managers, and also should raise the posting quality, instead of creating more spamming sockpuppets from the banned users.

In case of repeated spamming i would continue to perma-ban as it already happens.

I agree with alexrossi and I also think it is more 'efficace' remove the possibility to put a signature (to all the spammer and who make insubstantial posts) instead to ban them from post and send PM here in the forum. I am secure their post quality will greatly increase and they will "learn" a big lesson.

[bitkilo]

Sounds like a reasonble idea, a lot of the spam post are easy to spot, very short, not constructive at all towards the conversation, and they never read the whole thead, some i think would be lucky to even read the last post.

Signature campaigns can be a great way to earn a small bit of extra btc but it does bring out the scammers.
IMO campaigns should have sign up limits and also they should pick who they want more often and not just take anyone.
The last 2 campaigns i have been i was PM'd asking if i wanted to join, they were always better paying too.

[alexrossi]

I am sure their post quality will greatly increase and they will "learn" a big lesson.

Maybe yes, maybe not. But i think that it's a great way to warn a user, especially if is active a lot: in this case, indipendently from his signature, a ban can seriusly harass communication in other forum business (for example private sales, escrowing, etc...)

[Lauda]

Sounds like a reasonble idea, a lot of the spam post are easy to spot, very short, not constructive at all towards the conversation, and they never read the whole thead, some i think would be lucky to even read the last post.

Signature campaigns can be a great way to earn a small bit of extra btc but it does bring out the scammers.
IMO campaigns should have sign up limits and also they should pick who they want more often and not just take anyone.
The last 2 campaigns i have been i was PM'd asking if i wanted to join, they were always better paying too.

Yes, that's what I said. There should be guidelines, restrictions and such. That's the best solution. Removing signatures, or banning campaigns is illogical. Why punish everyone because of spammers?
There needs to be either a: 1) Effective way of spotting and banning spammers (useless without an increase in activity required in the first ranks, and no newbie restrictions); 2) Force tougher policies on the campaign managers; if they don't follow them their campaign gets banned.

This could be easily implemented with reasonable requirements. The first time that I've joined a campaign was about 8 months after my discovery of the forum and 4-5 months after joining it (I think). I was unaware at that time, I was even banned, but even then there was less spam than today, even though off-topic was being bombarded by posts.

I am sure their post quality will greatly increase and they will "learn" a big lesson.

Maybe yes, maybe not. But i think that it's a great way to warn a user, especially if is active a lot: in this case, indipendently from his signature, a ban can seriusly harass communication in other forum business (for example private sales, escrowing, etc...)

Actually no they won't. Some spammers are really persistent, even beyond your imagination. They actually keep buying accounts to continue their spamming spree. Banning them doesn't help as they make a lot of accounts at once and make all of them advance over time.

[bitkilo]

Sounds like a reasonble idea, a lot of the spam post are easy to spot, very short, not constructive at all towards the conversation, and they never read the whole thead, some i think would be lucky to even read the last post.

Signature campaigns can be a great way to earn a small bit of extra btc but it does bring out the scammers.
IMO campaigns should have sign up limits and also they should pick who they want more often and not just take anyone.
The last 2 campaigns i have been i was PM'd asking if i wanted to join, they were always better paying too.

Yes, that's what I said. There should be guidelines, restrictions and such. That's the best solution. Removing signatures, or banning campaigns is illogical. Why punish everyone because of spammers?
There needs to be either a: 1) Effective way of spotting and banning spammers (useless without an increase in activity required in the first ranks, and no newbie restrictions); 2) Force tougher policies on the campaign managers; if they don't follow them their campaign gets banned.

Maybe an idea for the new forum would be to have a signature cop type staff job.
Other member have mentioned they want a 'like' button on the new forum, i don't agree with that but maybe you could just give a tic or cross just based on weather you think the post contribuated to the topic /conversation., might make it a bit easier to police than now.

[redsn0w]

...snip...

I am sure their post quality will greatly increase and they will "learn" a big lesson.

Maybe yes, maybe not. But i think that it's a great way to warn a user, especially if is active a lot: in this case, indipendently from his signature, a ban can seriusly harass communication in other forum business (for example private sales, escrowing, etc...)

Actually no they won't. Some spammers are really persistent, even beyond your imagination. They actually keep buying accounts to continue their spamming spree. Banning them doesn't help as they make a lot of accounts at once and make all of them advance over time.

I really want to know what BadBear thinks about this "secondary" way to reduce the spam and insubstantial posts. As I said previously I'm sure at 99% their quality post will greatly increase and they will start to think why my posts and activity aren't good?

[Lauda]

I really want to know what BadBear think about this "secondary" way to reduce the spam and insubstantial posts. As I said previously I'm sure at 99% their quality post will greatly increase and they will start to think why my posts and activity aren't good?

We are obviously talking about the different kind of spammers. There are those, who post a lot and want to earn money. They don't even know what they're doing until they get banned. Usually after the ban, they realize it and start fixing their behavior. I'm talking about those that are intentionally spamming. They don't learn, because their intentions are bad.
I guess more frequent input from staff on these matters would be beneficial (not just discussing, but rather trying out solutions).

Note: We already have 21 pages of registered users for today (and it's only 12PM). That's already 21x30 = 630. How many new people did we actually get? 

[redsn0w]

I really want to know what BadBear think about this "secondary" way to reduce the spam and insubstantial posts. As I said previously I'm sure at 99% their quality post will greatly increase and they will start to think why my posts and activity aren't good?

We are obviously talking about the different kind of spammers. There are those, who post a lot and want to earn money. They don't even know what they're doing until they get banned. Usually after the ban, they realize it and start fixing their behavior. I'm talking about those that are intentionally spamming. They don't learn, because their intentions are bad.

I guess more frequent input from staff on these matters would be beneficial (not just discussing, but rather trying out solutions).

It seems the ban from post and send PM doesn't change the intention of those users (bold part). They should be banned from wearing a sig ad, this can be more efficiently than ban their from be active here in the forum. Can I ask you one thing? Is this a forum : yes or not ? I think you will reply : yes this is a forum.
So it is normal that someone with or without a sig ad, post 10-15-30 posts per day or am I wrong? ( obviously if that someone will post without add a constructive concept to the thread he should be banned or if he is wearing a sig ad as the OP said, they should not be allowed to wear a signature).

This was only my personal opinion, but I may be wrong.

[Amph]

they can also warn you instead of banning directly, could be another solution, but i like the removing of signature space as a solution, anyway a new feature which let you disable signature space is coming i, remember it was said by a mod

[Lauda]

they can also warn you instead of banning directly, could be another solution, but i like the removing of signature space as a solution, anyway a new feature which let you disable signature space is coming i, remember it was said by a mod

No, this is no solution. This gives the spammer even more time to carry out his bad deeds.

It seems the ban from post and send PM doesn't change the intention of those users (bold part). They should be banned from wearing a sig ad, this can be more efficiently than ban their from be active here in the forum. Can I ask you one thing? Is this a forum : yes or not ? I think you will reply : yes this is a forum.
So it is normal that someone with or without a sig ad, post 10-15-30 posts per day or am I wrong? ( obviously if that someone will post without add a constructive concept to the thread he should be banned or if he is wearing a sig ad as the OP said, they should not be allowed to wear a signature).

This was only my personal opinion, but I may be wrong.

Well the answer is yes and no. While this in fact is a forum, it's not the same as your average forum. The average forums are either multi-topic or specific to just one, but the topics are very simple. If a topic is a movie or something, you can post useless feelings about it all day. This is not the case here. Even by definition ("a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged"), which often does not happen here. Just look at what spammers are posting and you will get an idea.
Actually the number of (constructive posts) per day is closely tied to number of hours spend per day on a forum. In my opinion 30 posts is already a lot. These days I can't even reach 10 posts a day I think.

[abyrnes81]

I support the idea of the OP, let's try it and we will see if in this way the spam will 'die' or not. I think it will die slowly, because those people can post but cannot wear a signature (and this is the worst thing IMHO).

[arallmuus]

Instead of banning the whole account, wouldn't be more effective to just remove the signature for a period of time? This will result in a denied payment from signature managers, and also should raise the posting quality, instead of creating more spamming sockpuppets from the banned users.

In case of repeated spamming i would continue to perma-ban as it already happens.

This suggestion is good, apart from the bolded part, no, spammers dont learn, some do learn from their mistakes but most of them will create a thread in meta to complain about why does his sig got removed, although I would say this is an effective way to reduce the sockpuppet in meta thread that complain about the forum policy, or the forum could bann their account to post in all boards except for meta

[EvilPanda]

Well the worst part of it all is that whoever joins the signature campaign wagon is put in the same bag as spammers. 

So true, but I still think the ban hammer isn't abused on this forum. I'd rather have a 14 day ban than be shadow banned or have all my posts deleted (it happens on some forums).

Spammers should be categorized, which currently they are not. Banning someone who writes 1 liners and who writes 4 paragraphs (even though it's a spammy post) should be different.

Leave the one liners out of it. I can fit 45 words in one line (just counted) 

[Lauda]

Well the worst part of it all is that whoever joins the signature campaign wagon is put in the same bag as spammers. 

So true, but I still think the ban hammer isn't abused on this forum. I'd rather have a 14 day ban than be shadow banned or have all my posts deleted (it happens on some forums).

That is indeed true, but even some forum members are doing this. They tend to flag anyone with a paid signature as a signature. You're right banning mistakes do not happen often,

Leave the one liners out of it. I can fit 45 words in one line (just counted) 

Well a one liner is also a 3 worded post you know. Hopefully you understood what I was aiming at. There are spammers that don't even try.

[abyrnes81]

It seems that grue the global mod has made public this script (to hide the creative and annoying signature) : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1003570.0

[theymos]

Yeah, I'm thinking that a good response to sig spam might be to ban the person for ~5 days and disable all but the most basic styling in their signature for 60+ days. (With times increasing for repeat offenders.)

[sherbyspark]

This is how it should be , and is a perfect way of limiting the spam. Because sometimes if the person is in business with another person(say a loan or a trade) , then a ban might lead to the other party also taking a loss due to it. Removing the signature space would be the perfect solution to it.

[Amph]

Leave the one liners out of it. I can fit 45 words in one line (just counted) 

Well a one liner is also a 3 worded post you know. Hopefully you understood what I was aiming at. There are spammers that don't even try.

one line post aren't always bad, some question don't need wall of text evreytime to be posted, every case must be controlled separately

i don't want to call one liner spammer, at least not always

[Blazed]

Yeah, I'm thinking that a good response to sig spam might be to ban the person for ~5 days and disable all but the most basic styling in their signature for 60+ days. (With times increasing for repeat offenders.)

I think that is the perfect punishment for signature spamming.

Also about post length...sometimes a 2-3 word response is all that is needed. I have seen some spammers that type out multiple sentences, but it is worthless and not really useful or related. I am glad the forum is cracking down on spammers, but I am sure it creates a lot of extra work for BadBear and Theymos.

[marcotheminer]

I'm ready to cooperate to reduce spamming.

[Lauda]

I think that is the perfect punishment for signature spamming.

Also about post length...sometimes a 2-3 word response is all that is needed. I have seen some spammers that type out multiple sentences, but it is worthless and not really useful or related. I am glad the forum is cracking down on spammers, but I am sure it creates a lot of extra work for BadBear and Theymos.

We don't need '+1' posts. We're behind that phase. The forum is in a state where we have a lot of good minds, that can work together and share opinions.

I'm ready to cooperate to reduce spamming.

I've already sent you a notice (I'd send more, but my time is limited). You could however get someone to work with you and closely watch everyone and report it back to you and mods.

[maku]

I'm ready to cooperate to reduce spamming.

If you want to reduce spaming please look at DaDice's signature campaign and check out their spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_RyLrCa3saxwHPz8mgPuNlV8ewuX7RlC15ZUQRVp99w/edit#gid=1029585434
Managers of Dadice are really reading people's posts and evaluate them. While it is still subjective and not ideal solution but post quality is now significantly higher and I think it is step in good direction.

[Blazed]

I think that is the perfect punishment for signature spamming.

Also about post length...sometimes a 2-3 word response is all that is needed. I have seen some spammers that type out multiple sentences, but it is worthless and not really useful or related. I am glad the forum is cracking down on spammers, but I am sure it creates a lot of extra work for BadBear and Theymos.

We don't need '+1' posts. We're behind that phase. The forum is in a state where we have a lot of good minds, that can work together and share opinions.

I'm ready to cooperate to reduce spamming.

I've already sent you a notice (I'd send more, but my time is limited). You could however get someone to work with you and closely watch everyone and report it back to you and mods.

So when I bid in an auction rather than "I Bid 3BTC" would you prefer something like "Hey guys and gals I am wanting to make a bid on this amazing item. I think I will start my bidding at 3BTC and we will see how it goes. I am really excited to watch this auction, and will be bidding later" Somethings do not require any more than 2-3 words...

[XinXan]

Before all these signature things were famous no one was getting banned, at least i wasnt, i once got like 10 posts deleted by mods with another older account and i never got banned for it.

[Hazir]

So when I bid in an auction rather than "I Bid 3BTC" would you prefer something like "Hey guys and gals I am wanting to make a bid on this amazing item. I think I will start my bidding at 3BTC and we will see how it goes. I am really excited to watch this auction, and will be bidding later" Somethings do not require any more than 2-3 words...

I feel that too. People now are being paranoid about 'length' of every post.  But you can be very descriptive with few words really... Quality response is not always long, but no all short messages are quality posts.
I fear this is highly subjective matter and it can;t be explained easily. Each case is different.

[SaltySpitoon]

So when I bid in an auction rather than "I Bid 3BTC" would you prefer something like "Hey guys and gals I am wanting to make a bid on this amazing item. I think I will start my bidding at 3BTC and we will see how it goes. I am really excited to watch this auction, and will be bidding later" Somethings do not require any more than 2-3 words...

I feel that too. People now are being paranoid about 'length' of every post.  But you can be very descriptive with few words really... Quality response is not always long, but no all short messages are quality posts.
I fear this is highly subjective matter and it can;t be explained easily. Each case is different.

Yeah don't worry, we don't just check people's post histories and judge by that. We actually read the OP of a thread, posts already made in that thread, etc. There are a couple word phrases that sum up a constructive post, and there are paragraph long posts that just repeat what has already been said. Constructive post equates to new ideas or interpretations. If you just repeat the same thing that has already been said without giving it an interpretation of your own, that is still insubstantial. Its quite easy for us to see if its an occasional, "Ok that person was tired and didn't read the post above them" or if its something that has been done on their last 30 posts.

Thats one of the reasons paid advertising spam is so annoying to us, we don't just ban on a whim, there is a lot of time that goes into it. We have always had to contend with spammers/bots and the occasional person who needed a ban, but paid advertising spam has more than 10x increased our usual routine and is costing us a lot of man hours. I suppose this is why the site has staff, but at the same time, its far more enjoyable helping people and nudging users to keep the discussion quality high than it is to be constantly hunting for disruptions.

[Quickseller]

Yeah, I'm thinking that a good response to sig spam might be to ban the person for ~5 days and disable all but the most basic styling in their signature for 60+ days. (With times increasing for repeat offenders.)

I would like this idea. I had previously proposed(original) something similar to this a few weeks ago - my actual proposal would be to completely disable signatures for a certain period of time starting when they were banned for signature spamming (insubstantial posts + paid sig) and to have it reenabled sometime after they can start posting again. My idea was later somewhat rebutted by SaltySpitoon in that it would stop people from displaying their PGP keys, etc., and this would be a good rebuttal to that rebuttal in that people could still easily display things like a link to their PGP key but would effectively prevent people from participating in signature deals.

So when I bid in an auction rather than "I Bid 3BTC" would you prefer something like "Hey guys and gals I am wanting to make a bid on this amazing item. I think I will start my bidding at 3BTC and we will see how it goes. I am really excited to watch this auction, and will be bidding later" Somethings do not require any more than 2-3 words...

exactly. A good amount of the time, anyone with a paid signature who is posting in the auction section and not making a bid post alone, is more likely then not spamming and doesn't actually have any interest in winning the auction. There is sometimes legit conversation in auction threads, however I think it is pretty rare

[BG4]

I'd like to give an Idea.. It might seen over the top but after all its just an idea....... 

Anyone entered into a sig campaign must register their sigs.... Registration will attached a spam button onto their posts....if enough people think the post is considered spam then a flag is sent to mods to investigate...

my 2 satoshis.....discuss

[Blazed]

Yeah, I'm thinking that a good response to sig spam might be to ban the person for ~5 days and disable all but the most basic styling in their signature for 60+ days. (With times increasing for repeat offenders.)

I would like this idea. I had previously proposed(original) something similar to this a few weeks ago - my actual proposal would be to completely disable signatures for a certain period of time starting when they were banned for signature spamming (insubstantial posts + paid sig) and to have it reenabled sometime after they can start posting again. My idea was later somewhat rebutted by SaltySpitoon in that it would stop people from displaying their PGP keys, etc., and this would be a good rebuttal to that rebuttal in that people could still easily display things like a link to their PGP key but would effectively prevent people from participating in signature deals.

So when I bid in an auction rather than "I Bid 3BTC" would you prefer something like "Hey guys and gals I am wanting to make a bid on this amazing item. I think I will start my bidding at 3BTC and we will see how it goes. I am really excited to watch this auction, and will be bidding later" Somethings do not require any more than 2-3 words...

exactly. A good amount of the time, anyone with a paid signature who is posting in the auction section and not making a bid post alone, is more likely then not spamming and doesn't actually have any interest in winning the auction. There is sometimes legit conversation in auction threads, however I think it is pretty rare

I have seen a bunch of people who "kick the tires" asking questions with no intentions of buying (mainly in the goods/computer sections). I think the spammers who make those paragraphs of utter junk are worse than the short spammers!

[Quickseller]

I have seen a bunch of people who "kick the tires" asking questions with no intentions of buying (mainly in the goods/computer sections). I think the spammers who make those paragraphs of utter junk are worse than the short spammers!

Some of these people are trying to find information that might protect a potential trading partner. For example warning that a newbie selling a gift card might have purchased it with a stolen credit card. But yea, I know what you mean when people ask a lot of random questions, the answers to which often would not sway most people one way or another in deciding to buy

[guitarplinker]

I have seen a bunch of people who "kick the tires" asking questions with no intentions of buying (mainly in the goods/computer sections). I think the spammers who make those paragraphs of utter junk are worse than the short spammers!

Chipping into what you said, the other type of posts in the marketplace that frustrate me are the "do you accept escrow?" posts? I haven't seen many in the past couple months though, and I think that the staff here are thankfully deleting those.

[Brewins]

there are also side ads campaigns.

Killing the signatures won't make the account unable to earn money simply by posting

[bitkilo]

there are also side ads campaigns.

Killing the signatures won't make the account unable to earn money simply by posting

If by side adds your mean the ones in your personal message space then someone would have to be pretty desperate to spam for just that payment, the rates for PM message alone is very low, not saying some still wouldn't do it though, just very petty stuff.

[alani123]

Well first and foremost, the ignore feature of the forum is close to useless. Currently, if you ignore someone, you can still see an empty post whenever he posts and you see his full posts if they get quoted.

I try to use the ignore feature when I see constantly trolling just to see their full posts whenever someones takes their bait.

[hilariousandco]

Instead of banning the whole account, wouldn't be more effective to just remove the signature for a period of time? This will result in a denied payment from signature managers, and also should raise the posting quality, instead of creating more spamming sockpuppets from the banned users.

Maybe signatures could be removed for x amount of time but I don't think it will make them raise their quality or postings necessarily. If they're essentially banned from earning but can still post they'd more likely post rubbish out of frustration or just keep complaining about it. Sometimes a ban is better just to cool off for a bit. They can also still collect the activity points which is probably an added deterrent when faced with losing them.

there are also side ads campaigns.

Killing the signatures won't make the account unable to earn money simply by posting

If by side adds your mean the ones in your personal message space then someone would have to be pretty desperate to spam for just that payment, the rates for PM message alone is very low, not saying some still wouldn't do it though, just very petty stuff.

Yeah, you get next to nothing for those. The 'side ads' are more about just getting extra exposure for the campaign owner really.

[BadBear]

It's probably a good idea. I've dismissed it in the past because it seemed excessively heavyhanded, but that's ignoring the fact that it's an alternative to something even more heavyhanded (outright banning). Kinda like saying the proxy fee is a bad thing because anonymity, privacy, etc, when in actuality it's an alternative to not allowing those registrations at all.

It does have some downsides, but almost all of them are shared with bans, so not really an issue. There are some unique downsides, but I think those are outweighed by the upsides, that people would be allowed to continue participating in the forum while removing sig spam from the equation. Too many people just don't get the hint, or don't realize they're doing it, or genuinely don't think they are, and they will end up permanently banned, which is a shame in some cases.

 

I'm ready to cooperate to reduce spamming.

I'm not saying this to sound like a dick, or be offensive, just being straightforward. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but you* had your chance, you failed. We aren't going to micromanage your campaign for you, tell you what to do, tell you what not to do, etc. If we wanted to do that, we'd just cut out the middleman (you) and do it ourselves.  

*By you I don't necessarily mean you specifically, sig campaigns in general.

[btc-facebook]

I'm ready to cooperate to reduce spamming.

turn the campaign into monthly payout will help a bit

-snip--

I'm not saying this to sound like a dick, or be offensive, just being straightforward. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but you* had your chance, you failed. We aren't going to micromanage your campaign for you, tell you what to do, tell you what not to do, etc. If we wanted to do that, we'd just cut out the middleman (you) and do it ourselves.  

*By you I don't necessarily mean you specifically, sig campaigns in general.

Are you mean terminating signature campaign is the best solution ?

[CIYAM]

Am glad to see @BadBear is coming around - I've been complaining about the rubbish ad-sig posts for months and at first I was basically ignored and then next I was trolled (by the ad-sig posters of course) - but it is becoming obvious that more and more people are just sick and tired of seeing pointless posts that are being made by people "earning money" that just wastes our time (being that of normal forum users and the mods and admins also).

This forum used to be "interesting" in past years but since late 2013 it has gradually become more and more full of pointless posts (to the point that it becomes tedious to bother trying to follow topics).

[Lauda]

So when I bid in an auction rather than "I Bid 3BTC" would you prefer something like "Hey guys and gals I am wanting to make a bid on this amazing item. I think I will start my bidding at 3BTC and we will see how it goes. I am really excited to watch this auction, and will be bidding later" Somethings do not require any more than 2-3 words...

No rules is worth for everything! This kicks in that case. Hopefully you understood what I was aiming at. One can easily identify very short (honest) posts and ones used to spam.

-snip--
I'm not saying this to sound like a dick, or be offensive, just being straightforward. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but you* had your chance, you failed. We aren't going to micromanage your campaign for you, tell you what to do, tell you what not to do, etc. If we wanted to do that, we'd just cut out the middleman (you) and do it ourselves. 

*By you I don't necessarily mean you specifically, sig campaigns in general.

Are you mean terminating signature campaign is the best solution ?

I think what he wanted to say that he won't let them manage them anymore, and just be straightforward from now on. If your posting habits are bad, you get banned, end of story.

[BadBear]

Are you mean terminating signature campaign is the best solution ?

Sig campaigns aren't all bad. They increase traffic to the forum, give people incentive to participate, reward posters, introduce people to bitcoin, give them an easy way to try it out for themselves without having to buy them outright, stimulates the economy/businesses, etc.

But it introduces a lot of problems as well. It's basically a balancing act, and right now it's balanced in favor of the spammers, and the forum is suffering for it.

I don't think ending them completely is the best solution, no. I think the ability to ignore signatures will do a lot. I know someone is going to say "STUPIDBEAR THE SPAM IS THE PROBLEM NOT THE SIGS", but bear with me here. I'm thinking long term.

But wouldn't that result in a dramatic reduction of the payout? Because the campaign company would be getting less views.

yes. I am not sure this would be effective in reducing spam, it could even make it worse as companies would pay less so the people who are willing to try to earn via signature spamming will either need to work harder (spam more) or would be willing to accept less. I would say that generally people who are willing to accept low payments will probably generally spam more.

I do agree with your point that people should not be forced to view ads although it is currently setup so that only heros+ can disable forum ads.

I think a good solution would be to have a second tier of a ban when someone is banned for insubstantial posts + paid signature (aka signature spam). One could be banned for 14 days from posting/sending PMs and then once that ban expires, for a person to be unable to display their own signature (they can't participate in signature campaigns).

It would probably also not be a bad idea to disable displaying a signature when the ban starts as well so that when a person is banned they will likely be denied payment from their campaign because their signature is removed. This would cause people to be more careful about getting banned because it would mean they won't get paid for their "work" verses they just can't post now and would likely appear as though they just went on vacation.

Well the point isn't to reduce spam, it's that I (and other's I'm sure) are sick of seeing the same ads over and over again.  I would love to not have to see them anymore without turning off signatures entirely. Right now it's all or nothing. Should be all, no ads, or nothing.  

I do see what you're getting at in that less pay=more spam as people try to make up for it, but more spam would just make them easier to catch. As it is, the signature campaigns just get the most garish ads they can find, throw money at it, and ignore spammers because they know people don't really have a choice. If people have the ability to turn off the ads, then they would have to work smarter. Have ads that are pleasing and not too distracting, have good posters in their campaign, and to not go overboard with how many users you have with it, and have a good rapport with the users of the forum (if you see the same ad 20x in a row on the same page you are much more likely to block it, especially if it's loud and annoying). Giving people a choice would add consequences, and would be much closer to a true free market than the way it currently is. And eventually maybe a middle ground is found.
 

[CIYAM]

If wanting to reward posters for good posts then some sort of "tip bot" would make *way more sense* than ad-sig campaigns.

Helpful (and far more patient than me) forum members such as DannyHamilton have resorted to publishing lists of all ad-sig posters to ignore because they are so sick of it.

To offer money for "any sort of post" is simply the wrong incentive.

This is why tips for useful posts would improve the content way more than allowing ad-sigs will ever do.

Advertisers just want to see their ad in every single topic (as that is all they care about) and posters oblige as they just want to get as much as they can from their ad-sig.

You (meaning the forum not anyone in particular) have created the need for a police force (which is generally not the kind of thing that members of this forum like).

And yes - I am "beating my head against a brick wall" with this (haven't quite given up yet but will soon).

[EvilPanda]

I don't think ending them completely is the best solution, no. I think the ability to ignore signatures will do a lot. I know someone is going to say "STUPIDBEAR THE SPAM IS THE PROBLEM NOT THE SIGS", but bear with me here. I'm thinking long term.

Sure, I'll bear with the bear

[alani123]

Bad bear, I'm just hoping that This upcoming tool won't become an excuse for merciless banning to take place. I've tried to point this out again: warnings can be perceived nicely and help people learn a lesson in a positive way too.

[Slark]

I just want to remind you that all that increased spam is an effect of overall higher activity of people present on bitcointalk. We have more and more people just because bitcoin is now known and famous.
I wish you could ban signature campaigns as an experiment for 1 month. And then see if something in 'spamming department' will change. Because I seriously doubt that.