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.

[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