Define spam.

[marcotheminer]

The (modified  ) question is, if the participant is really taking the effort in making the post, and the post is constructive, but he is making it look so, and he is posting actually for the campaign alone, will that be spam?

I don't clearly get you! You are saying the post is "constructive" and you are asking if it is a spam! How can a constructive post be a spam 

What the forum sees as spam is basically an unwanted/not needed post that is still posted.

Many posts are masked to be seen as constructive when they're clearly not (and are full of fluff, random words to up the post count, etc).

Fitting example:

I never imagined that Avatar ads will be serious business here on bitcointalk. I guess I was wrong as it  seems you can monetize everything... It is fine that you let your participants keep some part of their avatar as core element and I feel that small bit-x is sufficient and not so boring like generic standard bit-x avatar would be.

That was a whole heap of waffle for your campaign.

Don't get me wrong. I think that for advertising purposes standardized avatars are the best option. But it is the nice to keep variety of users avatars plus little ad addition in them. Anyway, good luck with your campaign. I'm off.

All of that didn't make sense and/or wasn't at all needed to be posted.

[1714130271]

1714130271

[1714130271]

1714130271

[1714130271]

1714130271

[1714130271]

1714130271

[marcotheminer]

My thoughts conveyed perfectly.

What normal person would go through all the sections trying to do over 50 posts a day? I'm talking about posts that look okay but serve no purpose and are the result of careful spamming? None.

[Light]

My thoughts conveyed perfectly.

What normal person would go through all the sections trying to do over 50 posts a day? I'm talking about posts that look okay but serve no purpose and are the result of careful spamming? None.

Not sure I entirely agree on that point. I do know some users on other smaller forums who don't get paid (there isn't anything like a signature campaign there) but post because they love the interaction and are genuinely interested or provide unique perspectives, and post in much larger volumes than 50 per day. I don't think you can necessarily set an arbitrary absolute value as the maximum posts people can do before creating spam - instead maybe assess them on the quality of each individual post?

TBH though, the way I see it, it is incredibly hard to continuously moderate people who don't have constructive posts per se, but do post in length. Even then length isn't always a determining factor - sometimes short witty responses have themselves been thought provoking and useful.

[erikalui]

My thoughts conveyed perfectly.

What normal person would go through all the sections trying to do over 50 posts a day? I'm talking about posts that look okay but serve no purpose and are the result of careful spamming? None.

I don't agree as I am normal and make 100+ posts mostly on another forum. I interact with the users and this might be considered spamming but still I do it and it's done in a Chit Chat thread. Would you consider tweets, FB replies, Chatting as spam? That's what normal beings do.

Here some do it because they get paid but some do it because they love it. The latter isn't considered spam though.

[redsn0w]

If I can say my opinion, it is impossible to write all constructive posts. It's normal that each of us will write at least 2-3 'insubstantial posts', this is a forum not a place of genius and writers (as shakespeare). Take an example of my personal situation here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1022225.0   In that case the problem was only the signature ad, but I am sure that if someone who was not wearing a sig ad (did the same thing) it would not have happened.

[ndnh]

If I can say my opinion, it is impossible to write all constructive posts. It's normal that each of us will write at least 2-3 'insubstantial posts', this is a forum not a place of genius and writers (as shakespeare). Take an example of my personal situation here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1022225.0   In that case the problem was only the signature ad, but I am sure that if someone who was not wearing a sig ad (did the same thing) it would not have happened.

Yeah, that is right.

Actually, as a campaign manager, I expect to see a small number of posts that are insubstantial.

But, what to do with someone who does not post something like a thank you or congratz or a simple question that normally one would post (it may not be counted, but it is not really spam, unless he makes a lot of that kind of posts), just because he is part of a campaign and thinks that it will be called spam and will result in removing the participant or something from the campaign?

IMO, certain posts are considered spam because they are wearing a signature. And people who are in a signature campaign force themselves to make longer posts (in an effort to make it constructive), which is actually not a requirement at all.

[redsn0w]

If I can say my opinion, it is impossible to write all constructive posts. It's normal that each of us will write at least 2-3 'insubstantial posts', this is a forum not a place of genius and writers (as shakespeare). Take an example of my personal situation here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1022225.0   In that case the problem was only the signature ad, but I am sure that if someone who was not wearing a sig ad (did the same thing) it would not have happened.

Yeah, that is right.

Actually, as a campaign manager, I expect to see a small number of posts that are insubstantial.

But, what to do with someone who does not post something like a thank you or congratz or a simple question that normally one would post (it may not be counted, but it is not really spam, unless he makes a lot of that kind of posts), just because he is part of a campaign and thinks that it will be called spam and will result in removing the participant or something from the campaign?

In that case the problem is only the signature ad ad not the post itself. Because if someone make the same thing but he is not wearing a sig ad, then in that case I am sure will not be "valued" as someone who is wearing a sig ad.

IMO, certain posts are considered spam because they are wearing a signature. And people who are in a signature campaign force themselves to make longer posts (in an effort to make it constructive), which is actually not a requirement at all.

But if a mod or admin will see a lot of short line/posts he will be sure take action against you, maybe you are right when you are saying it is not a requirement for the various signature campaigns but it is a problem for the forum.

[ndnh]

IMO, certain posts are considered spam because they are wearing a signature. And people who are in a signature campaign force themselves to make longer posts (in an effort to make it constructive), which is actually not a requirement at all.

But if a mod or admin will see a lot of short line/posts he will be sure take action against you, maybe you are right when you are saying it is not a requirement for the various signature campaigns but it is a problem for the forum.

Sorry. forgot to add unless he makes a lot of that kind of posts.. I added that only to the first paragraph.

I meant to say, posting once in a while like 1 in 20 or so, is normal.
If he makes a lot of short useless posts, he won't get paid and he will also be very likely be banned.

[btc-facebook]

Spamming means replies within a minute.
As long as it keeps on topic, we can spam everywhere and everytime. But if we spam because we were being forced to then we must avoid this spam for good. Being campaign manager is the hardest one to handle this problem especially when this sig pay a quite big of amount per post

[Amph]

searching for thread to post should not be counted as a spam, i was posting like 50 post a days and more(without any payment) when the alt-section was very active, because i loved that section so much, now it's just full of virus...

i don't agree with the "feel forced issue", now one is forced here, we are just joining more discussion, because we are payed, the problem occur when there are newbie that make the same thread over and over again(those newbie are probably sockpuppet of members that carry sig), and in that case we can choose to not post or reiterate(we are forced to do it, because that thread treats the same argument, not our fault...)

so...as long as there are no reiteration of any kind, this is how i see it

reiteration, non-constructive and off-topic reply are spam, everything else isn't

[shorena]

2. Make posts that he usually do but are not exactly constructive.

I would not force someone to change their posting habits. Maybe talk to them about those cases and discuss a different pay rate. This would certainly require more work unless you could settle for a general terms, e.g. -10% off on all posts, but the unconstructive ones still count.

I don't really like that idea though. It would be mean giving people I like higher rates than those I don't. Plus, everything will be too much in my hand. Don't want dictatorship.

Makes sense, especially considering (which I did not when I wrote my reply) that constructiveness is certainly relative. I wonder though if someone would not be perfectly fine with no payment for such posts. E.g. I used to post at least once a day in the free hugs thread. I would not expect any payment for these posts as its borderline spam. I do however like the idea and would not want to be banned from a campaign for these posts.

My thoughts conveyed perfectly.

What normal person would go through all the sections trying to do over 50 posts a day? I'm talking about posts that look okay but serve no purpose and are the result of careful spamming? None.

I dont know about 50 a day, but 20 are certainly possible if someone spends a whole day (10+ hours) on the board. This might happen even quicker if two people are engaged in a back and forth discussion. This would certainly not be the norm though. These posts would serve a purpose though, but as I wrote above this depends on the person judging.

[bitbets]

I reason that 'spam' is ADVERTISING THAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES NOT WANT


Anyone referring to anyone else as a 'spammer' is almost always hypocritical, because they usually advertise somehow themselves, or they receive the proceeds of advertising, their pay.

[botany]

Second what is sig spam? Is there a sticky that has a in depth answer like less than 10 words, posts within 5mins, 100 posts a day, 300 a week etc

A tendency to make posts in order to boost your post count, and you have an ad in your signature, particularly one that pays you per post. There is no secret invisible line that you shouldn't cross in terms of numbers, it's mostly subjective. 

There are people who just don't post very well in general, post "too much", or don't really have anything to say, they just like to participate in the community and post. This itself is fine. But when you add an ad to these kinds of posters, it's difficult or impossible to tell if they just aren't quality posters or if they are attempting to boost their post count. I used to err on the side of caution here because I do not want to ban the former, just the latter, but too many of the latter are slipping through the cracks because it's very difficult to gauge someone's intentions. This is the main thing that has changed lately.

[ndnh]

Second what is sig spam? Is there a sticky that has a in depth answer like less than 10 words, posts within 5mins, 100 posts a day, 300 a week etc

A tendency to make posts in order to boost your post count, and you have an ad in your signature, particularly one that pays you per post. There is no secret invisible line that you shouldn't cross in terms of numbers, it's mostly subjective.  

There are people who just don't post very well in general, post "too much", or don't really have anything to say, they just like to participate in the community and post. This itself is fine. But when you add an ad to these kinds of posters, it's difficult or impossible to tell if they just aren't quality posters or if they are attempting to boost their post count. I used to err on the side of caution here because I do not want to ban the former, just the latter, but too many of the latter are slipping through the cracks because it's very difficult to gauge someone's intentions. This is the main thing that has changed lately.

Thanks
That is exactly what I am looking for.

it's difficult or impossible to tell if they just aren't quality posters or if they are attempting to boost their post count. I used to err on the side of caution here because I do not want to ban the former, just the latter, but too many of the latter are slipping through the cracks because it's very difficult to gauge someone's intentions

There are already a few in the campaign, that are simply not quality posters, and is actually posting as they usually do. But there are also the other kind, who is trying to boost their post count.

The issue is when checking, both of the posts are almost exactly the same quality. atm, I am simply judging by the effort into making the posts, but I am looking for a more efficient way to distinguish between them if possible.

Thanks

[ndnh]

Here are some points that I think should not be relevant in judging the above. (Not in order of relevance)

1. English, grammar, punctuation. (unless some weird words are used - like spouse, contacts,..  ,  or it is illegible)
2. Number of posts. (It just depends on how much time you spend here and how active you are in discussions, generally)
3. Time between each posts. (If you know of a topic, well enough, the time factor may not be that important as some consider.  But there are exceptions)
4. Length. (as long as the message is conveyed, and is relevant)
5. Sarcasm/jokes (but not too often.) (it is often misinterpreted as useless. and sometimes considered as off-topic if the reader doesn't exactly get what it meant)



Should be relevant:
1. Simply rephrasing something said by someone else.
2. Posts that no one else knows why it was made. (tho the person in question will come up with a brilliant theory regarding that)
3. off-topic
4. Posts that contain ref-link
5. Posts that violate any rules. (esp. if it is done more than once)
6..Posting too many posts in a row. (Added later)
7. ?

[Hazir]

Here are some points that I think should not be relevant in judging the above. (Not in order of relevance)

1. English, grammar, punctuation. (unless some weird words are used - like spouse, contacts,..  ,  or it is illegible)
2. Number of posts. (It just depends on how much time you spend here and how active you are in discussions, generally)
3. Time between each posts. (If you know of a topic, well enough, the time factor may not be that important as some consider.  But there are exceptions)
4. Length. (as long as the message is conveyed, and is relevant)
5. Sarcasm/jokes (but not too often.) (it is often misinterpreted as useless. and sometimes considered as off-topic if the reader doesn't exactly get what it meant)



Should be relevant:
1. Simply rephrasing something said by someone else.
2. Posts that no one else knows why it was made. (tho the person in question will come up with a brilliant theory regarding that)
3. off-topic
4. Posts that contain ref-link
5. Posts that violate any rules. (esp. if it is done more than once)
6.. ?

I think that something like that shouldn't be allowed either-> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1029097.msg11131472#msg11131472 This user Sithara007 wrote 5 (sic!) consecutive posts one after another in a row. Is is a prime example, but there are many more users who seems to not use EDIT function at all.

[Sarthak]

I think that something like that shouldn't be allowed either-> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1029097.msg11131472#msg11131472 This user Sithara007 wrote 5 (sic!) consecutive posts one after another in a row. Is is a prime example, but there are many more users who seems to not use EDIT function at all.

You don't need to worry about those spammers! Marco has already rejected to pay sithara007 due to excessive signature spam
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg11125786#msg11125786

Check that Spammer Busted!

[Muhammed Zakir]

I saw many posts which is made by looking the title but not OP. Some of them isn't considered off-topic! For example, if someone wrote a problem with Android wallet, some users spam the thread with Android wallet names. One or two get deleted but not all.

=snip=
4. Posts that contain ref-link
 =snip=

There are some exceptions in this rule. Post containing referral link are spam if it was made only for advertising referral link or if it is off-topic or if the user is spamming with it.

[marcotheminer]

I saw many posts which is made by looking the title but not OP. Some of them isn't considered off-topic! For example, if someone wrote a problem with Android wallet, some users spam the thread with Android wallet names. One or two get deleted but not all.

This is a huge problem too.

[redsn0w]

I saw many posts which is made by looking the title but not OP. Some of them isn't considered off-topic! For example, if someone wrote a problem with Android wallet, some users spam the thread with Android wallet names. One or two get deleted but not all.

=snip=
4. Posts that contain ref-link
 =snip=

There are some exceptions in this rule. Post containing referral link are spam if it was made only for advertising referral link or if it is off-topic or if the user is spamming with it.

You should report all those posts and if them will not removed try send a PM to BadBear, I am sure he will take an action against those forum users.

....
Should be relevant:
1. Simply rephrasing something said by someone else.
2. Posts that no one else knows why it was made. (tho the person in question will come up with a brilliant theory regarding that)
3. off-topic
4. Posts that contain ref-link
5. Posts that violate any rules. (esp. if it is done more than once)
6..Posting too many posts in a row. (Added later)
7. ?

4. - // If I can say my personal opinion, I don't think it is to be considered "insubstantial" post a post with a ref. link (you should manage case by case).
6. - // I don't think it is wrong (if you do it only to make more easy the legibility of what are you saying)