Are Forum signatures really useful ?

[Bicknellski]

If signature campaigns are banned:

1. Accounts won't be bought/sold as people mainly buy farm accounts for signature campaigns.
2. Accounts won't be held as collateral and some members will even stop lending due to this.
3. Members (except scammers) will stop creating new accounts as now their account won't have any value.
4. Activity as well would be affected

I support banning signature campaigns if the first 3 points do take place as I don't support these account sales and find it immoral to farm accounts just to earn few bits.  

Yes there are many REASONS for it and many reasons that would benefit the forum if we were to remove the scourge of paid signatures. Are any of the mods participating in signature campaigns or account selling?

Keep sigs. Kill sig adverts.

[1715100893]

1715100893

[1715100893]

1715100893

[1715100893]

1715100893

[redsn0w]

If signature campaigns are banned:

1. Accounts won't be bought/sold as people mainly buy farm accounts for signature campaigns.
2. Accounts won't be held as collateral and some members will even stop lending due to this.
3. Members (except scammers) will stop creating new accounts as now their account won't have any value.
4. Activity as well would be affected


I support banning signature campaigns if the first 3 points do take place as I don't support these account sales and find it immoral to farm accounts just to earn few bits. 

I also support your idea, ban the signature campaigns and the problems will be resolved ... at least we can try for 1-2 months and see what will happen. People (that who were banned) are still continuing to create or farm account every single day and I remember a couple of months ago the things were more different than now.

[Muhammed Zakir]

If signature campaigns are banned:

1. Accounts won't be bought/sold as people mainly buy farm accounts for signature campaigns.
2. Accounts won't be held as collateral and some members will even stop lending due to this.
3. Members (except scammers) will stop creating new accounts as now their account won't have any value.
4. Activity as well would be affected


I support banning signature campaigns if the first 3 points do take place as I don't support these account sales and find it immoral to farm accounts just to earn few bits. 

I also support your idea, ban the signature campaigns and the problems will be resolved ... at least we can try for 1-2 months and see what will happen. People (that who were banned) are still continuing to create or farm account every single day and I remember a couple of months ago the things were more different than now.

Banning probably decreases activity. I think enforcing rules on campaign managers are better for better management. If spams are higher from a campaign, banning it. Anybody?

[TheButterZone]

Sure. Why else would they allow the forum to be defaced & degraded by shit which directly competes with official forum ads?

IIRC, somebody posited that the official forum ad fees can cost more because of the defacing & degrading shitposters. Shitcan the shitposts and ad revenue goes down?

[redsn0w]

If signature campaigns are banned:

1. Accounts won't be bought/sold as people mainly buy farm accounts for signature campaigns.
2. Accounts won't be held as collateral and some members will even stop lending due to this.
3. Members (except scammers) will stop creating new accounts as now their account won't have any value.
4. Activity as well would be affected


I support banning signature campaigns if the first 3 points do take place as I don't support these account sales and find it immoral to farm accounts just to earn few bits. 

I also support your idea, ban the signature campaigns and the problems will be resolved ... at least we can try for 1-2 months and see what will happen. People (that who were banned) are still continuing to create or farm account every single day and I remember a couple of months ago the things were more different than now.

Banning probably decreases activity. I think enforcing rules on campaign managers are better for better management. If spams are higher from a campaign, banning it. Anybody?

I do not think the forum staff has the time to manage all the signature campaign, a ban period test will be really useful (but it will be also a form of censorship and I think it is always against the philosophy of this forum).

Sure. Why else would they allow the forum to be defaced & degraded by shit which directly competes with official forum ads?

IIRC, somebody posited that the official forum ad fees can cost more because of the defacing & degrading shitposters. Shitcan the shitposts and ad revenue goes down?

This (probably) is another reason of why sig. campaigns are not banned from the forum... a little decentral. of ads is more effective and I think sig campaigns bring more traffic than the forum ad.

[Quickseller]

The forum is a center for bitcoin related commerce. Signatures are a major way that bitcoin related companies are able to advertise their products and services. This is not just for paid signatures, there are a number of people that advertise their own business with their signature.

If signatures are disallowed, then existing bitcoin related companies will have an advantage over others that wish to enter the marketplace and the bitcoin economy will become more centralized. Also disallowing signatures would inhibit the freedom of speech of both user and companies that wish to advertise via paid signatures.

I think a good solution to the signature spam problem would be to publish a report as to how many people who are participating in each campaign are banned due to insubstantial posts+paid signature, as well as other stats such as average post length of members posting in each campaign, number of posts deleted by members in each campaign, number of scammers in each campaign and other similar stats. This would hold companies more accountable for the participants in their signature campaigns and would give companies greater incentives to better manage their participants.  

[erikalui]

I also support your idea, ban the signature campaigns and the problems will be resolved ... at least we can try for 1-2 months and see what will happen. People (that who were banned) are still continuing to create or farm account every single day and I remember a couple of months ago the things were more different than now.

It can be seen in the span of 2 months as a test and I am sure that many would be inactive but the number of spam posts (although trolls will continue trolling) would reduce and account buying and selling would stop.

I don't know when the signature campaigns started but it has given rise to farming accounts and such scams/spams which is a bigger problem and it would slow down the activity as well (but people who are genuinely interested in bitcoins will stay).

Till now these campaigns are allowed because they bring traffic to the forum but there needs to be a solution as well.

[BadBear]

As far as I know, there is a software here created by a mod to lessen out the visual quality of annoying signature ads. If you don't want to see ads, then you might find that software useful. There is no need to disable forum signatures imo, but yes, I can agree that post quality nowadays are lower compared to last year when there are only a few signature campaigns available to the users.

I agree, the post quality has declined, you see so many newbies with the 777coin signatures and they are posting useless stuff in useless topics just to get the couple satoshis from the signature. However, disabling the signatures will only remove the signature, not the useless post made by the signature user.

But once signatures are disabled, you will see a drastic change on the number of low-quality posts that are related to signature campaigns. Low-quality posts and off-topic replies are sometimes made by newbies with their signatures so as to get a couple of satoshis. I myself do not support the idea of removing the signature, but maybe set another limit to newbies? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to wear any form of signature until they reached the Jr. Member rank because as far as I can see, the most off-topic and nonsense posts are usually made by members with a newbie rank.

I think the forum should add some special staff members to be very aggressive and their job is to hunt down spammers. Imagine a few dedicated signature spam hunters...might work? I think that personal signatures should always remain even if paid campaigns are banned.

In my experience so far, banning has little effect, the compensation and incentive is too much. It doesn't really have the desired result of reducing the spam. This isn't a problem that can be solved with more moderation. Consider the change from post based ranks to activity based ranks a while back, you could make hero member in no time at all as long as you posted enough. A lot of people ended up getting banned, and eventually we went to activity based ranks. It removed the incentive to spam posts, reduced moderation, reduced bannings, and overall lead to a better forum. Leaving the cookie jar on the table and smacking people every time they try to take one, instead of just moving the cookie jar is a waste of time and ends up in lots of unnecessary conflict.
 
Though sig campaigns have completely undone that, and we are back where we started.

The reason I believe this will never happen is that a lot of people actually post on here due to the ads, and is what makes it very active. I guess theymos could perhaps disable ads for a week and see if the posting is still as wild as it gets these days.

This forum has existed for a long time without signature campaigns. Sig campaigns came about because this is an active forum. Sig campaigns actually harm the forum in several ways, and not just the random sig spam.

1. it decreases forum revenue via advertising
2. that in turn decreases compensation for staff
3. more spam, in conjunction with point 2 accounts for the current state of the forum
4. increases workload on staff, along with less compensation mentioned above, means things that aren't sig spam go unhandled
5. Broken windows theory, the presence of spam, then encourages more spam
I'm gonna stop here because the rest will be subjective and just lead to more circular arguments, but I could go on.

The forum only had the one ad spot for a reason, sig campaigns make it look like crap. If the competition would be too stiff, adding more spots would certainly be preferable to sig campaigns, maybe some of it could even go to posters, I don't know if that's legally feasible though, with tax concerns and all.
 
Stopping it temporarily would have no effect, people would keep posting in order to "prove a point" and increase their activity for the inevitable return.

[peligro]

1. it decreases forum revenue via advertising
2. that in turn decreases compensation for staff

It increases forum revenue by increasing the traffic.

The forum only had the one ad spot for a reason, sig campaigns make it look like crap. If the competition would be too stiff, adding more spots would certainly be preferable to sig campaigns, maybe some of it could even go to posters, I don't know if that's legally feasible though, with tax concerns and all.
 
Stopping it temporarily would have no effect, people would keep posting in order to "prove a point" and increase their activity for the inevitable return.

If you are against sig campaigns then why are they still here? theymos disagrees with you?

[Twipple]

Stopping it temporarily would have no effect, people would keep posting in order to "prove a point" and increase their activity for the inevitable return.

I think the opposite. The activity can still be increased by just making one post a day. But people here essentially make 20-40 a day , which I believe is more because of the signatures . Maybe theymos should just test it out by disabling signatures for a week.

[Blazed]

BadBear...then why are the paid campaigns still allowed to continue? I myself have a flat rate so I am paid the same no matter what. It is a shame that these farmers ruined these campaigns for us non spammers. Either ban the campaigns or force them to some strong rules might do it?

Only a set amount of users
If members spam in your campaign - boot them or be shut down
No paid per post only a flat rate
Etc...

I think that would force the campaigns to pick only good posters and not farmers.

[notlist3d]

BadBear...then why are the paid campaigns still allowed to continue? I myself have a flat rate so I am paid the same no matter what. It is a shame that these farmers ruined these campaigns for us non spammers. Either ban the campaigns or force them to some strong rules might do it?

Only a set amount of users
If members spam in your campaign - boot them or be shut down
No paid per post only a flat rate
Etc...

I think that would force the campaigns to pick only good posters and not farmers.

First I agree the buying and selling of account's is not a good thing for the forum.  I think it's sad I spend a year to get my level and someone with money pay's some farmer to jump up activity levels.   There is lot's of issues with these accounts not mentioned to much is scamming these account's probley account for a decent amount of scams.  Even if you get rid of signature accounts there will still be a market for scammers to buy accounts.

I think there are good things with signature campaigns as far as user in forum.  With user you can go through your normal routine and get a little btc.  I personally use all of mine on mining gear (or in a lot of cases some new fan's for summer to help me keep mining).  It may seem small but over time it allows me to buy miner's test them out and do guides, help others with issues, among other things.

I think it gets you good content (in some cases).    So yes there are pro's and cons.   I personally hope it keeps going as it provide part of my hardware budget.  

*Edit: And as badbears sig say's there is a good option to block all signatures - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1003570.0 .  I highly suggest anyone who does not like signature campaign's to us it. 

[BadBear]

If you are against sig campaigns then why are they still here? theymos disagrees with you?

No he agrees (in general, I don't know about the finer points), and there will be changes eventually. Lack of time, and a general unwillingness to significantly modify the current forum when a new one is under development are the main reasons it hasn't been done yet.

BadBear...then why are the paid campaigns still allowed to continue? I myself have a flat rate so I am paid the same no matter what. It is a shame that these farmers ruined these campaigns for us non spammers. Either ban the campaigns or force them to some strong rules might do it?

Only a set amount of users
If members spam in your campaign - boot them or be shut down
No paid per post only a flat rate
Etc...

I think that would force the campaigns to pick only good posters and not farmers.

See above, and that would be a significant time investment to essentially run campaigns for them, with nothing in return. I'm also not sure how I feel about the forum inserting itself into the business deals of others. Seems a little... Big Brother-ish.

[peligro]

If you are against sig campaigns then why are they still here? theymos disagrees with you?

No he agrees (in general, I don't know about the finer points), and there will be changes eventually. Lack of time, and a general unwillingness to significantly modify the current forum when a new one is under development are the main reasons it hasn't been done yet.

BadBear...then why are the paid campaigns still allowed to continue? I myself have a flat rate so I am paid the same no matter what. It is a shame that these farmers ruined these campaigns for us non spammers. Either ban the campaigns or force them to some strong rules might do it?

Only a set amount of users
If members spam in your campaign - boot them or be shut down
No paid per post only a flat rate
Etc...

I think that would force the campaigns to pick only good posters and not farmers.

See above, and that would be a significant time investment to essentially run campaigns for them, with nothing in return. I'm also not sure how I feel about the forum inserting itself into the business deals of others. Seems a little... Big Brother-ish.

It is an easy modification. A new rule which says paid signatures are not allowed.
Are you saying that will take more time than you spend finding and banning spammers?

[temroa]

yes they are ı think people too think like me ı saw 777coin at signature and maked some dice

[dothebeats]

As far as I know, there is a software here created by a mod to lessen out the visual quality of annoying signature ads. If you don't want to see ads, then you might find that software useful. There is no need to disable forum signatures imo, but yes, I can agree that post quality nowadays are lower compared to last year when there are only a few signature campaigns available to the users.

I agree, the post quality has declined, you see so many newbies with the 777coin signatures and they are posting useless stuff in useless topics just to get the couple satoshis from the signature. However, disabling the signatures will only remove the signature, not the useless post made by the signature user.

But once signatures are disabled, you will see a drastic change on the number of low-quality posts that are related to signature campaigns. Low-quality posts and off-topic replies are sometimes made by newbies with their signatures so as to get a couple of satoshis. I myself do not support the idea of removing the signature, but maybe set another limit to newbies? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to wear any form of signature until they reached the Jr. Member rank because as far as I can see, the most off-topic and nonsense posts are usually made by members with a newbie rank.

I think the forum should add some special staff members to be very aggressive and their job is to hunt down spammers. Imagine a few dedicated signature spam hunters...might work? I think that personal signatures should always remain even if paid campaigns are banned.

Even if there are dedicated staff members whose purpose is solely spotting spammers, it isn't enough because a few edit and some sprinkle of "good" words would probably conceal the spam. That would work, but if you read the post thoroughly, you will see that the words added to the main point of the post is completely irrelevant as to what was really the point of the post. Special staff members aren't necessary in tracking down these spammers; the forum members here alone do so by reporting a post in which they think is insubstantial or is irrelevant to the discussion that's been going on.

[Jeremycoin]

Do you ever watch a sports competition? there so many brand who's sponsoring the competition. Are those really useful?

[redsn0w]

I also support your idea, ban the signature campaigns and the problems will be resolved ... at least we can try for 1-2 months and see what will happen. People (that who were banned) are still continuing to create or farm account every single day and I remember a couple of months ago the things were more different than now.

It can be seen in the span of 2 months as a test and I am sure that many would be inactive but the number of spam posts (although trolls will continue trolling) would reduce and account buying and selling would stop.

I don't know when the signature campaigns started but it has given rise to farming accounts and such scams/spams which is a bigger problem and it would slow down the activity as well (but people who are genuinely interested in bitcoins will stay).

Till now these campaigns are allowed because they bring traffic to the forum but there needs to be a solution as well.

Yes this is a well know thing, without the sig ad this forum will have fewer 'visits' but I am (still) thinking the sig campaigns bring more damage than good thing.... maybe it is only my theory.

Whatever maximizes profits for the admins is what the official forum policy is.

That apparently includes allowing spammers, scammers and far, far worse to run rampant.

sig campaigns are a good compromise to everyone and also if we ask the complete removal ... it will never be accomplished.

[mashcom]

Re: Are Forum signatures really useful ?


Yes, they are. Signature campaigns is needed to bitcointalk.org

[redsn0w]

Re: Are Forum signatures really useful ?


Yes, they are. Signature campaigns is needed to bitcointalk.org

Are you trolling or what?

Even if there are dedicated staff members whose purpose is solely spotting spammers, it isn't enough because a few edit and some sprinkle of "good" words would probably conceal the spam. That would work, but if you read the post thoroughly, you will see that the words added to the main point of the post is completely irrelevant as to what was really the point of the post. Special staff members aren't necessary in tracking down these spammers; the forum members here alone do so by reporting a post in which they think is insubstantial or is irrelevant to the discussion that's been going on.

I forgot to reply to your post, I only want to say that I agree with you. The forum staff should only manage the forum and not lose a lot of time trying to manage all the signature campaign.


What do you think if all the users that who are participating to the forum ads auctions will start to rent the users signature? Will the forum be happy of this decision or not?