Suggestion to improve post quality on Bitcointalk

[Kprawn]

I have seen a few older members complaining about the quality of posting declining and also a movement to ignore signature posters. I do not agree with some of them, but I

also feel something must be done to improve the quality of the posting. There are too many one liner signature posting, that add no value to the discussions or are merely a

repeat post of a previous posting.

I have a suggestion for the people that feel strongly about this matter and want to do something constructive to improve this matter on the forum.

Why not fund a monthly prize pool from these members and the forum, towards a "Best forum poster, without a signature" prize pot. If the incentive is big enough, people will

abandon signature campaigns to compete for that monthly prize. They will also have to make sure that they post constructively or they will not win the prize.  

So let's discuss this, and see how strong people feel about this.   The forum members funding the prize pot, will also be the judges for the final decision on who will receive

the prize.  

[1713567312]

1713567312

[1713567312]

1713567312

[1713567312]

1713567312

[1713567312]

1713567312

[1713567312]

1713567312

[Sarthak]

I have seen a few older members complaining about the quality of posting declining and also a movement to ignore signature posters. I do not agree with some of them, but I also feel something must be done to improve the quality of the posting

I also feel the same

. There are too many one liner signature posting, that add no value to the discussions or are merely a repeat post of a previous posting.

I agree. But it should be also noted that not all one-liners are spam.

abandon signature campaigns to compete for that monthly prize.

 

You're saying this and you are yourself wearing the signature.

But I don't think that the "Best Forum Poster, without a signature" would really help./ Considering the number of active people on the forum, the odds will be significantly less and this will not stop from spammers spamming the forum.
But i think we should start making a "Blacklist" for the people who spam the thread from now onwards. And the members on the blacklist shouldn't be allowed to join any sig campaigns. What do you think?
  

*Edited

[Lauda]

"Best forum poster, without a signature" prize pot.

I would say that is quite ironic because of two things:
1) You have not read the forum rules and guidelines (thread is in the wrong section);
2) You have a signature yourself.

While your intentions might be pure, and I agree that there is a problem, this is not how to proceed. Obviously just banning signature participants will not help as they keep coming back after the ban or via a new account. I'd propose that someone makes guidelines for the people that want to make a signature campaign. If the manager lets people that post very useless posts, then he should be punished as well. A cooperation between the staff and managers should possibly fix this problem. Regardless of this, there are some pretty good posters (rare, but there are) with a signature.

There are too many one liner signature posting, that add no value to the discussions or are merely a repeat post of a previous posting.

Signature campaign participants (the bad king) especially love threads that involve drama where they can 'stay on topic' easily while bumping their post count.

[redsn0w]

I think this is a stupid idea (not an offense to you). I have reported the thread because it is in the wrong section, however ... the problem is not only the signature campaigns but also all the users who enroll and participating to gain few btc.


The use of the ignore function can help in this case.... 

[Kprawn]

I have seen a few older members complaining about the quality of posting declining and also a movement to ignore signature posters. I do not agree with some of them, but I also feel something must be done to improve the quality of the posting

I also feel the same

. There are too many one liner signature posting, that add no value to the discussions or are merely a repeat post of a previous posting.

I agree. But it should be also noted that not all one-liners are spam.

abandon signature campaigns to compete for that monthly prize.

 

You're saying this and you are yourself wearing the signature.

But I don't think that the "Best Forum Poster, without a signature" would really help./ Considering the number of active people on the forum, the odds will be significantly less and this will not stop from spammers spamming the forum.
But i think we should start making a "Blacklist" for the people who spam the thread from now onwards. And the members on the blacklist shouldn't be allowed to join any sig campaigns. What do you think?
  

*Edited

I have no problems with signature campaigns and with people who participate in them. There are lots of people who participate in signature campaigns, who still post

constructively and still add value to the forum. I am just thinking of possible solutions to improve the overall experience for everyone, not just the signature posters.

So let's not debate the fact that people participate in signature campaigns, because that add lots of value too. Let's see if this suggestion could solve one problem for a

group of people, who has a problem with non-constructive posting.  

I think this is a stupid idea (not an offense to you). I have reported the thread because it is in the wrong section, however ... the problem is not only the signature campaigns but also all the users who enroll and participating to gain few btc.


The use of the ignore function can help in this case....  

It's fine, I do not get easily offended. At least I am trying to improve something for people who has a problem with this. And I can bet you, none of them will be willing to fund

this effort, they will only complain and ignore people. Let's see if I am wrong.   The mods can decide if this is in the wrong thread.. if it is, please feel free to move it.  

Ignoring people is not the best solution. There are people on here, who participate in signature campaigns with valid questions and suggestions, and they are simply ignored

because they decided to join a signature campaign. Let's find some real solutions for this problem.. feel free to add your own suggestion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Best forum poster, without a signature" prize pot.

I would say that is quite ironic because of two things:
1) You have not read the forum rules and guidelines (thread is in the wrong section);
2) You have a signature yourself.

While your intentions might be pure, and I agree that there is a problem, this is not how to proceed. Obviously just banning signature participants will not help as they keep coming back after the ban or via a new account. I'd propose that someone makes guidelines for the people that want to make a signature campaign. If the manager lets people that post very useless posts, then he should be punished as well. A cooperation between the staff and managers should possibly fix this problem. Regardless of this, there are some pretty good posters (rare, but there are) with a signature.

There are too many one liner signature posting, that add no value to the discussions or are merely a repeat post of a previous posting.

Signature campaign participants (the bad king) especially love threads that involve drama where they can 'stay on topic' easily while bumping their post count.

I am breaking no rules by suggesting something to improve the forum and discussing something that would add value to Bitcoin discussions.

I am also not automatically banned from making a suggestion, if I participate in a signature campaign.

Edited : Done... No need to bump my post count... I have no need to.  

[redsn0w]

You can reply to 2 or more posts in one unique reply, you are trying to boost your post count with this 'practice' (maybe I'm wrong). You can move your thread, search 'move topic' it's in the left corner at the bottom of this thread.

[Lauda]

I am breaking no rules by suggesting something to improve the forum and discussing something that would add value to Bitcoin discussions.

I am also not automatically banned from making a suggestion, if I participate in a signature campaign.

What are you talking about? I have never said that you are breaking any rules by suggesting something. I said that you have not read the rules & guidelines that contain help in regards to opening new threads. This thread should be in meta and I have reported it as well. Nobody said that you were banned from making suggestions either. My suggestion is that we do something in regards to the managers as well.

Edited : Done... No need to bump my post count... I have no need to.  

Yes, updating posts is better than replying sometimes. I do it often as well.

[onemorexmr]

The use of the ignore function can help in this case.... 

that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.

[Soros Shorts]

The use of the ignore function can help in this case....  

that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.

That .... and I think we should also bring back the orange ignore button. If you remember this feature, as more and more people ignored the poster, the ignore button became a deeper orange. It was very easy to see who the shit posters were.

I believe it was removed because of the amount of CPU resources required to compute it. However I believe that it can be properly re-implemented without taking up massive amount of computing resources.

To stay on topic, I think the OP's idea is approaching the problem from the wrong direction. We don't need more good posts - we need less garbage posts. Every now and then I see a good thread but very soon it gets moved to the second page by garbage threads and dies off.

[onemorexmr]

The use of the ignore function can help in this case.... 

that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.

That .... and I think we should also bring back the orange ignore button. If you remember this feature, as more and more people ignored the poster, the ignore button became a deeper orange. It was very easy to see who the shit posters were.

I believe it was removed because of the amount of CPU resources required to compute it. However I believe that it can be properly re-implemented without taking up massive amount of computing resources.

yes, that feature was nice!
maybe in the new form... (lol)

[redsn0w]

The use of the ignore function can help in this case.... 

that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.

Good idea, let's see what theymos or BadBear will say.

That .... and I think we should also bring back the orange ignore button. If you remember this feature, as more and more people ignored the poster, the ignore button became a deeper orange. It was very easy to see who the shit posters were.

I believe it was removed because of the amount of CPU resources required to compute it. However I believe that it can be properly re-implemented without taking up massive amount of computing resources.

I don't remember this function, I would like to ask you: when was it removed? *The period/date.

[Patejl]

The use of the ignore function can help in this case.... 

that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.

Say someone has something personal against you, so they could make alts and ruin your reputation , something like alts ruining your rep from negative feedbacks but in this case every ignore would be significant

[onemorexmr]

The use of the ignore function can help in this case.... 

that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.

Say someone has something personal against you, so they could make alts and ruin your reputation , something like alts ruining your rep from negative feedbacks but in this case every ignore would be significant

that is easy to counter: ignore count could ignores from brandnew/ or newbie accounts.
and if someone really buys lots of higherrank accounts, well... if he is willing to spent that much time or money to ruin you he'll find a way.

[Soros Shorts]

I don't remember this function, I would like to ask you: when was it removed? *The period/date.

Maybe sometime in 2012? Here people were still talking about it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109833.0

[LMGTFY]

The use of the ignore function can help in this case.... 

that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.

That only works if people use the ignore list as intended! I don't know if I'm unique in this regard, but I misuse the ignore list - there are plenty of good posters on mine, simply because currently they're mostly talking about things that don't directly affect me (for example, the blocksize debate - I follow the debate periodically, and use my ignore list to screen out people who regularly or mostly discuss the debate. That's no reflection on the posters I'm ignoring, simply something I do to make it easier to focus on other things. And, obviously, I remove people from my ignore list almost as frequently as I add people).

[TheGr33k]

This won't be much successful as majority would think that "they don't have any chance winning the bounty so why don't just earn small via signature campaign only?"

There must be something like a Blacklist like someone stated over here earlier. Or all signature campaign managers can keep small bpounty for those who catch the spammers and inform them about the spammers.
This will reduce spams to some nice extent.

[Pro Gamers]

The use of the ignore function can help in this case.... 

that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.

That only works if people use the ignore list as intended! I don't know if I'm unique in this regard, but I misuse the ignore list - there are plenty of good posters on mine, simply because currently they're mostly talking about things that don't directly affect me (for example, the blocksize debate - I follow the debate periodically, and use my ignore list to screen out people who regularly or mostly discuss the debate. That's no reflection on the posters I'm ignoring, simply something I do to make it easier to focus on other things. And, obviously, I remove people from my ignore list almost as frequently as I add people).

Sorry to interact people but this could be real, ignore button can be abused most especially by people with nothing to do.

[NorrisK]

I think it is a bit harsh to put the blame of reduced post quality purely on signature campaigns.. There are enough people that do not max out their weekly/monthly limits at all. Of course a lot of shit is being posted by them, but also by others.

I'm thinking about newbie accounts saying bitcoin is doomed.
Newbie accounts saying bitcoin is going to skyrocket.
This alt will beat this alt.

The list is endless.

Part of the reduced post quality, in my opinion, also can be explained by the increased number of persons involved in bitcoin. At first you had the real enthusiasts and tech savvy people who really understood the basics of bitcoin. Now the majority is just normal users who are posting here. Ofcourse the quality will be less.

[tonycamp]

well i like more the constructive post of knowleage from older activity users but some above 100 activity are all good the newbies or juniors or members like me its the ones who post with significative need of improvance for the better information into the comunity and theres also philosophers

[redsn0w]

I don't remember this function, I would like to ask you: when was it removed? *The period/date.

Maybe sometime in 2012? Here people were still talking about it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109833.0

Thanks and I am still thinking that function could be re-added. The newbie (sock puppets/alt) users who ignore someone else will not be a problem, why? Read here:

If you're not seeing the color on your ignore link and an approximate count for established users who ignore you than you aren't using the default theme.
If you use the default theme and you don't see a count or any color it's because only newbs ignore you, or nobody ignores you.