Suggestion to improve post quality on Bitcointalk

[Pips]

I think that the BTCTalk community administrators need to establish rules for signature campaigns. Managers have to check the quality of each post and remove every one line spammer from the campaign list. Automated post counting scripts could no longer be used since a script or bot could not check the quality of posts. If a campaign manager does not remove spammers from their campaigns, the forum admins should ban the campaign manager and effectively end the campaign. I too am getting sick of the spammers and lazy managers only in it for the money and not discussion about earning/improving the bitcoin network.

You can always PM the manager of the sig campaign that has user missbehaving/spamming etc.. Just include post/s that you find unworthy as reference and i'm sure action will be made.
Also, there's that report to moderator thingy on the right of posts, if the post is in violation of forum rules. A lot of people lost their spamming account due to this.

Yeah, but there are the signature campaigns like YoBit that basically promote signature spammers; the majority of the posters enrolled in their signature campaign are very LQ posters, and since their payments are counted by a bot, you can't report them to a campaign manager.

I say that we should get rid of bot-counted signature campaigns altogether.

[Kprawn]

Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these

campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of

the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their

campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.

[shorena]

Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these

campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of

the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their

campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.

I dont think a high max number of post is a problem in general. I see the main problem with campaign managers that just dont care if they pay for spam or not. As you say carra23 does a very good job and so did(does?) ndnhc, I think marcotheminer improved on this as well as I rarely see bit-x participants spamming which was a big problem in the past.

[GannickusX]

Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these

campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of

the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their

campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.

I dont think a high max number of post is a problem in general. I see the main problem with campaign managers that just dont care if they pay for spam or not. As you say carra23 does a very good job and so did(does?) ndnhc, I think marcotheminer improved on this as well as I rarely see bit-x participants spamming which was a big problem in the past.

Exactly, campaigns that have a lot of participants that spam or post useless stuff should be closed by admins somehow, maybe banning the campaign manager for not doing his job, also most campaigns accept people without even looking at their post quality or quantity plus some of them allow newbies aswell which makes it easier for people to create new accounts if they are banned.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

For what it's worth,  I'm ok with kprawn's spacing.   It's easier on the eyes than a tombstone-like wall of text.  This isn't YouTube where we're limited to a certain number of characters.

[shorena]

Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these

campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of

the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their

campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.

I dont think a high max number of post is a problem in general. I see the main problem with campaign managers that just dont care if they pay for spam or not. As you say carra23 does a very good job and so did(does?) ndnhc, I think marcotheminer improved on this as well as I rarely see bit-x participants spamming which was a big problem in the past.

Exactly, campaigns that have a lot of participants that spam or post useless stuff should be closed by admins somehow, maybe banning the campaign manager for not doing his job, also most campaigns accept people without even looking at their post quality or quantity plus some of them allow newbies aswell which makes it easier for people to create new accounts if they are banned.

I dont think we should rely to heavily on staff either. There are many voices that say signature campaigns should be forbidden in general and if spam gets too bad because of them, staff might change their stance.

[Kprawn]

Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these

campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of

the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their

campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.

I dont think a high max number of post is a problem in general. I see the main problem with campaign managers that just dont care if they pay for spam or not. As you say carra23 does a very good job and so did(does?) ndnhc, I think marcotheminer improved on this as well as I rarely see bit-x participants spamming which was a big problem in the past.

Exactly, campaigns that have a lot of participants that spam or post useless stuff should be closed by admins somehow, maybe banning the campaign manager for not doing his job, also most campaigns accept people without even looking at their post quality or quantity plus some of them allow newbies aswell which makes it easier for people to create new accounts if they are banned.

I dont think we should rely to heavily on staff either. There are many voices that say signature campaigns should be forbidden in general and if spam gets too bad because of them, staff might change their stance.

I hope they first consider the impact of that decision on the site traffic statistics and also banning campaigns that encourage spamming. A mayor attraction for advertisers

here are the traffic this forum generates and I  guess a lot of that has to do with the signature campaigns and the activity that adds to the traffic. A lot of people will stop

using the forum or move to another forum where signature campaigns are allowed. I still say a reward system will keep people here and encourage them to post more

constructively. {This can be funded by the forum or a advertiser or a group of concerned members}

[Jet Cash]

Just change the rules about signatures so that links to sites are only permitted if the domain is owned by the poster.