New sig campaign to end sig campaigns

[rebuilder]

Here's an idea:

How about those of us who don't appreciate what sig campaigns are doing to this forum decide to only start self-moderated threads, deleting any posts with sig campaign ads in them?

To get the idea to spread, we can use a sig of our own, come up with a slogan for it.

"END ADVERTISING SPAM - ONLY START SELF-MODERATED THREADS AND DELETE SIG CAMPAIGNER'S POSTS FROM THEM!"

Doesn't exactly roll of the tongue that way, but I'm sure we can work on that. How does it sound?

PS. I'd make this thread self-moderated but that's not possible on the meta subforum...

[1715489525]

1715489525

[1715489525]

1715489525

[1715489525]

1715489525

[1715489525]

1715489525

[1715489525]

1715489525

[hilariousandco]

You're free to do that but it'd be kinda redundant and likely just have the opposite effect. Once people realise that their posts will be deleted they'll either just not reply to your threads or create a new thread to respond to you in protest. I as well as many others already rarely post in and try avoid self-modded threads because people can just delete any posts they disagree with or don't like regardless of how constructive they are or whether they have a signature or not.

[mexxer-2]

I believe Danny(Hamilton) was running something similar(except for the self-mod thread part).

I as well as many others already rarely post in and try avoid self-modded threads because people can just delete any posts they disagree with or don't like regardless of how constructive they are or whether they have a signature or not.

This pretty much sums it up

[rebuilder]

Yes, the extrapolate-ad-absurdum result might be a "moderation market", where people only post in threads started by people they trust to fairly moderate discussion...

[Blue_Tiger73]

This a pretty stupid idea. A lot of people on this forum use a signature. This idea would be only for a small percentage of the people on this forum.

[rebuilder]

This a pretty stupid idea. A lot of people on this forum use a signature. This idea would be only for a small percentage of the people on this forum.

A pretty small precentage of the people on this forum actually contribute anything meaningful. And yes, I took a cursory look at your post history, you sig campaigner,  you.

[shorena]

IIRC CIYAM had a thread like that, not entirely sure what the topic was. I followed it for a while...

found it  -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=957789.0

BTT: Would this mean a post will be remove at any time later if the users changes their signature to a paid one? Will posts be restored if they remove the paid signature?

[rebuilder]

Shorena: I don't think it's possible for a user to restore posts they delete from a self-mod thread. As for deleting old posts, I expect that would depend on the user doing the moderating. Probably they'd be left in place most of the time. Too much work to keep track of every post, plus the point is to remove the incentive to post crap, not to remove ads per se. Providing a clean environment for discussion as it's happening should be enough.

[subSTRATA]

Shorena: I don't think it's possible for a user to restore posts they delete from a self-mod thread. As for deleting old posts, I expect that would depend on the user doing the moderating. Probably they'd be left in place most of the time. Too much work to keep track of every post, plus the point is to remove the incentive to post crap, not to remove ads per se. Providing a clean environment for discussion as it's happening should be enough.

paid signature or not, people exist that will post crap regardless. it's possible a thread started with the intent to keep out people with a paid signature might just attract dedicated trolls without a signature and clog up whatever discussion all the same.
if anything, the self modded threads' goal should be to cut out all crap regardless of who posts it.

[Amph]

IIRC CIYAM had a thread like that, not entirely sure what the topic was. I followed it for a while...

found it  -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=957789.0

BTT: Would this mean a post will be remove at any time later if the users changes their signature to a paid one? Will posts be restored if they remove the paid signature?

funny thing is that the thread was on the off-topic board, where most(if not all) of the sig campaign don't pay for it, so it was kind useless to do it in the first place

[rebuilder]

paid signature or not, people exist that will post crap regardless. it's possible a thread started with the intent to keep out people with a paid signature might just attract dedicated trolls without a signature and clog up whatever discussion all the same.
if anything, the self modded threads' goal should be to cut out all crap regardless of who posts it.

Yes, and signatures incentivize volume, not quality of posting, so targeting them specifically would seem a good way to improve the forum's overall quality of content. There's probably an interesting discussion to be had on whether we might be better off with more self-moderated threads in general - centralized vs. distributed moderation, essentially.

I'm just pointing out that for any users unhappy with moderation policy, as many seem to be in the case of the sig campaigns, the forum software does offer tools to use.

[Monumental]

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

[ilvbtc]

The whole signature campaign stuff itself looks ridiculous/mess here.
Just do not understand if the very purpose of a campaign running is met or not.
What do you think the very primary/plain 'desired result' of the admins in starting their campaign programs?

[Lauda]

IIRC CIYAM had a thread like that, not entirely sure what the topic was. I followed it for a while...

found it  -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=957789.0

But that is bad IMO; that is a case of faulty generalization.

If you have an ad-sig then I will delete your post no matter how "relevant" you think it is

This would imply that e.g. posts of high quality (e.g. yours) would be deleted just because you're in a signature campaign.

Yes, and signatures incentivize volume, not quality of posting, so targeting them specifically would seem a good way to improve the forum's overall quality of content. There's probably an interesting discussion to be had on whether we might be better off with more self-moderated threads in general - centralized vs. distributed moderation, essentially.

Distributed moderation? No. This is just bad because people would censor each other because of various idiotic reasons (e.g. personal dispute) regardless of how good someone's post is. "Centralized" moderation with a fixed set of rules produces the best results.

[1Referee]

If you don't like signature campaigns, which I can understand due to the spammy posts, then you are free to create your own moderate threads, and also use DannyHamilton's ignore list to ignore 95% of the people with an ad.

Self moderation is not what the people want here, it's basically a tool for the creator of the OP to delete any post he want, even when there are people with sig ads that do post constructive and don't intend to spam.

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

That could definitely help bring down the amount of spam significantly. People always seem to chase the maximum post count for the highest payout. If you reduce the weekly post cap by 50% then the posters won't need to brable nonsense to reach their week target.

[mexxer-2]

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

That would increase the use of multiple accounts, and sales of accounts

[ilvbtc]

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

That could definitely help bring down the amount of spam significantly. People always seem to chase the maximum post count for the highest payout. If you reduce the weekly post cap by 50% then the posters won't need to brable nonsense to reach their week target.
[/quote]

But can we expect them to compromise on post count when their very aim is their respective signatures being SEEN all over the forum and attract the attention of the new customers?

[1Referee]

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

That could definitely help bring down the amount of spam significantly. People always seem to chase the maximum post count for the highest payout. If you reduce the weekly post cap by 50% then the posters won't need to brable nonsense to reach their week target.

But can we expect them to compromise on post count when their very aim is their respective signatures being SEEN all over the forum and attract the attention of the new customers?
[/quote]

Well, they can also only make their signature campaign available for Hero+ members in order to compensate for their lower post count. I assume that a Hero+ member wearing a paid sig ad has much more value then simply accepting Members, Full members, etc. Not that the lower account members have nothing constructive to say, but more the fact that you can easily farm these accounts and sell them if you so wish.

[rebuilder]

There's no reason for a campaign runner to want to restrict their campaigners' posting any further than absolutely necessary to comply with forum moderation policy. If you want to change the rules for campaigns, you have to get the policies changed, and that doesn't look likely.

The only other option seems to be to find ways to make life harder for ad spammers. I'm suggesting one such way here.

[Blazed]

There's no reason for a campaign runner to want to restrict their campaigners' posting any further than absolutely necessary to comply with forum moderation policy. If you want to change the rules for campaigns, you have to get the policies changed, and that doesn't look likely.

The only other option seems to be to find ways to make life harder for ad spammers. I'm suggesting one such way here.

Pretty cool idea good luck with it! I think there are several solid users here that do wear sigs that would be excluded, but that's just how it goes. It will be interesting watching a thread and see if your idea works out or not.

[Duomo]

It's nice to make some bitcoin while posting. If signatures are banned, will I stop providing quality information to the forums and community? No, I will still be here and I will still post. I am for quality information and knowledge that I hope to exchange with other individuals with a variety of interests.
As terrible as this sounds, you be limiting the amount of information and individuals on a forum when bitcoin should be exposed to more individuals.

[mtnsaa]

Please, why don't you just create another forum and go there to discuss your own ideas without annoying ads. It's not like this forum is so perfectly designed or great looking that the signature campaigns ruin everything...

On the other hand if you mean that there are a lot of spammers, well maybe campaign managers need to monitor their users more closely, if not they should pay a fine for each spammer they take on or similar.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yes I'm wearing a Yobit signature, but I would post pretty much the same stuff here if I wasn't wearing one.  Honestly I can't stand sig spammers, and it irks me to no end when I get called exactly that because of my sig.  But I totally understand.

I thought about it long and hard last month and finally came to the resolution that if I'm going to be participating in this forum I might as well get paid for it.  And Yobit so far is a fairly decent exchange--not a scam by any means.  I do my best to be interesting in my posts, perhaps injecting some humor at points.

I would have no problem if sig campaigns went away, but the self-moderated thread thing to eliminate sig spam would be anathema to this forum.

[subSTRATA]

paid signature or not, people exist that will post crap regardless. it's possible a thread started with the intent to keep out people with a paid signature might just attract dedicated trolls without a signature and clog up whatever discussion all the same.
if anything, the self modded threads' goal should be to cut out all crap regardless of who posts it.

Yes, and signatures incentivize volume, not quality of posting, so targeting them specifically would seem a good way to improve the forum's overall quality of content. There's probably an interesting discussion to be had on whether we might be better off with more self-moderated threads in general - centralized vs. distributed moderation, essentially.

I'm just pointing out that for any users unhappy with moderation policy, as many seem to be in the case of the sig campaigns, the forum software does offer tools to use.

the volume of posts being the problem, there isnt a real direct way to solve the issue. the most direct solution would be to limit the number of posts a paid signature advertiser can make in a certain period of time, or implement a greater timer in between posting. however, we know this wont happen. the only feasible solution (without admins directly imposing new policies or intervening directly in the campaigns themselves) i see is a really strict anti spam policy that would be maintained by campaign managers, as they alone control who stays in the campaign and who gets booted, aside from the moderators / admins banning users for spamming.

although the self moderated thread idea might allow for quality discussion devoid of spammers and trolls, they wouldnt necessarily cut down the spam (in regards to the whole forum) as h@c said above.

[BattleField]

If the OP does not like signature campaign, he can go to bitcoin.com. There is no signature campaign there. Signature campaign gives some people incentive to post.

[XinXan]

If the OP does not like signature campaign, he can go to bitcoin.com. There is no signature campaign there. Signature campaign gives some people incentive to post.

He is not complaining about the ads, the forum itself has an option to turn off the sig ads. He is complaining that signature campaigns are attracting spam which is true but it's not that big of a deal, most spam is on the gambling section which can't really have many constructive posts anyways. If OP is so concerned about it, why doesn't he just ignore all sig campaign participants that he consider that are spamming?

[shorena]

If the OP does not like signature campaign, he can go to bitcoin.com. There is no signature campaign there. Signature campaign gives some people incentive to post.

He is not complaining about the ads, the forum itself has an option to turn off the sig ads.

Not the signature ads, no just the regular adds directly below the first post of thread/page.

He is complaining that signature campaigns are attracting spam which is true but it's not that big of a deal, most spam is on the gambling section which can't really have many constructive posts anyways. If OP is so concerned about it, why doesn't he just ignore all sig campaign participants that he consider that are spamming?

Rebuilder actually suggested a solution different from ignoreing users, by creating self moderated threads and removing spam/low quality posts. This would keep those users away and create a different form of moderation (by the OP of each thread instead of the staff). If a spammer is banned the posts usually stay I also suspect that rebuilder's definition is more strict than that of the forum in general.

[rebuilder]

Judging by the lack of enthusiasm, there's no point in going full steam ahead with this.

The ads themselves don't bother me that much, although I'd feel lousy about having one myself. It's just that paying people to post without extremely strict quality control seems like a proposition with no upsides and plenty of downsides.

The biggest problem is that a lot of posts aren't really abusive or off-topic, just completely uninteresting. I don't think we'd see anywhere near as much of the "I hoep Bitcoin price gose up, I'll b very hapi and it good for Bitcoin!" type of post if people weren't paid for volume. I report the stuff, but it seems my standards are stricter than the mods'. I'll admit moderating for insightfulness is a tough proposition, but I think that just means you shouldn't encourage mediocre posts, because you're going to see enough of them even without financial incentives.

So I'll probably start using self-moderation in the rare case I do start a thread myself, but will moderate for post quality, not ad content. Trying to self-moderate ads away would only have a chance of having any effect if a lot of people did it. Just me going around being a stickler for manners on my own would result in collateral damage without any benefit.

[notlist3d]

The biggest problem is that a lot of posts aren't really abusive or off-topic, just completely uninteresting. I don't think we'd see anywhere near as much of the "I hoep Bitcoin price gose up, I'll b very hapi and it good for Bitcoin!" type of post if people weren't paid for volume. I report the stuff, but it seems my standards are stricter than the mods'. I'll admit moderating for insightfulness is a tough proposition, but I think that just means you shouldn't encourage mediocre posts, because you're going to see enough of them even without financial incentives.

That is not the proper use.  If you find people doing this they are abusing the system.   What you can do is report it to mod, if it is utter crap posts they get a temp ban.  Mod's do ban for crappy insubstantial posts.

And I would just avoid off-topic I might read it once ever few weeks.  I just am not into it I don't care to read what someone last drank, or listened to.... so I avoid it.   I would suggest you avoid it to if you hate crap posts.

[erikalui]

If by ending signature campaigns the problem of getting rid of spam is solved, then go ahead. I doubt that would work though on this forum as many users post nonsense without wearing a signature to either troll, cause fights, increase their rank so that they can sell their account or just for fun. About 80% of the members out here wear signatures (IMHO). Like the moderator out here said the same, many users who do try to help the community members avoid self moderated threads and hence if you are seeking advise out here, it's not preferred to have such threads as users who want to genuinely help to feel that they aren't going to get rewarded for their help.

With regards to the Speculation section, I feel that campaigns should ban it as it's filled with trolls who ask users to dump their coins and spam posts (actually that section is about what one feels about bitcoin prices and hence can't blame them either and we cannot expect expert opinions).

[jackg]

Here's an idea:

How about those of us who don't appreciate what sig campaigns are doing to this forum decide to only start self-moderated threads, deleting any posts with sig campaign ads in them?

To get the idea to spread, we can use a sig of our own, come up with a slogan for it.

"END ADVERTISING SPAM - ONLY START SELF-MODERATED THREADS AND DELETE SIG CAMPAIGNER'S POSTS FROM THEM!"

Doesn't exactly roll of the tongue that way, but I'm sure we can work on that. How does it sound?

PS. I'd make this thread self-moderated but that's not possible on the meta subforum...

Most people that are in signature campaigns do not spam!

It is up to the campaign managers to decide this. If you want to persue anything take it up with them!

I always find it strange that those on this forum dislike people that want to get paid for posting. A lot of posts from people outside of signature campaigns are spammers and scammers too!

EDIT: if you try to put your "SLOGAN" in your signature, that is technically classed as a signature campaighn. And so, for posting, you will have to remove your own posts too?

[InvoKing]

58% ad-sig in this topic ;(Edit: seeing ads didn't annoy me and I know how to disable them if the next post is an answer to my post.)

Most people that are in signature campaigns do not spam!

doubt (way less)

It is up to the campaign managers to decide this. If you want to persue anything take it up with them!

making a rule that force a sig comp to have a manager (or the admin) to control the posts' quality isn't a bad idea. #yobit & sectrades cases for example.

I always find it strange that those on this forum dislike people that want to get paid for posting.

they don't, people were bored of useless spam (how...is...?, repeating the same answer over and over without adding absolutely anything, check the ''bitcoin generator'' topic for example.)

what i think personally is that sig/comp is helping for the growth of the community and people tend to help others (and ofc increase their activity+made few dollars/week) without it i don't think many will care to answer the questions here, it is easy to post in off-topic to increase your activity/period or in games and rounds for obvious reasons...

[shorena]

Learn to use Profile settings.

FTFY.

[Lauda]

Learn to use Profile settings.
-snip-

FTFY.

Exactly. The problem isn't seeing the signatures, the problem is seeing the useless posts. Some people seem to mix these up. I don't mind the actual signatures (especially since they can be disabled), but the posts tend to be very annoying (i.e. wasting time reading through all of them).

It is up to the campaign managers to decide this. If you want to persue anything take it up with them!

making a rule that force a sig comp to have a manager (or the admin) to control the posts' quality isn't a bad idea. #yobit & sectrades cases for example.

I already suggested making rules/regulations and enforcing them for campaigns but it didn't go through.