My proposal to reduce signature campaign spamming

[tommorisonwebdesign]

As a lot of you are aware, there is a ton of spam on this forum consisting of one-liner posts and/or nonsense topics being posted all for the sole purpose of boosting profits for the mentioned poster. To make matters worse, people are coding bots with poor-to-moderate AI making automated replies or posting new topics. To curve this problem, I suggest the board's staff implement the following:

• Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members
• Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign.
• Automatically ban users with too much negative rep
• Ban campaigns that are poorly managed

Having both a trust and a reputation/thanks system will give us a better picture as to who is spamming campaigns and who isn't. A rep system will allow the staff to get a quick glance who is contributing to the forum and who isn't. Other forums, such as BHW have done this and the spammy/meaningless replies/posts are minimized. These are my suggestions. Comments?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

You have a great suggestion about restricting sig campaigns, and I think the details of your suggestion are also very good.  I try very hard to contribute something when I post, and it has always driven me nuts when people get paid to shitpost.  And if you're creative and talented enough to make a bot with AI to automatically post, just think how much you could add to the forum!  But no, people are 1) Lazy, and 2) Greedy. 

So I strenuously agree with this.  I wouldn't even change a word of how you suggested this.

[redsn0w]

...

• Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members
• Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign.
• Automatically ban users with too much negative rep
• Ban campaigns that are poorly managed

...

Have to much negative point doesn't necessarily mean that you are a spammer or post low quality posts, right ? A good example is : Quickseller. I agree with your other suggestions, waiting to see more...

[--Encrypted--]

1. susceptible to abuse.
2. might work.
3. that will make scams/scammers indirectly moderated. I don't see the need for this as we can always add campaign that accept negative trusted users to [4].
4. might work.

I like the thanks button & rep feature though. just as long as it is not used for deciding who's constructive and who's not.

[simon66]

"Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members"

I think it would be good if all posts had up/down arrows on them you could click similar to reddit that users could use to vote on good and bad posts.

If you like the post and think it is quality then click up, if you feel that post is spamming click down. Next to where trust is displayed you could also display a post quality count that adds all the +1's and -1's for your score.

Then the sig campaigns would have the option to base there pay rate on the quality of the posts as apposed to just the quantity and rank.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

1. susceptible to abuse.
2. might work.
3. that will make scams/scammers indirectly moderated. I don't see the need for this as we can always add campaign that accept negative trusted users to [4].
4. might work.

I like the thanks button & rep feature though. just as long as it is not used for deciding who's constructive and who's not.

And I would suggest that this needs to change.  Scammers don't need to be in signature campaigns--if they've done the community wrong, they should be sanctioned for it, within limits.  And I think whatever limits there are should be defined by staff.

[Decoded]

If you make Full members the accounts that are the lowest but can still get signatures, they'll be alot more expensive than they already are. This price could in turn encourage the trade of accounts for signature campaigns, giving us MORE potential spammers.

[sase007]

I have some ideas.
First, signature campaign managers are "supposed" to be the ones who ban people from campaigns.
Second, signature campaigns should pay people based on the quality of their posts (not on number of posts).
Third, payments shouldn't be made for signature campaigns if they adopt one of the following strategies:
  • Posts must be more than 75 characters.
  • Posts must be more than 3 sentences
They should add another one for pots being on topic with the OP.

Finally, users should NOT be paid based on rank, but on loyalty to the campaign.
Example: a user should have their payment increase by, say, 5% per payment.

Or, there could be fixed payment systems (that paymore than payment per post, that are more efficient)

[bitcoin revo]

  • Posts must be more than 75 characters.
  • Posts must be more than 3 sentences

There are plenty of posts that are more high quality than those with 100 characters/10+ sentences. Oftentimes you'll see shitposters try and cover themselves up by rambling on over... and over... and over...

Finally, users should NOT be paid based on rank, but on loyalty to the campaign.
Example: a user should have their payment increase by, say, 5% per payment.

So a mediocre poster barely passing on through each period could be paid more than someone actually caring about what they're posting? Plus, it's discouraging campaigns to continue on for a while because those like Bit-X would be paying some people 200%+ the normal payment.

[Lauda]

 • Posts must be more than 75 characters.
  • Posts must be more than 3 sentences

No.

[Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members

No.

Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign.

Yes.

Automatically ban users with too much negative rep

No.

Ban campaigns that are poorly managed

Yes.

If you make Full members the accounts that are the lowest but can still get signatures, they'll be alot more expensive than they already are. This price could in turn encourage the trade of accounts for signature campaigns, giving us MORE potential spammers.

That's just too paranoid; I don't think that this is going to happen. Some views are weird to me:"We're not doing anything -> let's complain about doing nothing"; "We could do something -> let's complain that it will do more harm"; ergo let's do nothing? We can't know until we try something out.

[Wargika]

I have some ideas.
First, signature campaign managers are "supposed" to be the ones who ban people from campaigns.
Second, signature campaigns should pay people based on the quality of their posts (not on number of posts).
Third, payments shouldn't be made for signature campaigns if they adopt one of the following strategies:
  • Posts must be more than 75 characters.
  • Posts must be more than 3 sentences
They should add another one for pots being on topic with the OP.

Finally, users should NOT be paid based on rank, but on loyalty to the campaign.
Example: a user should have their payment increase by, say, 5% per payment.

Or, there could be fixed payment systems (that paymore than payment per post, that are more efficient)

The kind of signatures you can have depends on the rank of the member. For higher ranks, they will have colour and bigger space.

[botany]

If you make Full members the accounts that are the lowest but can still get signatures, they'll be alot more expensive than they already are. This price could in turn encourage the trade of accounts for signature campaigns, giving us MORE potential spammers.

Nope. I guess this would actually work a bit.
You only decrease the number of people who can wear signatures, and thereby reduce the number of potential spammers.

[moko666]

I think only fixed rate campaigns should allowed, pay per post campaigns makes more spam on forum.Everyone in rush to make posts because they get paid more when they post more but fixed campaigns will reduce spam on forum and users will make posts only that is good.

[Lauda]

I think only fixed rate campaigns should allowed, pay per post campaigns makes more spam on forum.Everyone in rush to make posts because they get paid more when they post more but fixed campaigns will reduce spam on forum and users will make posts only that is good.

So what prevents me from creating 10 accounts and using each of them to make 20 posts per week instead of 200 posts with 1 account? Nothing. Let's move on; this idea won't work. This especially has no effect on the quality.

Nope. I guess this would actually work a bit.
You only decrease the number of people who can wear signatures, and thereby reduce the number of potential spammers.

I'm not sure why the minimum requirement isn't at least Senior Member.

[notaek]

• Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members
• Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign.
• Automatically ban users with too much negative rep
• Ban campaigns that are poorly managed

Good point. That's why I kept no slot for full members in my campaign.

In fact, implementing a parameter like "karma", similar to that available in Reddit would be great for demarcating quality posters. I hope it gets implemented on the new forum software.

But the fact that a trust system is here, would be useless if there's an auto ban for negative rep members. This is what I contradict from the above suggestions.

[Amph]

i only agree on the second point, is the best one to reduce the spam, but do it under senior member, and you will see a real spam decrease

[craked5]

I have some ideas.
First, signature campaign managers are "supposed" to be the ones who ban people from campaigns.
Second, signature campaigns should pay people based on the quality of their posts (not on number of posts).
Third, payments shouldn't be made for signature campaigns if they adopt one of the following strategies:
  • Posts must be more than 75 characters.
  • Posts must be more than 3 sentences
They should add another one for pots being on topic with the OP.

Finally, users should NOT be paid based on rank, but on loyalty to the campaign.
Example: a user should have their payment increase by, say, 5% per payment.

Or, there could be fixed payment systems (that paymore than payment per post, that are more efficient)

I find it good to have a minimum amount of character and/or sentences!

After all, if your answer is too short, that means you add nothing to the thread. So that you shouldn't post at all.
That will limit spam, not only for sig campaign but for everything!
I like this idea a lot. But not the 3 sentences part cause sometimes you make just one super ultra fucking long sentence xD

[Lauda]

I find it good to have a minimum amount of character and/or sentences!
After all, if your answer is too short, that means you add nothing to the thread. So that you shouldn't post at all.

Your post is false and longer than the usual cut-off limit, albeit adds nothing valuable to the thread. Let's follow your logic with an example:

Is Bitcoin really a decentralized currency? How many coins can there be?

Yes it is; a maximum of ~21 million coins.

According to you, this post adds nothing to the thread.  
The length of a post has nothing to do with its quality. A post containing a few words can be much more valuable and accurate than one containing a hundred words. Stop supporting this illogical and harmful idea.

[craked5]

I find it good to have a minimum amount of character and/or sentences!
After all, if your answer is too short, that means you add nothing to the thread. So that you shouldn't post at all.

Your post is false and longer than the usual cut-off limit, albeit adds nothing valuable to the thread. Let's follow your logic with an example:

Is Bitcoin really a decentralized currency? How many coins can there be?

Yes it is; a maximum of ~21 million coins.

According to you, this post adds nothing to the thread.  
The length of a post has nothing to do with its quality. A post containing a few words can be much more valuable and accurate than one containing a hundred words. Stop supporting this illogical and harmful idea.

Well my answer added my support to this idea and launched a debate between you and me from which might emerge additionnal content and reflexion. So it was not that useless ^^

Your example is a good one indeed! You see here the Expert answered quickly to the newbie. And I'm willing to bet that this answer is not enough! But with the minimal of 75 characters maybe he would have taken the time to answer:

Yes it is. The principle is that only the person having control of the wallet can decide to send coins and to which adress. And the payment process is noted and confirmed by the miners, who can be anyone in the world running the Bitcoin scrypt. So the only way to centralize btc (so to control it) would be to control the majority of miners.
The number of coins is limited by the definition of bitcoin itself, it's aroung 21 million coins.

I believe this answer is more detailed and would probably help more (maybe my explanations are not the best, I'm not an expert ^^).

The main idea is if you create the necessity of the 75 characters, it will reduce spam (cause spamming sig campaign would become more expensive in time) and people would get used to answering in a more detailed way. Which can't be a bad thing in my opinion.

[Lauda]

Is Bitcoin really a decentralized currency? How many coins can there be?

-snip-
I believe this answer is more detailed and would probably help more (maybe my explanations are not the best, I'm not an expert ^^).
The main idea is if you create the necessity of the 75 characters, it will reduce spam (cause spamming sig campaign would become more expensive in time) and people would get used to answering in a more detailed way. Which can't be a bad thing in my opinion.

Wrong. Your answer is a straw-man. The newbie did not ask what a decentralized currency was nor how it works. He only asked 'is Bitcoin one'; that's a yes and no question that can be expanded, albeit it would be redundant in this case. Imposing a character limit will not reduce any sort of spam but would rather negatively effect users that contribute by excluding their constructive albeit short posts. Spammers would just re-write more of what others posted to get above the limit (pretty simple actually).