My proposal to reduce signature campaign spamming

[BitHodler]

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

Nowadays it is a profitable trend to farm accounts and sell them or join them into a signature campaign.

That is where the majority of the shit posting come from and that is why I agree with Amph.

If you make signature campaigns only available for at least Sr Members, then 50% of the spam will be gone.

If you make signature campaigns only available for at least Hero Members, then 75% of the spam will be gone.

[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.

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.

allow only full or senior member and above to join signature campaign and allowing only fixed rate campaign will reduce scam a lot.

You said

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.

Yes you can create 10 account but can you make them all senior ? NO
if someone makes new account it will take them time to get senior rank where they will allowed to join signature campaign


these 2 things can control spam on forum

• Disallow eveyone under "Full or Senior Member" from joining a campaign.
• Disallow Pay Per Post signature campaigns.

[--Encrypted--]

• Disallow eveyone under "Full or Senior Member" from joining a campaign.
• Disallow Pay Per Post signature campaigns.

someone explain to me why fixed rate sig campaign will decrease spam.
as I see it: pay per post with limit = can choose to post only when you want to. fixed rate with quota = have to force yourself to make XX number of posts if you want to get paid.
am I wrong?

[moko666]

• Disallow eveyone under "Full or Senior Member" from joining a campaign.
• Disallow Pay Per Post signature campaigns.

someone explain to me why fixed rate sig campaign will decrease spam.
as I see it: pay per post with limit = can choose to post only when you want to. fixed rate with quota = have to force yourself to make XX number of posts if you want to get paid.
am I wrong?

normally fixed rate campaigns need 50-100 max posts per month
pay per post campaign you joined pay you for upto 640 posts per month

now see the difference yourself
fixed max 100 posts per month
your campaign max 640 posts per month

which one is more spammy?

[--Encrypted--]

• Disallow eveyone under "Full or Senior Member" from joining a campaign.
• Disallow Pay Per Post signature campaigns.

someone explain to me why fixed rate sig campaign will decrease spam.
as I see it: pay per post with limit = can choose to post only when you want to. fixed rate with quota = have to force yourself to make XX number of posts if you want to get paid.
am I wrong?

normally fixed rate campaigns need 50-100 max posts per month
pay per post campaign you joined pay you for upto 640 posts per month

now see the difference yourself
fixed max 100 posts per month
your campaign max 640 posts per month

which one is more spammy?

IMO both are equally spammy because not all participants of pay per post campaigns makes 20+ posts a day.
and there's nothing stopping the fixed rate campaigns from increasing their quota for the super active users.

the solution for this is to limit the maximum number of counted post for all kinds of sig campaigns. there.


edited

[craked5]

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).

Wouldn't say a straw-man, more like a deduction. He asks if Bitcoin is decentralized. That means he doesn't understand how it works, because if he understood how it works he wouldn't ask if bitcoin is decentralized as it's the obvious consequence of the way it was created.

Imposing a character is the same thing as putting a captcha before the faucets. It doesn't make it impossible to farm it, but it makes it more costly to farm it in an industrial way. And let's face the truth if you take all the messages of less than 75 characters I'm pretty sure 90% of them will be spamming answers. (Though I never did any stats of that it's just an impression :3 )

[shorena]

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).

Wouldn't say a straw-man, more like a deduction. He asks if Bitcoin is decentralized. That means he doesn't understand how it works, because if he understood how it works he wouldn't ask if bitcoin is decentralized as it's the obvious consequence of the way it was created.

So you gave him a misleading and wrong answer that might result in more confusion in the future. Bitcoin is not Litecoin and some of the other things you wrote are at the very least misleading if not plain wrong. Its a great example that length does not equal quality.

Imposing a character is the same thing as putting a captcha before the faucets.

No, it changes the message, a captcha does not.

It doesn't make it impossible to farm it, but it makes it more costly to farm it in an industrial way.

Key presses are not expensive, valuable, constructive content is. Its expensive because it requires experience and or thought. Pressing buttons in itself does not. All you do is force button pressing.

And let's face the truth if you take all the messages of less than 75 characters I'm pretty sure 90% of them will be spamming answers. (Though I never did any stats of that it's just an impression :3 )

Maybe, the majority of short answers are already lazy spam and worthless junk, but I dont think a higher number of symbols will change it. If anything it will change the noise to signal ratio to the worse.

[craked5]

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).

Wouldn't say a straw-man, more like a deduction. He asks if Bitcoin is decentralized. That means he doesn't understand how it works, because if he understood how it works he wouldn't ask if bitcoin is decentralized as it's the obvious consequence of the way it was created.

So you gave him a misleading and wrong answer that might result in more confusion in the future. Bitcoin is not Litecoin and some of the other things you wrote are at the very least misleading if not plain wrong. Its a great example that length does not equal quality.

Imposing a character is the same thing as putting a captcha before the faucets.

No, it changes the message, a captcha does not.

It doesn't make it impossible to farm it, but it makes it more costly to farm it in an industrial way.

Key presses are not expensive, valuable, constructive content is. Its expensive because it requires experience and or thought. Pressing buttons in itself does not. All you do is force button pressing.

And let's face the truth if you take all the messages of less than 75 characters I'm pretty sure 90% of them will be spamming answers. (Though I never did any stats of that it's just an impression :3 )

Maybe, the majority of short answers are already lazy spam and worthless junk, but I dont think a higher number of symbols will change it. If anything it will change the noise to signal ratio to the worse.

Never said that length is similar to quality, that would be stupid of me!
But that a short answer can always be transformed into a longer one and you'll always have a better one. My answer is misleading you find? Maybe it's because I don't understand well the differences between cryptocurrencies or because I lack technical knowledge I don't know, but what's interesting it's that if my answer is more detailed, such incoherences will appear so other users will have the occasion to correct me.
I'll learn something and the user asking the original question will have more elements. It's a win-win for me

And key presses are expensive in time. I'm pretty sure lots of sig spammer posting only 20 characters answers or even less do it only because they want to maximize profit. I find it a good way to counter them is to put a base characters limit.

But you're right in the fact that contrary to captchas it does change the message. I just have the feeling it can't really change it in a bad way and can't think of a situation where it would be. Maybe I also lack imagination 

[Lauda]

I don't want to waste too much time on the same thing. TL;Dr; length limits are a very bad workaround that really don't have an effect and can be easily cheated. The length of a post is not directly related to its quality. A very short post can be much more useful than a very long one. This is not happening, let's move on.

allow only full or senior member and above to join signature campaign and allowing only fixed rate campaign will reduce scam a lot.

I think that it would be really effective if the limit was Sr. Member and above; there are already a lot of full members, albeit decreasing the spam for the newbies and jr. members would be good too.

Yes you can create 10 account but can you make them all senior ? NO
if someone makes new account it will take them time to get senior rank where they will allowed to join signature campaign

No, but it is fairly easy to 'level-up' 10 accounts to the rank of a full member. Additionally they could just go and buy them all and start spamming.

[shorena]

-snip-
Never said that length is similar to quality, that would be stupid of me!
But that a short answer can always be transformed into a longer one and you'll always have a better one.

Better in what sense if not in quality?

My answer is misleading you find?

Yes, there is no scrypt in bitcoin.

I'll learn something and the user asking the original question will have more elements. It's a win-win for me

And key presses are expensive in time. I'm pretty sure lots of sig spammer posting only 20 characters answers or even less do it only because they want to maximize profit. I find it a good way to counter them is to put a base characters limit.

I disagree.

I dont think you are correct.

I think your assumption is false and your conclusions are faulty.

None of these version costs me significant time to write. The thing that takes time is thinking about the answer and understanding your post. Neither is something you can enforce with requesting any number of symbols.

But you're right in the fact that contrary to captchas it does change the message. I just have the feeling it can't really change it in a bad way and can't think of a situation where it would be. Maybe I also lack imagination 

If you cant see how a long chain words that say nothing is bad, I cant help you.

[Heutenamos]

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

ON the first place who can give the reputation and who cant ? I can find a user spamming with a legendary rank under his name and on the other hand a classic poster who is still a Member,What relation does an account rank has with post quality ?
Disregarding the possibility of abuse from sock puppet/alternate accounts the new system will again result in variety of group's supporting each other and fighting over it, just like ...........

Now,do you seriously think thermos has no other work ? IMO he simply ignores the thread if it's subject is related to spam.Be honest and say would it take more than 3 years of prolonging ? There are much bigger/important things to care of for those who have the cards.

Ban campaigns that are poorly managed

Why ? because the owner doesn't has 12+ hours a day to waste them on creating a spreadsheet full of useless data and spying on users for 3 cents ?
They don't hire a guy for that because many people don't like dealing such silly drama and the mentality to establish dominion over other users,thus a bot helps & I don't think there should be any problem with that unless thermos is getting annoyed and wants them to come up with some alternatives.

[Slark]

Here we go again, arguing  abut how to stop the spam. And I will tel you this: you can't stop spam completely - not if you reached certain number of users and forum is very popular.
Even if you ban every signature campaign, spam posts are here to stay.

The only valid solution I found in this thread is: Allowing only Full member to join Signature Campaign.

[tommorisonwebdesign]

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

No.

The idea of a rep system still I don't think is a bad idea. If a spammer with negetive rep tries to join a campaign, they would be denied the privilege of joining the campaign. I do like the idea of campaign managers doing their jobs and delisting users who spam. The staff would be able to quickly identify the spammers. In addition. most ofther forums have a thanks/like button. Everyone can determine the credibility of the poster.

[Invulner]

The quality of a post does not depend on the length of it. For example "I like your project" is the same quality as "I like your project, I really like it, please keep up the good work admin". So the length doesn't really matter... And a restriction on length wouldn't necessarily help to cut spam.

[Bit_Happy]

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?

+1 Dude you rock!







































 

























<Back on topic>
A reputation/thanks system can be abused by the same people who are juggling multiple sock-puppets to milk the current system.
After allowing a "free market" for so long, how can you ever do anything else?

[redsn0w]

Wait... what do you think if someone befort use the reputation system must first pay a little fee (each reputation/thanks)? In this way we will avoid the various sock-puppets because it will be very expensive for their.

[Lauda]

I'll say this one more time, and the reason behind someone's post is going to be obvious if they choose to ignore it. It is highly improbable that theymos is going to add another reputation system/replace the current one. One of the primary reasons for this is that people keep talking about better systems but are unable to propose one that is actually better (@all DT replacement proposals).

The quality of a post does not depend on the length of it. For example "I like your project" is the same quality as "I like your project, I really like it, please keep up the good work admin". So the length doesn't really matter... And a restriction on length wouldn't necessarily help to cut spam.

Which is basically what I've been arguing about in the thread.

I do not think that a system of up-votes or karma or anything along the lines would work.

This is horrible idea and would be flawed because people are flawed. The only way that it could maybe work if we implemented something very strict such as the way that Stack Overflow does.

[tommorisonwebdesign]

So far after reading the replies in this thread, I have come to realize that there is not a lot more we can do to fix the spammer problem. Take away sig campaigns? Heroes go hungry and decent posts who post for the benefit would probably go down.  Blackhatworld imposes a bunch of rules and regulations suck as no links, signatures or offensive language being used (our equivalent being newbies asking for loans). I do like the 75 char minimum. Sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few with a signature campaign and not post nonsense.

[Heutenamos]

fix the spammer problem.

It's is already fixed.

Sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few with a signature campaign and not post nonsense.

True,I would say you are definitely one of the top 3 poster's on forum.Keep up the good work.

[Lauda]

It's is already fixed.

It is not.

True,I would say you are definitely one of the top 3 poster's on forum.Keep up the good work.

You can't be serious?

What's preventing people from doing this already?

Nothing is preventing it now nor would it be prevented in that case. I'm saying that it would not work as it can be abused.

Take away sig campaigns? Heroes go hungry and decent posts who post for the benefit would probably go down. 

Anyone who posts because of the "benefit" is posting for the wrong reasons. I've been in favor of a ban for quite some time now.

I do like the 75 char minimum.

I've already explained why that is a bad idea and so did Shorena.