Illiterate sig spammers

[European Central Bank]

Removing signatures altogether is something we're also discussing. Personally, I'm at the point where I think that's going to be the only solution to stop all the bullshit and hassle that comes along with having them but we're trying to find a workaround too that suits everyone.

if people trying to log on from previously banned ips have to pay up, would it not make sense for people who organise sig campaigns to post some type of bond to be able to host one?

I dunno the ins and outs of how the signatures work, but maybe they can include some code that allows a moderator to shut the campaign down if enough of their participants are posting junk.

there are campaigns that are run well and are diligent about who they admit. that would incentivize all the rest to stay in line.

[Foxpup]

Third is that even people who are only spamming can be fine for forum and if they leave here the forum may lose a big part of its users and its popularity.

No, you are not fine for the forum. If you leave here, nothing of value will be lost. Posts like that one are exactly what I'm talking about (I couldn't even understand the rest of it).

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Third is that even people who are only spamming can be fine for forum and if they leave here the forum may lose a big part of its users and its popularity.

No, you are not fine for the forum. If you leave here, nothing of value will be lost. Posts like that one are exactly what I'm talking about (I couldn't even understand the rest of it).

I second this.  That whole post is a big load of horseshit disguised as a long, pseudo-constructive post.  People here don't like their English language skills criticized,  but so many of these garbage posters only know so many English words that they rearrange about six of them in different combinations for each topic and try to pass that shit off as a good post.  Someone here with more motivation and less laziness than me ought to do an analysis of shitpost content. 

[Wendigo]

What is there for analyzing? It's obvious they are using different machine translation engines and that's why there are so many weird word choices making for a banged up English that is hard to comprehend. Do you think they will go through a dictionary to double check what they are writing? 

[Lauda]

When people earn BTC from sig campaigns, they spend some of them mostly in gambling sites, some even save then spend them in cloud mining contracts (don't know why, most of those don't get you a ROI), others go to the market place and trade them for cash and the rest do altcoin trades.  That's overall good as BTC changes hands a lot.

You do realize that the useless content that is produced by them is the reason for which people with actual knowledge regarding Bitcoin stay away from this forum? I couldn't care less about the few bucks that these spammers make and what they do with it. There are campaigns that do not care about this problem (e.g. BitMixer); thus the need to punish services that endorse spam.

But what good will that bring?  It will kill the small economy we have going on here.  

Yes, it will bring a lot of good and no, it won't kill the economy. The people that do trades of value are usually not signature spammers.

Second is that since here is a forum with different sections and different topics, many people may like to talk with each other about things that cannot be valuable in view of others but you cannot stop them.

You're wrong: We can and we will stop you. We are just debating how exactly it should be done.

For example many may like to talk about if they have 10$ it is better to buy it or invest it

Go into some chat-room and talk about garbage like that there.

Third is that even people who are only spamming can be fine for forum and if they leave here the forum may lose a big part of its users and its popularity.

No, you are not fine for the forum. If you leave here, nothing of value will be lost. Posts like that one are exactly what I'm talking about (I couldn't even understand the rest of it).

Indeed. It was difficult the extrapolate the meaning behind the post.

[tokeweed]

When people earn BTC from sig campaigns, they spend some of them mostly in gambling sites, some even save then spend them in cloud mining contracts (don't know why, most of those don't get you a ROI), others go to the market place and trade them for cash and the rest do altcoin trades.  That's overall good as BTC changes hands a lot.

You do realize that the useless content that is produced by them is the reason for which people with actual knowledge regarding Bitcoin stay away from this forum? I couldn't care less about the few bucks that these spammers make and what they do with it. There are campaigns that do not care about this problem (e.g. BitMixer); thus the need to punish services that endorse spam.

That's why a good move from Bitcointalk would be to ban all sig campaigns in all sections in the forum except the Bitcoin and Altcoin market places imo.  And even then the mods should pressure the campaign managers to have stricter rules and to recruit only people who make good posts.  I think I remember you in the Betcoin sig campaign before, not sure.  But the guy who used to run it, Ros, was a really good manager and recruiter.  The campaign actually made me improve my posts.  He's a good example of an excellent campaign manager.  If a sig campaign cannot produce good posts for a set amount of time, warn the manager or else ban that particular campaign altogether.  They should clean up their act.

But what good will that bring?  It will kill the small economy we have going on here.  

Yes, it will bring a lot of good and no, it won't kill the economy. The people that do trades of value are usually not signature spammers.

It won't kill the economy, no.  But you know what I mean.  It's a metaphor for it will really affect the forum's economy's growth.  Again from what I have observed, Bitcointalk is evolving into a commerce board where BTC are changing hands day by day.  And that's cool that a simple machines forum has the potential to achieve so much more.  Don't hinder it.  Earning BTC from sig campaigns is not a bad thing.

[hilariousandco]

Removing signatures altogether is something we're also discussing. Personally, I'm at the point where I think that's going to be the only solution to stop all the bullshit and hassle that comes along with having them but we're trying to find a workaround too that suits everyone.

if people trying to log on from previously banned ips have to pay up, would it not make sense for people who organise sig campaigns to post some type of bond to be able to host one?

I suppose that's a possibility but people would just complain when/if they didn't get their bond back. An easier option which I suggested would be to force people to use a trusted and reliable campaign manager from a list that the community could source in a similar way we do with escrows. If every campaign manager was very thorough and only allowed good quality users to join there would be no issue in the first place. At least this would almost assure that.

When people earn BTC from sig campaigns, they spend some of them mostly in gambling sites, some even save then spend them in cloud mining contracts (don't know why, most of those don't get you a ROI), others go to the market place and trade them for cash and the rest do altcoin trades.  That's overall good as BTC changes hands a lot.

You do realize that the useless content that is produced by them is the reason for which people with actual knowledge regarding Bitcoin stay away from this forum? I couldn't care less about the few bucks that these spammers make and what they do with it. There are campaigns that do not care about this problem (e.g. BitMixer); thus the need to punish services that endorse spam.

That's why a good move from Bitcointalk would be to ban all sig campaigns in all sections in the forum except the Bitcoin and Altcoin market places imo. 

As I mentioned before, if you're going to remove them from pretty much the entire forum it defeats the purpose of them in the first place so you might as well just remove signatures from the entire forum. Allowing them only in the Marketplaces would make those sections unusable.

[BitHodler]

What can be done from the level of an administrator, is that sections as "Development & Technical Discussion" and "Technical Support" will not be showing a signature.

That's reason for campaigns to remove these sections from the for payment eligible sections.

Quite often people ask for support hoping for a helpful answer, but instead they get nothing more than nonsense answers from sig posters.

[hilariousandco]

What can be done from the level of an administrator, is that sections as "Development & Technical Discussion" and "Technical Support" will not be showing a signature.

That's reason for campaigns to remove these sections from the for payment eligible sections.

Quite often people ask for support hoping for a helpful answer, but instead they get nothing more than nonsense answers from sig posters.

This issue/suggestion has already been brought up:

I think the best way to find some sort of balance is to limit which part of the forum sig campaigners can post.  The Bitcoin Discussion section should be definitely off limits to sig campaigns.  The quality of posts there are at the lowest and I tend to avoid that section.

If there was only a way to have the signatures disabled in some sections and on in others.  That would save a lot of mods some work if they plan on cleaning the forum up.

This is something I've suggested. I know a big peeve of DannyHamilton is people giving bad advice/help so maybe we could disable sigs in the main Bitcoin Discussion and Technical Help subs. Campaigns would then likely not pay for those boards and the content would be significantly improved because nobody is posting just to get paid. On the other hand, if posts in there still contribute to postcount account farmers wont be effected but maybe they would find easier boards to spam which keeps the crap out of the most important boards.

[tokeweed]

As I mentioned before, if you're going to remove them from pretty much the entire forum it defeats the purpose of them in the first place so you might as well just remove signatures from the entire forum. Allowing them only in the Marketplaces would make those sections unusable.

The logic of allowing sig campaigns only in a smaller part of the forum would make it easier for campaign managers to maintain the quality of posts of their recruits.  At the same time it would be easier for mods to clean up threads if needed.  Spamming will be lowered overall and post quality will theoretically increase in the other parts of the forum.

But yeah, I agree with your idea of finding the right balance.  Maybe it's good to test disallowing sig campaigns in the Bitcoin Discussion section for a couple of months and see how it goes.

Edit:  Maybe there should be a 'no broken English allowed' rule.  I know some might find it discriminatory and that's the downside.

[Lauda]

The logic of allowing sig campaigns only in a smaller part of the forum would make it easier for campaign managers to maintain the quality of posts of their recruits.  At the same time it would be easier for mods to clean up threads if needed.  Spamming will be lowered overall and post quality will theoretically increase in the other parts of the forum.

I disagree with this being the result of that. Generally, most campaigns do not manage their campaigns properly not because it's "hard" (if it's hard, then find a proper manager or don't do it at all), but because they don't care. Pushing all the spam into a singular sub-forum would not make our 'job' easier as the quantity would most likely not reduce as much. Keep in mind that they would still probably spam in other sections to farm up their accounts (higher ranks = more money).

But yeah, I agree with your idea of finding the right balance.  Maybe it's good to test disallowing sig campaigns in the Bitcoin Discussion section for a couple of months and see how it goes.

We don't have that much time to experiment. Action should be taken now.

Edit:  Maybe there should be a 'no broken English allowed' rule.  I know some might find it discriminatory and that's the downside.

That's near impossible to enforce consistently due to the nature of the rule. That one is based on subjective perception and would likely alter a lot dependent on the linguistic skills of every individual moderator in addition to their 'strictness' (some may find a post to be "too broken" while others may not). Generally, if you have really broken English then you should not be posting outside of your local section (you should be reading and trying to improve your skills).

[tokeweed]

Yeah I understand your point, and I get what you're trying to say.  If you guys decide that it has to go, then I guess it has to go.  But for the sake of the forum the sooner the better imo.  

Tbh I would hate to see it go.  I've been in a sig campaign for like just a couple of months.  And I ask myself why I didn't try doing this sooner.  I'm on these boards all the time anyway, so might as well get something going while I'm at it.  

[Lauda]

Tbh I would hate to see it go.  I've been in a sig campaign for like just a couple of months.  And I ask myself why I didn't try doing this sooner.  I'm on these boards all the time anyway, so might as well get something going while I'm at it.  

We are discussing alternatives to completely killing signatures (there's no consensus on this). The problem aren't the people that don't change their posting behavior once they enter signature campaigns (especially not the people that are actively trying to improve their linguistic skills in addition to general understanding of various topics). The problem are the people that are posting solely to gain money and the people that are spamming with several alts (account farming).

[rizzlarolla]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397924 (CryingMidget)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1239416.msg13726378#msg13726378
we saw a rise in the US Dollar against major currencies. we saw a rise in prices for risky assets such as raw materials, particularly oil. Considering such news the Dollar strengthened on Friday and pressured Bitcoin.
Bitcoin price moved lower than $350 but then again, the price rose back to $423. This shows great confidence of investors in Bitcoin. So don't worry about it. It will bounce back.Wink

https://cointelegraph.com/news/weekly-bitcoin-price-asian-merkets-fall
we saw a rise in the US Dollar against major currencies.  
...and we saw a rise in prices for risky assets such as raw materials, particularly oil. Considering such news the Dollar strengthened on Friday and pressured Bitcoin.  
...Bitcoin price moved lower than $350 but then again, the price rose back to $423. This shows great confidence of investors in Bitcoin.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1366286.msg13902989#msg13902989
You need to download a software to your computer to use them and make sure to only download form a trusted source. Understand that your wallet can contain numerous bitcoin addresses. It is a good practice to generate a new receiving address for each incoming transaction, to increase anonymity.
you can use that segregate to each and every work.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_use_a_Bitcoin_wallet_(for_newbies)
Understand that your wallet can contain numerous bitcoin addresses. It is a good practice to generate a new receiving address for each incoming transaction, to increase anonymity.
...You need to download a software to your computer to use them (make sure to only download form a trusted source ...


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361011.msg13937007#msg13937007
taxation on bitcoins and its reporting is not as simple as it seems. For starters, it is difficult to determine the fair value of the bitcoin on purchase and sale transactions. Bitcoins are very volatile and there are huge swings in prices in a single trading day.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040515/are-there-taxes-bitcoins.asp
taxation on bitcoins and its reporting is not as simple as it seems. For starters, it is difficult to determine the fair value of the bitcoin on purchase and sale transactions. Bitcoins are very volatile and there are huge swings in prices in a single trading day.


And 1 more copy/paste taken (by CryingMidget) from bitcointalk shitposter romero121. Even posted it in the same thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1508038.msg15819504#msg15819504
Bitcoin earning signature campaign is the only way to get a steady income. At the same it also have its own risk with post quality and knowledge about bitcoin. At times you may get kicked from campaign which affects the earning. Trading also suggested which needs investment and the one with less risk is faucets but it won't give worthy income for the time you spend.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1508038.100
In terms of bitcoin earning signature campaign is the only way to get a steady income. At the same it also have its own risk with post quality and knowledge about bitcoin. At times you may get kicked from campaign which affects the earning. Trading also suggested which needs investment and the one with less risk is faucets but it won't give worthy income for the time you spend.

Just a few of total c/p, I see more. Just look for the post written in good English!
Account purchased Jan 29 2016, probably.

[botany]

Tbh I would hate to see it go.  I've been in a sig campaign for like just a couple of months.  And I ask myself why I didn't try doing this sooner.  I'm on these boards all the time anyway, so might as well get something going while I'm at it.  

We are discussing alternatives to completely killing signatures (there's no consensus on this). The problem aren't the people that don't change their posting behavior once they enter signature campaigns (especially not the people that are actively trying to improve their linguistic skills in addition to general understanding of various topics). The problem are the people that are posting solely to gain money and the people that are spamming with several alts (account farming).

I doubt if there could be total consensus on such a controversial topic. Better to have a trial/pilot run and check the results. Post that a decision can be taken.

[Lauda]

Account purchased Jan 29 2016, probably.

I've notified a global moderator. Nice find.

I doubt if there could be total consensus on such a controversial topic. Better to have a trial/pilot run and check the results. Post that a decision can be taken.

I was talking about consensus within the staff members which is possible as there aren't that many people involved. Currently, everyone who has participated seems to agree that this is a problem and that action needs to be taken (regardless of whether we're removing all signatures or going with a different approach). The hardest part is agreeing to the specifics (what will be done and how). Hopefully we're going to see some changes very soon as the situation is already very problematic (it wasn't this hard to find decent-quality content in 2015).

[Cyrus]

Account purchased Jan 29 2016, probably.

I've notified a global moderator. Nice find.

Verified, banned. Thanks!

[LTU_btc]

I think bitcointalk should allow to wear signatures only starting from Sr. Member or Hero Member rank. It would help to decrease amount of spam. Offcourse, it won't help to avoid spam from farmed accounts
And I think signature campaign managers should be stricter. It looks like some of them don't care about quality of campaign participants posts.
And it would be good if moderators would lock topics when question was already answered and spamers only starts to repeat it in different words.

[actmyname]

I think bitcointalk should allow to wear signatures only starting from Sr. Member or Hero Member rank. It would help to decrease amount of spam. Offcourse, it won't help to avoid spam from farmed accounts
And I think signature campaign managers should be stricter. It looks like some of them don't care about quality of campaign participants posts.
And it would be good if moderators would lock topics when question was already answered and spamers only starts to repeat it in different words.

So then you wouldn't mind not having a signature anymore? You could, after all, disable it right now as all you reply on is Micro Earnings and a signature is unnecessary there. (Or anywhere lest you own a service/product)

[LTU_btc]

I think bitcointalk should allow to wear signatures only starting from Sr. Member or Hero Member rank. It would help to decrease amount of spam. Offcourse, it won't help to avoid spam from farmed accounts
And I think signature campaign managers should be stricter. It looks like some of them don't care about quality of campaign participants posts.
And it would be good if moderators would lock topics when question was already answered and spamers only starts to repeat it in different words.

So then you wouldn't mind not having a signature anymore? You could, after all, disable it right now as all you reply on is Micro Earnings and a signature is unnecessary there. (Or anywhere lest you own a service/product)

If I wouldn't wear signature, it absolute won't affect me. But as I have little time to visit forum, I have nothing again'st to earn some satoshi. This is why I'm in yobit campaign, because they not require to reach high posts number in week or month. But in this topic we don't talking about me personal.