Illiterate sig spammers

[jackg]

It's not all about how much you earn, it's about getting some value in what you were going to do anyway.  I guess in a way, Bitcointalk spoiled me.  Before I really didn't think much about sig campaigns and getting some BTC for posting.  I was happy with the way things were.  But when I got in to a sig campaign and then I saw this thread with the mods saying that they are thinking of removing all sig campaigns, I'm like 'Wait a minute...  I want to continue getting something for my time here so it wouldn't be considered a total waste.'

Steemit was designed for this kind of thing, so I might as well try it if sig campaigns are totally banned.  

Edit:  There's is a good case for allowing sig campaigns only for Legendary members or having the signature functionality only enabled for them. 

1.  They basically know what we're talking about when it comes to crypto and didn't reach the rank by being stupid.
2.  They have been in the forum for a long time and were awarded the highest rank.  So that and the account signature enabled will be treated     
     more as a privilege than something given outright.
3.  Legendary status will be valued more not just in monetary terms, but also as a bragging right earned in the forum and it should be that way.

The problem is account buying and selling which is hard to combat. Maybe stop users from changing the emails that they enter on signup would be a good way
It is a good way of distributing Bitcoins (this is my only main income with Bitcoin and if I didn't have my signature campaign, I'd feel slightly isolated from the rest of the community - as I don't really want to spend my own money on it in fear something will happen to them).
In some way, signature campaigns become slightly addicting to some users which leads to spamming, if users were only given specific periods of time on probation from signature campaigns and then removed every few weeks so they have to reapply or change campaigns, then that may work in order to stop spamers as it frees them from the campaign for a few days and we can then see who is spamming and who is actually enjoying thier time on this forum (though this idea is a bit extreme).

[Karartma1]

Maybe most legendaries picked up how cryptocurrencies work in their time here, but I'm sure that there are legendaries that either

a) just posted random crap in off-topic or "what do you do with bitcoin" type threads or
b) bought the account and don't know the difference between a block and a bitcoin, but are adept that barely passing the post rules and sweeping in the money every week.

yeah. up until recently legendary members would've signed up in 2012 or before when getting into this needed serious research. now there are legends who signed up in 2013/14 and being here for long enough don't automatically make you a crypto god.  

but it's about as good an indicator that you won't end up paying a total moron as there is. or maybe a campaign owner could set a quiz. there are way less of them so at least they're easier to keep on a tight leash.

If sig campaigns were restricted to legend only, I dunno what it would do to account values. most newbies couldn't afford what they'd cost and roi would be uneconomic. I guess it would clear up most the issues.

Very reasonable comment from you, I agree with it.

For the time being newbies up to full member should not be allowed to wear a paid sig (especially if they don't speak english) and there should be serious restrictions for other members.
So being paid will not be considered as bad as it is today and post quality could be enhanced once more.

[1Referee]

Maybe most legendaries picked up how cryptocurrencies work in their time here, but I'm sure that there are legendaries that either

a) just posted random crap in off-topic or "what do you do with bitcoin" type threads or
b) bought the account and don't know the difference between a block and a bitcoin, but are adept that barely passing the post rules and sweeping in the money every week.

yeah. up until recently legendary members would've signed up in 2012 or before when getting into this needed serious research. now there are legends who signed up in 2013/14 and being here for long enough don't automatically make you a crypto god.  

but it's about as good an indicator that you won't end up paying a total moron as there is. or maybe a campaign owner could set a quiz. there are way less of them so at least they're easier to keep on a tight leash.

If sig campaigns were restricted to legend only, I dunno what it would do to account values. most newbies couldn't afford what they'd cost and roi would be uneconomic. I guess it would clear up most the issues.

Very reasonable comment from you, I agree with it.

For the time being newbies up to full member should not be allowed to wear a paid sig (especially if they don't speak english) and there should be serious restrictions for other members.
So being paid will not be considered as bad as it is today and post quality could be enhanced once more.

I also like the idea of a minimum rank rule in order to enter signature campaigns. If you up the level requirement to be at least senior member before you can join a signature campaign, then it's much easier to keep track of those who are still spamming and filling the forum with broken English clutter that doesn't make any sense. Signature campaigns are nice for people to earn some bits and to spend them again. I don't want to see them be gone because of some rookies looking to earn dust. Till this day it still amazes me that people don't come to sense that if you get paid for posting, that you at least deliver a decent post in good English. Also, look at Yobit, they allow you to make 20 posts per day, and yes, there are a lot people racing to reach this daily 20 posts. 7 days x 20 posts = 140 posts per week, x 4 weeks = 560 posts per month! If they somehow lower their maximum posts to just 10 per day instead of 20, then it will also drastically decrease the amount of spam since people don't have to come up with nonsense in order to reach 20 daily posts.

[botany]

I also like the idea of a minimum rank rule in order to enter signature campaigns. If you up the level requirement to be at least senior member before you can join a signature campaign, then it's much easier to keep track of those who are still spamming and filling the forum with broken English clutter that doesn't make any sense. Signature campaigns are nice for people to earn some bits and to spend them again. I don't want to see them be gone because of some rookies looking to earn dust. Till this day it still amazes me that people don't come to sense that if you get paid for posting, that you at least deliver a decent post in good English. Also, look at Yobit, they allow you to make 20 posts per day, and yes, there are a lot people racing to reach this daily 20 posts. 7 days x 20 posts = 140 posts per week, x 4 weeks = 560 posts per month! If they somehow lower their maximum posts to just 10 per day instead of 20, then it will also drastically decrease the amount of spam since people don't have to come up with nonsense in order to reach 20 daily posts.

You can't really differentiate between a signature campaign and say a signature worn to promote referral links. Signature campaigns would just move underground.
You should remove signatures for lower ranks, not restrict them from joining signature campaigns.

[Lauda]

I think [...] should allow [...] signature (campaign) only for xx ranking

I think this would only drive up the price of these ranking accounts, and drive down the price of accounts. I don't think this would do very much in terms of reducing signature spam, nor would it do very much to address the issue of low quality posts.

You can't know that. You're just speculating about potential cons. Every single solution to this problem is going to have cons and there are going to be people complaining because they're losing their opportunity to spam and earn money by breaking the rules. I'd rather we try-out some solutions that seem good enough, than infinitely discuss how to tackle this problem.

To post this kind of stuff?
-snip-

I think a general thread used to report spammers (& copy-paste spammers) wouldn't be a bad idea. We've had a lot of these threads occasionally pop-up (sometimes singular and sometimes bulk reports). Since this is already happening, it wouldn't be bad to streamline it into a singular one. I'll talk to theymos.

[1Referee]

I also like the idea of a minimum rank rule in order to enter signature campaigns. If you up the level requirement to be at least senior member before you can join a signature campaign, then it's much easier to keep track of those who are still spamming and filling the forum with broken English clutter that doesn't make any sense. Signature campaigns are nice for people to earn some bits and to spend them again. I don't want to see them be gone because of some rookies looking to earn dust. Till this day it still amazes me that people don't come to sense that if you get paid for posting, that you at least deliver a decent post in good English. Also, look at Yobit, they allow you to make 20 posts per day, and yes, there are a lot people racing to reach this daily 20 posts. 7 days x 20 posts = 140 posts per week, x 4 weeks = 560 posts per month! If they somehow lower their maximum posts to just 10 per day instead of 20, then it will also drastically decrease the amount of spam since people don't have to come up with nonsense in order to reach 20 daily posts.

You can't really differentiate between a signature campaign and say a signature worn to promote referral links. Signature campaigns would just move underground.
You should remove signatures for lower ranks, not restrict them from joining signature campaigns.

Uh, tell me, what's the difference between removing signatures for lower ranked members, and not allowing them to join a signature campaign? Result is the same.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I also like the idea of a minimum rank rule in order to enter signature campaigns. If you up the level requirement to be at least senior member before you can join a signature campaign, then it's much easier to keep track of those who are still spamming and filling the forum with broken English clutter that doesn't make any sense. Signature campaigns are nice for people to earn some bits and to spend them again. I don't want to see them be gone because of some rookies looking to earn dust. Till this day it still amazes me that people don't come to sense that if you get paid for posting, that you at least deliver a decent post in good English. Also, look at Yobit, they allow you to make 20 posts per day, and yes, there are a lot people racing to reach this daily 20 posts. 7 days x 20 posts = 140 posts per week, x 4 weeks = 560 posts per month! If they somehow lower their maximum posts to just 10 per day instead of 20, then it will also drastically decrease the amount of spam since people don't have to come up with nonsense in order to reach 20 daily posts.

You can't really differentiate between a signature campaign and say a signature worn to promote referral links. Signature campaigns would just move underground.
You should remove signatures for lower ranks, not restrict them from joining signature campaigns.

Underground where?  And I agree with 1Referee, there is no practical difference.  If you can't advertise in your signature,  there's no incentive to use your signature space at all. 

[Quickseller]

I think [...] should allow [...] signature (campaign) only for xx ranking

I think this would only drive up the price of these ranking accounts, and drive down the price of accounts. I don't think this would do very much in terms of reducing signature spam, nor would it do very much to address the issue of low quality posts.

You can't know that.

Sure I can. All I have to do is use logic and use my understanding of economic incentives.

I'd rather we try-out some solutions that seem good enough, than infinitely discuss how to tackle this problem.

This is what was said about Obama-care, and look where that got us

[jackg]

I think [...] should allow [...] signature (campaign) only for xx ranking

I think this would only drive up the price of these ranking accounts, and drive down the price of accounts. I don't think this would do very much in terms of reducing signature spam, nor would it do very much to address the issue of low quality posts.

You can't know that. You're just speculating about potential cons. Every single solution to this problem is going to have cons and there are going to be people complaining because they're losing their opportunity to spam and earn money by breaking the rules. I'd rather we try-out some solutions that seem good enough, than infinitely discuss how to tackle this problem.

To post this kind of stuff?
-snip-

I think a general thread used to report spammers (& copy-paste spammers) wouldn't be a bad idea. We've had a lot of these threads occasionally pop-up (sometimes singular and sometimes bulk reports). Since this is already happening, it wouldn't be bad to streamline it into a singular one. I'll talk to theymos.

Lauda, it is fairly probable that account prices will increase if signatures are not enabled for the lower ranks.
More farming would also take place and may produce more spam. However, there may be more accounts of the higher ranks and that may reduce their value (say if there are now around 1000 legendary accounts, if there were 10000 legendary accounts, the value would fall as more may be sold).

If there's a thread for reporting spam, unless it's self moderated and posts are archived and moved on that thread after the report is resolved, then that second idea would be open to spam and hard for forum staff and moderators to navigate through.

I also like the idea of a minimum rank rule in order to enter signature campaigns. If you up the level requirement to be at least senior member before you can join a signature campaign, then it's much easier to keep track of those who are still spamming and filling the forum with broken English clutter that doesn't make any sense. Signature campaigns are nice for people to earn some bits and to spend them again. I don't want to see them be gone because of some rookies looking to earn dust. Till this day it still amazes me that people don't come to sense that if you get paid for posting, that you at least deliver a decent post in good English. Also, look at Yobit, they allow you to make 20 posts per day, and yes, there are a lot people racing to reach this daily 20 posts. 7 days x 20 posts = 140 posts per week, x 4 weeks = 560 posts per month! If they somehow lower their maximum posts to just 10 per day instead of 20, then it will also drastically decrease the amount of spam since people don't have to come up with nonsense in order to reach 20 daily posts.

You can't really differentiate between a signature campaign and say a signature worn to promote referral links. Signature campaigns would just move underground.
You should remove signatures for lower ranks, not restrict them from joining signature campaigns.

Underground where?  And I agree with 1Referee, there is no practical difference.  If you can't advertise in your signature,  there's no incentive to use your signature space at all. 

They'd move uderground (as in to other forums or sites).
It's hard to tell the difference, for example, some users promote their sites with the same signature used for the signature campaigns. (Like lightlord from bitvest and 777coin - he looks like a regular signature campaign user unless you know he's the admin of that site, the yobit.net account will also wear their yobit signature and bitcointm's account wears their signature).

[actmyname]

If there's a thread for reporting spam, unless it's self moderated and posts are archived and moved on that thread after the report is resolved, then that second idea would be open to spam and hard for forum staff and moderators to navigate through.

Spam you say? Hard to navigate you say?
Luckily, I've created a solution!

A list on the first post - that's what I have. Suggestions can be made. I didn't want to create a self-moderated topic due to possible backlash. Besides, if they're spamming on the anti-spam thread... what do you think is going to happen, exactly?

It would be easier for moderators to look through. There's references to show the user's spam.

[jackg]

If there's a thread for reporting spam, unless it's self moderated and posts are archived and moved on that thread after the report is resolved, then that second idea would be open to spam and hard for forum staff and moderators to navigate through.

Spam you say? Hard to navigate you say?
Luckily, I've created a solution!

A list on the first post - that's what I have. Suggestions can be made. I didn't want to create a self-moderated topic due to possible backlash. Besides, if they're spamming on the anti-spam thread... what do you think is going to happen, exactly?

It would be easier for moderators to look through. There's references to show the user's spam.

You've not got any replies yet though. If you get, say, 100 replies per day (and there are some random people here who accuse people of spamming for no/little reason), then it's going to be hard to navigate through them. Your start off this will work quite well, though you may want to add something like a donation address so people can reward your efforts when you do well in producing your list that the moderators can see. If they spam on the antispam thread, nothing'll happen unless the moderator of that board is etremely good at spotting the spam or identifying if it is correct or not.

[actmyname]

If there's a thread for reporting spam, unless it's self moderated and posts are archived and moved on that thread after the report is resolved, then that second idea would be open to spam and hard for forum staff and moderators to navigate through.

Spam you say? Hard to navigate you say?
Luckily, I've created a solution!

A list on the first post - that's what I have. Suggestions can be made. I didn't want to create a self-moderated topic due to possible backlash. Besides, if they're spamming on the anti-spam thread... what do you think is going to happen, exactly?

It would be easier for moderators to look through. There's references to show the user's spam.

You've not got any replies yet though. If you get, say, 100 replies per day (and there are some random people here who accuse people of spamming for no/little reason), then it's going to be hard to navigate through them. Your start off this will work quite well, though you may want to add something like a donation address so people can reward your efforts when you do well in producing your list that the moderators can see. If they spam on the antispam thread, nothing'll happen unless the moderator of that board is etremely good at spotting the spam or identifying if it is correct or not.

100 replies a day wouldn't take too much time to navigate through - and for those who spam on the thread, they will be added to the list.

Random people here may accuse people of spamming, but I have enough time to perhaps skim through some replies. Any names that are already on the list will be ignored (or hopefully the person replying will see), so eventually the amount of replies will be toned down to such a level that it won't matter. There won't be 100 replies a day. I'd expect 20, at most, on a peak day. Albeit there are spammers, not many would report them (or those that do would only have time to find a few)

However! It's quite easy to spot spammers, but the formatting would take at least a minute or so (and some people don't have time for that [spammers]). I've personally already put down a few spammers (a lot of them found by simply going to one of the spam megathreads and picking out a random person and their post history)

I'm doing this primarily to create a page for signature campaign managers to view for reference (as they can see the sources if they've spammed or not) and perhaps moderators in the future.


I'd recommend you to help out with the endeavor. Every little bit helps!

[jackg]

If there's a thread for reporting spam, unless it's self moderated and posts are archived and moved on that thread after the report is resolved, then that second idea would be open to spam and hard for forum staff and moderators to navigate through.

Spam you say? Hard to navigate you say?
Luckily, I've created a solution!

A list on the first post - that's what I have. Suggestions can be made. I didn't want to create a self-moderated topic due to possible backlash. Besides, if they're spamming on the anti-spam thread... what do you think is going to happen, exactly?

It would be easier for moderators to look through. There's references to show the user's spam.

You've not got any replies yet though. If you get, say, 100 replies per day (and there are some random people here who accuse people of spamming for no/little reason), then it's going to be hard to navigate through them. Your start off this will work quite well, though you may want to add something like a donation address so people can reward your efforts when you do well in producing your list that the moderators can see. If they spam on the antispam thread, nothing'll happen unless the moderator of that board is etremely good at spotting the spam or identifying if it is correct or not.

100 replies a day wouldn't take too much time to navigate through - and for those who spam on the thread, they will be added to the list.

Random people here may accuse people of spamming, but I have enough time to perhaps skim through some replies. Any names that are already on the list will be ignored (or hopefully the person replying will see), so eventually the amount of replies will be toned down to such a level that it won't matter. There won't be 100 replies a day. I'd expect 20, at most, on a peak day. Albeit there are spammers, not many would report them (or those that do would only have time to find a few)

However! It's quite easy to spot spammers, but the formatting would take at least a minute or so (and some people don't have time for that [spammers]). I've personally already put down a few spammers (a lot of them found by simply going to one of the spam megathreads and picking out a random person and their post history)

I'm doing this primarily to create a page for signature campaign managers to view for reference (as they can see the sources if they've spammed or not) and perhaps moderators in the future.


I'd recommend you to help out with the endeavor. Every little bit helps!

I'll try to help out whenever I can. If you want a second opinion on anything that comes up, feel free to pm me to check if for you and I'll try to look at the thread as well to see what I can pick up.

I was just suggesting that it may be difficult to keep up with, though if you have community support, then it'll be easier for you.
You may also want to create an "Ignore List" that people can simply copy into their ignore user space (If a user is ignored by a large number of people, their signature will not be advertised creating a loss for the campaign owners.
I also think it'll be easier to judge the users by not looking if they have a signature or not. (Not having a signature can still be as bad as having one)!

[The Sceptical Chymist]

They'd move uderground (as in to other forums or sites).
It's hard to tell the difference, for example, some users promote their sites with the same signature used for the signature campaigns. (Like lightlord from bitvest and 777coin - he looks like a regular signature campaign user unless you know he's the admin of that site, the yobit.net account will also wear their yobit signature and bitcointm's account wears their signature).

So that's a good thing for this forum, yes?  But I doubt that if they have an opportunity to wear a signature on another forum they're not doing it--but that's another story.  In either case, the argument that you're driving spammers away isn't much of an argument (no offense intended, sir).  That's the point of this.

[minifrij]

So that's a good thing for this forum, yes?  But I doubt that if they have an opportunity to wear a signature on another forum they're not doing it--but that's another story.  In either case, the argument that you're driving spammers away isn't much of an argument (no offense intended, sir).  That's the point of this.

I don't think that's what he meant. If I am understanding correctly, he meant that other sites would begin trying to offer signature campaigns externally which lower ranked members could join.
For example, someone could go on one of the several other Bitcoin forums on the internet and say 'I will pay you xBTC per post for putting my link in your BitcoinTalk signature'. This would cause exactly the same problem, apart from this would be more difficult to moderate.
I disagree that limiting signatures for lower ranked members will achieve anything, for both the reason stated above and the reason given by Quickseller*. As I have said previously, I believe the only real solution to the entire problem of spamming is stricter moderation on both campaigns and their participants.

*

I think this would only drive up the price of these ranking accounts, and drive down the price of accounts. I don't think this would do very much in terms of reducing signature spam, nor would it do very much to address the issue of low quality posts.

This is what was said about Obama-care, and look where that got us

Regardless of political events I have no idea about, Lauda does have a point. Indefinitely discussing the subject does nothing but give it time to get worse, until it may be too late. This has been in the pipeline for several months now, I believe it is becoming fairly timely (even for BitcoinTalk standards) for something to be finally implemented.

[Wednesdaycat]

the worst part about it is, most of them are foreign, they BITCH and MOAN about low payments, read any signature spammer thread

"halo sir low payment plese rise"
"escrowwwwww??"


YOU ANNOYING CUNTS

[The Sceptical Chymist]

<snip>
I don't think that's what he meant. If I am understanding correctly, he meant that other sites would begin trying to offer signature campaigns externally which lower ranked members could join.
For example, someone could go on one of the several other Bitcoin forums on the internet and say 'I will pay you xBTC per post for putting my link in your BitcoinTalk signature'. This would cause exactly the same problem, apart from this would be more difficult to moderate.
<snip>

That might very well be true.  We can't control that, nor do I think anyone on this forum is concerned about signature campaigns popping up on other forums--that's not up to those who would flee from BCT, is it?  It's up to whoever runs whatever forum(s) you're speculating about. 

We are speaking of our concerns for bitcointalk.  And I strongly think that nixing lower-ranked members from campaigns would help.  More moderation certainly would help too, but I think we ought to try the restrictions and see what happens.  Kind of like an experiment.  Then at least we'll know, right?

[alnoor1231]

Anyone else find it ironic that most people that comment on this are sig spammers/wearing a sig promoting something

[Lauda]

Sure I can.

You're still speculating.

This is what was said about Obama-care, and look where that got us

False analogy.

Lauda, it is fairly probable that account prices will increase if signatures are not enabled for the lower ranks. More farming would also take place and may produce more spam. However, there may be more accounts of the higher ranks and that may reduce their value (say if there are now around 1000 legendary accounts, if there were 10000 legendary accounts, the value would fall as more may be sold).

A value adjustment can be expected in this case. However, the situation becomes different to what we encounter now. Currently, the spammers are often able to start getting paid since the begging and one is incentivized to do this very early on. They would get nothing in most cases while they rank up (which takes time)

If there's a thread for reporting spam, unless it's self moderated and posts are archived and moved on that thread after the report is resolved, then that second idea would be open to spam and hard for forum staff and moderators to navigate through.

True. However, the OP could try and keep it clean.

Anyone else find it ironic that most people that comment on this are sig spammers/wearing a sig promoting something

It truly isn't. It comes down whether one has changed their posting habits after joining one.

[Karartma1]

Anyone else find it ironic that most people that comment on this are sig spammers/wearing a sig promoting something

Are you telling us that solely because you don't have any signature you have more rights than someone like me to comment here?
Anybody here is on-topic and trying to give hints and suggestions on how to tackle this issue that we also find very annoying.

So I am more than happy if you contribute to the discussion in a constructive way.