Illiterate sig spammers

[1Referee]

<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?

I like the idea, and think it's worth to give it a month or two time to see what it will do with the total junk that comes from these lower ranked members. It will also give people something to look forward to in the way of these lower ranked members to build up their account with decent posts so that they can finally reach the level that is allowed to join a campaign. And those who from these lower ranked members keep spamming with junk anyway, banhammer. Simple.

[1715386499]

1715386499

[1715386499]

1715386499

[1715386499]

1715386499

[1715386499]

1715386499

[jackg]

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.

I think it's more funny that all who replied and are in a signature campaign are, themselves, against spammers.
Also, Lauda I think it would be useful, as you can delete posts at your position, for you to try and help clean the thread (as long as that doesn't interrupt with your regular moderating of this forum.

(Also, QS still hasn't improved upon his posts that were said to be somewhat confusing to other members - including this recent post). His speculation is highly likely to happen though.

[Lauda]

I think it's more funny that all who replied and are in a signature campaign are, themselves, against spammers.

Not necessarily. An example would be Blazed, IIRC they are also against campaigns but they did participate in some. IMO it is better for them to take a chunk out of the budget, than a few spammers.

Also, Lauda I think it would be useful, as you can delete posts at your position, for you to try and help clean the thread (as long as that doesn't interrupt with your regular moderating of this forum.

You're looking at the wrong moderator. As a patroller, I can only moderate newbies and the sections for which I'm assigned as a moderator (Croatian & Speculation).

(Also, QS still hasn't improved upon his posts that were said to be somewhat confusing to other members - including this recent post). His speculation is highly likely to happen though.

My point is, we can't really know if we don't try anything. Every solution is going to have cons and people complaining. Does that mean that we shouldn't try anything? I'm not generally supportive of this particular idea though. The quality has degraded severely during 2016 - keep in mind that the severity of this differentiates depending on the section. As an example, I'll take Bitcoin Discussion. It is extremely difficult to find content that is worth reading and replying to these days.

[minifrij]

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.  

I think you're misunderstanding. What I mean is, let's say that I own a website (E.G a faucet). I could reward lower users for putting a link to my website in their BitcoinTalk.org signature space and posting. In that case the only way to stop that from happening would be to moderate individual users to remove their signature, since it would be impossible to moderate an external source.

And I strongly think that nixing lower-ranked members from campaigns would help.

The only way that this would work would be to completely remove signatures altogether from lower ranked members; simply trying to remove them from campaigns would not work. While this would probably work, it would be a shame for the few who use their signature space legitimately.

[jackg]

I think its more funny that all w ann a signature campaign are, themselves, against spammers.

Just because you condone spamming and are in a signature campaign, doesn't mean that everyone else in a signature campaign feels the same way. I would gladly give up my signature if it was needed to stop spam here.

In future, read my entire post before replying. I stated that most (if not all) the people in signature campaigns who replied on this thread were against spamming.
That was in response to a user who was criticising the people replying with a signature campaign (including a moderator and staff member).

EDIT: Glad you understand and no need to apologise

[minifrij]

In future, read my entire post before replying. I stated that most (if not all) the people in signature campaigns who replied on this thread were against spamming.
That was in response to a user who was criticising the people replying with a signature campaign (including a moderator and staff member).

I believe I misunderstood the way you wrote your post to be a snarky remark. My apologies.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

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.  

I think you're misunderstanding. What I mean is, let's say that I own a website (E.G a faucet). I could reward lower users for putting a link to my website in their BitcoinTalk.org signature space and posting. In that case the only way to stop that from happening would be to moderate individual users to remove their signature, since it would be impossible to moderate an external source.

And I strongly think that nixing lower-ranked members from campaigns would help.

The only way that this would work would be to completely remove signatures altogether from lower ranked members; simply trying to remove them from campaigns would not work. While this would probably work, it would be a shame for the few who use their signature space legitimately.

Gotcha, I did misunderstand.   That makes sense, and that could very well happen.  Would it not be possible to restrict lower-ranked members from advertising anything in their signature on penalty of banishment?

[minifrij]

Would it not be possible to restrict lower-ranked members from advertising anything in their signature on penalty of banishment?

It would, but that would punish users who come here to try and benefit to the bitcoin economy by starting a business; it would be impossible for newbies who come here to advertise their own business to do so fully until they became active members of the forum (which shouldn't be needed IMO).

[Quickseller]

--

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.

Some things have been done about it, Grue implemented this, which locked threads that spammers liked to use to increase activity, all displayed profile information (eg signature, personal text, bitcoin address, ect.) is now removed when a user gets permanently banned, Grue created this, which makes signature advertising less effective (and thus less attractive for companies to use -- previously if yobit et al can only afford to pay the little dust they were paying, then they might not be able to afford to pay anything at all), hilariousandco has been aggressive in finding, and banning copy/paste spammers.

What Lauda was proposing was to implement some "solution" without regard to it's potential effectiveness, nor it's potential consequences.

I remember when Dell started accepting bitcoin, that there were threads that literally had nothing but pages upon pages of posts that all said something along the lines of "this is great news", and we do not see anything close to that level of spam anymore.

I think Grue locking threads in off topic whose solicited replies were insubstantial replies improved things greatly. I think it would be a good idea to implement (and enforce) similar policies in other sections of the forum, especially Bitcoin discussion, as Bitcoin Discussion has started to fill up with a lot of useless threads. We could even possibly expand this to include threads of which it would be very unlikely for any meaningful conversation to take place.

[Gimpeline]

I think it's more funny that all who replied and are in a signature campaign are, themselves, against spammers.

Not necessarily. An example would be Blazed, IIRC they are also against campaigns but they did participate in some. IMO it is better for them to take a chunk out of the budget, than a few spammers.

Also, Lauda I think it would be useful, as you can delete posts at your position, for you to try and help clean the thread (as long as that doesn't interrupt with your regular moderating of this forum.

You're looking at the wrong moderator. As a patroller, I can only moderate newbies and the sections for which I'm assigned as a moderator (Croatian & Speculation).

(Also, QS still hasn't improved upon his posts that were said to be somewhat confusing to other members - including this recent post). His speculation is highly likely to happen though.

My point is, we can't really know if we don't try anything. Every solution is going to have cons and people complaining. Does that mean that we shouldn't try anything? I'm not generally supportive of this particular idea though. The quality has degraded severely during 2016 - keep in mind that the severity of this differentiates depending on the section. As an example, I'll take Bitcoin Discussion. It is extremely difficult to find content that is worth reading and replying to these days.

Agree. Only reason I look into Bitcoin Discussion subforum nowdays is to see if it's a new core release. The posts is just spam spam spam.
No useful information what so ever

Edit: and poor newbies, Beginners & Help is possibly the worst place to look if you want some useful information

[Milkduds]

I think it's more funny that all who replied and are in a signature campaign are, themselves, against spammers.

Not necessarily. An example would be Blazed, IIRC they are also against campaigns but they did participate in some. IMO it is better for them to take a chunk out of the budget, than a few spammers.

Also, Lauda I think it would be useful, as you can delete posts at your position, for you to try and help clean the thread (as long as that doesn't interrupt with your regular moderating of this forum.

You're looking at the wrong moderator. As a patroller, I can only moderate newbies and the sections for which I'm assigned as a moderator (Croatian & Speculation).

(Also, QS still hasn't improved upon his posts that were said to be somewhat confusing to other members - including this recent post). His speculation is highly likely to happen though.

My point is, we can't really know if we don't try anything. Every solution is going to have cons and people complaining. Does that mean that we shouldn't try anything? I'm not generally supportive of this particular idea though. The quality has degraded severely during 2016 - keep in mind that the severity of this differentiates depending on the section. As an example, I'll take Bitcoin Discussion. It is extremely difficult to find content that is worth reading and replying to these days.

Agree. Only reason I look into Bitcoin Discussion subforum nowdays is to see if it's a new core release. The posts is just spam spam spam.
No useful information what so ever

Edit: and poor newbies, Beginners & Help is possibly the worst place to look if you want some useful information

I admit I only looked at signatures on the first two pages but none of them where taking new accounts,not even Yobit and I do not think that is per chance. So I do not expect a flood of signature spam from a army of farmed accounts any time soon.

The newbie forum is the way it is because established accounts spend all day in meta complaining about signatures and ponzi schemes to reach out and say what is what. I also see the language issue spammers but with the signatures all closed it should be easy to pick them off as they are reported.

[Vhern]

I admit this is controversial topic regarding Signature, however I am only a new member and going to be a FM, alternatively if lower ranked member couldn't join a signature campaign it will have a drastic impact from a newbie wants to learn BTC but as I said I am only a new member, if what come is come.

I personally want this topic to be implemented if necessary I am wishing good luck all for the "Ideas" I hope for the better if not best to come.

[JesusHadAegis]

I admit this is controversial topic regarding Signature, however I am only a new member and going to be a FM, alternatively if lower ranked member couldn't join a signature campaign it will have a drastic impact from a newbie wants to learn BTC but as I said I am only a new member, if what come is come.

I personally want this topic to be implemented if necessary I am wishing good luck all for the "Ideas" I hope for the better if not best to come.

i think the topic is about illiterate signature spammers. It simply means having a bad grammar in the english language as to it is the language we mostly use for interaction. its understandable that not all of people here are good in english and it takes time to learn, especially to none english countries. just clarifying for vhern.

[20kevin20]

Having ten accounts doesn't help you with anything. Campaigns (good paying ones) need max 90 posts a week in average as I can see. 90*4*10... 3600 posts a month to get your ten accounts paid with the max amount. You don't have time to write so many posts.. over 100 posts PER DAY. Even having a secondary account is hard. What is the point? I mean, 10 posts with the main or 10 with 5 accounts.. same thing

[jackg]

I think it's more funny that all who replied and are in a signature campaign are, themselves, against spammers.

Not necessarily. An example would be Blazed, IIRC they are also against campaigns but they did participate in some. IMO it is better for them to take a chunk out of the budget, than a few spammers.

Also, Lauda I think it would be useful, as you can delete posts at your position, for you to try and help clean the thread (as long as that doesn't interrupt with your regular moderating of this forum.

You're looking at the wrong moderator. As a patroller, I can only moderate newbies and the sections for which I'm assigned as a moderator (Croatian & Speculation).

(Also, QS still hasn't improved upon his posts that were said to be somewhat confusing to other members - including this recent post). His speculation is highly likely to happen though.

My point is, we can't really know if we don't try anything. Every solution is going to have cons and people complaining. Does that mean that we shouldn't try anything? I'm not generally supportive of this particular idea though. The quality has degraded severely during 2016 - keep in mind that the severity of this differentiates depending on the section. As an example, I'll take Bitcoin Discussion. It is extremely difficult to find content that is worth reading and replying to these days.

Agree. Only reason I look into Bitcoin Discussion subforum nowdays is to see if it's a new core release. The posts is just spam spam spam.
No useful information what so ever

Edit: and poor newbies, Beginners & Help is possibly the worst place to look if you want some useful information

I admit I only looked at signatures on the first two pages but none of them where taking new accounts,not even Yobit and I do not think that is per chance. So I do not expect a flood of signature spam from a army of farmed accounts any time soon.

The newbie forum is the way it is because established accounts spend all day in meta complaining about signatures and ponzi schemes to reach out and say what is what. I also see the language issue spammers but with the signatures all closed it should be easy to pick them off as they are reported.

My language isn't too good on posts unless I'm really concentrating on it.
777coin and bitvest accept newbies. That used to work well as the old campaign manager waited a few weeks before accepting people. (Meaning they were already Jr members when they were accepted on the campaign).
Removing campaigns means people would mainly come here for other monetary purposes which may increase the number of scams as accounts become worth much less than they currently are.

[actmyname]

Having ten accounts doesn't help you with anything. Campaigns (good paying ones) need max 90 posts a week in average as I can see. 90*4*10... 3600 posts a month to get your ten accounts paid with the max amount. You don't have time to write so many posts.. over 100 posts PER DAY. Even having a secondary account is hard. What is the point? I mean, 10 posts with the main or 10 with 5 accounts.. same thing

And that is why there is spam. They put in less effort for the same amount of payment. Why wouldn't they do that? It's less work, but the reward remains the same.

[Vhern]

I admit this is controversial topic regarding Signature, however I am only a new member and going to be a FM, alternatively if lower ranked member couldn't join a signature campaign it will have a drastic impact from a newbie wants to learn BTC but as I said I am only a new member, if what come is come.

I personally want this topic to be implemented if necessary I am wishing good luck all for the "Ideas" I hope for the better if not best to come.

i think the topic is about illiterate signature spammers. It simply means having a bad grammar in the english language as to it is the language we mostly use for interaction. its understandable that not all of people here are good in english and it takes time to learn, especially to none english countries. just clarifying for vhern.

Is that so, hahaha I misunderstand I supposed, cause English is also not my mother tongue. Thank you for clearing my perspective of view to  this topic I thought they were having an arguments whether to remove signature campaign altogether or reduce the rank allowed to join in that. nevertheless Thanks.

[minifrij]

Some things have been done about it, Grue implemented this, which locked threads that spammers liked to use to increase activity

In the Off Topic section. While I agree this was a very good move, the spam has since moved to different sections. More needs to be done to the same tune as this.

Grue created this, which makes signature advertising less effective (and thus less attractive for companies to use -- previously if yobit et al can only afford to pay the little dust they were paying, then they might not be able to afford to pay anything at all)

While this does exist, what percentage of the community do you think uses it? My guesses are >5%. This is insignificant.
In addition, while it does make signature advertising less attractive for companies to use, it is not effective enough. This is shown by the fact we are still having this problem after these fixes were introduced.

What Lauda was proposing was to implement some "solution" without regard to it's potential effectiveness, nor it's potential consequences.

Whatever solution is implemented would obviously need to be criticized by staff and other members of the community. I'm sure that Lauda understands this, and doesn't expect that a solution will be implemented on a whim.
Regardless of this, a solution is still needed. While the things you listed previously do help, they are not enough.

I remember when Dell started accepting bitcoin, that there were threads that literally had nothing but pages upon pages of posts that all said something along the lines of "this is great news", and we do not see anything close to that level of spam anymore.

That is debatable. Whilst we don't have that sort of mindless spam, we still have a significant problem about users saying nothing of any interesting in their post and assuming it is alright due to it's length.

I think Grue locking threads in off topic whose solicited replies were insubstantial replies improved things greatly. I think it would be a good idea to implement (and enforce) similar policies in other sections of the forum, especially Bitcoin discussion, as Bitcoin Discussion has started to fill up with a lot of useless threads.

It should be implemented in all subsections of the forum, not just a select few. There is no place on this forum that shitty, nonconstructive posts and threads should be accepted.

Having ten accounts doesn't help you with anything. Campaigns (good paying ones) need max 90 posts a week in average as I can see. 90*4*10... 3600 posts a month to get your ten accounts paid with the max amount. You don't have time to write so many posts.. over 100 posts PER DAY. Even having a secondary account is hard. What is the point? I mean, 10 posts with the main or 10 with 5 accounts.. same thing

Not every account on here is low ranked, and higher ranked accounts can make more Bitcoin with less effort needed. It is highly likely that people own several of these higher ranked accounts in order to get large rewards for little effort.
Please do not post if you have no idea what you are talking about; you are part of the problem by doing so.