Proactive fighting with spammers. Doing it the right way

[Joel_Jantsen]

Well, I slept on this (even twice), and I have a new suggestion regarding spam issues and how to efficiently resolve them.

Well, I'm happy you didn't say ban all the signature campaigns.

What I come up with essentially boils down to disabling signatures for all new users (disabling them retrospectively for all users doesn't feel quite right), and if a user wants to join a signature campaign or just wear some signature, he would ask a mod to enable it for him

What about people who don't wear a paid signature ? Wouldn't it be biased for them ? They don't intend to post on the forum actively but if they have a service here,they might just advertize the same.

The mod would then look at the applicant's post history and decide for himself whether this particular user is worth posting with a signature or not...

What if the mods get 500 requests on daily basis to be reviewed ? Puts a lot of work load mate.Not like they are even paid that much to do it.

In this way, even new users would be prompted to post sense if they aim to enroll in a signature campaign later

New Business : Buy A signature ready farmed account,excellent post quality,100% mods approval chances.

[deisik]

Well, I slept on this (even twice), and I have a new suggestion regarding spam issues and how to efficiently resolve them.

Well, I'm happy you didn't say ban all the signature campaigns

I never said anything to that tune. You are obviously confusing me with someone else, since I made it perfectly clear right from the start that I'm against banning services (which pretty fast comes down to banning signature campaigns), irrespective of whether the members of their signature campaigns are spamming or not

What I come up with essentially boils down to disabling signatures for all new users (disabling them retrospectively for all users doesn't feel quite right), and if a user wants to join a signature campaign or just wear some signature, he would ask a mod to enable it for him

What about people who don't wear a paid signature ? Wouldn't it be biased for them ? They don't intend to post on the forum actively but if they have a service here,they might just advertize the same

All new users will be in the same conditions. If you spam, you can't wear a signature, as simple as it gets. Whether it is paid or not is irrelevant

The mod would then look at the applicant's post history and decide for himself whether this particular user is worth posting with a signature or not...

What if the mods get 500 requests on daily basis to be reviewed ? Puts a lot of work load mate.Not like they are even paid that much to do it

As pointed out earlier, mods could allow signatures without being directly asked for that, as part of their usual post checking routine. If they don't do that and just check reports, then who is to blame for the rampant expansion of spam across the forum after all?

In this way, even new users would be prompted to post sense if they aim to enroll in a signature campaign later

New Business : Buy A signature ready farmed account,excellent post quality,100% mods approval chances

I suspect that the price of such accounts will be prohibitively expensive for the total majority of spammers. Besides, I don't think that anyone is actually buying accounts with the singular purpose of spamming even now. For the simple reason that the risk of getting a perma ban doesn't make it a profitable investment overall...

But you are entitled to disagree, of course

[Joel_Jantsen]

As pointed out earlier, mods could allow signatures without being directly asked for that, as part of their usual post checking routine. If they don't do that, then who is to blame for the rampant expansion of spam across the forum?

So indirectly it comes down to mods who are suppose to make sure they only allow signatures to users they think are posting constructively ? I disagree,better leave to the campaign managers since managers are only paid to make sure they weed out spammers from the quality posters.For the answer,not mods but the (undeserving) campaign managers are to be blamed for the copious amount of spam.

I suspect the price of such accounts would be prohibitively expensive for the total majority of spammers

With 0% possibility of getting approved by the mods.

[deisik]

As pointed out earlier, mods could allow signatures without being directly asked for that, as part of their usual post checking routine. If they don't do that, then who is to blame for the rampant expansion of spam across the forum?

So indirectly it comes down to mods who are suppose to make sure they only allow signatures to users they think are posting constructively?

Yes, since it was unequivocally stated by some staff member here that the users who are shit posting should be banned, at first temporarily, then permanently. Given that the absolute majority of such posters are posting for money (i.e. they are paid for their signatures) and thus wouldn't post at all if not allowed to wear a signature, enabling signatures only for constructive posters will efficiently solve the issue of spamming on the forum. Whether the mods would be too strict on allowing signatures is another question...

If this is what you are getting at, of course

I suspect the price of such accounts would be prohibitively expensive for the total majority of spammers

With 0% possibility of getting approved by the mods.

I didn't quite understand what you meant to say. Buying an unapproved account makes no sense at all if you are going to wear a signature

[utkarshm]

The first step towards removing spammers from this forum should be to stop the accounts buying and selling.Because newbies buying a Sr.Member account would surely spam because they dont have that knowledge and experience and secondly they are buying account only to earn through signature campaigns,meaning just to spam to increase post count.
So account farming should be strictly prohibited first of all,so that would stop users by creating alt accounts just to sell them in future and stop newbies to spam with Sr.member or hero member accounts.

[deisik]

The first step towards removing spammers from this forum should be to stop the accounts buying and selling.Because newbies buying a Sr.Member account would surely spam because they dont have that knowledge and experience and secondly they are buying account only to earn through signature campaigns,meaning just to spam to increase post count.
So account farming should be strictly prohibited first of all,so that would stop users by creating alt accounts just to sell them in future and stop newbies to spam with Sr.member or hero member accounts.

Spammers gonna spam no matter what. I read somewhere about a gang of pickpockets who established their "headquarters" right under the gallows where their flock had been hanged, so that they could strip the mob of their money on the spot, so to speak...

The more things are forbidden, the more popular they become

[gentlemand]

The first step towards removing spammers from this forum should be to stop the accounts buying and selling.

I see this suggestion a lot. How would you propose going about doing it? Who is account farming and who is just an occasional and crappy poster?

If account sales were banned on here, they'd simply move to another website and carry on there.

As a thought experiment perhaps all sigs should be shut down for a week or a month just to see how it impacts the forum overall. If enough people realise that prospect is permanent if the tsunami of crap continues, maybe they'd start to shape up.

[Wendigo]

You all could continue bickering about this and that till the end of time. The only solution is to disable the signatures throughout the forum for everyone. Problem solved. Now we all can go back to enjoying life and spend less time in here talking about trivial matters.

And by the way I have seen people talking to their alts in the same thread quoting their own posts and speaking as if they were 2 different persons. There are some real nut jobs on this forum and before the whole thing goes to shit something radical must be done. I haven't seen anything like this on other forums. I guess the incentive to gain more coins is pushing people in the abnormal behavior. Greed is bad okay?

Bitcointalk has become like a version of Westworld where we are surrounded by fakes everywhere 

My 2 cents.

[Jhanzo]

And by the way I have seen people talking to their alts in the same thread quoting their own posts and speaking as if they were 2 different persons. There are some real nut jobs on this forum and before the whole thing goes to shit something radical must be done. I haven't seen anything like this on other forums. I guess the incentive to gain more coins is pushing people in the abnormal behavior. Greed is bad okay?

You can report them.  If it's proven that they're just one person talking to himself for signature earning I'm sure the mods will do something about it.

Edit:
Hm.  Looks like bitmixer's campaign is restarting under Lauda's management.

[1Referee]

Looks like Lauda has been going strong with cleaning up the Bitmixer campaign. If that means that I get banned as well, then it is what it is. But it's a good effort to keep the forum clean.

[deisik]

Looks like Lauda has been going strong with cleaning up the Bitmixer campaign. If that means that I get banned as well, then it is what it is. But it's a good effort to keep the forum clean.

You won't get banned. At worst, you will just get kicked from the campaign

I've already mentioned this at least once. Imagine a crime where 3 entities are involved, and only 1 always gets punished for it. That's what has been going on BTCT for a while (albeit even less effectively in 2016). What should be done is, punish everyone involved:
1) Ban the spammers themselves.
2) Ban the managers.
3) Ban the service.

If the service does not care about the spam, then it should not be allowed any kind of back-linking from BTCT period

Even if all they care for is only exposure, this still doesn't mean that they are deliberately encouraging spammers. I think that any service would prefer good posters to spammy ones. There may be just not enough good posters currently looking for participation or the payment is too low that only compulsive spammers get attracted by such a campaign. But in any case, it is a campaign manager who first agrees to manage a signature campaign for the service and then indiscriminately accepts participants into it...

Therefore, the campaign managers are the ones who should be dealt with and where it will be most effective

It seems that I turned right in the end. Ironically, the most spammy service across the forum that was first in line to get banned has hired the most strict moderator here to get rid of spammers. Who could ever think of anything like that just a day ago? In short, you never know. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of Russian posters wearing the Bitmixer signature, and I'm curious how she is going to deal with them...

After all, they might kick her down themselves

[Lauda]

Looks like Lauda has been going strong with cleaning up the Bitmixer campaign. If that means that I get banned as well, then it is what it is. But it's a good effort to keep the forum clean.

You won't be banned, as you don't fit the criteria. You are going to be evaluated again in Round two which is tomorrow. I've also suggested a extensive BAN list from this cleanup to the forum administration. Whether they will take action on it or not, is not up to me. As stated in the post, this should be taken as a warning sign that flags your posting behavior as bad (hence it needed thorough improvement).

It seems that I turned right in the end.

It is only effective if they have nowhere to run to. However, I can say that this campaign was among the worst if not the worst regarding farmed accounts and spammers (I've learned a lot during my examination of the users).

Ironically, the most spammy service across the forum hired the most strict moderator to get rid of spammers.

That may be debatable, but I do like that title.

[1Referee]

Looks like Lauda has been going strong with cleaning up the Bitmixer campaign. If that means that I get banned as well, then it is what it is. But it's a good effort to keep the forum clean.

You won't be banned, as you don't fit the criteria. You are going to be evaluated again in Round two which is tomorrow. I've also suggested a extensive BAN list from this cleanup to the forum administration. Whether they will take action on it or not, is not up to me. As stated in the post, this should be taken as a warning sign that flags your posting behavior as bad (hence it needed thorough improvement).

I'll see tomorrow whether or not I'm still part of the campaign. Either way, it was about time that something was done to get rid of the major part of the Bitmixer shitposters. One thing is sure, your appointment will surely makes me want to improve my post quality directly.


Edit:

I'll see tomorrow whether or not I'm still part of the campaign. Either way, it was about time that something was done to get rid of the major part of the Bitmixer shitposters. One thing is sure, your appointment will surely makes me want to improve my post quality directly.

What I've already been asked several times is 'how to improve posting quality'. You could attempt to contribute to the community by writing a "guide" with some pointers for this (I'm not aware that there is one). Make sure to make it self-moderated and discuss with someone else prior. <- This is an example of something that a spammer is very unlikely going to do for the forum. They are likely going to respond to the thread with "Thank you, now I impruv my posting quality.".

I'll think out something that can be helpful and allow suggestions to be included in the thread to make it even better.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If account sales were banned on here, they'd simply move to another website and carry on there.

Then let them do that.  I think instead of batting this tired old mouse around, admins ought to try things--anything--out, see what works.  And even though I'm in a campaign now, I would have no problem with nuking the signatures altogether.  The spam here is just goddamn ridiculous, and it's painfully obvious that it's the sig campaigners' fault.

[Lauda]

I'll see tomorrow whether or not I'm still part of the campaign. Either way, it was about time that something was done to get rid of the major part of the Bitmixer shitposters. One thing is sure, your appointment will surely makes me want to improve my post quality directly.

What I've already been asked several times is 'how to improve posting quality'. You could attempt to contribute to the community by writing a "guide" with some pointers for this (I'm not aware that there is one). Make sure to make it self-moderated and discuss with someone else prior. <- This is an example of something that a spammer is very unlikely going to do for the forum. They are likely going to respond to the thread with "Thank you, now I impruv my posting quality.".

Then let them do that.  I think instead of batting this tired old mouse around, admins ought to try things--anything--out, see what works.  And even though I'm in a campaign now, I would have no problem with nuking the signatures altogether.  The spam here is just goddamn ridiculous, and it's painfully obvious that it's the sig campaigners' fault.

Agreed. While it may be near-impossible to completely halt account sales, adding the risk of being permanently banned (both seller and buyer) will definitely kill a huge chunk of the market.

[deisik]

Looks like Lauda has been going strong with cleaning up the Bitmixer campaign. If that means that I get banned as well, then it is what it is. But it's a good effort to keep the forum clean.

You won't be banned, as you don't fit the criteria. You are going to be evaluated again in Round two which is tomorrow. I've also suggested a extensive BAN list from this cleanup to the forum administration. Whether they will take action on it or not, is not up to me. As stated in the post, this should be taken as a warning sign that flags your posting behavior as bad (hence it needed thorough improvement)

I guess they won't ban them. At least, not for shit posting per se, though some may indeed get banned, for example, for copy-pasting if caught. The punishment should obviously "fit the crime", and kicking them off the signature campaign will most certainly suffice to stop these users from flooding the forum with junk posts altogether. In fact, not banning them (even temporarily) would be a more severe punishment to them...

Since many will try to join other signature campaigns and undoubtedly end up kicked off again

[actmyname]

You could attempt to contribute to the community by writing a "guide" with some pointers for this (I'm not aware that there is one).

Would it be of any use, really? After all, anyone that could possibly want anything to do with it should know what actual spam is. I don't think that individuals which would like to increase their post quality would be questioning whether their posts are spam or not.


Most people should be able to understand that if their posts are all one-liners or vague and generalized recycled garbage, or agreeing posts, then they are spam. If the post isn't adding anything, then it's spam. What's so hard to understand about that?

However, I think it's good to question whether your posts are useful or not. IIRC, there have been a few times that I've written down a lengthy post to realize that I'm on the wrong page... and then deleting it.

[richardsNY]

Even though I am kicked from Bitmixer, and I as result removed my signature, I am happy to see that something is being done about spammers. I am literally sick and tired of all these google translate freaks that are only milking this forum till it's empty. Good thing is that every user enrolled will be subject to weekly quality checks by Lauda. This will make sure no spammer remains active for long. I am sure of that.

[BitHodler]

Looks like someone is desperately trying to get rid of a (most likely banned) bitmixer Hero account through an auction right now.

It might be the trigger where soon many accounts previously enrolled in that campaign will be sold as an attempt to get some money for their with spam filled accounts.

[Lauda]

I guess they won't ban them. At least, not for shit posting per se, though some may indeed get banned, for example, for copy-pasting if caught. The punishment should obviously "fit the crime", and kicking them off the signature campaign will most certainly suffice to stop these users from flooding the forum with junk posts altogether. In fact, not banning them (even temporarily) would be a more severe punishment to them...

You are working under the assumption that we are talking about plenty of different people posting in the campaign. My analysis has shown several strong patterns amongst the posters which leads me to believe that a handful of people own(ed) most of the accounts. Those are the people primarily abusing their positions and ruining this forum.

Since many will try to join other signature campaigns and undoubtedly end up kicked off again

If something like SPAS was active (made by Lutpin), then that wouldn't be a problem. At this time, they can likely join some Altcoin campaign or something (which kind of makes the bans in Bitmixer less effective).

Even though I am kicked from Bitmixer, and I as result removed my signature, I am happy to see that something is being done about spammers. I am literally sick and tired of all these google translate freaks that are only milking this forum till it's empty. Good thing is that every user enrolled will be subject to weekly quality checks by Lauda. This will make sure no spammer remains active for long. I am sure of that.

The important thing is that: You realize that it is your fault. You want to improve. You put in effort into 2. There are likely going to be people attacking me from heavy sides due to this, and those are the people that have really deserved to be banned forever. This is why I'll run a separation of the blacklist into people that are banned forever and those that may get un-banned if significant improvement is shown.

Looks like someone is desperately trying to get rid of a (most likely banned) bitmixer Hero account through an auction right now.

I've just looked into that; statistically the odds are very high in favor of the account being banned.
But let us not discuss Bitmixer specifically here. We will be observe the effectiveness of the 'put stress on the manager' method after some time. Additionally, I'd like to hear what people think about making account sales banned?