Ideas for improving post quality?

[kumiskura]

I would be ok to pay a monthly/yearly fee to have the signature space enable. Something like $150 per year maybe.
A lot of shitposts come from ICO/Altcoins It may an idea to warn the people behind and maybe ban their campaign or something around.

something like this will not help us to be honest,
because we just need to pay something in order to enable our signature space.
what we are aiming for this time is to improve our post quality which mean we need something to prevent it.

1. To attain ranks above Member, you'd have to earn some number of merit points. Merit points would be awarded in a monthly vote on best posts of the previous month, with various measures (TBD) to prevent gaming of the vote. Winning merit points might also come with a BTC prize.

i think it's not a bad idea overall but it need some correction,
it would be better for Newbies who want to rank up and do not need to put some prize behind it.
with this we can stop a newly reborn account and their shit post
something like this

sasingh

i believe it's not only me who saw something like this

[1715623048]

1715623048

[1715623048]

1715623048

[crazycatwoman03]

I do like the idea of a paid membership (copper) to allow users to "skip" the process of accumulating activity points to achieve a certain ranking status. If someone buys a copper membership, at the very least, it shows they have a genuine interest in participating in conversations.

I think it shows they have a genuine interest in spamming the boards to earn revenue from their sigs.

Well having a copper membership does not provide for any protection against getting banned. If you pay $40 (+ a $20 tx fee) for a copper membership, then you will need to earn at least $60 (plus the cost of spending your earnings) just to break even, so users have an incentive to not engage in activity that would result in them getting banned.

I think that is not right to give other the chance to just pay so that they will be able to use the account without worrying about the activity. It is unfair,  I always think that with this forum people will learn how to push themselves to comply with rules and learn to discipline themselves. Let the rules of the forum be as it is and let the members do their best to comply with it.  

[snipie]

26 out of 44 posts in this topic, their writers are participating in signature campaign. The same goes for the majority of the topics.
Removing signature will make the new applications drop hugely, spammers will disappear (find another forums to spam), the active members will be reduced significantly, the same goes for ads view and so on.
The first suggestion is a radical one but the consequence is lethal.

Paying to wear signature? Maybe for new participants under full members.

Banning account sales, well it will do nothing, a new/oother forum will pop-up and we will see bitcointalk.org accounts being sold there.

The prize thing is good but will have nothing to do with spam. I am afraid that the same people will win it over and over. (maybe once per year for 1 account?)

Serious sections? Ok but a new one(s) definitely.

[digaran]

Every body is suggesting something to restrict people, let us beggars be, when people jump their wives and produce more jumpers or to be jumped people, what would their government do? they will let them to grow, study and work, and pay taxes, they will use that tax to hire more people to keep every body safe and to enforce the rules of law. we have the rules with not enough enforcers, so if a lowlife beggar like me is earning $500 per month without paying for maintenance, you'll get exhausted resources.
Forum needs more moderators, hire them with the money you would charge every member wearing a paid signature, make them buy activity coins/tokens (note, I'm not talking about the same activity tokens I made on Waves) hey beggar, you want to post with a signature? go to this page and pay with BTC Ð Ξ ɱ Ł equivalent of $1 per future post, then every low rank beggar would beg campaigns to pay more, because they are paying $1 tax per post, the manager would say: don't beg, we're paying $1.5 per post and if you don't like it, you can leave.

Beggars would never leave because they have no other place to go, they will wear the signature and start shitposting, just like they (we) are doing it now, but with a noticeable difference, a lot of moderators are active and they would ban any shitposter.

EDIT: look at this beggar, he has a rare version of Bitcoin which is better and faster, a self moderated thread, also a Hero member has posted a list of nodes, organized shitcoin creation cartels, banning them would also help to improve this community.

[Cobalt9317]

IMHO

the signature char need to be limited for Member, Full Member, Sr, Member, Hero, Leg.

Even if shit posting is too much your eyes will not be irritated.

Serious Sections

is a nice idea.

[marlboroza]

1+1 = 2680 bumped topics today.

1) Add more moderators to these boards  
2) Don't allow junior members/members/full members to wear payed signature
3) Don't allow ICO bounties to accept 500+ members
4) Ban account sales/ re-edit for third time   - don't ban account sales. Ban sold accounts.
5) Add moderators to every single local board
6) If you can't fight them - join them, create new child board  in "other" section - "spam here and build rank" that would decrease spam in all forum sections
7) Ban all users who cheated signature campaigns

9) I can't post reason number 8 because 8 is cool
10) Thrash ALL identical topics - example can we use bitcoin without internet & no internet no bitcoin!!!  
I would also go with this:



And not only what I wrote in that message  

To be honest I would personally go only with 1).

[otrkid70]

The policy to not remove anything worked when the forum was small. Now that we have thousands of posts a day, we can't afford 50% of them being junk. The moderators are now instructed to be less tolerant of low-value posts.

Some guidelines:

1. Free speech - you can say anything as long as it is relevant and presented in a calm and polite manner. Swearing, SHOUTING etc. make your post more likely to be removed.
2. No zero value posts or threads, like "SELL SELL SELL"
3. No pointless or uninteresting threads.
4. No referral code spam
5. No NSFW content

From 2011 sirius said it wayyy back then. "Now that we have thousands of posts a day,We can't afford 50% of them being junk"

Why has this CLEAR rational decision changed?    Answer : GREED

We allow paid Sig Ad Bullshit to any creature that finds their way to the forum. As long as this BS continues the forum will continue to degrade and lose true Members.

It has become a cluster fuck of Spam.

Ban the Sig Ad. Campaigns....The forum will take a hit at first but then it will come back as Real users understand it's a Forum to find and discuss relevant information Regarding BTC

[Crypto Chips]

quite agree with the idea, but are you ready with a decrease in traffic and moving users to other similar forums?

bitcointalk forums are at the peak of traffic due to ICO promotion, the year before it can be said that this forum is only visited by certain people only

[Quickseller]

No.This would be a horrible idea. Theymos should publicly disclose all of the accounts that Lauda has ever owned, including those he has sold in the past.

Lauda is by far the most corrupt person within the community, and has exactly no morals.

The fact that lauda frequently shills for "core" will likely protect him from the above. Although it could be especially damaging if someone other than theymos were able to disclose the alts of Lauda, including those that participated in shady activity.

[nidacoinlove]

It is a great idea but I am a little concerned about this.

1. To attain ranks above Member, you'd have to earn some number of merit points. Merit points would be awarded in a monthly vote on best posts of the previous month, with various measures (TBD) to prevent gaming of the vote. Winning merit points might also come with a BTC prize.

Who will be the voters in case if it gets implemented?

2. Create or designate some sections as "serious discussion" sections, with no signatures. In those sections or maybe in different ones, also have poster restrictions such as Member rank or above only. And/or allow topic-creators to set these restrictions on their topics, similar to selfmod topics.

This is a brilliant idea. I guess it will be better to work on it.

[Lauda]

quite agree with the idea, but are you ready with a decrease in traffic and moving users to other similar forums?

Ready with users leaving? Real users have been leaving left and right for years. Who gives a damn about some 3rd world shitposters leaving? They are an epidemic to this place and are killing it from the inside.

EDIT: look at this beggar, he has a rare version of Bitcoin which is better and faster, a self moderated thread, also a Hero member has posted a list of nodes, organized shitcoin creation cartels, banning them would also help to improve this community.

We are definitely ripe for banning such examples.

[Daifotis]

3) Don't allow ICO bounties to accept 500+ members

This will solve the issue. For me, 90% of signature campaign came from ICO projects on which some of them aren't paying in the end.

Not 500+ but make it at least 300 members for sig camp. And managers must implement rules to their participants about posting only single update on bounty thread for their bounty works e.g social media works etc.

[Deena]

No.This would be a horrible idea. Theymos should publicly disclose all of the accounts that Lauda has ever owned, including those he has sold in the past.

Lauda is by far the most corrupt person within the community, and has exactly no morals.

Like I posted above; theymos needs to rethink about what type of forum he wants and what type of forum he has. When he gets that clear all decisions become dead easy, including the decisions about what to do with spamming and corrupt moderators. Because then he can apply principles.

[asepsetiawan1990]

in my opinion, by removing the signature campaign globally is less effective. Better is improving the rules for installing a signature campaign. The more difficult the requirements will affect the mindset for spaming.

[Lauda]

in my opinion, by removing the signature campaign globally is less effective. Better is improving the rules for installing a signature campaign. The more difficult the requirements will affect the mindset for spaming.

Ironic given that you're a shitposter yourself.

[hilariousetc]

in my opinion, by removing the signature campaign globally is less effective. Better is improving the rules for installing a signature campaign. The more difficult the requirements will affect the mindset for spaming.

Ironic given that you're a shitposter yourself.

Yeah, classic one-line Indonesian shitposter on yet another shitcoin ICO ran by someone I've never even heard of and quite possibly a hacked/purchased account to boot: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2205425.0.

If campaign managers actually did their job properly you sorts of posters would never be allowed on a campaign in the first place and the forum wouldn't be such a wall-to-wall shitshow and hence why punishments need to be handed out to badly run campaigns. I'm really not sure why we let them get away with this. Shitposters get banned but campaigns don't? It's waste of time banning the thousands of shitposters without tackling the problem at its source. 

[Orino Suimuri]

I'm just trying to understand what happens here; I'm a newbee, but I'm not a teenager and I've tens of years of experience of organizational politics; it seems to me that all these flames, scam/spam accusations, banning people on arbitrary evaluation are completely useless.

I think that a simple "like/unlike" system on every post  could be a good solution. Periodically, it will possible to evaluate who writes quality posts and who writes garbage.
Of course, abuse is possible, but much better that a personal opinion of a moderator, with all respect for his position/experience.
Just my two cents

[hilariousetc]

I'm just trying to understand what happens here; I'm a newbee, but I'm not a teenager and I've tens of years of experience of organizational politics; it seems to me that all these flames, scam/spam accusations, banning people on arbitrary evaluation are completely useless.

I think that a simple "like/unlike" system on every post  could be a good solution. Periodically, it will possible to evaluate who writes quality posts and who writes garbage.
Of course, abuse is possible, but much better that a personal opinion of a moderator, with all respect for his position/experience.
Just my two cents

Some sort of like system has been proposed numerous times before but why would you trust a voting system that in your own words can be gamed over the opinion of staff? Staff don't go around banning people for the fun of it. It's incredibly time consuming to do and I wish people would just not shitpost or campaign managers would actually do their job in the first place and not pay shitposters, but they do, so we have to do their job for them. If people don't like how this forum is run or managed they can click the 'logout' button at the top and all their problems and concerns are solved.

[commanderbitcoin]

If you want to lessen the traffic, one of the solution is to have a maximum sig  campaign  post per week. Campaign participants is just following the sig campaign rules. Imagine if there are 300 participants join the campaign and the required post is 20 post per week, then you have  6,000 post in a week or 857 post per day in just 1 campaign. If the maximum post in sig campaign is only 10 post per week then you are cutting the traffic in half or if the maximum post per week is just 5-8 post per week then you have a quality post you need.  

[hilariousetc]

If you want to lessen the traffic, one of the solution is to have a maximum sig  campaign  post per week. Campaign participants is just following the sig campaign rules. Imagine if there are 300 participants join the campaign and the required post is 20 post per week, then you have  6,000 post in a week or 857 post per day in just 1 campaign. If the maximum post in sig campaign is only 10 post per week then you are cutting the traffic in half or if the maximum post per week is just 5-8 post per week then you have a quality post you need.  

People will just open multiple accounts like many already do just to bleed signature campaigns dry. Whatever limitations like this you put in place people will just find a way around it, and you punish the otherwise decent posters who make great posts but are limited to x amount because of the spammers abusing it. How would we even enforce this? People can only make 20 posts a week and no more? Well I make more than 20 posts a week and I shouldn't be limited by this. A better solution would be to just force campaign managers to do what they're supposed to and not pay for spam and shitposts.