Ideas for improving post quality?

[Deena]

I agree. The forum actually deserves a very thorough update. Both in technical possibilities as in moderation structure. So many things could be so much better. The suggestions of hilariousetc are patchwork that is only to the advantage of arrived forum members (who are definately not always the true assets of this forum).

[hilariousandco]

I agree. The forum actually deserves a very thorough update. Both in technical possibilities as in moderation structure. So many things could be so much better. The suggestions of hilariousetc are patchwork that is only to the advantage of arrived forum members (who are definately not always the true assets of this forum).

I'm not sure how my suggestions are 'patchwork' or how they are 'to the advantage of arrived forum members' as under my proposal everyone would have to pay for a signature from Newbies to Heroes to Staff. Do you actually have any bright ideas to stop the plague of spam and shitposting? You always seem quick to shoot down others proposals but have yet to suggest any viable solutions yourself other than just biased whining.

[2girls]

I think you should come up with few definite options which you know you want to implement and give the option of selection by us in form of Poll etc. The one agreed most  can be implemented.

[Deena]

I'm not sure how my suggestions are 'patchwork' or how they are 'to the advantage of arrived forum members' as under my proposal everyone would have to pay for a signature from Newbies to Heroes to Staff. Do you actually have any bright ideas to stop the plague of spam and shitposting? You always seem quick to shoot down others proposals but have yet to suggest any viable solutions yourself other than just biased whining.

I have given my suggestions earlier. They were to govern the forum in total from principles instead of maintaining outlaw trust moderation. If you don't install principles you'll be bound to get the spamming as here discussed, and a whole lot of nastiness more, which however may get you red trust points when discussed. The reason that I call your suggestion 'patchwork' is because I consider all suggestions that are not about installing grounding principles patchwork.

[Deena]

I think you should come up with few definite options which you know you want to implement and give the option of selection by us in form of Poll etc. The one agreed most  can be implemented.

Are the myriads of spammers allowed to vote too?

[Klara_karlovna]

I am against the removal of signatures or paying for it. If in the end project became scam we was to work in minus
May be better for all if the project will be to pay after ICO for example 5% of the sig. company?

[johnleo]

the most annoying thing for me is social media bounty report in the thread, would you please force all the bounty manager to make a google form about it! thank you

[Deena]

I basically advocate the installing of clear rules and objective, fair moderation (get rid of that hideous trust system).

If the above is not considered I make a contrary suggestion to those who plea for letting members pay for wearing signatures. I then suggest to make full signature and avatar possibilities available to all members, as soon as they register. That will take away the incentive to spam for reaching higher rankings. And since bounty managers demand constructive posts they will become your free moderators, in case members want to spam to fulfull their bounty tasks. How about that?

[Orino Suimuri]

Hello, I'm very happy to see that what I proposed here when I was just a newbie wasn't a total bullshit :-)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2605767.msg26598663#msg26598663   

May be I merit a merit :-)  Ok, just kidding.

Btw, don't you think there is a risk as for example in twitter - with usual #followback hashtag - that people will give undiscriminately merits to everyone, just with the aim to receive merits back?

Or that circles of friends will give a lot of merits each other?
Or someone will start to sell merits?

This "merit" idea is great, but I think that there is still space for improvement, as it seems to me open to a lot of abuses.

Just my two cents.

[TheQuin]

Btw, don't you think there is a risk as for example in twitter - with usual #followback hashtag - that people will give undiscriminately merits to everyone, just with the aim to receive merits back?

Or that circles of friends will give a lot of merits each other?
Or someone will start to sell merits?

Two reasons this will not really work. 1) Most people start off with a limited number of sMerits to give away and will soon run out. 2) It's transparent so it will be obvious if it is happening so anyone who is a merit source being caught will probably get banned.

[Deena]

Hello, I'm very happy to see that what I proposed here when I was just a newbie wasn't a total bullshit :-)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2605767.msg26598663#msg26598663   

May be I merit a merit :-)  Ok, just kidding.

Btw, don't you think there is a risk as for example in twitter - with usual #followback hashtag - that people will give undiscriminately merits to everyone, just with the aim to receive merits back?

Or that circles of friends will give a lot of merits each other?
Or someone will start to sell merits?

This "merit" idea is great, but I think that there is still space for improvement, as it seems to me open to a lot of abuses.

Just my two cents.

Is there a link to the explanation of the merit system as it is implemented?

Chances are high that the merit system will be abused, just as the trust system. It's actually the same thing doubled, isn't it? If you trust someone you give him merit and if you distrust someone you don't give him merit.

Well, if the forum owner wants subjective instead of objective governance it is his / her choice. I am personally dissapointed though.

[minifrij]

Is there a link to the explanation of the merit system as it is implemented?

The thread by theymos would be a good place to start.

If you trust someone you give him merit and if you distrust someone you don't give him merit.

Merit is given based on the quality of posts, and is a finite resource. I can understand the comparison to the trust system, but they aren't as alike as it may seem.

[Lutpin]

If you trust someone you give him merit and if you distrust someone you don't give him merit.

Merit is given based on the quality of posts, and is a finite resource. I can understand the comparison to the trust system, but they aren't as alike as it may seem.

A few basic differences:

Trust is unlimited, I can give out 100 positive trust ratings today, and not lose anything (maybe my credibility, people would stop caring about my ratings, if I just spam them, but you get the idea).

sMerit is limited. I have a responsibility with it. I can use my sMerit to reward good posts, incentive good behaviour with that (publicly shown) reward and help make this forum a better place by increasing the post quality.
Or I can waste/sell it (likely be banned for doing so), incentive spam and contribute to the already very evident problematic of shitposting.

I cant do both, as I have limited ressources. I have to decide, and if I care about this place, this is an easy decision.

[monarx911@i.ua]

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 - Removing signatures or sig ads globally.
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.
 - Banning account sales.

I'm glad you're finally at least open to discussion about what can be done as the forum has become unmanageable and is only going to get worse as more and more people realise you can earn decent money just by posting (or copy and pasting), but why have you ruled these out? Removing signatures from ranks and making them a paid privilege is one of the only ways to stop account farming pretty much 100%. It's never going to stop as long as signatures are tied to ranks/activity. All it does is encourage mass shitposting to 'rank up'. You don't even have to remove signatures fully either. Maybe everybody can only have some sort of very basic signature like yours or the current Junior or Member level signature and for a bigger one with colour etc you have to donate. I think this would essentially price most shitposters out of having unlimited accounts and limit them to only what they can afford. You could also even offer them alongside being able to rank up naturally over time. It wont stop account farming fully but it will cut it down considerably and I'm sure many users would much rather pay $100 or so to bypass the restrictions to get a bigger signature rather than have to wait 6-16 months or whatever it is to just shitpost to achieve Full Member or Hero status etc.

Also, prohibiting account sales would also help and improve the image of the forum. It's not exactly difficult to do or enforce either. Most people selling accounts here now are either just hackers, shitposting farmers, or straight up scammers trying to sell non-existent accounts they don't even have. Allowing people to purchase the signatures from us would put a stop to this shady business completely.

A couple of ideas that have been floating around in my head:

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 certainly wouldn't be against trying something like this but I think it will just cause more confusion and more threads asking why they're not a Member yet or begging to be voted for or whatever.

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.

This is actually something I was going to suggest. How about we trial a sub board of bitcoin discussion where posts in there don't count towards activity or post count and signatures aren't displayed at all? Sig spammers and farmers would leave it well enough alone then and only people who were interested in decent discussion would contribute. The forum is currently plagued with what I call 'hit and runners' (and others have noticed this too). Basically users will just make a quick half-assed post consisting of a sentence or two then move onto the next thread and repeat the process. You can quote and respond to them either calling out their incorrect bullshit they've just posted or offering an intelligent contribution to further something they've said but you'll never get a response as they'll never return as they don't care to actually have an intelligent discussion about anything as that's too much effort for them; they just want to hash out their one or two liners as quickly as possible for payment and move on to the next thread because time is money and they get paid no more or less whether their post is 1 line or 10.

And/or allow topic-creators to set these restrictions on their topics, similar to selfmod topics.

This is also something I've suggested in the past. It would be good for campaigns and giveaway threads who want to limit participation to only certain membergroups and above, so being able to set certain restrictions on who can post in there would be beneficial. Maybe being able to block specific usernames as well for those people who feel like they're being constantly harassed or trolled by certain individuals.

What do you think of these ideas, and what other ideas do people have?

Punishing lazy campaigns and their managers would go a long way or just blacklisting their signatures would help (which is what was meant to happen with the Signature Guidelines thread). It can't be acceptable for campaigns to do nothing about spam at all and if they started having their accounts banned and/or threads trashed they'd soon get the idea. I also don't think it would be a bad idea charging ICOs a fee to make their Announcements here or to run a signature campaign as it's these lazy crapcoin campaigns that are causing the most headaches and 99% of spam and staff workload and they should have to compensate for that. The forum loses revenue every time someone chooses to run a signature campaign over bidding on forum ad slots and the worst thing is staff have to clean up their mess for free whilst they rake in millions.

completely agree with you! And glad that they began to take action, the forum turned into a trash can, find a clever text is very difficult

[otreza]

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 - Removing signatures or sig ads globally.
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.
 - Banning account sales.

A couple of ideas that have been floating around in my head:

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.

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.

What do you think of these ideas, and what other ideas do people have?

With Merit system the newbie's posts became longer with a big mount of information but they are still useless, because everybody needs time to figure out what's going on and stop making "too long - didn't read" posts but still be able to rise in member rank.

As for me it was easier ignoring "greeting posts" before rather then now the same "greetingposts-like" but with more shit in it.

[pri3oner]

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 - Removing signatures or sig ads globally.
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.

Da hell is happening right  now? Am I wrong: somebody will require payment from me to wear signature ads? lol what? and in addition, removing them?
Please, correct me.

[minifrij]

Da hell is happening right  now? Am I wrong: somebody will require payment from me to wear signature ads? lol what? and in addition, removing them?

Yes, you are wrong. Do you see the words 'I have mostly ruled out' above those suggestions?

However, the first of theymos' suggestions have been implemented:

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.

[EcuaMobi]

I've written an idea to reduce spam which I really think would work.
It makes more sense to discuss it here so I'm quoting it along with some replies.

Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system:

• On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
• This instantly makes that user's signature invisible for the user who marked him, or add him into the ignore list, to be decided
• If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him

Some details should be discussed, but that would be the idea.

I like this. A lot.
The limitation of SMAS right now is that it doesnt have a full impact.
People who get blacklisted can search campaigns that dont enforce SMAS rules and continue their habits there.

If the forum would get on board with an approach like this, the impact would be magnitudes higher.

How can we prevent system misuse?(keep hiding some signature).

By:

• Managing the list. People can be removed from the list if they wrongfully tag people as spammers
• By requiring more than one person to tag a person to remove signature privileges. I'd say 2 tags are enough
• By allowing others to untag users, then the sum (tags - untags) would have to be 2 or more

[jambola2]

What about more aggressive community-driven moderation?

I noticed today that Pharmacist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418) has probably >100 negative trusts sent out that just mark a user as a spammer.
This seems relatively effective, as it would block them from signature campaigns, but somewhat rubs me the wrong way because it seems to detract from the regular purpose of the trust system.

I somewhat like this idea:

Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system:

• On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
• This instantly makes that user's signature invisible for the user who marked him, or add him into the ignore list, to be decided
• If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him

Some details should be discussed, but that would be the idea.

But what about instead of targetting signatures, making it a community moderated "block". When a user is reported, some heuristic could be applied and if the "score" of the users that reported is high enough, the user would be temporarily banned or at least pushed further up a moderation queue.

[EcuaMobi]

I somewhat like this idea:

Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system:

• On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
• This instantly makes that user's signature invisible for the user who marked him, or add him into the ignore list, to be decided
• If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him

Some details should be discussed, but that would be the idea.

But what about instead of targetting signatures, making it a community moderated "block". When a user is reported, some heuristic could be applied and if the "score" of the users that reported is high enough, the user would be temporarily banned or at least pushed further up a moderation queue.

Could work too, but removing their ability to wear a signature would be enough in my opinion because it removes the motivation to spam.

Also, they would have the opportunity to improve the quality of their posts and ask the tagger to remove the tag, or others to untag him.
If the user is banned then he can't improve because he just can't post.

Or maybe it could have 2 levels depending on the number of people tagging him, the first one would remove the ability to wear signatures and the second one would ban him.