Solutions for the spam problem?

[Welsh]

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.

Quite like the sound of this system. Something which is separate from the trust system is needed to deal with the spammers currently. Campaign managers would still decide who they let in, but this would likely filter out the majority of poor posters. Possibly put this forward to theymos and see what sort of input he has too it.

It'll probably need some tweaks, and determining the list would be tricky as I believe it should be completely separate from the trust system. Staff would probably be the best to be put on this list, but they are struggling with the workload of their moderating jobs so probably wouldn't have time to add users to this list.

[1714904699]

1714904699

[1714904699]

1714904699

[1714904699]

1714904699

[1714904699]

1714904699

[Husires]

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.

An unjust solution.
Being on that list is a ticket to hide any member's signature(mark user as a spammer is a check mark "No one can know you or Grievance against your decision").

[SFR10]

I would love to hear some suggestions on how to make this fair for everyone.

1. Give negative ratings to spammers (for at least a month)
2. Upon reviewing their newly created posts (after a month):
   a. If they improve, a neutral should be given.
   b. If there's no significant improvement, then the rating should stay permanently (if someone doesn't take the second chance that will be given to them (in order to improve), they certainly don't deserve to be allowed to post or rather earn through posting).

I have also seen some suggestions that sounded good like drop a red for a week and if they clean it up remove the red and leave a neutral.

Can you clarify the highlighted part? Is it what "LoyceV have said earlier" or you meant to give them a chance (after giving the negative rating for a week) and review their posts (after a week) and if they had a significant improvement, then a neutral is given? If it's the latter, then a week is too soon. A period of a month should be mandatory (majority won't improve significantly in a single week).

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

No, you were not. This should've been done a year ago.

• 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

Best idea so far. I'd like to modify it a bit:

At least 6 DT2 members or 3 DT1 members are needed, in order for a user to lose the ability to wear a signature (this way it will be less prone to abuse).[/list]

[EcuaMobi]

Being on that list is a ticket to hide any member's signature

Exactly! And therefore that would stop incentivizing spammers to spam

"No one can know you or Grievance against your decision"

To be discussed. The system could show who marked the user as spammer. And there could be an option for others to unmark him if they disagree or if the post quality improved.

Then there could be a formula to decide whether or not to remove the signature rights, just like users can have an overall positive trust if someone trusted left them negative feedback and several others left positive trust later.

At least 6 DT2 members or 3 DT1 members are needed, in order for a user to lose the ability to wear a signature (this way it will be less prone to abuse)

6 and 3 sound too much to me to be honest. But there should be a method to prevent non-spammers to be affected because a single DT user didn't like his post, either by initially requiring more than one tag or by allowing others to untag, as stated above.

[ibminer]

Being on that list is a ticket to hide any member's signature

Exactly! And therefore that would stop incentivizing spammers to spam

"No one can know you or Grievance against your decision"

To be discussed. The system could show who marked the user as spammer. And there could be an option for others to unmark him if they disagree or if the post quality improved.

Then there could be a formula to decide whether or not to remove the signature rights, just like users can have an overall positive trust if someone trusted left them negative feedback and several others left positive trust later.

At least 6 DT2 members or 3 DT1 members are needed, in order for a user to lose the ability to wear a signature (this way it will be less prone to abuse)

6 and 3 sound too much to me to be honest. But there should be a method to prevent non-spammers to be affected because a single DT user didn't like his post, either by initially requiring more than one tag or by allowing others to untag, as stated above.

So a "spammer" tag would be introduced and that spammer tag would then remove a signature if X amount of spammer tags have been added by DT members?  I need to think this through but it sounds interesting.

One note: the number of 'spammer' tags should maybe be calculated on a percentage to accommodate the DT list growing or reducing.

Would there then need to be a way to counter spammer tags if others think it is an inappropriate rating?

[LeGaulois]

Only a DT would be able to tag a spammer, right? Otherwise, everybody will tag everybody and I smell the "he tagged me with his alt accounts to get a slot in the campaign XYZ!!!"

[skoykovich]

My goal when adding people to the Default Trust network was to help clean up the garbage posting on this forum. I understand people are all worked up over sea of red that ensued after my adding The Pharmacist and actmyname to DT2. I would love to hear some suggestions on how to make this fair for everyone. The useless posting makes this place pretty much useless for most people and it needs to get fixed. Most of the red users I have seen are guilty of shit posting for pay. I have also seen some suggestions that sounded good like drop a red for a week and if they clean it up remove the red and leave a neutral. I think everyone should be able to join a campaign and earn some coins, but the spam is out of control and no one can seem to fix it so far...

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam? So far I see no reason that negative trust can not be used to stop these spammers. If I leave a neutral then they are free to continue spamming etc... I look forward to some ideas on what to do here.

DT members can do a better job if they start to select a group of users they think that are good poster by leaving them a neutral trust.

Leaving a neg trust to a user will not change anything, this user will spamm the forum because he does not have nothing to lost.

what is the result after one week ?
-more than 500 Users with neg trust.
-Brynt on the facebook page for filipino  sold 713 bitcointalk account  during the last 4 days , he become milionaire in his country and earn more than $46 000 in 4 days.
why noone cant see the solution its to remove the sign campaign on this forum?

[minifrij]

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

I'm a big fan of this, especially regarding the third part of the suggestion. I think that part is near crucial though. Without this, we will just reach a similar issue that we are having currently where people are getting all riled up and not much is actually changing.

The only solution is to limit each thread topic in Bitcoin Discussion up to 24 hours only (forum standard time), Because even if the topic is relevant/necessary the majority of it to be spammed is up to 100%.

What about the spam problems outside of Bitcoin Discussion?

and a lot of color tag ill only confused the new member of this forum and it will be laborious

I'm unsure quite what you mean about it being laborious. Laborious for who? The people that volunteer to do it?

Only a DT would be able to tag a spammer, right? Otherwise, everybody will tag everybody and I smell the "he tagged me with his alt accounts to get a slot in the campaign XYZ!!!"

It could perhaps be an interesting idea to have a special list of users that use this system, and only this system (unrelated to DT). I know for a fact that I wouldn't trust certain DT members to judge post quality, where as I would with others that aren't necessarily on the network (perhaps rightfully so).

Although that yellow is hard on the eyes. Maybe orange? Spammers

I'm not sure I'd go for Orange, as that is already in use by the Trust system. I don't have a good alternative though, and may be overthinking it.

why noone cant see the solution its to remove the sign campaign on this forum?

This has been said multiple times, and theymos has said publicly that this won't happen. Therefore, we as a community should try to find a way around.

[Husires]

To be discussed. The system could show who marked the user as spammer. And there could be an option for others to unmark him if they disagree or if the post quality improved.

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

Then there could be a formula to decide whether or not to remove the signature rights

Remember we do not have a clear definition of spam.
generally, I agree with you. this is the best solution because signatures are the main reason for the spammers.
I do not know if theymos will agree with you because he already make  Serious discussion section

[Lutpin]

To be discussed. The system could show who marked the user as spammer. And there could be an option for others to unmark him if they disagree or if the post quality improved.

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

The same way it is (in theory) prevented right now?
Theymos managing DT and thus selecting DT1, DT1 managing and selecting DT2.

Then there could be a formula to decide whether or not to remove the signature rights

Remember we do not have a clear definition of spam.

It's not about the system deciding something is spam or not.
It's about the system deciding whether or not a person gets to wear a signature based on their "spam score" "post reputation" (whatever it might be called).
Eg can you wear a signature if 2 (trusted) people marked you as spammer? No, probably. What if 2 people marked you as spammer and 2 marked your posts as good.
Cases like this.

I do not know if theymos will agree with you because he already make  Serious discussion section

A test section and at best a tiny band-aid. This can't be the full, permanent solution.

[xxxgoodgirls]

I would love to see shitposters becoming more careful and creating better posts when they fear for red trust, but I don't have much hope of that happening.

Actually it worked to me. I noticed that my latest posts have been somehow useless, now I am paying more attention to what I am writing. But it would have been if the user get warned before receiving the red trust.
Although I still do not consider my red trust label to be fair.

I do like Ecuamobi's proposal.

[baradfo]

Then there could be a formula to decide whether or not to remove the signature rights

Remember we do not have a clear definition of spam.

It's not about the system deciding something is spam or not.
It's about the system deciding whether or not a person gets to wear a signature based on their "spam score" "post reputation" (whatever it might be called).
Eg can you wear a signature if 2 (trusted) people marked you as spammer? No, probably. What if 2 people marked you as spammer and 2 marked your posts as good.
Cases like this.

I like the idea of the balance of 2 (or other number) trusted members marking your posts as spam, then the SMAS would kick in and remove the sig block automatically. The balance coming in where if 2 (or other number) trusted members mark your posts as good and then you would go to neutral and your sig block comes active again. The separate spam marker would help with this and it's a "fair" way to mark spammers.  

[EcuaMobi]

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

I'm a big fan of this, especially regarding the third part of the suggestion. I think that part is near crucial though. Without this, we will just reach a similar issue that we are having currently where people are getting all riled up and not much is actually changing.

Absolutely, I'm not giving 3 suggestions but 1. I consider the 3rd part extremely important too.

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

[DanWork]

I've noticed that the Off-Topic section has dozens and dozens of simplistic posts that makes me wonder if they are from one entity. Since they follow a sort of unnatural pattern that doesn't seem realistic, even for religious people. And that you don't see in the other sections.

They would say something basic that a hardcore religious person might say, "With god everything is possible, so long as you believe," followed by more simplistic comments from some one else that goes something like, "Yes, that's why we must respect our parents." "Losing your virginity before marriage is not good because we are honoring god and our future beloved one."

The thing is that normally in other places around the internet you would at least see people debating such things, but it just really seems as though this is one person having a conversation with themselves, with all those accounts following the pattern of the one fake persona.

These comments really look off and simplistic, and easy to detect. Perhaps it can be solved by deletion.

But at the same time how can a mod be sure, in a superficial sense it's difficult to delete a comment that goes "Yes, that's why we must respect our parents." Even if it seems like the person is just saying BS, following an MO. Such comments put one on the spot, because superficially they can be protested as a legit comment.

[legendster]

My goal when adding people to the Default Trust network was to help clean up the garbage posting on this forum. I understand people are all worked up over sea of red that ensued after my adding The Pharmacist and actmyname to DT2. I would love to hear some suggestions on how to make this fair for everyone. The useless posting makes this place pretty much useless for most people and it needs to get fixed. Most of the red users I have seen are guilty of shit posting for pay. I have also seen some suggestions that sounded good like drop a red for a week and if they clean it up remove the red and leave a neutral. I think everyone should be able to join a campaign and earn some coins, but the spam is out of control and no one can seem to fix it so far...

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam? So far I see no reason that negative trust can not be used to stop these spammers. If I leave a neutral then they are free to continue spamming etc... I look forward to some ideas on what to do here.

I was just reading this other post here and he too seemed to have expressed his concerns of hiring this gang of good ol boys to fight spam.
IMO, pharmacists CAN recognize a shit post but he is incredibly biased, comes off as a rude, bigotted and a racist person. If it were me I would not be giving so much power to someone who can't have some form of self-control in these issues.
But, then again, like I said. He's not stupid, his red tags do usually hit the right spot with spammers.

There needs to be an automated way, something, that I have suggested in that post theymos made. Something that automatically deals with the issue. For instance this Merit system that has just been implemented, this can be used to hire people that have higher merit vs those that have lower merit. This is like the thumbs up / like button. The more likes you get, the better.

[Blazed]

My goal when adding people to the Default Trust network was to help clean up the garbage posting on this forum. I understand people are all worked up over sea of red that ensued after my adding The Pharmacist and actmyname to DT2. I would love to hear some suggestions on how to make this fair for everyone. The useless posting makes this place pretty much useless for most people and it needs to get fixed. Most of the red users I have seen are guilty of shit posting for pay. I have also seen some suggestions that sounded good like drop a red for a week and if they clean it up remove the red and leave a neutral. I think everyone should be able to join a campaign and earn some coins, but the spam is out of control and no one can seem to fix it so far...

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam? So far I see no reason that negative trust can not be used to stop these spammers. If I leave a neutral then they are free to continue spamming etc... I look forward to some ideas on what to do here.

I was just reading this other post here and he too seemed to have expressed his concerns of hiring this gang of good ol boys to fight spam.
IMO, pharmacists CAN recognize a shit post but he is incredibly biased, comes off as a rude, bigotted and a racist person. If it were me I would not be giving so much power to someone who can't have some form of self-control in these issues.
But, then again, like I said. He's not stupid, his red tags do usually hit the right spot with spammers.

There needs to be an automated way, something, that I have suggested in that post theymos made. Something that automatically deals with the issue. For instance this Merit system that has just been implemented, this can be used to hire people that have higher merit vs those that have lower merit. This is like the thumbs up / like button. The more likes you get, the better.

Well, there is no reason he can't be a little more polite with negative coments I suppose. These days everyone is so sensitive...I mean it is the internet and you should expect the occasional name calling. So far there have been a couple solid suggestions to help fix the spam stuff so my additions seem to be helping! I am sure we as a community will find a fair way to fix this spam issue. I need to read up on this merit system... I hope it helps also.

[legendster]

Well, there is no reason he can't be a little more polite with negative coments I suppose. These days everyone is so sensitive...I mean it is the internet and you should expect the occasional name calling. So far there have been a couple solid suggestions to help fix the spam stuff so my additions seem to be helping! I am sure we as a community will find a fair way to fix this spam issue. I need to read up on this merit system... I hope it helps also.

It starts with name calling and then it gradually develops into a whole racial thing and makes the environment here a duller place. Yes, it IS the internet and that makes my point all the more important. Internet's not just for the western world, rich people, white people or the aristocrats, no need to belittle entire nations and paint everyone with the same crayon. IMO, it becomes all the more necessary that one should be wary of what they speak on an international forum. Bitcointalk is the forefront of Bitcoin and everything crypto.

And yes, I agree with you completely, low quality posts and spam does need to be curbed in one way or another. However, anything in this regard should not be taken lightly, the whole signature farming thing is it's own economy and employs people. I know some that do it full time even.
More so it generates traffic, brings in fresh blood to this community, which is why the advertisers pay in the first place. There just needs to be a quality check by the campaign managers.

[yojodojo21]

My own idea as a suggestion. Don't mind if not helpful.

Scammers are always everywhere they cause a lot of trouble to investors, maybe tagging them with red flag is not effective as it is but banning there I.P. address can or maybe helpful to evict them in this forum. ( If it is proven that an accused person is a real scammer with reference). This is just only a suggestion.

Spammers are crying out loud in the "reputation section", some wants clarification why they are tagged, some wants to argue without watching their words and does not give respect to superiors. Some have points to consider, but I trust DT MEMBERS with their decision. This is a community not a market where we can just speak freely. So tagging is an effective way but giving time to evaluate is a good way to assess.
Everybody deserves a second chance, then if they do it again, banning account is good enough to neutralize spammers.


P.S. THIS IS JUST ONLY A SUGGESTION.
(Please do correct me if I have said unnecessary words.)

[justine11]

I have some idea to prevent spam:
Implement SMAS to all campaign managers and must be managed by the moderators if an user listed to SMAS moderators can disable the signature of that user preventing the user from joining signature campaigns only problem is can moderators disable signature remotely? I think this more humane than giving negative feedback

Edit: Although giving users a negative feedback helps a lot against spamming and shitposting, the problem is, the feedbacks is harsh and also, the user given a negative trust by the DT user posts in reputation section pleading to remove their negative feedback or attacking the DT who gave him/her a negative feedback making more spam in reputation and Meta sections

[Lutpin]

Implement SMAS to all campaign managers and must be managed by the moderators if an user listed to SMAS moderators can disable the signature of that user preventing the user from joining signature campaigns only problem is can moderators disable signature remotely? I think this more humane than giving negative feedback

Enforcing SMAS as mandatory is something I've read a few times already in this and the other thread.
I've made an update post to that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545652.msg28858331#msg28858331).
Would like to hear theymos' opinion on the matter, though.