Solutions for the spam problem?

[Bachelorrd]

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.

I love that you have seen my point. I had fears that my voice wouldn't be heard because I am not carrying a Legendary/Hero Badge or because I am tagged as "shitposter from 3rd World". But that is the use of this Open Forum to express what you want to say (excluding the spam of course) no matter what your rank is and not forgetting the rule of good "Netiquette".

[1713889117]

1713889117

[1713889117]

1713889117

[1713889117]

1713889117

[1713889117]

1713889117

[Viper1]

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.

If you want to have something like this work, you need to have a crystal clear, unambiguous set of guidelines for what should and should not be flagged across the board (those running sig campaigns or not). The people assigned to it need to be capable of removing their emotions from the job and apply the rules completely objectively. From the looks of it, this is not the case right now.

Having said that, these sorts of things rarely work out mostly because human beings have a hard time being objective and not inserting their own personal opinions into something like this. Especially as some relish the "power" they hold over others and start to abuse it.

Instead, the whole thing should be pushed back to those that are paying the "shit posters". They're the ones that should be policing the posts and not paying shit posters. Then your crew could review the posters of various campaigns and if they find the campaign is not policing the posts adequately, they lose their sig campaign privileges for some period of time. Just a thought off the top of my head.

[actmyname]

Instead, the whole thing should be pushed back to those that are paying the "shit posters". They're the ones that should be policing the posts and not paying shit posters. Then your crew could review the posters of various campaigns and if they find the campaign is not policing the posts adequately, they lose their sig campaign privileges for some period of time. Just a thought off the top of my head.

Negative trust only does so much. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just like playing the devil's advocate on these issues.

See: Betcoin.ag (campaign and site)

People stuck with that signature campaign well after it was revealed to be a scam site with plenty of other shady activity.

[deadley]

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.

Sorry Blazed I don't agree giving neg tagging for shit poster. Trust feedback was built for saving from scammer or possible scammer.

Just outsourcing someone to giving everyone neg tag, it's really bad idea. Neg tagging for multiple account user understandable what Lauda was doing but tagging for posting small posts not a good idea at all. We will never know are they biased or not when giving negative rating because they will just giving neg tag and post shit poster. Sometime small half line post is more accurate than posting full para. Are they reading full content before giving neg tagging or they check profile and check oh that user have all half to 2 line post so he is shit poster.

99% times I also like to post even half line or say 1-2 lines max because for my work as a trader since last 4 years not require big post and I don't like to post big because I know if I can answer easily to the point in half line than why post in full big para.

Other options would be to improve the SMAS list and ask (force?) campaign managers to use it; and other ideas discussed here, but not with the current Trust system.

This is superb idea, I will love to work with improve list of SMAS list.

When I run campaign for btc signature campaign, I always very strict to choosing participant because there is so much option  but when it comes to only bounty tokens I am lenient but I made some strict rule like posting in 1-2 days won't earn stake so user must post minimum 3 days in a week to earn stake so I won't give multi account user to easy escape and they can't earn easily bounty tokens. But problem not all manager follow strict rules and because of that when ICO developer see there is low number of participants in their signature campaign because of strict rule and other campaign have very big number of users so they complained so much. And as a bounty manager I have to show them why they have huge number of signature participants and why we don't and they try to force me to easy rule for their signature campaign too.

[akamit]

Blazed, I really don't think we must use the Trust system to stop spammers, unless that system is changed.

Scammers and spammers should be kept in 2 different groups.

I've always thought about it but I couldn't express it here, it is because of the second thought I had about the misunderstanding with others, mainly DT members.
But thank you for pointing out this to Blazed. I hope Theymos & Blazed will do something about it soon enough. If a solution comes up then recent quarrel may come to an end.

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers Yellow color : Spammers

That seems like a rather *simple* change, that might just be effective enough. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about it.

Lets go one step further, don't call it trust, thats a marketplace thing. I dont necessarily distrust spammers, they are an annoyance.
Add a second way to rate users, call it post score (or something similar), the system itself could even work the same way the trust system works (with only minor adjustments).
Might even add options to hide the post scores completely, if you do not care about that sort of governance/moderation.

Husires's idea is not bad, but it will not reflect the level of spammer someone might be.
In my opinion, Lutpin's idea will be more effective. The same functionality of trust rating system, but with post score name.

It is for sure that we need a different system for spammers, instead of the trust rating system. I believe trust rating should only be used when there is a financial transaction.

[Rrotess]

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers
Yellow color : Spammers

That seems like a rather *simple* change, that might just be effective enough. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about it.
Although that yellow is hard on the eyes. Maybe orange? Spammers

Your two was  correct!Maybe we should separate for color for the tracing up of making an offenses.This is really hot issue now specially when they add another rule for the security of this forum which is the qualified post we made and give as a merit.This is truly why bitcointalk.org was really interesting because of how they stricted the rules to make the people descipline and continue our journey with this business.

[MattLeBlanc]

A level system in spammers Merit is better in my honest opinion. If someone wants to correct themselves or someone who doesn't have any idea about the spam systems on this forum should get at least one chance to learn and change.

If someone continues to spam even after one "negative spammer merit" then those should not be allowed to join any campaigns.

[EcuaMobi]

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

Honestly I think you were.

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

[Blazed]

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

Honestly I think you were.

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

Yeah, it is his forum so I will make sure the red for shit posting stops. I was not sure if it would work, but at least it got something else implemented for us. I remain doubtful that anything will fix the spam here until we hold campaign managers accountable for their users.

[EcuaMobi]

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

Honestly I think you were.

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

Yeah, it is his forum so I will make sure the red for shit posting stops. I was not sure if it would work, but at least it got something else implemented for us. I remain doubtful that anything will fix the spam here until we hold campaign managers accountable for their users.

I doubt it too, at least in short term. We must find other ways to do that.
I hope theymos will write about my idea.

It's clear the staff isn't enough to fight spam and a bigger group must be allowed to do that.

[Blazed]

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

Honestly I think you were.

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

Yeah, it is his forum so I will make sure the red for shit posting stops. I was not sure if it would work, but at least it got something else implemented for us. I remain doubtful that anything will fix the spam here until we hold campaign managers accountable for their users.

I doubt it too, at least in short term. We must find other ways to do that.
I hope theymos will write about my idea.

It's clear the staff isn't enough to fight spam and a bigger group must be allowed to do that.

Looks like I was wrong to allow the negatives, but I do think it would have worked. We can only hope the new merit system will help with it.

[johnleo]

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

Honestly I think you were.

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

Yeah, it is his forum so I will make sure the red for shit posting stops. I was not sure if it would work, but at least it got something else implemented for us. I remain doubtful that anything will fix the spam here until we hold campaign managers accountable for their users.

I doubt it too, at least in short term. We must find other ways to do that.
I hope theymos will write about my idea.

It's clear the staff isn't enough to fight spam and a bigger group must be allowed to do that.

Looks like I was wrong to allow the negatives, but I do think it would have worked. We can only hope the new merit system will help with it.

The damage has been made and I am one of them.  Am I really spammer? I don't think so, every people has different estimation about post rating.

Back to the topic, why don't you give a tool for them (spamming fighters) to rate all the post here instead of giving red trust?  

[EcuaMobi]

The damage has been made and I am one of them.  Am I really spammer? I don't think so, every people has different estimation about post rating.

Can you link to 3 posts of yours that deserve merit+? Seriously. I can only find posts that make no good to the forum. But I don't think you deserve negative trust, you're not a scammer.

Back to the topic, why don't you give a tool for those spamming fighters to rate all the post here instead of giving red trust? 

Who you?
I hope those tools will be available soon to stop low-quality posters.

[Lauda]

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

Honestly I think you were.

Disagreed. Just while it might not be the best solution to label both scammers and spammers under the same color, that's what the description of the rating is for. Given the situation, it was decent.

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

Here we go, another bad idea. Instead of tackling the problem at its roots, let's develop another complex system.

The damage has been made and I am one of them.  Am I really spammer? I don't think so, every people has different estimation about post rating.

See, the good thing about it is that what you think doesn't matter. You can never completely objectively asses yourself, not that you have any assessment skills to begin with. Your posts are useless and do not deserve any Merit points.

[johnleo]

The damage has been made and I am one of them.  Am I really spammer? I don't think so, every people has different estimation about post rating.

Can you link to 3 posts of yours that deserve merit+? Seriously. I can only find posts that make no good to the forum. But I don't think you deserve negative trust, you're not a scammer.

Back to the topic, why don't you give a tool for those spamming fighters to rate all the post here instead of giving red trust? 

Who you?
I hope those tools will be available soon to stop low-quality posters.

Sorry I don't usual to rate my own post, beside that a post could be useful for newbie but shit for legendary. But I can tell you one advice that I had made in this link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2374807.msg24227168#msg24227168. My advice was worth $1000 because I got 780 R for 5 days.

You, I mean for Blazed because I think he is one of the most powerfull people here.

[EcuaMobi]

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

Honestly I think you were.

Disagreed. Just while it might not be the best solution to label both scammers and spammers under the same color, that's what the description of the rating is for. Given the situation, it was decent.

Sure, the description is important, and so is the reference. It's to explain why you think the user is a scammer or very untrustworthy.

Negative means:

You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

We shouldn't use it for whatever else just because we explain so on the description.

Edit: The same way we shouldn't leave negative trust because someone edited a post of ours with a "FTFY", even if we explain so in the description of the rating
(Lauda will get this )

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

Here we go, another bad idea. Instead of tackling the problem at its roots, let's develop another complex system.

Strongly disagreed. We do need a solution, developing another system is an option. Another way would be to reach an agreement with signature managers. We can't just give up, can we?
And because we can't/shouldn't leave negative trust to spammers then we need new ideas.

Sorry I don't usual to rate my own post, beside that a post could be useful for newbie but shit for legendary

It doesn't matter whom it's useful to, as long as it's well thought, well written, with valid arguments: constructive. Even if you disagree or you already knew the posted information.

But I can tell you one advice that I had made in this link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2374807.msg24227168#msg24227168. My advice was worth $1000 because I got 780 R for 5 days.

It does say something about the quality of your posts when the very best one is:

I think this is cool, we can collect a few R token in 5 days. The token already in the market with a good price. I will participate.

How long did it take to research and write it?

You, I mean for Blazed because I think he is one of the most powerfull people here.

Only theymos can make changes to the forum

[Lauda]

Sure, the description is important, and so is the reference. It's to explain why you think the user is a scammer or very untrustworthy.

Negative means:

You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

We shouldn't use it for whatever else just because we explain so on the description.

That's just a leftover software artifact from the failing design of the system. It's a system of trust. Take a look at the negative ratings I gave the bcash folk spewing "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin". Are they scammers? Well Those ratings (or type of ratings) were approved by theymos.

Edit: The same way we shouldn't leave negative trust because someone edited a post of ours with a "FTFY", even if we explain so in the description of the rating
(Lauda will get this )

Oh, yes.

Strongly disagreed. We do need a solution, developing another system is an option. Another way would be to reach an agreement with signature managers.

Re latter part: How do you do that? What happens in 2 our of 30 reject the agreement? How to prevent new managers popping up that don't accept the agreement? How do you enforce this agreement? While the suggestion may seem simple, it is most certainly not.

And because we can't/shouldn't leave negative trust to spammers then we need new ideas.

I wouldn't put 'can't' there. We most certainly can, but apparently we shouldn't (better put, unfortunately we shouldn't).

[EcuaMobi]

Those ratings (or type of ratings) were approved by theymos.

Fair enough, if that's true then those ratings are valid.

Leaving negative trust to spammers is not approved by theymos.

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Another way would be to reach an agreement with signature managers.

Re latter part: How do you do that? What happens in 2 our of 30 reject the agreement? How to prevent new managers popping up that don't accept the agreement? How do you enforce this agreement? While the suggestion may seem simple, it is most certainly not.

Agreed. That's a big problem. That's why I think making "another complex system" is a better solution.
But my point is that we need to think of new ideas. I had 2, maybe they're not the solution, but we do need to do something.

I wouldn't put 'can't' there. We most certainly can, but apparently we shouldn't (better put, unfortunately we shouldn't).

Agreed again. We can but we should not.

[Blazed]

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

Honestly I think you were.

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

Yeah, it is his forum so I will make sure the red for shit posting stops. I was not sure if it would work, but at least it got something else implemented for us. I remain doubtful that anything will fix the spam here until we hold campaign managers accountable for their users.

I doubt it too, at least in short term. We must find other ways to do that.
I hope theymos will write about my idea.

It's clear the staff isn't enough to fight spam and a bigger group must be allowed to do that.

Looks like I was wrong to allow the negatives, but I do think it would have worked. We can only hope the new merit system will help with it.

The damage has been made and I am one of them.  Am I really spammer? I don't think so, every people has different estimation about post rating.

Back to the topic, why don't you give a tool for them (spamming fighters) to rate all the post here instead of giving red trust?  

I am not an admin and can not add any such tools (that was why I tried fighting it via the Default Trust system). It looks like Theymos had a possible solution up his sleeve anyways with the merit system. I really hope merits help fix the issues moving forward.

[cryptocrusher]

To my understanding the trust system is in place to prevent people from being scammed when making trades. If it is then used to mark spammers also then we are effectively sentencing them to be unable to trade or to trade at a disadvantage because their post quality isn't up to scratch. Some may argue that is fair and they should lose their rights to trade in the forum if they do not respect it by not spamming. Personally I don't think it's really something that is fair, at least without proper forewarning that it can be the case.

One thing that is quite clear from the discussion is that proper guidelines need to be in place under any future system as to what constitutes spam. I'm of the belief that it won't be possible to make decisions on spam entirely objective so would suggest something along the lines of guidelines for what definitely constitutes spam and then anything else is down to the judgement of the trusted few.

Simple first guidelines could be things such as:
any post that is under x characters/words
any post that is incoherent or even in the wrong language


I can't think of much more immediately right now but I'm sure if everyone puts their brain power together a short list of things that are 100% spam or close enough can be agreed upon. This list can then work as a starting point, it can be written up for new members to read so that they are aware of it and then it can be used as a basis to at least remove a level of the spam. The more complex spam is going to need dedicated people and the right people to ensure it's tackled effectively and fairly.