theymos, monetize this forum ;)

[r1s2g3]

What do you think about forcing users to pay for wearing payed signatures?

Who will decide signature is paid, It simply mean everybody should need to pay for signature for whatever purpose they are using.
(I simply see, somebody create a forum /or secret deal outside to sell signature here and every user can claim it is  personal signature)

The price should not be too expensive but enough to make it inconvenient for massive spammers, the equilibrium between the two.

The forum is global and there is so much economic disparity in world, I think then we need to decide the price individually for each country of the world.
 
Let me go to principle of economics to explain how paid signature will not help in reducing spam.
Let take example of oil , If company buys oil at $100 ,they will take profit and let say they will sell at $120. Now if they buy oil at $150 , they will not going to sell at $120, they will sell at $150+. So paid signature will just add the cost of advertising.

Merit is a great idea in theory but we're just seeing people farm merit now and those with a lot of accounts or "friends" just trade it between themselves in a you scratch my back I'll scratch yours scenario.

We should decay the sMerits. Theymos was already aware of this scenario of Merit abuse while implementing it.

Also, more members getting involved in Bitcoin increases the acceptance of the currency as a thing and also pushes the price up a bit.
So many members discussing Bitcoin shows that the currency has a user-base behind it and that it's potentially worth its value as it is.
And it helps with the delocalisation of the currency and if more peopole have a small amount, it becomes more valuable as it's split across more people.

The real problem is forum is not getting more members but it is getting more fake accounts and they are posting rubbish.
To add value to bitcoin we need "head" not more hands.

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 also earlier thought of "Removing signatures or sig ads globally." might be good solution but now google and facebook against crypto ads and we remove it from here also, then  they are left with very limited options.

Now coming to real problem of spam.

I think SMAS list is a good initiative.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545652.0

Whoever caught spamming should be added to list with timestamp of first occurence.
Two more column of occurrence/number of time  and latest timestamp added in the list to keep track, how many time user spammed and last time when user caught spamming, and if somebody caught spamming more than 2 times in a week, then ban the user for a week.
User who is featured in this list will have there signature disabled at once (So they cannot take part in any sig campaign.)

if even 10% of user here use "Report To Moderator" to report spam  then in no time we will get this list populated.

Additional step we can take to further filter out.
Only user that have earned Merit (not default merits by virtue of rank)  in last 3 months are allowed to take part in sig campaign.
Check of merited post to verify that merit is not traded.
Campaign should not ask more than 14 post a week

[1714710801]

1714710801

[1714710801]

1714710801

[1714710801]

1714710801

[1714710801]

1714710801

[mobilazy]

Some of ICO's end up being spam, and their tokens worth nothing. Most of the people here make no more than 500$ from bounty if they're not lucky or senior members. That is from 2-3 months of posting. I agree to pay if I have a nice colorful signature and ability to wear avatar;D. Then all ranks will be basically useless.

[Thirdspace]

---snip---
What do you think about forcing users to pay for wearing payed signatures?
Why don't you charge few bucks for it? It doesn't need to be big amount of money, it can be around 10-20$ monthly. Discount for larger time period could be included.
---snip---
IMO that would be great way to monetize forum and reduce spam.

theymos already monetize this forum, he auctions the ads slot on this forum
charging a few bucks for signature privilege will not reduce spam, in fact it will increase spam exponentially
people will justified themselves after paying 'signature tax' to the 'authority' (theymos)
and the 'authority' thru mods can't ban spammers with ease, there will be conflict of interests

[digaran]

Only user that have earned Merit (not default merits by virtue of rank)  in last 3 months are allowed to take part in sig campaign.

Rather only the members with less than 10-20 earned merits in the last 90 days should pay a fee per post with signature, paid or unpaid.

Check of merited post to verify that merit is not traded.

Only to check if they have been given merits by sources, otherwise it would be extremely time consuming to monitor who is who and who is doing what with their sMerits.

Campaign should not ask more than 14 post a week.

You don't get to decide how many posts people are allowed to submit. we have spam when you are posting with 10 accounts and 15 posts each to earn tokens after a few weeks or months, main cause of spam production. if you would have to pay $150 for 150 posts, you would never join a bounty if you are not getting paid at least every week. if a bounty campaign doesn't have a minimum of one week payment for their advertising campaign, what they are doing is using Bitcointalk to get money, when they see nobody is joining their crapcoin-token campaign, they would not launch an ICO every day.

As I have suggested a few hundred times already, if you don't want to pay per post, report accurately, and post for free for every valid report. people would spentd their time on finding merit abuse, garbage posts. we would have the current moderators with no need to hire more. members would help to moderate the forum if they would have to pay per post to earn money otherwise.

OP deserves some merits from me, if he had 30-50 posts more than activity.

[InvoKing]

Pretty sure if new accounts are asked to choose one of the two following options :
Offer their ids with a real time video in order to check 100% their identity or paying $500?, well most of them will choose the first option.
I may be a little bit aggressive toward users in bounties board and trying to figure out a radical solution for their misbehaviour, but I suggest to search for new ideas, this one is a little bit Trumpy (building a wall with mexicans money?).

[NavI_027]

hilariousandco has proposed the idea numerous time but it seems theymos didn't like it. I personally think this is a great idea though, it's better for all those ads money to go to the forum and quality posters rather than the spammer. IIRC he never mentioned why he dropped the idea, so I would like to hear his opinion on this.

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.
 

Am I the only one who believes that this is a BAD idea?

That will not stop the spammers from paying to have their signatures on but it might discourage quality posters from participating in the forum.

Don't worry, me too. All of us join signature campaigns in order to earn money. How silly to to put a fee on wearing signatures then later paid the one who wear it after advertising. In my opinion, this is not the right solution for eradicating shitty posters, if we really need to check all of user's profile one by one then so be it.

Why don't the mods start by disallowing newbies and Jr. members from starting new threads and delete spambait topics at the same time?

I agree with you on deleting spambait topics but prohibiting lower ranks to create threads? No offense but I object. Rank is not a valid basis to tell someone whether he/she has the right to create a thread or not, as long as the one that you created is informative and not same as "what is bitcoin" threads then I don't see any problem with it.

[digaran]

In my opinion, this is not the right solution for eradicating shitty posters.

Just your opinion, shitty posters are the same, they are just posting their opinions, nothing else. if this is not the right solution, what is in your opinion? giving more sMerits to low ranks or paying you money every time you post your opinion?

How silly to to put a fee on wearing signatures then later paid the one who wear it after advertising.

Forum is not paying you for advertising via your signature, unemployed and hungry people are. they are paying you to advertise for them and you are getting paid, they are getting money too, only one not getting anything other than garbage upon garbage to clean up is this forum.

Don't worry, me too. All of us join signature campaigns in order to earn money.

What happens if you are not in a signature campaign, would you post as usual or would you try finding a campaign? when my campaign ends, I will post and keep on being a merit source. you and garbage posters wont do anything if you are not getting paid.

[jackg]

Why don't the mods start by disallowing newbies and Jr. members from starting new threads and delete spambait topics at the same time?

Bad idea. I linger around the technical support and alternative clients boards to see if there's anything I can assist with. I'd estimate about 90% of the OPs there are newbie or brand-new immediately after making their post. Whether these are alts of more senior members that don't want to look clueless at legendary/hero/SR member level I don't know but as a point, this'll make those board really quiet (everyone will turn elsewhere with issues like the forum Reddit). Or they'll start posting their issue on someone else's thread.

Also the marketplace section has a lot of newbies selling stuff (I think some of those are probably legit trades that take place).

[d5000]

I don't see how such a kind of signature fee could reduce spam. It could even increase it, because users that pay this fee would be forced to participate in campaigns all the time to not lose money.

Let's assume such a "signature wearing right" costs $10 per month. Most signature campaigns pay a bigger amount (~$100), so it's not a big deal for a campaign participant to pay this fee. A $100/month campaign, thus, de facto would become a $90 campaign.

But there is absolutely no incentive for this campaign participant to increase the quality of his posts. He would get his $90 if he posts in spam megathreads or if he contributes with high-quality posts.

Now let's assume the campaign ends. The user has to continue to pay the fee if he wants to wear signatures. So if he doesn't want to lose money, he is forced to join a new campaign as fast as possible. At the end, this can become an incentive to spam, even in times the user cannot or doesn't want to contribute that much.

So those that lose are those that live a "normal forum life", contributing when they want to, and are using signature campaigns as a little "extra money", like it is intended. People that exclusively use the forum to win money can continue like now, and those are the people that are most likely to spam.

I think - apart from the merit system, which I fully support - the better approach is to control signature campaign management a bit stricter. There are very good managers that really read and control the posts and punish and ban those who spam the forum. There are others that don't care about it at all. Here staff should put up clear rules and ban managers that do not follow them.

[digaran]

It could even increase it, because users that pay this fee would be forced to participate in campaigns all the time to not lose money.

How do you force somebody to join a campaign? even if you are paying $10 per month, you have paid it, whether you'd post or not, there will be no losing more than $10 per month.

Let's assume such a "signature wearing right" costs $10 per month. Most signature campaigns pay a bigger amount (~$100), so it's not a big deal for a campaign participant to pay this fee. A $100/month campaign, thus, de facto would become a $90 campaign.

Anything more than $0.5 per post is extortion, $0.5 should be the fixed maintenance fee. you are free to pay more.

But there is absolutely no incentive for this campaign participant to increase the quality of his posts. He would get his $90 if he posts in spam megathreads or if he contributes with high-quality posts.

Where is the incentive if you are paying a fee per post? what are we doing now other than posting on spam megathreads or contributing something useful?

Now let's assume the campaign ends. The user has to continue to pay the fee if he wants to wear signatures

Why would you keep wearing the signature after the campaign has ended?

Here staff should put up clear rules and ban managers that do not follow them.

What if there is no manager? there is nobody managing Bountyhive campaigns.

So those that lose are those that live a "normal forum life", contributing when they want to, and are using signature campaigns as a little "extra money", like it is intended. People that exclusively use the forum to win money can continue like now, and those are the people that are most likely to spam.

Are you talking about the same legendary members with 10-20 accounts? they would rather to contribute with alt-accounts since there is no incentive to earn merits for. if you are exclusively using forum to win money, you would continue with spam whether you are paying a fee or not. you would have incentive if what I have suggested is implemented. you either pay $0.5 per post or report any spam/garbage and post for free per accurate report. the money people would pay per post, should be given to top merited members as a reward.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

OP you have a wonderful idea...for Theymos to poop on us with. 

There are some eternal idiots I'd love to see get whacked with a tollbooth fee, but that really would be a naked, bald-faced cash grab on the big man's part.  And I don't think it would enrich anyone else, nor be all that effective.  Well, maybe.  There probably wouldn't be as many throwaway noob shitposting accounts, but I suspect the big spammer cabals would see it as a drop in the bucket. 

Most importantly, I certainly don't want to cough up any moolah to a forum already awash in dough.  We aren't even mobile friendly.

[d5000]

It could even increase it, because users that pay this fee would be forced to participate in campaigns all the time to not lose money.

How do you force somebody to join a campaign? even if you are paying $10 per month, you have paid it, whether you'd post or not, there will be no losing more than $10 per month.

If you don't want to lose money (even $10 is money), then you are forced to participate in signature campaigns. Why should you pay the fee if you aren't allowed to profit from it? Well, rich forum members could pay it to get some individual non-paid signature, but that would be an exception.

But there is absolutely no incentive for this campaign participant to increase the quality of his posts. He would get his $90 if he posts in spam megathreads or if he contributes with high-quality posts.

Where is the incentive if you are paying a fee per post? what are we doing now other than posting on spam megathreads or contributing something useful?

Exactly, there is no difference. That's what I wanted to say. There is simply no incentive to post more quality content if there is a fee for wearing signatures. The only thing such a fee could prevent a bit is account farming, but the merit system is also efficient and has less negative side-effects.

Now let's assume the campaign ends. The user has to continue to pay the fee if he wants to wear signatures

Why would you keep wearing the signature after the campaign has ended?

If the campaign ends on, let's say, April 10, and the user has already paid the 10$ (or whatever) monthly fee, then he has a strong incentive to rapidly search for another campaign.

You mentioned a fee per post, I assume your variation of the idea is that every signature campaign participant should pay for each "paid post". This would be less prone to incentive spam than a montly signature fee, but wouldn't either incentive quality content. But in my answer I was talking about the OP's model of a monthly fee to wear signatures.

Here staff should put up clear rules and ban managers that do not follow them.

What if there is no manager? there is nobody managing Bountyhive campaigns.

My proposal would be simply to only allow campaigns run by known managers. Campaigns without managers or where the participants' post quality isn't controlled adequately would be banned and all its participants could be sanctioned if they continue to participate after the ban was issued by staff.

[r1s2g3]

Let's assume such a "signature wearing right" costs $10 per month. Most signature campaigns pay a bigger amount (~$100), so it's not a big deal for a campaign participant to pay this fee. A $100/month campaign, thus, de facto would become a $90 campaign.

Anything more than $0.5 per post is extortion, $0.5 should be the fixed maintenance fee. you are free to pay more.

Pay per post will cause death of discussions and help. Somebody need help still pay .5$ per post but  others are supposed to pay for helping or sharing the idea?

Here staff should put up clear rules and ban managers that do not follow them.

What if there is no manager? there is nobody managing Bountyhive campaigns.

I think if there is a official forum spammer list and we ban user for spamming, then we do not need managers. Forget about Bounty hive campaigns, Newbie account that are not part of any campaign just creating threads/post like "Done", "I love bitcoin,do you" and so on . and sometimes you find some established member replying on top of them further increasing spam

I think some campaign managers already taken a good initiative and if this idea is developed officially ,then I am sure it will solve the majority spam problem.

Now coming to real problem of spam.

I think SMAS list is a good initiative.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545652.0

Whoever caught spamming should be added to list with timestamp of first occurence.
Two more column of occurrence/number of time  and latest timestamp added in the list to keep track, how many time user spammed and last time when user caught spamming, and if somebody caught spamming more than 2 times in a week, then ban the user for a week.
User who is featured in this list will have there signature disabled at once (So they cannot take part in any sig campaign.)

if even 10% of user here use "Report To Moderator" to report spam  then in no time we will get this list populated.

[TrumpD]

I've been reading meta for some time and I see lots suggestion about signatures and how to reduce spam and so on.
I couldn't find data on how many users are participating in various campaigns, I think that number might be 100K, maybe higher.

What do you think about forcing users to pay for wearing payed signatures?
Why don't you charge few bucks for it? It doesn't need to be big amount of money, it can be around 10-20$ monthly. Discount for larger time period could be included.

Imagine it, 100,000 users will pay 10 - 20 million dollars every year just to participate in campaigns!
You can even donate some money to charity 

IMO that would be great way to monetize forum and reduce spam.

In my opinion, I don't think most people can afford that price range all the time. It's not always that people get the opportunity to participate in a signature campaign; does that mean they still have to pay this monthly fee? Also you know that signature campaigns pay differently according to the users ranking as well as the campaign itself. Some campaigns are very lucrative and some are not, people just use the proceeds to get by. This is my suggestion on try to stop spamming, just like the trust system, we can have something like a negative trust for spamming, where Sig campaign mangers or mods are the only ones who control and have access in manipulating it. Yes it is more work for the mods and Sig campaign managers. But a little (very tiny... )percentage fee (something like tax) can be deducted from a overall pay for the campaign for the extra effort mods and Sig campaign managers have to give. With this, after a while, Future campaign managers will only pick users for have neutral or positive trust for anti-spamming during campaigns.

[speem28]

hilariousandco has proposed the idea numerous time but it seems theymos didn't like it. I personally think this is a great idea though, it's better for all those ads money to go to the forum and quality posters rather than the spammer. IIRC he never mentioned why he dropped the idea, so I would like to hear his opinion on this.

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.
 

Am I the only one who believes that this is a BAD idea?

That will not stop the spammers from paying to have their signatures on but it might discourage quality posters from participating in the forum.

Why don't the mods start by disallowing newbies and Jr. members from starting new threads and delete spambait topics at the same time?

Well, I guess that the number of shitposters that has a lot of farmed accounts outweighs the number of decent members that really contributes well to the forum. So the fact that those spammers made a fortune in the forum, paying the fee will be okay with them.

IMO, banning newbies and Jr. members from creating their own threads does not seem to be a bad idea. This would in turn result to them being obliged to research the forum thoroughly and find an answer to their simple questions/thoughts by themselves.

[greeklogos]

I saw a few copies of bitcointalk forum wich take some payment for participation. But here you are talking only about those who take a part in signature campaigns and make money from such kind of work. I think the most of users will not support this idea, but I would not except the ideas possible future for the forum.

[malikusama]

IMO that would be great way to monetize forum and reduce spam.

Although it is a great idea to raise funds but i don't know how it will reduce the spam. A user whether he/she is a spammer or good quality poster who is earning more than $100, $150 or $200 per month from signature ads can afford to pay $10 to 20$.

The only way to reduce spam is to restrict the "minimum posts per week" of every signature campaign to a specific standard/number i.e 10 posts per week.

[athanz88]

IMO that would be great way to monetize forum and reduce spam.

Although it is a great idea to raise funds but i don't know how it will reduce the spam. A user whether he/she is a spammer or good quality poster who is earning more than $100, $150 or $200 per month from signature ads can afford to pay $10 to 20$.

The only way to reduce spam is to restrict the "minimum posts per week" of every signature campaign to a specific standard/number i.e 10 posts per week.

Nope. it will just make all the rich shitposter who has a lot of money easier to earn more from this forum, and i believe that 10 posts per week per participant wont give much advertising for the campaign of a project.

[justine11]

Say what? You proposed to theymos that we need to pay just wear signature? I know before this merit system implemented, they were discussing what to do to reduce spamming in the forum and the suggestions were remove the signature globally (most likely happens if the merit system didn't remove the spam), Pay amount of bitcoin first to wear signature and Banning account sales and  theymos all of this suggestions were ruled out so, your suggestion isn't possible to happen and besides, the theymos were monetizing the forum through ads which theymos auctioned it every week.

[criz2fer]

hilariousandco has proposed the idea numerous time but it seems theymos didn't like it. I personally think this is a great idea though, it's better for all those ads money to go to the forum and quality posters rather than the spammer. IIRC he never mentioned why he dropped the idea, so I would like to hear his opinion on this.

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.
 

Am I the only one who believes that this is a BAD idea?

That will not stop the spammers from paying to have their signatures on but it might discourage quality posters from participating in the forum.

Why don't the mods start by disallowing newbies and Jr. members from starting new threads and delete spambait topics at the same time?

Well, I guess that the number of shitposters that has a lot of farmed accounts outweighs the number of decent members that really contributes well to the forum. So the fact that those spammers made a fortune in the forum, paying the fee will be okay with them.

IMO, banning newbies and Jr. members from creating their own threads does not seem to be a bad idea. This would in turn result to them being obliged to research the forum thoroughly and find an answer to their simple questions/thoughts by themselves.

The use of paying for a signature will not be a solution to fix the forum. Besides of members that can pay for their alt accounts, forum members can recover their subscription fees/payment with in months of wearing the signature ads that's why theymos ruled out this one.