Commercial interest could be used to help control spam.

[Jet Cash]

I've read numerious threads suggesting ways to reduce and control spam in the forum. Many of them include really good creative ideas, but unfortuntely they seem to suffer from a couple of drawbacks. One major disadvantage is that some of them require increased work for moderators, or increased costs for the forum. The ones that suggest major policy shifts such as the banning of bounty programmes, could result in a loss of income for the forum. I propose that the responsible bounty managers are given a tool to evaluate the results of the posting habits of their affiliates.

My suggestion is that managers use a reference link to check the activity generated by signatures. Many affiliates are low value spammers, and are frequently put on ignore by many members. Their posts are less likely to generate quality traffic than the signatures of more responsible members. A unique pseudo-directory can provide such a link. Obviously this will be a temptation to dishonest affiliates to attempt to cheat the manager, but this is not too difficult to detect, and can help to discover fraudulent and cheating affiliates.

[1713522036]

1713522036

[1713522036]

1713522036

[1713522036]

1713522036

[1713522036]

1713522036

[1713522036]

1713522036

[1713522036]

1713522036

[audaciousbeing]

I've read numerious threads suggesting ways to reduce and control spam in the forum. Many of them include really good creative ideas, but unfortuntely they seem to suffer from a couple of drawbacks. One major disadvantage is that some of them require increased work for moderators, or increased costs for the forum. The ones that suggest major policy shifts such as the banning of bounty programmes, could result in a loss of income for the forum. I propose that the responsible bounty managers are given a tool to evaluate the results of the posting habits of their affiliates.

My suggestion is that managers use a reference link to check the activity generated by signatures. Many affiliates are low value spammers, and are frequently put on ignore by many members. Their posts are less likely to generate quality traffic than the signatures of more responsible members. A unique pseudo-directory can provide such a link. Obviously this will be a temptation to dishonest affiliates to attempt to cheat the manager, but this is not too difficult to detect, and can help to discover fraudulent and cheating affiliates.

Your suggestions is really on point because truth be told, there are some people who wear signature, make posts and when one come across such you wonder if they are being paid for such post but with your suggestions, it still boils down to the manager handling the campaign. We all know that there are some managers that when they manage a campaign, they are strict to a faulty point with little or no room for leniency those are the ones that would go extra miles to ensure quality by implementing any method suggested to make the forum better place.

But the other category of managers are the ones causing the whole issue, they go ahead and launch a campaign with unlimited number of participants, they don't monitor and that is the bane of the community and these are the people that would either not implement your suggestions or frustrate it. Until these issue if managers is settled, every suggestions are short term.

[stompix]

My suggestion is that managers use a reference link to check the activity generated by signatures. Many affiliates are low value spammers, and are frequently put on ignore by many members. Their posts are less likely to generate quality traffic than the signatures of more responsible members. A unique pseudo-directory can provide such a link. Obviously this will be a temptation to dishonest affiliates to attempt to cheat the manager, but this is not too difficult to detect, and can help to discover fraudulent and cheating affiliates.

Not going to work
One reason is that the real results will be disastrous, and so the managers themselves will start to inflate the numbers to prove that the campaigns they are running are "successful".
If ICO owners see there are no clicks from the usual low-quality members who work for tokens, do you think they will still run them?
Dishonest bounty managers will do everything not to lose their income.

[Welsh]

Not going to work
One reason is that the real results will be disastrous, and so the managers themselves will start to inflate the numbers to prove that the campaigns they are running are "successful".
If ICO owners see there are no clicks from the usual low-quality members who work for tokens, do you think they will still run them?
Dishonest bounty managers will do everything not to lose their income.

You could track clicks that result in sales if the service being advertised works like that. This would eliminate most abuse, although maybe not all services would be able to do this. Monitoring just clicks would be abused by both campaign managers, and those who want to continue earning from signatures.

[Jet Cash]

Get rid of the dishonest or lazy bounty managers then. Their customers must be aware of the overall success of a project, and they could ask for a breakdown of posting to keep the managers honest. Commercial interest is a powerful driving force, and we should harness it to reduce the workload on the mods.

[Piggy]

The problem is that the bounty manager would be paid the same amount if signatures members are making high or shit quality posts, so they would have little incentive in doing more work. Otherwise it could even work.

[actmyname]

Get rid of the dishonest or lazy bounty managers then.

"The staff have too much work already"
"We don't need more rules"
etc. has been the attitude for a while.

[Jet Cash]

"The staff have too much work already"
"We don't need more rules"
etc. has been the attitude for a while.

It's like the janitor who says "I'm too busy mopping up the water to turn off the tap " 

[stompix]

"The staff have too much work already"
"We don't need more rules"
etc. has been the attitude for a while.

It's like the janitor who says "I'm too busy mopping up the water to turn off the tap "  

Yeah, but bounty managers are not employed by the forum, they are paid exactly by the guys that turned the water on in the first place.

And, sorry to say it but I don't see a change coming unless some members from the DT1 get really pissed at one point and start tagging bounty managers that pay for spam posts.
Some DT2 members have tagged shitposters and the outcome was not exactly what I have expected...

[actmyname]

And, sorry to say it but I don't see a change coming unless some members from the DT1 get really pissed at one point and start tagging bounty managers that pay for spam posts.
Some DT2 members have tagged shitposters and the outcome was not exactly what I have expected...

Considering the fact that sihtposters would still be allowed to participate in some bounties (because the managers really, really don't care) and that there are red bounty managers... tagging doesn't do much.

I'm actually happy that the merit system was implemented in lieu of the negging of shitposters since that leads to a more long-term avenue. Red-tagging is not really scalable and is only a temporary approach.

[verita1]

I've read numerious threads suggesting ways to reduce and control spam in the forum. Many of them include really good creative ideas, but unfortuntely they seem to suffer from a couple of drawbacks. One major disadvantage is that some of them require increased work for moderators, or increased costs for the forum. The ones that suggest major policy shifts such as the banning of bounty programmes, could result in a loss of income for the forum. I propose that the responsible bounty managers are given a tool to evaluate the results of the posting habits of their affiliates.

My suggestion is that managers use a reference link to check the activity generated by signatures. Many affiliates are low value spammers, and are frequently put on ignore by many members. Their posts are less likely to generate quality traffic than the signatures of more responsible members. A unique pseudo-directory can provide such a link. Obviously this will be a temptation to dishonest affiliates to attempt to cheat the manager, but this is not too difficult to detect, and can help to discover fraudulent and cheating affiliates.

I like to take a look at the posts of members like you who think about creating initiatives to improve the proper functioning of the forum. The initiative seems good but the progress will depend on the bounty managers is my humble opinion.

I am a beginner with my signature thanks to the approval of the good bounty manager of Arcona which has created rules that forces us to be more efficient when creating a post or comment. Experience tells me that I must follow bounty managers who do a good job and I think I'm on the right track. I also recognize that I have a lot to learn, it is my commitment, I must give my best effort.
Thanks for the initiative!
Cheers!

[Jet Cash]

I am a beginner with my signature thanks to the approval of the good bounty manager of Arcona which has created rules that forces us to be more efficient when creating a post or comment.

I looked at some of your posts, and can I give you a tip. Don't make long quotes. Very often you don't need to make the quote at all, and if you do, then a snip will keep the thread readable. If a post appears to be too long, a merit awarder may not bother to read it, and if a long quote is included, he may not bother to look for your response.

[verita1]

I am a beginner with my signature thanks to the approval of the good bounty manager of Arcona which has created rules that forces us to be more efficient when creating a post or comment.

I looked at some of your posts, and can I give you a tip. Don't make long quotes. Very often you don't need to make the quote at all, and if you do, then a snip will keep the thread readable. If a post appears to be too long, a merit awarder may not bother to read it, and if a long quote is included, he may not bother to look for your response.

Yes, I understand I realized that: "quotes" Thank you very much for your tips, I really appreciate it, your advice encourages me to do better, I have many ideas in my head to help my fellow bounty hunters to improve our tasks on Reddit and Bitcointalk.
Have a nice day! 

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yes, I understand I realized that:

It doesn't appear that you understood or realized anything, because you just repeated what Jet Cash suggested you NOT do.

Having evidence of effectiveness is a great idea, JC. 

It's like the janitor who says "I'm too busy mopping up the water to turn off the tap " 

And that about sums it up.  The whole forum wouldn't be so frustrated and mods wouldn't have to do so much work if there were just some good rules in place as a preemptive strike against shitposting in the form of bounty noobs spamming their blackened little hearts out.  We'll see if any of the higher-ups take notice of your suggestion.

[pugman]

A few things that might help this idea work more effectively is:

Hire new mods, with or without a stipend.

Have a new rank after reaching legendary, where members have a little more access to help the forum in possible ways(I am sure theymos knows the best )

An official set of rules created by any of the two admins, so that things become much clearer.

And, sorry to say it but I don't see a change coming unless some members from the DT1 get really pissed at one point and start tagging bounty managers that pay for spam posts.
Some DT2 members have tagged shitposters and the outcome was not exactly what I have expected...

Nah. None of the DT1 members have such attitude. A few DT1 member/s are even inactive. DT2 members, they tag and then you see, alot of threads saying bullshit about abuse or whatever. And that crap has got to end. The trust system is not in a good state, seriously not.

[Welsh]

An official set of rules created by any of the two admins, so that things become much clearer.

I think they are open to interpretation for a reason to prevent users finding a loophole, and exposing that. I'm not sure whether a clear amount of rules would help either as the majority of people who are breaking the current guidelines haven't read the thread.

Have a new rank after reaching legendary, where members have a little more access to help the forum in possible ways(I am sure theymos knows the best )

This is interesting. What sort of access? I know I remember seeing a name suggestion of the new rank; "Mythical" or some sort of variation as that.

[pugman]

I think they are open to interpretation for a reason to prevent users finding a loophole, and exposing that. I'm not sure whether a clear amount of rules would help either as the majority of people who are breaking the current guidelines haven't read the thread.

I meant that those rules could only help the members who are actually interested and care about the forum. As a guideline sort of thing

This is interesting. What sort of access? I know I remember seeing a name suggestion of the new rank; "Mythical" or some sort of variation as that.

Maybe get access to the hidden special board which includes staff sub-forum and what not, maybe just the ability to read things over there and not make any posts?

If not that, then maybe have ability to make multiple reports at one time: For example, click on checkboxes and then report a few posts as shitposting or something like that. Have a custom title maybe? Upgrade signature slots? Ability to embed videos? Change the background? Have privacy oriented settings specially made for these members? A chat room for multiple members?

I can think of many more but not sure if these are all possible.

[Welsh]

If not that, then maybe have ability to make multiple reports at one time: For example, click on checkboxes and then report a few posts as shitposting or something like that. Have a custom title maybe? Upgrade signature slots? Ability to embed videos? Change the background? Have privacy oriented settings specially made for these members? A chat room for multiple members?

I can think of many more but not sure if these are all possible.

I actually quite like that checkbox suggestion. You could report in bulk, and I don't think that this should be put behind a rank as it could be useful for anyone that reports. I know multiple scenarios where this would save both time, and effort. Even though I have a 4 second cool down on a report I still run into it now, and then.

[Jet Cash]

I created a chatroom for merit sources and dts but that seems to have dropped in activity for the summer

[pugman]

I created a chatroom for merit sources and dts but that seems to have dropped in activity for the summer

I assume it is in discord or something? A forum chatroom would be much better. Probably.

I actually quite like that checkbox suggestion. You could report in bulk, and I don't think that this should be put behind a rank as it could be useful for anyone that reports. I know multiple scenarios where this would save both time, and effort. Even though I have a 4 second cool down on a report I still run into it now, and then.

This has been discussed before and nothing ever happened. Just like the new rank idea.

theymos? Come on, do it. Bring in the 1 million merit requirements: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4419950.msg39398356#msg39398356

Welsh, there were discussions for Bitcointalk Pro account with no cloudfare proxy and theymos agreed to it, but he just has to figure a way out for that: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2837870.msg29104852#msg29104852