Disable signatures/bounties til a user reaches full member status.

[yakovs]

If the signature needs to be disabled, that should be done for all the members. There were many high ranked members involved in merit abuses cases. Especially, the high ranked members who got the rank by default should be treated same as a newbie.

[1713540386]

1713540386

[1713540386]

1713540386

[1713540386]

1713540386

[1713540386]

1713540386

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If the signature needs to be disabled, that should be done for all the members. There were many high ranked members involved in merit abuses cases. Especially, the high ranked members who got the rank by default should be treated same as a newbie.

This completely ignores the fact that most high-ranking members didn't join bitcointalk to shitpost for bounties.  That's a relatively recent development, and by limiting or prohibiting signature advertising in the lower ranks, it discourages people from making new accounts and ruining the forum with shitposting. 

I don't see a lot of Heros and Legendaries making a living here by writing complete nonsense.  That's almost exclusively a noob issue.  It also sounds like you're extremely butthurt about the merit airdrop back in January.  That happened because I think Theymos realizes the higher ranks have earned their way to those ranks.  In addition, most of the merit abuse I've seen has been with the lower ranks, which is not surprising since they're the ones who want it the most.

[yakovs]

If the signature needs to be disabled, that should be done for all the members. There were many high ranked members involved in merit abuses cases. Especially, the high ranked members who got the rank by default should be treated same as a newbie.

This completely ignores the fact that most high-ranking members didn't join bitcointalk to shitpost for bounties.  That's a relatively recent development, and by limiting or prohibiting signature advertising in the lower ranks, it discourages people from making new accounts and ruining the forum with shitposting. 

I don't see a lot of Heros and Legendaries making a living here by writing complete nonsense.  That's almost exclusively a noob issue.  It also sounds like you're extremely butthurt about the merit airdrop back in January.  That happened because I think Theymos realizes the higher ranks have earned their way to those ranks.  In addition, most of the merit abuse I've seen has been with the lower ranks, which is not surprising since they're the ones who want it the most.

That strengthens my suggestion. If they are so rich and busy with their work, they do not need bounties at all.

[Mind Control]

And yet yahoo accept Members in joining his Signature Campaign. This is a very good approach in handling spam in the forum however, the suggestion will stay as a suggestion if no one starts implementing this. Considering that this is yahoo's idea, I expected that he's implementing this and yet he's not. Don't get me wrong, I am not against yahoo nor have any problem with him. Actually I idolize him for he is a reputable member here and also one of the great campaign managers. But his action contradicts with his words. Edited XD

[hilariousetc]

I haven't read through this thread yet, but I really think we should remove signatures from lower ranks completely and then signatures should be given as a reward for people who have earned enough merit and subsequently the right to earn here via signatures. The amount of people who are signing up here just to copy and paste other's posts is ridiculous. It's both very hard to spot and incredibly time consuming for people to report and for staff to handle. Crapcoin campaigns accept them every single time and often at all ranks and are none the wiser to their abuse, whilst staff are left to clean up their mess. It doesn't matter if you get your accounts banned because it costs nothing to create and bot accounts here which most of them are likely doing and who cares if your lose a Junior Member? Start again or use one of the others from your stockpile. I've probably banned over 50 users today alone all copying other's posts that krishnapramod has reported and the reports keep flooding in.

I mean, what other alternatives are there here? The longer we do nothing about this spam the worse it gets and there will likely be a breaking point where theymos just has enough of all the nonsense and hassle and removes signatures all together, but then everybody is penalised for the greed and desperation of others and the people who came here just to abuse bounties will leave as quickly as they came. Let people earn their right to earn from posting here, and let the chaff just collect their bounties in the bounty boards until they manage to earn some merit, but don't let them pollute the rest of the forum or be the cause of removal of all signatures completely.

Also, I still think we should include some paid donator ranks like Copper Member (Silver & Gold Member etc) that come with the benefits of higher ranks (ie bigger signatures like Senior and Hero). If people are complaining that it takes too long to get merit then let them pay to bypass those restrictions. Give the money to charity or something. It's win win in my opinion).

[krishnapramod]

if the merit system has to be really productive and all these reportings have to be effective, there definitely needs additional measures to make the merit system work for what it meant to be implemented.

1. Bounty managers, it's a tough task. Don't know how many of the managers got negged/nuked for handling scam projects, a few and with copper, silver, gold, don't think restricting managing is going to work.

2. Disabling sigs for all, going nuclear, somewhat logical option. Bluntly, the old members put their efforts to build up this forum before there was a spam fest of alts/bounties/tokens, and including the ones whining about mining being unfair in 2009. Given a chance to be deserving and if potential to be more meritorious than old members (have seen multiple accounts getting merited more than the hibernating old one's) is what the merit system is all about. It's not enforced upon, for decentralization, freedom is top/major criteria. If someone wants to get into mess and expects merit to be a straw, no helping straws here.

3. There have been some suggestions posted about, requiring some merits to level up being a JM. IMO, it's the perfect trial run/experimentation to gauge if the merit system is working and the forum at least needs a trial run with already implemented merit to see whether it's really working against spammers. Yeah the con, merit farming/begging. The merit sources deserved it, and putting some additional workload wouldn't be unfair considering what the GM's are going through. Suggestion, to be a junior, 5 merits, 1 out of 5 should be from a merit source. I had reported some users for copy/pasting, 5 merits is easy to get through unless there is a restriction. Merit sources can be expanded, not the 83 with around 200 limits, one's with something around 10 specific merits working on 1 merit to reward from newbie to a junior member.

4. 1 out of 5 would sound unfair to butthurts, there is a line between unfair and freedom, deserving gets it. If the forum is going to get all humpty dumpty (1. sitting on spamming), let's get rickrolled for Foxup's dance contest.

[Jet Cash]

At the moment, the only benefit members derive from merit awards is the removal of the progressive ranking barriers. The primary perceived benefit of an increased rank is the ability to earn more from signature spamming. Obviously this leads to the idea that increasing merits means an increase in earning ability, regardless of contributions to the forum or the community here. Somehow we need to change the idea that "merits mean money", and to introduce some other benefits for the receivers of merits for quality forum contributions.

[krishnapramod]

At the moment, the only benefit members derive from merit awards is the removal of the progressive ranking barriers. The primary perceived benefit of an increased rank is the ability to earn more from signature spamming. Obviously this leads to the idea that increasing merits means an increase in earning ability, regardless of contributions to the forum or the community here. Somehow we need to change the idea that "merits mean money", and to introduce some other benefits for the receivers of merits for quality forum contributions.

Absolutely, merit puts restrictions on ranking up, not on how much one can spam with one account and "earn money" or with the same restrictions and having multiple accounts without meriting up "earning monies" like a high a ranked member. No contributions whatsoever.


Yep, introducing some other benefits for the quality contributors is really a good idea. The forum really deserves some quality Bitcoin related posts and contributors to make it look like the dominant Bitcoin community it was for an outsider now at first glance.

[kobita333]

I don't think it will reduce the level of spamming. Jr members can be removed from signature campaigns, member should be accepted.
If we really care about this issue, why don't we start restriction while we manage campaign. As a bounty manager, you can put restriction. For example, if we do have a look on Service(Bitcoin), most of the campaign are limited to full member, in some cases, it's limited to sr member.
However, we also can limit with merits. For example, members can participate if he/she has 50+ merits, full member- 150 merits and thus. If we require only full member for participating in campaign, result will be same cause we have a huge amount of full member by default.

[krishnapramod]

I don't think it will reduce the level of spamming. Jr members can be removed from signature campaigns, member should be accepted.
If we really care about this issue, why don't we start restriction while we manage campaign. As a bounty manager, you can put restriction. For example, if we do have a look on Service(Bitcoin), most of the campaign are limited to full member, in some cases, it's limited to sr member.
However, we also can limit with merits. For example, members can participate if he/she has 50+ merits, full member- 150 merits and thus. If we require only full member for participating in campaign, result will be same cause we have a huge amount of full member by default.

Ignoring your first post was about airdropalert and username ending with numbers (85% out of 100 with numbers are alts, kobita*, kobita**, kobita***)


It's the bounty managers that have to act and put mutual restrictions for the betterment of the forum and participants. Be it accepting members from above certain ranks or merits. It could be implemented and enforced. What about someone being a part of a project doesn't want their project to be managed by an already "handled-a-few-projects" manager or don't have the budget for it? Don't you think not allowing them to manage their own campaign would be unfair?

As far as huge number of full members, quoted from, Truth about bitcointalk users 2.0

In this post I have done position analysis on Bitcointalk users in range from id=1'000'000 to id=2'000'000. Users with this range of id's were registered from 2017/05/11 to 2018/04/03.

Without further ado, Here is the distrubution of postions of second million bitcointalk users

• Brand New   733503   73,35%
• Newbie         212864   21,28%
• Jr. Member    33395     3,34%
• Member        13682     1,36%
• Full Member  6334       0,63%
• Sr.Member     222        0,02%
• Hero               0            0%
• Legendary      0            0%

How we can see there is no Hero and Legendary users, this is not surprising since these positions requires high level of activity .

P.s. If you have any ideas on what kind of information you would like to see, let me know.

Here is the link to first part: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3333773.msg34863787#msg34863787

Disabling sig till a member reaches a full member status is harsh, but with maybe around a hundred managers and half not caring about the forum against thousands of newbies and JM spamming, but restricting them to get merited to rank up seems like somewhat of a balance.

[kobita333]

your first post was about airdropalert

While someone asks about where people get updates of Airdrop, of course I will not redirect him/her to binance.com

username ending with numbers (85% out of 100 with numbers are alts, kobita*, kobita**, kobita***)

As per your theory, the possibility of being an alt account (OP- yahoo) is 85%?

[krishnapramod]

your first post was about airdropalert

While someone asks about where people get updates of Airdrop, of course I will not redirect him/her to binance.com

username ending with numbers (85% out of 100 with numbers are alts, kobita*, kobita**, kobita***)

As per your theory, the possibility of being an alt account (OP- yahoo) is 85%?

1. Acceptable.

2. Second post, after 2 hours, local to straight up meta to suggest how to reduce the level of spamming. That happens only, got burnt. No merits, account/s banned. My common sense doesn't come up with another reason.

3. Lol, told you 15%.

That's the problem actually. Newbie join and think of having merit. They give a try showing some concerns for forum as you did and then realize, it's not enough and they leave.

So, the limitation will not bring any value.

Why the f*uck join thinking of merit and show a month's concern through Facebook and Twitter ID's? Forum doesn't need these concerns, better they leave or we bust and end up with a couple of whining posts like this one.

2 activity, give it a try and show you're really concerned about the forum and then complain.

That's it, tired of entertaining a "concerned user."

[ridertiger]

This sounds like a better suggestion to me. In addition, there could be a spam filter, or a mandatory grammer checker by Grammarly or something.
A lot of the spammers simply write what I call "word salad".

Maybe this would be really unfair to those who are still in the Member Rank just like me, I really dont intend to do some shitposts in this community just to earn my post counts needed in my bounty campaign, and as for the Merit Distribution it is now getting a little bit short.
Although I'm really aware of, on how it is done but still the fact that the users that are commonly known here are just the ones whose being given some Merits again and again.

As we can see it is not just the newbies, jr members who are causing this forum to be flooded by useless posts. Although you have the point that the majority of spammers are being done by those noobs.

Being stuck here ( Member Status with 34 Merits ) isn't a bad thing i suppose?, but now i think it is. How about enforcing the noobs to study first or making their limits from posting.

Newbies - only 1 post per day, can't post if its not more than a hundred words ( if the post is good  as shit then it would be deleted immediately )
Jr. Member - only 1-3 post per day ,can't post if its not more than a hundred words ( if the post is good  as shit then it would be deleted immediately ), 5 Merits Requirement Before joining campaigns, Only from this rank with Merit can put some signatures for the campaign
Members-1-5 post per day, 15 Merits Requirement Before joining campaigns
Full Member 1-5 post per day, 120 Merits (or depends if the 100 Merits is accumulated not by default ) Requirement Before joining campaigns

Just Make The Merits Be A Requirement For Joining Campaigns

And I think it is the CM's job to evaluate the campaign member's post whether it is a useless or not.

Many Threads should be locked up first before implementing such rules.

[BestSSS]

I'm sure most of you have noticed the overwhelming amount of merit begging posts or posts about merit in general. Most of the reason these users are begging so hard for the merit is due to earnings in signature campaigns.

You can also look in the altcoins sections and see the thousands of accounts who are only making posts in bounty campaigns. Claiming facebook, twitter, telegram, etc. Quite  a few of those accounts are also being accused of being connected in the reputation section. ALT ALT ALT or whatnot.

The main reason I am adding bounties into this post is due to the overwhelming amount of users who apparently cannot read. I try to get users to use google forms in bounty campaigns when I decide to run 1, but users insist on not reading a bounty thread and just posting their tweets and shares in the bounty thread, creating a bunch of useless spam. Should there be penalties for this? My personal opinion is idk. It could go either way honestly.

Bounties IMO are mainly social media focused or at least should be. I won't allow a company to use a bounty for their signature campaign. That must be ran on a bitcoin paying basis only to prevent some of the useless spam that bounty campaigns create with running signature campaigns in them.

I'd like to see all bounty managers adopt this practice but of course I cannot make that happen.

I know this topic has been touched on and passed over a few times, but I feel like it's time to really take a serious look at the request.

There are obviously good and bad things that will come from this being put into place. Good things being eventually these shit posters and "bounty hunters" will lose interest and stop visiting the forum thinking they're gonna make billions from the many worthless tokens that are announced.

Bad things being of course the same issue. The forum will lose some users who cannot rank up and earn due to not getting merits for their shit posts. More how do I get merit threads will be made because users are too goddamn lazy to search and read the 5000 threads on merit that already exist.

Overall though we will get rid of a bunch of trashposters and maybe they will take down the signs in their internet cafes that read, "Go to bitcointalk.org to feed your family" My goal in this post is not to take away from bitcointalk traffic or harm the forum in any other way, but just take a look around and look at the shit that's posted mainly. The economy section is filled with spammers, the altcoin section is even worse.

At the very least, lets use this thread to have a healthy discussion on ways to improve the forum. I'm sure some of you have better ideas than this, so I'd like to hear them and maybe theymos can chime in with some of his thoughts.

I'm not against advertising or users earning money, but when that's their main focus , it does nothing to help the forum or community grow. If you have a useful suggestion, then by all means post it here and lets get the ball rolling on some ways to improve things around here.

The problem that you are voicing-very relevant and how to deal with it while I think no one knows.
Because of the flood of generosity of this forum turns to the dump and a bunch of garbage that simply nobody wants to read. Cancellation of the signature company seems to me too not the decision, but it is necessary as that to fight against it.
As an option I want to offer all the same kind of moderation messages and emerging themes. Differently after the user wrote a message it will not be published immediately in the main thread and is sent to the moderator to assess its relevance and need. I understand that it is very difficult because users are a lot but maybe it will reduce the number bessmyslennyi messages at least 3 times. If will not be published message of 2-3-4 words, the forum has transformed and zdenci such messages half.
Well, as of this writing new topics - new topic must be moderatio. since users never use the search to find something, they just write a new message.
All of this of course very difficult and needs a huge number of moderators, but if create such rules the soon people realize that not worth write garbage and work, too, will become less.

[jointherevolution]

Disable all the signatures,dont be biased,there is no one here in the right position to remove the ability to earn of anyone.
Being here first doesnt mean that you are in a good position to tell us what to do.If theymos really wanted this thing a long time ago why he didnt tried to? because its unfair to the newcomers.

I agree with this. It only had to do with timing that some here are members before some others. Why get punished for this? Or rewarded?

[coinlocket$]

Disable all the signatures,dont be biased,there is no one here in the right position to remove the ability to earn of anyone.
Being here first doesnt mean that you are in a good position to tell us what to do.If theymos really wanted this thing a long time ago why he didnt tried to? because its unfair to the newcomers.

Agree and not agree.
If you are a good member you will earn the merit, and you will can join the signature campaings in few months.

[mobilazy]

...And it will improve the design of this forum, no more boring one-color signatures and profiles without avatars!  It can be the biased opinion but I think it's too harsh. Becoming Full Member is the hardest part, going beyond would be easier as the person already has the skills to progress further and recognizable nickname.

[hilariousetc]

Disable all the signatures,dont be biased,there is no one here in the right position to remove the ability to earn of anyone.
Being here first doesnt mean that you are in a good position to tell us what to do.If theymos really wanted this thing a long time ago why he didnt tried to? because its unfair to the newcomers.

Theymos has made several changes to signatures here. A long time ago everyone had the same Hero-sized signature upon signup, but then they were changed to get larger with ranks due to the huge amount of abuse that was happening, but the forum doesn't owe you a signature nor a right to earn money. The forum could remove signatures at any point and they likely will be removed at some point in the future if the spam situation isn't solved or curbed because things can't continue like they are and are only going to get exponentially worse the more people that sign up here to just earn from them. Lets be honest, the only reason you are likely here is to earn and if signatures did get removed then you sorts of people would leave the very same day and never return (or maybe you'd wait around for a few days complaining and hoping in vain that they would be reinstated). We could just as easily argue that why is it fair that old timers are punished by the influx of spamming newbies who don't give a shit about bitcoin or the technology other than they heard they can earn here? Punish everyone because of the people who would instantly leave the moment signatures are disabled? That doesn't sound right either. I wouldn't even be against removing signatures for everybody until you've earned the merit to get the signature in the first place. Make everyone start from zero merit. I and other posters who actually contribute something worthwhile here would have no issue in getting the required merit, but the legions of spammers who sign up here with their half a dozen to hundreds of accounts in their farm certainly would and that is the crux of the whole issue here in the first place.

[bisdak40]

The primary perceived benefit of an increased rank is the ability to earn more from signature spamming. Obviously this leads to the idea that increasing merits means an increase in earning ability, regardless of contributions to the forum or the community here.

Exactly, a lot of new comers here in the forum have the perception that if you are here you will earn and contributing for the improvement of the forum is out of their mind. The merit system is really working to it's purpose that low rank members are desperate to acquire one.

Lets be honest, the only reason you are likely here is to earn and if signatures did get removed then you sorts of people would leave the very same day and never return

Definitely. Why stay when you get nothing in return.
I have seen just recently an initiative by one of the trusted member here in this forum. A very good initiative to help members here in Bitcointalk to improve their communication skills in talking English but sad to say that traffic there is not so busy. The reason is obvious, why stay when you get nothing in return (financially).

[olumyd]

...

This is still a much better suggestion compared to removing signatures for all of the users. There are some quality signature campaigns and hard working campaign managers still on site, so it's better to regulate it instead of banning it...
I usually don't belive that those jr. members and newbies posting in the alt section are not bots, simply, they post rubbish, I just can't belive they are humans and do this manually day by day...
So if they are bots (or people who don't speak English) and they leave, the forum won't lose anything but only traffic (which is still important, if we want to be the first and most active bitcoin related forum, prior to reddit, etc...)
I just feel sorry for the very few newbies, who come here to learn about bitcoin (really) because they will suffer because of the shitposter army... if we implement some strict regulation for the newbies, jr. members, etc...
If anyone had found a simple solution for this problem, it would have been implemented already, so there's no simple solution at all. If there will be a solution, that will hurt, the question is whom and how much...
You just can't report all of the spammers and get them banned, because if you get one banned, two or three new shitposter will register immediately... (unfortunately, even if you won't get one banned, the new shitposters would still register...)

The simple solution is to apply a 'karma-like' feature that helps to monitor user's activity, stats, and quality of posts. If a user has been rewarded with low/-ve karma during a signature campaign by the campaign manager, then that should be noted. This should be different from the negative trust.

But, sadly most campaign managers aren't competent. Even they have their own flaws and that becomes a huge responsibility on the mods to tidy up after them. But ideally, shitposters are to be handled by the campaign manager since the bounty is the reason they exist in the first place.