Proposal: Disallow Ads in Signatures

[Cryptopher]

I srill prefer XenForo to SMF, but XenForo didn't exist when this forum was created so

Now then, how do you get to hero member? It clearly no longer goes off post count...

I believe that you need an activity of at least 480 for Hero Member status. So that's just under a year away of logging in an posting for you, I think...

That's super unfair. Just because I didn't see the point in visiting for a while because of stupid network limitations etc. Imposed...

I don't like posting if it's pointless either...

Drat. An entire year. *sigh*

(Damned voice input button...!)

Liam

Lol, what I find is by the time that I've realised that it is a new term, I will have already maxed out my activity for that term. It's easy to make meaningful posts, especially if you get into a discussion.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the member status anyway - ultimately we're all here to be a part of the community

[Liam W]

I srill prefer XenForo to SMF, but XenForo didn't exist when this forum was created so

Now then, how do you get to hero member? It clearly no longer goes off post count...

I believe that you need an activity of at least 480 for Hero Member status. So that's just under a year away of logging in an posting for you, I think...

That's super unfair. Just because I didn't see the point in visiting for a while because of stupid network limitations etc. Imposed...

I don't like posting if it's pointless either...

Drat. An entire year. *sigh*

(Damned voice input button...!)

Liam

Lol, what I find is by the time that I've realised that it is a new term, I will have already maxed out my activity for that term. It's easy to make meaningful posts, especially if you get into a discussion.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the member status anyway - ultimately we're all here to be a part of the community

I live for the user titles/ranks/whatever they're called on any forum I don't stop until I hit the high one

[freedomno1]

I like the change. I'm amazed that the forum gives the option to have different signature categories. That's something that seems so trivial. Can't believe that's actually a standard feature.

It's not, I just wrote that feature. This forum is substantially modified from stock SMF. (A few modifications were written by Satoshi himself!)

Bitcoin was just a stop-gap for Satoshi's real passion - SMF modifications. The Fast & Furious of the forum world.

Not to derail but your comment reminded me that Satoshi even has his own webcomic now (Sort of)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=471839.0

From my childhood in Siberia, to my romance with legendary bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto.

I'm sure some people may enjoy this ^^

To Fast and Furious coding

[Cryptopher]

I like the change. I'm amazed that the forum gives the option to have different signature categories. That's something that seems so trivial. Can't believe that's actually a standard feature.

It's not, I just wrote that feature. This forum is substantially modified from stock SMF. (A few modifications were written by Satoshi himself!)

Bitcoin was just a stop-gap for Satoshi's real passion - SMF modifications. The Fast & Furious of the forum world.

Not to derail but your comment reminded me that Satoshi even has his own webcomic now (Sort of)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=471839.0

From my childhood in Siberia, to my romance with legendary bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto.

I'm sure some people may enjoy this ^^

To Fast and Furious coding

That's brilliant. I guess that even though most signatures will be much more subtle on the eyes, there will still be many posts out there that are easy goes on the eyes too! Very creative haha.

[btcton]

I would like to thank Theymos for the change. Hopefully, it will be widely accepted throughout the forums and it will make campaign owners reconsider their offers.

[tim-tams]

This kinda sucks for the people who spent several hours designing a nice sig, but it's understandable. Some people even paid for sigs.

[Liam W]

This kinda sucks for the people who spent several hours designing a nice sig, but it's understandable. Some people even paid for sigs.

Why would you pay for a sig? Seriously?

[brush242]

I think it's a great idea, paid signatures add nothing to the site and only encourage useless posts.  There are way too many people who post in every topic because it gets their post count up, the posts look useful but overall it really just adds to the noise.

Good luck getting glorious leader to make a change!

The idea that paid signatures add nothing to the site and encourage useless posts isn't true simply because you state that it is true. In fact, it is false on its face.

1) People who have no other way to earn bitcoins may choose that as their best (and only) option to obtain them. As such, they are more likely to remain and contribute to the site. Adds to site.

2) While some people are encouraged to make useless posts, that is easily rectified by a note to the offender or the sponsor. As the sponsor is going to only pay for substantive comments, once again, that encourages people to post substantive comments. Adds to site.

Taking away incentives to stay, contribute meaningfully, and build community, is not a way to better any site. Especially this one where the members are generally interested in bitcoin, and not just slinging websites that exist solely to sling websites that exist solely to sling websites that exist solely to create referrals and downlines.

And actually, it seems that convincing glorious leader to make a change took almost no effort whatsoever.

[freedomno1]

I think it's a great idea, paid signatures add nothing to the site and only encourage useless posts.  There are way too many people who post in every topic because it gets their post count up, the posts look useful but overall it really just adds to the noise.

Good luck getting glorious leader to make a change!

And actually, it seems that convincing glorious leader to make a change took almost no effort whatsoever.

It's been debated for months ^^

[SaltySpitoon]

I think it's a great idea, paid signatures add nothing to the site and only encourage useless posts.  There are way too many people who post in every topic because it gets their post count up, the posts look useful but overall it really just adds to the noise.

Good luck getting glorious leader to make a change!

The idea that paid signatures add nothing to the site and encourage useless posts isn't true simply because you state that it is true. In fact, it is false on its face.

1) People who have no other way to earn bitcoins may choose that as their best (and only) option to obtain them. As such, they are more likely to remain and contribute to the site. Adds to site.

2) While some people are encouraged to make useless posts, that is easily rectified by a note to the offender or the sponsor. As the sponsor is going to only pay for substantive comments, once again, that encourages people to post substantive comments. Adds to site.

Taking away incentives to stay, contribute meaningfully, and build community, is not a way to better any site. Especially this one where the members are generally interested in bitcoin, and not just slinging websites that exist solely to sling websites that exist solely to sling websites that exist solely to create referrals and downlines.

And actually, it seems that convincing glorious leader to make a change took almost no effort whatsoever.

We state it as true, by observing spam variances since paid advertising's induction to now. It is absolutely conclusive that paid signature advertising has increased spam to an astronomical level. People that do paid signature advertising as the only way to earn Bitcoins, rather than spend 20 hours per day forumlating hundreds of thoughtful posts, spend 30 minutes posting hundreds of times per day, giving the moderation staff hundreds of posts per day to delete and users to ban. If you think the sponsor has time to look through tens if not hundreds of thousands of posts per month to judge if they are spam or not, you would be incorrect. They can say they only pay for substantial posts, but they dont have the staff nor time to read through everyone's posts. I'm glad some sort of change happened, now we will see if that fixes the problem more or less, or if more steps are needed.

It's been debated for months ^^

Correct, the issue was first addressed a bit over 3 months ago to be exact.

[brush242]

We state it as true, by observing spam variances since paid advertising's induction to now. It is absolutely conclusive that paid signature advertising has increased spam to an astronomical level. People that do paid signature advertising as the only way to earn Bitcoins, rather than spend 20 hours per day forumlating hundreds of thoughtful posts, spend 30 minutes posting hundreds of times per day, giving the moderation staff hundreds of posts per day to delete and users to ban.

That you list my comment in bold, does not make it any less true. The prior statement remains false on its face simply because it expresses an erroneous conclusion, most simply because advertising in signatures has both positive and negative aspects for the community. It is not universally a negative, for reasons previously stated.

As far as what moderators do? That is what moderators do. As a moderator myself (not here), it truly takes very little time to moderate people, and if I was ever unsure (and about spammers, I never was) I would just ask someone else's opinion as well.

If you think the sponsor has time to look through tens if not hundreds of thousands of posts per month to judge if they are spam or not, you would be incorrect. They can say they only pay for substantial posts, but they dont have the staff nor time to read through everyone's posts.

You cannot possibly hope to speak for any sponsor, you have no idea what time they do or do not have, let alone how much time they chose to spend reviewing their employees. By extension, they have every incentive to insure that their paid sig users are doing their best for the community. Similarly, they have zero incentive to pay people for posting idiocy. Much like moderating, it just doesn't take that long to scan through someone's post log, especially if they wish to better their business.

None of this, of course, is meant to downplay the negatives, but to suggest that some heavy-handed statement that all ad sigs are bad for the community is mindless hyperbole.

[SaltySpitoon]

We state it as true, by observing spam variances since paid advertising's induction to now. It is absolutely conclusive that paid signature advertising has increased spam to an astronomical level. People that do paid signature advertising as the only way to earn Bitcoins, rather than spend 20 hours per day forumlating hundreds of thoughtful posts, spend 30 minutes posting hundreds of times per day, giving the moderation staff hundreds of posts per day to delete and users to ban.

That you list my comment in bold, does not make it any less true. The prior statement remains false on its face simply because it expresses an erroneous conclusion, most simply because advertising in signatures has both positive and negative aspects for the community. It is not universally a negative, for reasons previously stated.

As far as what moderators do? That is what moderators do. As a moderator myself (not here), it truly takes very little time to moderate people, and if I was ever unsure (and about spammers, I never was) I would just ask someone else's opinion as well.

If you think the sponsor has time to look through tens if not hundreds of thousands of posts per month to judge if they are spam or not, you would be incorrect. They can say they only pay for substantial posts, but they dont have the staff nor time to read through everyone's posts.

You cannot possibly hope to speak for any sponsor, you have no idea what time they do or do not have, let alone how much time they chose to spend reviewing their employees. By extension, they have every incentive to insure that their paid sig users are doing their best for the community. Similarly, they have zero incentive to pay people for posting idiocy. Much like moderating, it just doesn't take that long to scan through someone's post log, especially if they wish to better their business.

None of this, of course, is meant to downplay the negatives, but to suggest that some heavy-handed statement that all ad sigs are bad for the community is mindless hyperbole.

No, it is quite true actually. The negatives to paid signature advertising far outweigh to positives. Of course we understand that its nice for people to be able to earn a bit of coin while posting as usual, however the sheer volume of spam is almost uncomprehendable. You are correct, it takes maybe 30 seconds to 1 minute to properly moderate a post on average. That involves checking the post for prior context, etc. Now multiply that times a few thousand over a short period of time, and it quickly becomes something that is difficult to keep up with. Your points are valid on a  small scale, but we are talking about tens of thousands of posters. The forums has 255k members, taking into account that many are inactive, and many dont partake in signature advertising, we are still talking about hundreds of man hours per day to clean up and ban the many users that are causing the problem. The fact of the matter is that many of us have been moderating for years, we saw the report volume before signature advertising, and now after and have concluded that it is a generally negative.  I can speak for the sponsors of paid signature campaigns on this matter, because for the larger ones, for example primedice, it wouldn't be humanly possible for Stunna to sift through every affiliate's posts to judge what is worthy and what isnt. We spend a good chunk of time moderating and reviewing these posts, and thats with a 40+ person team. I'm sure if they see something fishy they will review an indviduals post history, but what about when that person makes another 30 accounts to spam with. Chances are some of them are going to get through.

The only reason paid signature advertising wasnt banned looong ago, is that we generally believe that punishing the whole for the missdeeds of the few (in this case far more than a few) isn't fair.

[n00ber]

Great work theymos, But there should be at least a notice 2 weeks to 1 month before the implementation.

[brush242]

No, it is quite true actually. The negatives to paid signature advertising far outweigh to positives.

More accurately: The negatives to paid signature advertising far outweigh to positives to you. And to others who think as you do.

Of course we understand that its nice for people to be able to earn a bit of coin while posting as usual, however the sheer volume of spam is almost uncomprehendable. You are correct, it takes maybe 30 seconds to 1 minute to properly moderate a post on average. That involves checking the post for prior context, etc. Now multiply that times a few thousand over a short period of time, and it quickly becomes something that is difficult to keep up with. Your points are valid on a  small scale, but we are talking about tens of thousands of posters. The forums has 255k members, taking into account that many are inactive, and many dont partake in signature advertising, we are still talking about hundreds of man hours per day to clean up and ban the many users that are causing the problem. The fact of the matter is that many of us have been moderating for years, we saw the report volume before signature advertising, and now after and have concluded that it is a generally negative.

Thus you use more moderators. I have never seen a forum such as this that has any shortage of people who would love some title and would do the work for free. Another option is a warning then a short ban, or a comment to the sponsor, instead of dumping individual posts. Agreed, I don't think that is worth the effort.

I can speak for the sponsors of paid signature campaigns on this matter, because for the larger ones, for example primedice, it wouldn't be humanly possible for Stunna to sift through every affiliate's posts to judge what is worthy and what isnt. We spend a good chunk of time moderating and reviewing these posts, and thats with a 40+ person team. I'm sure if they see something fishy they will review an indviduals post history, but what about when that person makes another 30 accounts to spam with. Chances are some of them are going to get through.

Actually, some of them are always going to get through no matter what you do. The easiest way to handle that is to mention it to Stunna. "Hey Stunna, Ned Flanders is spamming," and he stops paying them. Like I said, he has zero incentive to pay spammers, you have every incentive to point them out to him.

The only reason paid signature advertising wasnt banned looong ago, is that we generally believe that punishing the whole for the missdeeds of the few (in this case far more than a few) isn't fair.

And for that, I do thank you. Not because I have a paid sig in my posts, but because I think the best communities online allow their members great latitude, both in what they post, and in whether they stay or not.

[t3a]

Perhaps the allowed signature styling should change with activity score / membergroup. Like:
- Newbie: No styling (including links) allowed. Max 40 characters.
- Jr. Member: Links allowed. Max 100 characters.
- Member: Unlimited length.
- Full: Color allowed.
- Sr. Member: Size allowed
- Hero: Background color allowed

Then newbies will be less effective advertisers, which would hopefully significantly reduce the incentive for low-content posts. And when people become capable of effectively advertising through their signatures, they'll have invested a lot of time into their accounts, and they won't risk being banned by spamming.

This will just make people post more garbage so they can qualify to have ads in their sigs IMO.

[SlidingHorn]

This will just make people post more garbage so they can qualify to have ads in their sigs IMO.

My thoughts exactly.  It won't work...the more concentrated your posts, the slower your activity rate goes up - but that's not gonna stop the newbs from trying...

[BawsyBoss]

This will just make people post more garbage so they can qualify to have ads in their sigs IMO.

My thoughts exactly.  It won't work...the more concentrated your posts, the slower your activity rate goes up - but that's not gonna stop the newbs from trying...

First of all, I agree with this change. Second, how would this not work? It's not like you can spam your way through activity levels.

[t3a]

This will just make people post more garbage so they can qualify to have ads in their sigs IMO.

My thoughts exactly.  It won't work...the more concentrated your posts, the slower your activity rate goes up - but that's not gonna stop the newbs from trying...

First of all, I agree with this change. Second, how would this not work? It's not like you can spam your way through activity levels.

You can. Simply open an (or 10) account(s), and spam as you usually would. (The spam is divided between the accounts so you can increase the activity of all of them efficiently.) Eventually (after about two months) you will qualify for most ads and will be able to spam the forum for pay.

My favorite solution in this thread is to require advertisers to only pay users who make large posts.

[BawsyBoss]

This will just make people post more garbage so they can qualify to have ads in their sigs IMO.

My thoughts exactly.  It won't work...the more concentrated your posts, the slower your activity rate goes up - but that's not gonna stop the newbs from trying...

First of all, I agree with this change. Second, how would this not work? It's not like you can spam your way through activity levels.

You can. Simply open an (or 10) account(s), and spam as you usually would. (The spam is divided between the accounts so you can increase the activity of all of them efficiently.) Eventually (after about two months) you will qualify for most ads and will be able to spam the forum for pay.

My favorite solution in this thread is to require advertisers to only pay users who make large posts.

It may not get rid of spam completely, but it surely does reduce it a significant amount. The number of people who would do that are most likely less than the people who wouldn't bother. Either way, can't admins just IP ban?

EDIT: I also do not know what the best campaign setup would be. That's something that has to be thought into.

[t3a]

This will just make people post more garbage so they can qualify to have ads in their sigs IMO.

My thoughts exactly.  It won't work...the more concentrated your posts, the slower your activity rate goes up - but that's not gonna stop the newbs from trying...

First of all, I agree with this change. Second, how would this not work? It's not like you can spam your way through activity levels.

You can. Simply open an (or 10) account(s), and spam as you usually would. (The spam is divided between the accounts so you can increase the activity of all of them efficiently.) Eventually (after about two months) you will qualify for most ads and will be able to spam the forum for pay.

My favorite solution in this thread is to require advertisers to only pay users who make large posts.

It may not get rid of spam completely, but it surely does reduce it a significant amount. The number of people who would do that are most likely less than the people who wouldn't bother. Either way, can't admins just IP ban?

EDIT: I also do not know what the best campaign setup would be. That's something that has to be thought into.

I think Theymos' solution is significantly better than doing nothing, don't get me wrong.