Proposal: Disallow Ads in Signatures

[txbt]

... the solution is in the community taking an active role in reporting rule breakers, irrespective of signatures.

Indeed.
And how do you stimulate the community taking a more active role? I think the answer to this question (if is a simple, practical one) is the solution.

[nahtnam]

... the solution is in the community taking an active role in reporting rule breakers, irrespective of signatures.

Indeed.
And how do you stimulate the community taking a more active role? I think the answer to this question (if is a simple, practical one) is the solution.

I have thought up of a solution (still need to work on it a little), but I'll mak a seperate thread for it.

[Cryptopher]

... the solution is in the community taking an active role in reporting rule breakers, irrespective of signatures.

Indeed.
And how do you stimulate the community taking a more active role? I think the answer to this question (if is a simple, practical one) is the solution.

I have thought up of a solution (still need to work on it a little), but I'll mak a seperate thread for it.

Sounds positive! Surprisingly it doesn't take a great number of people to weed out the problem users - we have the moderators first and foremost - while they have the power to take action, they probably it isn't feasible for them to see everything that goes down.

Just a few more people with sound judgement taking a pro-active step towards reporting problem users to the mods would be a massive improvement. I'm sure that this happens to some degree already through he report post features. Of course, the moderators have the final say, so they may even choose to dismiss reports if they see fit.

Or perhaps there could be a flag post as spam option, these could then be raised to the moderators attention, with the highest flagged posts appearing as a priority for inspection. Just one possible suggestion.

[sotisoti]

ok, so I just realized that the signature restriction has started to take effect...

[NLNico]

Or perhaps there could be a flag post as spam option, these could then be raised to the moderators attention, with the highest flagged posts appearing as a priority for inspection. Just one possible suggestion.

There is: "Report to moderator" right under every message.

[Cryptopher]

Or perhaps there could be a flag post as spam option, these could then be raised to the moderators attention, with the highest flagged posts appearing as a priority for inspection. Just one possible suggestion.

There is: "Report to moderator" right under every message.

Yeah, there is this, but I feel that it proves as something of a barrier due to the record that is kept against a user who is reporting, plus the revelation of your email address - which presumably moderators would otherwise not be able to view.

Thinking about it now, a 'flag as spam' button which would literally be just a click would likely be abused, even if it was off-limits to the lesser active members.

Could always develop and trial it

[txbt]

I have thought up of a solution (still need to work on it a little), but I'll mak a seperate thread for it.

Sounds great. Post a link to the new thread here please. Thank you.

[nahtnam]

I have thought up of a solution (still need to work on it a little), but I'll mak a seperate thread for it.

Sounds great. Post a link to the new thread here please. Thank you.

Here you go. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=503278

[rohnearner]

I have thought up of a solution (still need to work on it a little), but I'll mak a seperate thread for it.

Sounds great. Post a link to the new thread here please. Thank you.

Here you go. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=503278

read your suggestion on other thread have to say they are worth taking a note...!

[vnvizow]

Most of the ad campaigns nowadays check if the user spams and ask specifically for the user to make meaningful post. Ad campaigns are also currently the best way for people new to Bitcoin to earn some for themselves. So, no, ads in signatures are good (at least for now). For example me myself is in an ad campaign and I enjoy helping others with their problems and earn small amounts of Bitcoins myself, only if people tip others for helpful posts then the community may be enriched and people won't resort to ad campaigns = helpful posts only and minimal spam

[apsvinet]

Most of the ad campaigns nowadays check if the user spams and ask specifically for the user to make meaningful post. Ad campaigns are also currently the best way for people new to Bitcoin to earn some for themselves. So, no, ads in signatures are good (at least for now). For example me myself is in an ad campaign and I enjoy helping others with their problems and earn small amounts of Bitcoins myself, only if people tip others for helpful posts then the community may be enriched and people won't resort to ad campaigns = helpful posts only and minimal spam

The discussion has circled a bit by now. Everyone is aware of that people like you ( lots and lots of people with you ) that actually just want to make a bit of money doing something that they otherwise would do anyways are getting punished for something a minority of stupids do.
Newbie restrictions would be better, or better report a post functions.

[FalconFly]

Most of the ad campaigns nowadays check if the user spams and ask specifically for the user to make meaningful post. Ad campaigns are also currently the best way for people new to Bitcoin to earn some for themselves. So, no, ads in signatures are good (at least for now). For example me myself is in an ad campaign and I enjoy helping others with their problems and earn small amounts of Bitcoins myself, only if people tip others for helpful posts then the community may be enriched and people won't resort to ad campaigns = helpful posts only and minimal spam

In most of the Bitcoin world, ad campaigns don't check anything at all. They send off their cheap hounddogs to spam the message into all places conceivable and count on the fact that - worst case - it's not them that get into trouble but their ad vehicles (people posting or piggybacking Ads in their signatures).
The only step further down into the mud would be spam-bots, but those aren't advanced enough to initiate and simulate human conversation. Plus, they are forcefully kept out of Forums (captchas etc.) where possible.

There are exeptions, but these are extremely scarse.

[apsvinet]

Most of the ad campaigns nowadays check if the user spams and ask specifically for the user to make meaningful post. Ad campaigns are also currently the best way for people new to Bitcoin to earn some for themselves. So, no, ads in signatures are good (at least for now). For example me myself is in an ad campaign and I enjoy helping others with their problems and earn small amounts of Bitcoins myself, only if people tip others for helpful posts then the community may be enriched and people won't resort to ad campaigns = helpful posts only and minimal spam

In most of the Bitcoin world, ad campaigns don't check anything at all. They send off their cheap hounddogs to spam the message into all places conceivable and count on the fact that - worst case - it's not them that get into trouble but their ad vehicles (people posting or piggybacking Ads in their signatures).
The only step further down into the mud would be spam-bots, but those aren't advanced enough to initiate and simulate human conversation. Plus, they are forcefully kept out of Forums (captchas etc.) where possible.

There are exeptions, but these are extremely scarse.

Most people don't spam. Their posts might not be the most necessary, or add that much to an ongoing discussion.
The bots you're speaking of exist on this forum, but mainly to get activity up to then sell the accounts. They're not bots to advertise.

And how about this. When we change the restrictions of the bitcointalk signature to what it is today, higher activity accounts become more valuable than ever. To me, this is a clear incentive for people to release their posting bots into the forums, because they are now able to sell their accounts, and will in the future as well.

There are more than 1 hole to poke through the benefits of this change.

[rhino34567]

Most of the ad campaigns nowadays check if the user spams and ask specifically for the user to make meaningful post. Ad campaigns are also currently the best way for people new to Bitcoin to earn some for themselves. So, no, ads in signatures are good (at least for now). For example me myself is in an ad campaign and I enjoy helping others with their problems and earn small amounts of Bitcoins myself, only if people tip others for helpful posts then the community may be enriched and people won't resort to ad campaigns = helpful posts only and minimal spam

In most of the Bitcoin world, ad campaigns don't check anything at all. They send off their cheap hounddogs to spam the message into all places conceivable and count on the fact that - worst case - it's not them that get into trouble but their ad vehicles (people posting or piggybacking Ads in their signatures).
The only step further down into the mud would be spam-bots, but those aren't advanced enough to initiate and simulate human conversation. Plus, they are forcefully kept out of Forums (captchas etc.) where possible.

There are exeptions, but these are extremely scarse.

Most people don't spam. Their posts might not be the most necessary, or add that much to an ongoing discussion.
The bots you're speaking of exist on this forum, but mainly to get activity up to then sell the accounts. They're not bots to advertise.

And how about this. When we change the restrictions of the [Suspicious link removed]ignature to what it is today, higher activity accounts become more valuable than ever. To me, this is a clear incentive for people to release their posting bots into the forums, because they are now able to sell their accounts, and will in the future as well.

There are more than 1 hole to poke through the benefits of this change.

This is what I think. It is not really the common spammer that annoys me. There are people out there who do not post something with the intention of contributing, but just to earn money, even if it is not spam. This affects the forums badly in the sense that people won't actually get too involved with the issues and are not interested in continuing the argument any further.

[vnvizow]

Most of the ad campaigns nowadays check if the user spams and ask specifically for the user to make meaningful post. Ad campaigns are also currently the best way for people new to Bitcoin to earn some for themselves. So, no, ads in signatures are good (at least for now). For example me myself is in an ad campaign and I enjoy helping others with their problems and earn small amounts of Bitcoins myself, only if people tip others for helpful posts then the community may be enriched and people won't resort to ad campaigns = helpful posts only and minimal spam

In most of the Bitcoin world, ad campaigns don't check anything at all. They send off their cheap hounddogs to spam the message into all places conceivable and count on the fact that - worst case - it's not them that get into trouble but their ad vehicles (people posting or piggybacking Ads in their signatures).
The only step further down into the mud would be spam-bots, but those aren't advanced enough to initiate and simulate human conversation. Plus, they are forcefully kept out of Forums (captchas etc.) where possible.

There are exeptions, but these are extremely scarse.

Well if they spam then they don't get payed, which contradicts the purpose of signing up for the campaign. Well we're having this argument so do you consider this spam? I'm sure the companies that pays hates spammers since people will hate the spammers and so the ad and so the company.

[jambola2]

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.

Why not allow link usage to all tiers but block the first two or three tiers from using known paid advertisements sites.
You could blacklist those URLs and make them automatically redirect to bitcointalk.org
Link shorteners too would be blocked for those tiers and would redirect to bitcointalk.org

This will allow personal sites and would block usage of paid links.
This would take some time to blacklist the people though.

[Cryptopher]

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.

Why not allow link usage to all tiers but block the first two or three tiers from using known paid advertisements sites.
You could blacklist those URLs and make them automatically redirect to bitcointalk.org
Link shorteners too would be blocked for those tiers and would redirect to bitcointalk.org

This will allow personal sites and would block usage of paid links.
This would take some time to blacklist the people though.

Of course, you would suggest the first three tiers, being a Full Member with a link haha

[apsvinet]

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.

Why not allow link usage to all tiers but block the first two or three tiers from using known paid advertisements sites.
You could blacklist those URLs and make them automatically redirect to bitcointalk.org
Link shorteners too would be blocked for those tiers and would redirect to bitcointalk.org

This will allow personal sites and would block usage of paid links.
This would take some time to blacklist the people though.

This could be an alternative solution. However as you say it would take a lot of effort to blacklist those sites.

Also, the problem is that this would only restrict newbies and jr members specifically. You have to remember not all newbies and jr members are spamming, and this seems unreasonably harsh as a collective punishment.


Another suggestion I would like to see some moderator respond to is this:
Make it so, that old signature rules are re-implemented, and that if your post gets reported for spam and deleted by a moderator, you then lose your signature privileges ( ex: No links allowed ) or simply no signature at all.
This would punish only the spammers, which is what you're stating you want to do.

[bitco.in]

lol @ post #2

[freedomno1]

lol @ post #2

B!Z quality posting