Community generated suggestions to improve the forum (+ eventual voting on them)

[Direwolve735]

One of the main problems of the forum is the increasing number of spammers. Many users register on bitcointalk for reasons that are contrary to the original purpose of creating this forum. A huge number of people are looking for "easy money" for the quantity, not the quality of comments. This problem is supported by a huge number of bounty campaigns, which take everyone in order for the participants to advertise their signatures. For me, there is no question of completely destroying signature campaigns, although many on the forum see this as a solution to the spam problem.

I believe that admins need to approve a list of rules that campaign managers need to be attached to. It is necessary to establish high requirements to the quality of posts, rank and merits. As we can see, almost all signature campaigns in the Economy > Marketplace > Services branch are the level higher than signature bounties (Alternate cryptocurrencies > Marketplace (Altcoins) > Bounties). This is due to higher requirements for potential participants and more stringent selection. Those who want to join a signature campaign and earn on it must meet the requirements, otherwise they won`t be included in the spreadsheet. Thus, a motivation arises - an indispensable condition for attempts to improve.

Signature campaigns by themselves are not a source of spam and shitposting. But while they encourage the number, not the quality of comments, the problem of spam on the forum won`t disappear. Instead of removing signature campaigns in general, I suggest that they become a motivation for improving the quality of posts of forum participants, by raising requirements.

[1714973891]

1714973891

[1714973891]

1714973891

[1714973891]

1714973891

[1714973891]

1714973891

[hilariousetc]

I believe that admins need to approve a list of rules that campaign managers need to be attached to.  

There are rules. We created the signature campaign guidelines because of this, but this issue is that they're not enforced. It's like saying theft is illegal, but not actually punishing anyone who does it, so of course lots of unscrupulous people will take advantage of that because there's absolutely no repercussions for doing it. Punishments need to start being handed out to ICOs and their managers and things would drastically improve here if that happened. The forum is such a shitshow because we allow campaigns to largely do what they want, but if their laziness and greed was punished then the culture would quickly change around here and they would adapt and actually do what they supposed to do in the first place because this forum is too valuable for them to not be able to advertise here.

[pandukelana2712]

I'm not sure if someone already mentions this.

As we know that spam posts are from:
1. Noobs who pursue rank: after they reach a certain rank they can do some bounty
2. Sign camp participants who perform tasks without care what their posting, just to pass their post target.
3. Some of them have several accounts to do the bounty.

To deal with it actually, we can use the basic functions of the SMF feature.

I believe that the admin only applies 4 types of member groups in this forum, they are:
1. Global mod members
2. Local mod/sub mod members
3. User members
4. Guest members

So, the admin can add the fifth group, which member in this group have no access to bounty marketplace
ex:
5. Limited members.

And how to moving spammer to the group? I think global moderator and some of another moderator have right to add/remove them in this groups, based on moderators reports and/or they just find it.  

Reference:
https://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/SMF1.1:Membergroups
https://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Moderation_center

edit:
About merit, I agree with this:

Removing merits from deleted posts would be a tremendous advantage in my opinion.

What you think about give merit to the post that does not exist?

[Kate Beckett]

One of the main problems of the forum is the increasing number of spammers. Many users register on bitcointalk for reasons that are contrary to the original purpose of creating this forum. A huge number of people are looking for "easy money" for the quantity, not the quality of comments. This problem is supported by a huge number of bounty campaigns, which take everyone in order for the participants to advertise their signatures. For me, there is no question of completely destroying signature campaigns, although many on the forum see this as a solution to the spam problem.

I believe that admins need to approve a list of rules that campaign managers need to be attached to. It is necessary to establish high requirements to the quality of posts, rank and merits. As we can see, almost all signature campaigns in the Economy > Marketplace > Services branch are the level higher than signature bounties (Alternate cryptocurrencies > Marketplace (Altcoins) > Bounties). This is due to higher requirements for potential participants and more stringent selection. Those who want to join a signature campaign and earn on it must meet the requirements, otherwise they won`t be included in the spreadsheet. Thus, a motivation arises - an indispensable condition for attempts to improve.

Signature campaigns by themselves are not a source of spam and shitposting. But while they encourage the number, not the quality of comments, the problem of spam on the forum won`t disappear. Instead of removing signature campaigns in general, I suggest that they become a motivation for improving the quality of posts of forum participants, by raising requirements.

I see your point, but I agree with hilariousetc that we need punishments and restrictions for this theory to work. Otherwise your proposal sounds very utopically and is unattainable in real life. People always bypass rules and regulations, if they are not afraid of sanctions. It is fear of punishment that helps to develop norms of behavior in society. Even in developed countries, where from childhood they are taught to compliance with rules, noone cancels the sanctions. I like your idea of raising the requirements for members of signature campaigns, but this idea needs to be supplemented by sanctions in case of violation of established rules.

[DooMAD]

So, the admin can add the fifth group, which member in this group have no access to bounty marketplace
ex:
5. Limited members.

And how to moving spammer to the group? I think global moderator and some of another moderator have right to add/remove them in this groups, based on moderators reports and/or just find it. 

That still doesn't solve the issue of them spamming the board.  You can claim a bounty anywhere online.  People will just use social media instead of the bounties subforum.  If they aren't contributing useful content, get rid of them.  

[pandukelana2712]

That still doesn't solve the issue of them spamming the board.    

Yeah, it does not solve all of them. But at least that can reduce the number of spammers.

As stated in the reference, admin can make rules in that new group.
example:
1. Signature disallowed, whatever their rank.
2. Reducing maximal post.
3. etc

People maybe can participate bounty at another website, but they cannot use signature code that they need to claim their prize.
For social media reports...
I think bounty manager must make an additional rule about the reports.
example:
Using google spreadsheet/google form then send to their official email. It's not necessary posting in their announcements thread.

If they aren't contributing useful content, get rid of them.

Indonesian Patrol always doing that.
And this is our works:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4755388.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4654436.0

[TheBeardedBaby]

One more thing to be added to the list with suggestions: 
The patrol list should have an option to exclude the ignored boards.
I think someone suggested it some months ago.

[TheJoke[r]]

If replacing the management would be a possibility I would put my vote there.

[khaled0111]

• More admins or demi-admins added to help with account recoveries and other admin duties.

Why don't you add another? This seems like a quick fix for a few things. If there was more staff and admins added you and cyrus would be bothered less and less. You would be less annoyed by the barrage of PMs and users would be less frustrated and every other Global will then stop being spammed with the same questions for things they don't have the authority to do. It's pointless you two even being messaged about certain things like account restorations if you're not doing them at all which currently seems to be the case. I could even do admin duties full time here if you wanted and I'm practically on the forum all day anyway, but something tells me if I was going to be made an admin it would have happened by now. If you don't trust me to do it for whatever reasons then fair enough but there must be someone else who can do it on staff - Mprep, rickbig, Mitchell or one of the other long-standing mods. Maybe even ask one of the veteran/trusted users here like vod or whoever (in b4 quickseller complains). If none of us are suitable have you spoken to BadBear recently? Maybe try email him asking if he'll come back. You mentioned a while ago that you've considered hiring someone to run the forum so why not hire BadBear? It makes sense for him to do it over some Marlon Rando. BadBear was a great admin as you also said and he knows how the forum works, which would make sense rather than hiring someone external who has to learn all the ways of the world here which wouldn't be easy or something you can learn in a short time.

hilariousandco says very correct things and are necessary as an air to the forum in all his post, but at the moment I am only interested in the part of him that I quoted.
Since I fell out of the forum for a long time already (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4654337.0) and there is no administrator who would pay attention to this and help me get back on line, and from this temporary account I do not want to write on the forum.
Several times I sent letters to administrators responsible for the restoration of accounts in PM, but the answer was never received.
So if you do not have time to deal with these questions then why do not you transfer this work to other people, especially hilariousandco himself says that he is ready to take up this work - so give him such an opportunity. Already a lot of members of the forum are waiting for you to help, how much longer do we have to suffer in anticipation.
I myself am ready to take up this work, I have as much free time, I would solve these user problems in 1-2 days if I correctly assess the scale of the problem, but this is realistic, we are ready to participate, help in this . We understand that you have a lot of work and you do not manage everything, so at least give this part to someone.
Please consider this opportunity.

Realistically, more admins and staff are going to need to be added at some point to keep up with the growing userbase and workload so I don't understand why that time can't be now (or soon). Most staff are already swamped and there are others that could help but can't do much about anything because they don't have the power or ability to. More mods and admins can be added at the touch of a button, and it doesn't even have to be me who does admin duties or account restorations either if theymos doesn't trust me with that for whatever reason, but someone needs to be doing it. Plenty of simple things that would greatly help improve the forum are just being needlessly ignored like assigning sub board mods etc and the forum continues to circle the drain in the process whilst we stand by and watch helplessly.

I am not against the merit system and I am one of its supporters since it helped alot in stopping abusers and spammers, but I am still convinced that it require some improvements (members are not generous thus this system can't be 100% fair).

It does need some improvements as I've already addressed, but have you suggested anything to make it better?

For example a Junior Member needs 10 merit points to become a Member while a Sr.Member needs 500 merits to rank up, I think it should be the opposite, if the aim of the merit system is to lemit the number of spammers then a new registered member should provide more effort to prove himself.
If he succeeds to collect a high number of merit and ranks up, that means he is not a spammer and ranking up should become easier.
What do you think?

[joniboini]

For example a Junior Member needs 10 merit points to become a Member while a Sr.Member needs 500 merits to rank up, I think it should be the opposite, if the aim of the merit system is to lemit the number of spammers then a new registered member should provide more effort to prove himself.
If he succeeds to collect a high number of merit and ranks up, that means he is not a spammer and ranking up should become easier.
What do you think?

A spammer is not limited to newbies. There are a ton of spammers with Full Member, Sr Member, even Legendary ranks. Making it easier to rank up after Member (or whatever ranks it is) would be interpreted: "Hey, congrats on ranking up to Member/(anything)! Now you can spam more without fear!"

Btw, merit means the higher your ranks mean you have more contribution to this forum through your post. It is not solely to defeat spammers, but also as a "reward" for contributive users.

[Thekool1s]

Self-moderated thread extension.

Self-moderation is great but I want to propose an extension to it. Allow the OP to choose who can participate in their thread, E.g if I want to create a discussion thread, Instead of self-moderating it, I would just choose the ranks who can respond to it. It's not a tool to counter spam but it could help in sub-boards like "Bitcoin-Discussion" and "Offtopic".

[hilariousetc]

For example a Junior Member needs 10 merit points to become a Member while a Sr.Member needs 500 merits to rank up, I think it should be the opposite, if the aim of the merit system is to lemit the number of spammers then a new registered member should provide more effort to prove himself.
If he succeeds to collect a high number of merit and ranks up, that means he is not a spammer and ranking up should become easier.
What do you think?

What do you mean the opposite? You mean you need something like 500 merit to become a Junior? I think there should be a merit requirement for them as well as their signature being removed, but it shouldn't be unnecessarily high. They will already struggle to get something like ten merits, but a decent poster won't have much issue with that whilst it will also severely curb the worst of the worst posters and also bots etc.

Self-moderated thread extension.

Self-moderation is great but I want to propose an extension to it. Allow the OP to choose who can participate in their thread, E.g if I want to create a discussion thread, Instead of self-moderating it, I would just choose the ranks who can respond to it. It's not a tool to counter spam but it could help in sub-boards like "Bitcoin-Discussion" and "Offtopic".

That has literally been suggested, along with being able to prohibit certain users from posting in it so you don't need to waste time removing the posts of users you don't even want posting in there or breaking your 'local' rule etc.

[Silent26]

• Require at least one merit to become a Junior Member (bots will never rise past Newbie status then and can be nuked once spotted).

No. Or not yet. Or the idea would need to be significantly modified.

This is the only idea I'm expecting that will be implemented for sure but, I still can't imagine why it's in the "No" list. I proudly said in some of my fellows citizens a few days ago that once this idea was implemented, bounty abusers as well as spammers will be lessen as I'm a hundred percent sure that this one will be implemented but seems like it was now just a dream.

I'm wondering, Why no? Or not yet? I really thought that this will be prioritised along with remove signatures from Jr. Members and Newbies but it didn't even passed the "Maybe" list. What a surprising result. Unexpected.

[DooMAD]

• Require at least one merit to become a Junior Member (bots will never rise past Newbie status then and can be nuked once spotted).

No. Or not yet. Or the idea would need to be significantly modified.

This is the only idea I'm expecting that will be implemented for sure but, I still can't imagine why it's in the "No" list. I proudly said in some of my fellows citizens a few days ago that once this idea was implemented, bounty abusers as well as spammers will be lessen as I'm a hundred percent sure that this one will be implemented but seems like it was now just a dream.

I'm wondering, Why no? Or not yet? I really thought that this will be prioritised along with remove signatures from Jr. Members and Newbies but it didn't even passed the "Maybe" list. What a surprising result. Unexpected.

If I had to guess, there are probably concerns over the longevity of the forum in the future.  If the number of older, more experienced members starts to dwindle, newer users need to be able to rise up the ranks in order to replace them.  Perhaps theymos doesn't want to create an environment that's deemed too hostile towards newbies and risk scaring the legitimate ones away?

The older members should probably remember the likelihood that their early contributions to the forum may not have been quite up to the standards they would like to see now.  We can't expect too much, too soon.

[DdmrDdmr]

Require at least one merit to become a Junior Member (bots will never rise past Newbie status then and can be nuked once spotted).

No. Or not yet. Or the idea would need to be significantly modified.

<...>I'm wondering, Why no? Or not yet? <...>

It’s probably one of those tough business decisions that can affect the forum noticeably, and the risks are there whether you embrace the idea and go ahead with it or not. It’s a question of determining which is the best business decision, and whether it needs to be played out right now or can be booted a few more month ahead to see how things go in the meantime (the latter seems to be winning I guess).

I gave it a go a few days ago, looking at very numerically conservative scenarios, and by imposing the 1 gained Merit for signatures, campaign slots (available people vs signatory demand) would likely only fill around 30%. That could move campaigns away from the site, along with traffic rather quickly (even if the upside would be that the forum would be way better, and remaining campaign signatures would be waved around by better posters). See detailed numeric scenario here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4955187.msg44660431#msg44660431.

[hilariousetc]

• Require at least one merit to become a Junior Member (bots will never rise past Newbie status then and can be nuked once spotted).

No. Or not yet. Or the idea would need to be significantly modified.

This is the only idea I'm expecting that will be implemented for sure but, I still can't imagine why it's in the "No" list. I proudly said in some of my fellows citizens a few days ago that once this idea was implemented, bounty abusers as well as spammers will be lessen as I'm a hundred percent sure that this one will be implemented but seems like it was now just a dream.

I'm wondering, Why no? Or not yet? I really thought that this will be prioritised along with remove signatures from Jr. Members and Newbies but it didn't even passed the "Maybe" list. What a surprising result. Unexpected.

Well hopefully it falls under the 'Or not yet' or 'Or the idea would need to be significantly modified' parts. Everybody I've mentioned this to seems to be back it in some capacity (and some think it should be much more than one merit). I haven't yet seen any better suggestions to stop or at the very least curb bots or the very worst of the worst of spammers from getting paid as Juniors.

If I had to guess, there are probably concerns over the longevity of the forum in the future.  If the number of older, more experienced members starts to dwindle, newer users need to be able to rise up the ranks in order to replace them.  Perhaps theymos doesn't want to create an environment that's deemed too hostile towards newbies and risk scaring the legitimate ones away?

They don't. Why does rank matter? If they can't get merit then they're still shitposters regardless of ranks. Requiring a small amount of merit isn't hostile, especially when it's majorly Junior Members that are causing so much damage. People can still post here without earning any merit nor do they need a signature to be able to do that.

It’s probably one of those tough business decisions that can affect the forum noticeably, and the risks are there whether you embrace the idea and go ahead with it or not. It’s a question of determining which is the best business decision, and whether it needs to be played out right now or can be booted a few more month ahead to see how things go in the meantime (the latter seems to be winning I guess)

I don't think it has anything to do with business decisions. Theymos has already said he thought about removing the one and only ad slot we have here so he can't care too much about traffic effecting forum revenue. The people who come here to earn aren't going to just give up because they need one merit or so to get a signature either. How about all the traffic and users that are lost from genuine users who leave because this forum is unfit for purpose and is 90% spammers posting nonsense about things they know nothing about just in order to get paid? That needs to change or this board will wholly become a welfare system for spammers. Requiring a minimal amount of merit isn't ridiculous nor restrictive. People can still post here or claim bounties, they just can't get paid to post until they've got the merit and I think this is how it should be, otherwise nothing will change and people will continue to farm Junior accounts in their hundreds if not thousands and that needs to be stopped somehow.

[Piggy]

you could add to the list: A way to bind your account to a BTC address automatically from the user profile, plus at the login an option to recover your account, all done by signing/verifying random messages.

I understand they are going through each account manually checking messages and in detail that everything make sense, but doesn't look like this is sustainable anymore given the amount of accounts hacked we are seeing lately.

[Welsh]

you could add to the list: A way to bind your account to a BTC address automatically from the user profile, plus at the login an option to recover your account, all done by signing/verifying random messages.

I understand they are going through each account manually checking messages and in detail that everything make sense, but doesn't look like this is sustainable anymore given the amount of accounts hacked we are seeing lately.

Doesn't really prevent accounts being sold, and then claimed back though. I'm not sure what the forums stance on selling accounts, and who the rightful owner is, but I assume that they would look for information that might indicate that the account was sold, and see if the credential changes link up to that too. Account recoveries can never be automatic.

[LoyceV]

Doesn't really prevent accounts being sold, and then claimed back though. I'm not sure what the forums stance on selling accounts, and who the rightful owner is, but I assume that they would look for information that might indicate that the account was sold, and see if the credential changes link up to that too.

An automated method to claim back your account could severely reduce account sales. Who's going to pay hundreds of dollars for an account, knowing the previous owner can claim it back at any moment?
Losing your bought account will just become an occupational hazard.

[lukeburchill]

An automated method to claim back your account could severely reduce account sales.

if applied, what parameters are used in the script to filter these things?