A different approach to solving the sig spamming problem.

[Jet Cash]

If Bitcoin Talk introduced a shop, and one of the items for "sale" was the right to display a signature, then signatures could become a privilege that had to be earned through responsible posting. Credits could be removed for bad posting, and added automatically for responsible posts. Signature allowances could still be based on rank, and this would preserve the existing merit system.

[1713585583]

1713585583

[1713585583]

1713585583

[1713585583]

1713585583

[Ispep]

Through what means are members going to make the purchase of "right to post with signatures on" with:ranks,merits,activity
A bit more clarity on this please,its a bit of a vague suggestion

[stompix]

If Bitcoin Talk introduced a shop, and one of the items for "sale" was the right to display a signature, then signatures could become a privilege that had to be earned through responsible posting.

Credits could be removed for bad posting, and added automatically for responsible posts. Signature allowances could still be based on rank, and this would preserve the existing merit system.

And that would look a lot like adding a demerit feature and we know that won't come soon.
Creating an entirely new system on top on this one before it has failed or before trying to fix it in case it fails sounds like trying 10 pills at once.


Rather than all this, we could have a simpler solution, where you lose 1 merit for each activity period in which you display a signature.

[bitart]

...
and added automatically for responsible posts
...

How could an automated system decide if a post is OK or not? Sorry if I misunderstood something

...
Rather than all this, we could have a simpler solution, where you lose 1 merit for each activity period in which you display a signature.

I really like this idea, why not, it would motivate the members to post quality things...
But it would be fine for every 3rd or 5th activity period, 1 merit spammers would fade away in 2 months time anyway, but the stress won't be so hard on the normal members

[Dig Bicks]

The solution is to remove them completely.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Rather than all this, we could have a simpler solution, where you lose 1 merit for each activity period in which you display a signature.

This is actually a great idea. It prevents the earning of merit to display a signature being a "one time thing" - you can't just make one good post and then go back to shitposting for months on end. It forces users to consistently strive to make better posts to continue to be allowed to display their signature. It would vastly cut down on people buying merit as it no longer becomes profitable to continue to buy more every 2 weeks. It means the users levelling up all their alt accounts will rapidly run out of merit to send.

As bitart mentions, probably one a month rather than one every two weeks would be more appropriate. And it would need to come with an increase in merit sources, particularly in some of the local boards which get far less than their fair share of merit. But yeah, I like this idea a lot.

[Dig Bicks]

Funny how chipmixer shills everywhere in this thread jesus christ, you guys would probably cry if you couldnt post for money on this forum.

[hilariousandco]

I've already suggested this in the form of more donator ranks that come with signatures as perks. You could either remove them all from everyone and you have to pay to get one or keep the current system but add the option to also skip through that and buy the required sig straight away.

[pugman]

Funny how chipmixer shills everywhere in this thread jesus christ, you guys would probably cry if you couldnt post for money on this forum.

Funny how stereotypical you're. Don't worry, you're still a piece of shit.

If Bitcoin Talk introduced a shop, and one of the items for "sale" was the right to display a signature, then signatures could become a privilege that had to be earned through responsible posting. Credits could be removed for bad posting, and added automatically for responsible posts. Signature allowances could still be based on rank, and this would preserve the existing merit system.

Nah, we gucci.

The sig spamming problem is eh. You can't really do anything unless the administration agrees with it, and takes action based on it. What you're suggesting is basically a de-merit system, and a new ranking add-on feature that will give members the incentive to use signatures. And the administration has already said no to that. Big yikes.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Nah, we gucci.

Onna strenfth, my brotha.  HBW says hello.

Now I don't think our current system is completely effective, but I don't think Theymos thought it would be.  Small adjustments like the one we had in September are just fine with me.  It would be much worse if he kept changing the system according to all of this advice members are giving--some of which is good, some not.  The wait-and-see approach is prudent, and in the meantime the shitposting situation does seem to have improved somewhat in some sections, while others (like Bitcoin Discussion) are still an unholy manure pile.

The next move should be more signature restrictions on the lower ranks, and I don't think that them paying for the right to advertise is going to be effective as long as their ROI for buying the right to join campaigns is net positive.  Not allowing anyone under Member rank to advertise in their signature might be a good way to go from here. 

Jr. Members right now are having a hell of a time making it past that rank because of the merit requirement, and I don't think they could get around that as easily as they do now when moving from Newbie to Jr. Member.  Right now they can buy 1 merit or get it from a friend, or they can buy a copper membership.  That's not high enough of a barrier IMO.

[cryptohunter]

Funny how chipmixer shills everywhere in this thread jesus christ, you guys would probably cry if you couldnt post for money on this forum.

No probably about it ... that is a safe assumption for quite a few on this sub board.

[S_Therapist]

Funny how chipmixer shills everywhere in this thread jesus christ, you guys would probably cry if you couldnt post for money on this forum.

Using a paid signature is just a privilege, nothing else. It depends on how you take it. Not all the people are here only to use paid signature.
I will just quote part of one of my recent post.

I was recently in 777 campaign where people get bonus rate for creating 15 posts in gambling. But I didn't just because I don't like gambling or I don't have experience on it. Therefore, I should not post there and I heard my mind, not the bonus pay rate. That's how a forum should be browsed.

[r1s2g3]

On a side note, Do you guys think only signature is a problem?
Because I think I read many useless post where do not have signature or there is no financial motive that can be proved.

Signature or no Signature , I guess most has taken this forum has money making machine/job board and they want to remain connected even by posting shit.

Actual question is how to stop this shit? I guess few step that can help.

1. Mailing a rule book for using this forum.
2.Few more moderators or automatic system that do not allow you to create a shit thread , reporting it as duplicate or out of context.
3. Automatic locking of threads if it cross certain page or one month of inactivity.

If shit occurs in sensible thread then we will use "Report To Moderator" button.

[YOSHIE]

Credits could be removed for bad posting, and added automatically for responsible posts.

Signature, is the stage of making an agreement between members of Bitcointalk with Altcoin or Bounty, It can be said for negotiations that are (myltilateral) singnature or agreement text has been considered valid since the form of the forum, if ⅔ posting of participants registered givesvote either in local or international furum, singnature are performed by members of various methods to promote and aim well.

What does it mean when singnature is removed, all Bitcointalk members will disappear as if they were swallowed by the Earth, so if singnature, social media like Facebook, Twitter, telegram is removed for what forum ?, well if this happens it can be even more devastated.
Example:
forum, cryptocurrency, bitcoin, blockchain becomes history like. Viramid or the kingdom of Fir'un and Ka'run whose treasure is a myth.

I have a singnature adventure that is not heavy and does not disturb other parties.

[Kopyleft]

If Bitcoin Talk introduced a shop, and one of the items for "sale" was the right to display a signature, then signatures could become a privilege that had to be earned through responsible posting.

Wearing signature is already a priviledge which is earned through quality posting, not sure what responsible posting is.
The current merit system means to wear a signature a member has to earn at least one merit, and to get to higher ranks and unlock more perks, different signature style, avatar etc, more merits has to be earned.
So the higher you go, the more work you have to put in, and gladly this is put into consideration as most bounties pay higer ranked members more.
The system is not perfect, but neither are your suggestions.

[Findingnemo]

Much simpler solutions is remove all the airdropped merits,if only the earned merits will be on profile lot of high ranked members will go to newbie which will clear the forum all the way.

[o_e_l_e_o]

1. Mailing a rule book for using this forum.

The spammers will ignore it, same as they ignore all the current rules and stickied threads.

2.Few more moderators or automatic system that do not allow you to create a shit thread , reporting it as duplicate or out of context.

There is no reliable way (yet) to create an automatic system to prevent thread creation based on these criteria, unless it is an exact copy-paste of an already existing thread.

3. Automatic locking of threads if it cross certain page or one month of inactivity.

Although most threads over 10 pages are a spamfest, it doesn't mean all threads over 10 pages are, and an auto-lock feature would inappropriately cut short some ongoing useful conversations and discussions. Similarly, just because a thread has had a period of inactivity doesn't mean it is no longer relevant. Many people experience similar issues or have similar questions as to those that have been asked previously, and posting in an already existing thread is usually better than starting a brand new thread and having to re-hash all the same information again.

I would agree with more moderators to manually lock the threads that are becoming spamfests, but that doesn't seem to be high on theymos' lists of priorities right now.

[jademaxxiss012]

I agree with this notion of you OP to consider signature as a privilege for a user to wear in promoting a project. Yet, it should be the ICO or any related crowd funding activities must be regulated as studies show accdg. to the many of the users here that 90% of crowdfunding are scam or it has no actual or real implementation of the project.

The problem is not the promotion or wearing signature. The problem is all about the number of scam projects, failed projects due to poor management from the team. Bounty hunters can eventually adapt a good posting skill if it is necessary especially in joining a good project that will going to pay basing on the promised terms.

It should be putting those projects first in good by a screening committee and let them pay for it for the approval before posting here in the forum rather than asking bounty hunters to do their job well when they are not secured on the payment or the rewards which will relatively be the reason to spamming shit posts because of the mindset that a project might be scam.

Just take an example about being so hardworking in a project and it will not pay you well. So, from this experience a bounty hunter will not do the job right the next time he/she will be joining to promote a project.

[S_Therapist]

Much simpler solutions is remove all the airdropped merits,if only the earned merits will be on profile lot of high ranked members will go to newbie which will clear the forum all the way.

If it was the way to solve the issue, theymos would do it with the introduction of merit system, IMO. Now, if it happens, it will simply be a discredit to the old members who are here for a long time. In fact, they are not the spammers in most case, at least I respect all the legendary members here. Most of them have posted here not for fulfilling the signature campaign requirements but for either learning something or helping people. Therefore, removing the airdrop merits from them is not a good idea. And if you remove merits from some members, it will also be a kind of racism. Therefore, it is what it is.

[Ispep]

it will simply be a discredit to the old members who are here for a long time

This is a forum,and if any rules should be implemented,it should cut across every member in it, no one has any rights or foothold in here,for the administration to consider when making a decision,why do you feel the old members shouldn't be discredited but all newbies should,you're on a signature yourself,now can you stop playing the holier than thou attitude already.

Most of them have posted here not for fulfilling the signature campaign requirements but for either learning something or helping people

Likewise a lot of newbies also,and the both ranks mostly do it wearing one signature or the other,mostly Chipmixer, so why are you complaining then about newbies also putting on signatures,if you're as fair as you claim you are,then all signatures should be off,from every member,and airdropped merits removed

it will also be a kind of racism

You really need to explain this part of your post,doesnt make any sense to me