Query for mods regarding reports

[o_e_l_e_o]

Let's say I come across a spam mega-thread in Bitcoin Discussion that needs locked. What I currently do is go through the last week's worth of posts and report the spam ones (which is usually a significant proportion) for deletion. My logic here is to try to hinder those bounty spammers who are profiting from this nonsense, but any posts over a week old have probably already been paid so I don't waste my time on them. Once I've done that, I then report the OP for the thread to be locked.

Now, the spam posts are usually cleared within a few hours, but the reports for the thread to be locked can sometimes take more than a day. I assume that the reports for locking are waiting to be actioned by a "higher" mod than the one who deleted the spam. My query is this: By cleaning up the thread before I report it for locking, making the last several pages look much better, is the thread less likely to be locked? With all of the spam posts on the last several pages deleted, it does make the thread look less like a spamfest and more like some actual discussion/conversation is going on. There are some reports I have made for threads to be locked, threads which I considered completely barn-door spamfests, that have sat "unhandled" for weeks/indefinitely, and I wonder if I am shooting myself in the foot by cleaning these threads up before I report them.

[Sharon121212]

I would say that there are some post that rightfully deserves to be locked by the moderators this is not to say that the thread that should be lock are bad but that the reply it keeps getting are unhealthy and a form of spamming or completing ones bounty task https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5030847.0 here is a thread that is helpful but has lingered And has become a haven for spammers and bounty hunters with most of its reply being "thank you" and some other form of appreciation

[tmfp]

What you could do, I suppose, would be to post in the thread yourself, something along the lines of

The following posts are valuless shitposts and have been reported for deletion:

and then quote a list of them.
Depending on what the mods do, you could leave your post up or delete it when action has been taken.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

That's not a bad idea. Having thought on it for a few minutes, I am instead going to start including in my reports for locking something along the lines of "I have reported x number of spam posts from this thread". The mod in question can either take my word for it, or will know to check modlog to confirm what I'm saying.

I might be way off mark here and the mods know all this already and just don't agree with some of my reports. I do tend to be more on the heavy handed side when reporting spam megathreads because they annoy me so much.

[tmfp]

I am instead going to start including in my reports for locking something along the lines of "I have reported x number of spam posts from this thread". The mod in question can either take my word for it, or will know to check modlog to confirm what I'm saying.

I've tried that, didn't seem to work apart from on the individual reported post.

[Steamtyme]

I thought it looked like someone else was doing the same as me. Keep it up, as I'm sure a few of them have missed a payment date most are lazy and only post the minimum for a period.

That's been my reporting style for a while, I tend to establish my opinion of the last 3 pages. Then report the OP same as you generally along the lines of this.

"Thread has run its course, now a magnet for spam, please lock"

Then I report all the spam. I've found the same as you to within a couple days although sometimes the topic is locked within an hour. If it takes a few days I tend to go back and report anything that came in after my report.

I believe it to be a local MOD locks them, and anyone able to delete the spam reports does, as MODS can roam.

Edited: Grammar and wording for clarity

[The Sceptical Chymist]

My query is this: By cleaning up the thread before I report it for locking, making the last several pages look much better, is the thread less likely to be locked?

Obviously I'm not a mod and don't have an answer for this, but if you're having success in getting shitposts deleted and spam megathreads locked, that's a double victory.  I was under the impression that mods weren't locking that many threads, even if it's obvious that they've turned into 99% spam.  That's a fantastic thing if they are indeed locking them.

I'd probably report the shitposts along with the request that the thread be locked at the same time, especially if there's a delay in the locking of the thread.  IMO it's more important that the shitposts get deleted, especially the most recent ones (for the reason you gave, which is denial of payment from sig campaigns).  Getting the thread locked is just gravy on top of the turkey.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Obviously I'm not a mod and don't have an answer for this, but if you're having success in getting shitposts deleted and spam megathreads locked, that's a double victory.  I was under the impression that mods weren't locking that many threads, even if it's obvious that they've turned into 99% spam.  That's a fantastic thing if they are indeed locking them.

I would love to get Bitcoin Discussion properly cleared up - I've said multiple times before that I believe it should be the "backbone" board of the forum, for obvious reasons. As it stands, it's not bad (certainly nowhere near as bad as the Altcoin section), but it's not great either.

Getting shitposts deleted is easy, and the mods seem quite happy to assist there. Getting threads locked is harder, and the majority of my "unhandled" and "bad" reports are from suggestions to lock threads that the mods have obviously disagreed with. As I mentioned above, I'm aware I probably fall on the more aggressive side of the spectrum for what I think should be locked, but when I can report >75% of the posts for spam, then that's a no brainer for me. We also see lots of threads that have been dead for a few weeks or longer being bumped back to the front page with a nonsense one-liner, and then they once again start attracting a new spam post every few minutes.

It's frustrating, because if we aren't going to lock these threads, then I'm starting to struggle to see the point. I could quite happily sit and report spam posts 24/7, but if we don't lock the threads these posts are appearing in, then there will always be more.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

if we don't lock the threads these posts are appearing in, then there will always be more.

I agree with you, but I've also heard the convincing argument that even if you lock a spam megathread, there's nothing stopping anyone from starting up a thread about the same topic--and that's exactly what happens, I think.  Thus I'm fairly sure that some mods don't see the point of locking garbage threads, because it then becomes a whack-a-mole game.  Again, if you're getting the shitposts removed, that's a good enough victory in and of itself.

True, but I've actually found the mods to be very obliging when dealing with new topics which are:
<snip>

I was thinking more about the threads that have run on for many pages--those are the ones that come to mind when someone mentions spam megathreads.  But hey, if you're getting mods to lock potential spam threads, more power to you.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I agree with you, but I've also heard the convincing argument that even if you lock a spam megathread, there's nothing stopping anyone from starting up a thread about the same topic--and that's exactly what happens, I think.

True, but I've actually found the mods to be very obliging when dealing with new topics which are:

A) In the wrong section
B) Duplicates of existing topics
C) Meaningless, nonsense, low value, likely spam magnets, etc

As long as you can catch them before they get too many replies, then they almost always get deleted.

[Steamtyme]

I agree with you, but I've also heard the convincing argument that even if you lock a spam megathread, there's nothing stopping anyone from starting up a thread about the same topic--and that's exactly what happens, I think.

I've heard the same but the thread being rehashed has never seemed an issue; certainly not large enough to warrant inaction. Personally at one time I called for the entire board to be locked; start from scratch in a way. I felt this would be easier to manage as there would be many eyes on the change trying to assist in cleaning it up. There would also be a thread appeals if someone felt it was a good thread had been locked, I can't think of many ongoing discussions that would warrant this as they've mostly been overrun.

True, but I've actually found the mods to be very obliging when dealing with new topics which are:
~snip~
As long as you can catch them before they get too many replies, then they almost always get deleted.

True the best example I can think of would have been pizza day or the 10 year anniversary... can't remember. There were like 4 threads on the go with people cross posting between them. I figured out which thread was oldest, then reported the other 3 with a reference link.

I think mostly it comes down to the report itself. I'm sure I give to many reasons or details in my reports from time to time but I get my point across. It's a matter of finding a forum precedent such as descriptions of what topics belong on the board and referencing it, or the multiple threads. In your case for the "unhandled" reports for a lock-topic it always comes down to opinion, they may still get handled down the road. Someone must still see some value in between all the shit. I know I've left a few threads unreported as I've seen a genuine attempt at conversation/discussion amidst the spam/sig spam.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Personally at one time I called for the entire board to be locked; start from scratch in a way. I felt this would be easier to manage as there would be many eyes on the change trying to assist in cleaning it up.

That's a bit extreme even for me, but I could see an argument for locking every topic on Bitcoin Discussion that has been dead for ≥ 4 weeks. Even if the mods became super obliging and lock all the threads I'm reporting, all it takes is one spammer and 10 minutes and the front page is full of necrobumped trash. It really does need constantly vigilance to keep it under control.

Someone must still see some value in between all the shit. I know I've left a few threads unreported as I've seen a genuine attempt at conversation/discussion amidst the spam/sig spam.

I do the same - if there are users actually discussing things in between all the spam, then I just report the spam and leave the thread. I think in almost every case I'm back in that thread within a week though, reporting more spam and this time reporting for locking as well, as users trying to have actual discussions don't hang around very long when their posts are drowned in a sea of nonsense.


I'm still hoping for a reply from a mod or two regarding my initial post.

[pugman]

From what I have seen(and assumed), mods lock topic based on numerous point of views. Just because there are lot of shitposts in a thread, it doesn't mean the thread and the purpose of the thread is also shit, so most of them threads never get locked. So its very likely the thread won't get locked, if the spamposts in that thread are very less.

Here's an example:

The thread where theymos introduces Merit, it has a lot of shitpost(the ones where people complain about it without even knowing on what they're complaining about), some of those posts get deleted, while others don't. Does it mean the thread deserves to be locked? Definitely not. There are obviously more horrific scenarios than this, so my point basically is, don't focus much on getting threads locked, its beyond pointless. People will shitpost because they have a reason, eliminate that reason, and don't worry about reporting. And no, that reason doesn't necessarily mean banning signature campaigns, there are steps that could be possibly taken just before that.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The thread where theymos introduces Merit, it has a lot of shitpost(the ones where people complain about it without even knowing on what they're complaining about), some of those posts get deleted, while others don't. Does it mean the thread deserves to be locked?

I agree with you there. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I'm meaning spam threads in Bitcoin Discussion, like this one as a random example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5077882.0. There is nothing in the last several pages that hasn't been said multiple times before, and >90% of posts are just shitposts. There is zero chance that someone is going to come in on page 12 with some groundbreaking new information or amazing post and salvage that thread. There is no good reason to leave it open.

...so my point basically is, don't focus much on getting threads locked, its beyond pointless.

Only because we are letting it be pointless. If we actually clamped down on these spam threads early, before they became 10/20/30 pages long, and locked old threads which are being necrobumped, it would go a long way to cleaning the place up.

[pugman]

I agree with you there. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I'm meaning spam threads in Bitcoin Discussion, like this one as a random example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5077882.0. There is nothing in the last several pages that hasn't been said multiple times before, and >90% of posts are just shitposts. There is zero chance that someone is going to come in on page 12 with some groundbreaking new information or amazing post and salvage that thread. There is no good reason to leave it open.

Threads like these could be locked, yes, but its pointless knowing the fact that only more threads pop up.

Only because we are letting it be pointless. If we actually clamped down on these spam threads early, before they became 10/20/30 pages long, and locked old threads which are being necrobumped, it would go a long way to cleaning the place up.

So what would you do? Just keep locking up threads? That is not going to stop users. Even banning them won't. We should really make signatures an earnable thing after you reach a certain rank or whatever, and not a free privilege. That might possibly help out, who knows.

[o_e_l_e_o]

So what would you do? Just keep locking up threads? That is not going to stop users. Even banning them won't. We should really make signatures an earnable thing after you reach a certain rank or whatever, and not a free privilege. That might possibly help out, who knows.

A combination of all those things. Signatures require earning 10 merit, or you have to spend 1 merit every month to continue to be allowed to use a signature. More mods to delete spam and lock threads more rapidly. Some sort of incentive for good reports (such as reported badges) to encourage more users to report. Hand out temporary bans of increasing length to serial spammers - I keep seeing the same names showing up over and over again on my report list, always marked good and their posts deleted, yet still not banned even after multiple, multiple offences.