Signature advertisers: suggestions?

[theymos]

Honestly, I find signature advertisements distasteful, and it is not impossible that I will someday ban the practice. However, it's obviously an important part of the forum ecosystem today. So if you use signatures for advertising, what are your suggestions for forum improvements in that area?

For example, one idea I had was to allow users to subscribe to campaigns that other users set up, and then the campaigner could automatically push signature updates to everyone subscribed, and also track exactly when and for how long each user was subscribed. Would this be significantly useful? I'm not all that familiar with how these signature campaigns work, so I'm not sure.

However: the forum will never intermediate these transactions. We will not touch the money involved or perform any sort of "screening", etc. Also, I have no particular desire for the forum to take a cut of sig-ad transactions.

(I'm probably not going to implement anything in this area very soon, but the matter has been on my mind lately, and I wanted to see what people thought.)

[actmyname]

For example, one idea I had was to allow users to subscribe to campaigns that other users set up, and then the campaigner could automatically push signature updates to everyone subscribed, and also track exactly when and for how long each user was subscribed. Would this be significantly useful?

Signatures rarely change, if ever. I don't think there's any point in using forum resources for real-time updates like that.

I don't see anything that could be used to help signatures (that pertain to campaigns) apart from aliases for BBCode in order to fit "more" in the character restrictions. That being said, I would be interested in seeing new BBCode options

[itomarketing]

Signature timeframe are not important but amount of displays thats why campaign managers track amount of posting in hope the amount of displays will be high.
Thats actually what i proposed cryptohunter to start a signatur campaign against DT abuse where the banner will be implemented from a Database to redirect traffic to latest abuse.

[Steamtyme]

That system would likely benefit campaign managers who manage multiple shorter campaigns. This way they could have a pool of members that sign up with them and just have their SIG changed as a new campaign launches.

Longer running campaigns may decide to market this way and keep things fresh if this system were available, but not that often I imagine.

Personally I dont see much added benefit to the forum as a whole by implementing this. One reason is that account farmers and creators of spam bots might use this as a way to make their lives easier.

[Findingnemo]

I don't think we are in need of any changes in the signature column of our forum because most of the people find no problem with signature advertisements.But the main debate is still we need the signature in this forum or not coz it make the forum filled with lot of spam post.What can we need to control that spam which is caused by signature campaigns.

Allocate some members who tolerate zero spam are the only people can manage signature campaigns like that!

[LoyceV]

For example, one idea I had was to allow users to subscribe to campaigns that other users set up, and then the campaigner could automatically push signature updates to everyone subscribed, and also track exactly when and for how long each user was subscribed. Would this be significantly useful? I'm not all that familiar with how these signature campaigns work, so I'm not sure.

I can imagine there's a use case for this, if a campaign manager replaces the one short-term signature with the next one, while keeping the same participants.
However, I wouldn't want this: I want to be in charge of what my signature shows, and I wouldn't advertise anything I don't believe in.

This may be useful for a few (lazy) campaign managers, but I don't think it will do anything good for the forum.

I think enforcing Signature Campaign Guidelines will do the forum more good.

The only other suggestion I can think of, is something I've suggested before: only allow signature campaigns that pay in Bitcoin. The ones paying in made-up tokens have no real cost for the ICO, and thus don't mind "paying" for spam. If the campaign pays in Bitcoin, at least they have something to lose.

[NeuroticFish]

I also think that spending effort in that direction is pretty close to waste, because the current type of signature campaigns don't change often enough to worth the effort.
Also if you invest your time in that direction could be seen that you encourage/endorse them, and we all know that sometimes some signature campaigns (especially from the bounty area) are .. problematic.

The only such implementation that would make sense in my eyes would be to automatically remove the user signatures from a certain campaign if proven scam.
(Maybe the signatures "registering" into the system would make the scams don't pollute so much.) Just the new problem arise: who will decide/approve the deletion of the signatures?

[The Cryptovator]

I don't think forum itself or any function should be involve with signature campaign. It's working fine IMO, but problem is about spamming. We should think how we can prevent spam. That's why I have Proposed guidelines for bounty managers.. Spam really depending on campaign managers, if they not allow spammer then automatically spam will reduce. I think admin should be little strict for managers.    

[fillippone]

I have only two suggestion.
1. Allow only bitcoin paying campaign signatures.
2. Have a sort of moderated/cured/well maintained form where campaign managers can import their rules, so comparing signature campaign could be made more straightforward and effective than looking at varidous threads (like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.1080). This won’t mean bitcoin forum to sponsor or touch signatures campaign,but only putting some order in the current mess.

[itomarketing]

It would mean the end of some bounty managers and their control over alt accounts on these campaigns   Ouch

[Lafu]

Maybe something like as for the new users can buy a "Copper Member" to post pictures , so if they want it to use they can buy the "Signature Member"

Just an Idea !

[Quickseller]

I don’t think signature campaigns typically last long enough for the automatic updates to be useful. The subscription tracking might be useful to ensure someone isn’t changing signatures and claim to have worn the signature when they have not.

If what you described was implemented, the forum could force publish stats about the campaign (or manager), such as how many users have been banned while wearing a signature.

It also remains to be my position that the use of signatures (beyond two lines with no special formatting) should be a paid feature to force those who wear paid signatures to have incentives that align their interests with that of the forum.

[bitmover]

The only other suggestion I can think of, is something I've suggested before: only allow signature campaigns that pay in Bitcoin. The ones paying in made-up tokens have no real cost for the ICO, and thus don't mind "paying" for spam. If the campaign pays in Bitcoin, at least they have something to lose.

I understand this point of view, as those token campaigns are really the main problem regarding spam.

However I think banning this payment method would be against the forum philosophy (this was the best word I could think of), almost a censorship and a way to control people' activities here. Even scammers are not deleted, but just tagged.

So if you use signatures for advertising, what are your suggestions for forum improvements in that area?

What I think would be a great addition is to add a high merit requirement to wear a signature. Something like 20 or 30 merits at least.

There are lots of users here with legendaries/hero accounts (probably hacked/bought) with less than 5 earned merits and are spamming the forum wearing signatures. I don´t think they should be allowed to do so. Maybe they could buy a Signature Membership like Lafu suggested...

[andulolika]

Forum taking cut's is stupid,  I agree that for now signatures are necesary, hate them myself. I think perhaps forum should atleast ban obvious scams, I know it's not what it's done but same user that years ago donated 50 btc for that green coin could now get scammed because really nothing is done from that part to prevent them.

[stompix]

IMO the real problem is spam and the fastest way is by add some restriction towards signature such as disable signature if a user haven't received merit in last x months

If there will be no merit decay, then at least this.
Some formula on activity/posts vs merit earned <insert more math> days  /rank whatever

I think that the simple way would be: no merit earned in the last two activity periods > disable signature or at least make them one line normal characters size no colors not clickable.

Signature which pay with Bitcoin usually have less spammer, but it can be exploited since manager can simply manage campaign outside this forum.

Yeah, but members could also be tagged and banned if we set up this as a rule.

Also, a fee to display signature would probably kill all the ICO and a lot of the spam.
But don't make it payable in grin  

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I think enforcing Signature Campaign Guidelines will do the forum more good.

Absolutely, 100% agree.  I'm sure Theymos is well aware of the real problems with sig campaigns, and they have nothing to do with signature updates or tracking exactly how long a member has worn a signature.  Sure, his suggestions might help campaign managers, but that's not really a problem that needs solving IMO.

Nice to hear Theymos at least considering ending signature advertising altogether.  I'm not all for that, because I think they're useful to a lot of people (and businesses), but I would bet a large amount of money that the quality of posts would increase exponentially if members couldn't earn money by renting out their signature, avatar, and PM space.  Bitcointalk might not become a ghost town, but it sure as hell would look a lot different than it does today.

<snip>only allow signature campaigns that pay in Bitcoin.

I also agree with this.  In addition to the reasons you've given, I think it would cut down on the number of awful ICO bounties, which are usually the culprits behind all the garbage posts in the Bitcoin/Altcoin Discussion sections.  It might also cut down on some of the scammier ICOs if they actually have to pay in a real cryptocurrency instead of some token destined for the 1-satoshi crypto graveyard.

[figmentofmyass]

If there will be no merit decay, then at least this.
Some formula on activity/posts vs merit earned <insert more math> days  /rank whatever

I think that the simple way would be: no merit earned in the last two activity periods > disable signature or at least make them one line normal characters size no colors not clickable.

two problems with this. first, people who don't post often shouldn't lose the option to have a signature just because other people are spamming. i really don't think automatically disabling signatures is a fair option, and manually dealing with this is out of the question re staff time.

second, i'm still not confident that merit accurately measures "quality". i get the feeling a lot of people award merit to posts they agree with and within various in-groups (rather than being strictly related to post quality). if there's a time-based merit requirement for signature, i think the requirements should be really lax, otherwise decent posters will be wrongly penalized. one can of course just "play to the crowd" to farm some merit (and it's not uncommon to see that already today) but.....fuck that.

[suchmoon]

What is the problem we're trying to solve with this?

Anything short of enforcing some sort of anti-shitposting policy on signature campaigns is probably not worth the effort. Bad managers will be bad even if you give them good tools.

For example the forum could track how many users in each campaign got banned or had their posts deleted by mods and adjust certain privileges based on that, e.g. limit the number of users they can hire. But that would basically require EVERY signature to be approved by the forum, which I guess goes against the "no screening" stance.

[squatter]

I think enforcing Signature Campaign Guidelines will do the forum more good.

Has there ever been any enforcement with this stuff? Take this, for example:

If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way.

I'm not sure it would be effective anyway. The problem with blacklisting is that ICO fundraising is short term. By the time a month has passed by, a lot of campaigns would be done or nearly done. Dodgy bounty managers can just reappear with alt accounts.

The only other suggestion I can think of, is something I've suggested before: only allow signature campaigns that pay in Bitcoin. The ones paying in made-up tokens have no real cost for the ICO, and thus don't mind "paying" for spam. If the campaign pays in Bitcoin, at least they have something to lose.

Good point. There's a world of difference between tokens printed out of thin air and bitcoins, in terms of advertising costs. It's really apparent when you compare token-paid bounties to BTC-paid campaigns.

[stompix]

two problems with this. first, people who don't post often shouldn't lose the option to have a signature just because other people are spamming. i really don't think automatically disabling signatures is a fair option, and manually dealing with this is out of the question re staff time.

People who don't post often will get close to zero sig views because their posts will be buried ..or if a few their posts or topics are interesting which will also mean enough merit to have the sig displayed  

second, i'm still not confident that merit accurately measures "quality". i get the feeling a lot of people award merit to posts they agree with and within various in-groups (rather than being strictly related to post quality). if there's a time-based merit requirement for signature, i think the requirements should be really lax, otherwise decent posters will be wrongly penalized. one can of course just "play to the crowd" to farm some merit (and it's not uncommon to see that already today) but.....fuck that.

I share a bit that feeling, the WOT is one example where this farming happens by newbies but it's the best thing we have right now. And if nobody is giving you merit it means that nobody in the crowd shares your opinion, and this should make you think twice why are you posting here.

My idea would be something around 1 merit for 2-4 activity periods, or we could make this to rank dependent or we could make it both posts and merit related (no idea of a formula yet and brain not helping kronk now)
But seriously, if you have 2000 posts and 1 merit in one year....there is something fishy happening.

And then people come with excuse such as they don't get paid to wear that signature or it's voluntary action to promote coin/ICO they like, even though i've seen few members actually do it.

Bring in the ICO spam bingo ticket :p