Signature advertisers: suggestions?

[vlom]

i never saw a post from theymos with less pages.
are you all so afraid of loosing your money per post? 

[1713495829]

1713495829

[actmyname]

i never saw a post from theymos with less pages.
are you all so afraid of loosing your money per post?  

"Less pages"?

You mean more? And if that were your intention, even the grin thread has more pages.

[TryNinja]

i never saw a post from theymos with less pages.
are you all so afraid of loosing your money per post?  

EDIT: @theymos: only 4 (including myself) dont earn something with their post in this topic. thats all you have to know

Do you want to have a link in my sig?
I will make at least 10 post a week.

You can choose:
1. the color of the rectangle
2. behind which rectangle the link is.

Price: 15$ a week (7 days) in BTC for 1 rectangle.

I don't accept links that are NSFW.

If I find out that you try to scam people with whatever you advertise in my sig, I will remove the link and you don't get the money back.

You would like to use an escrow? No problem. Just recommend one.

[sheynlee18]

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.

I really do agree with what LoyceV is saying this could benefit both parties and reduce the numbers of signatures that causes massive spams.. This will be a good advantage for bounty hunters which could assure them that they will surely get BTC or maybe ETH that could exchange to fiat rather than priceless ICO tokens which has a lower chance of exchanging it to real cash, this will also be a disadvantage to those people who is creating scam ICO's because for them to be able to run a bounty they need to pay BTC or ETH which would also be too costly for them (but it still depends on the bounty managers if its a third party or their own bounty managers because if its their own bounty manager for sure they will not reward those hunters)..

[vit05]

i never saw a post from theymos with less pages.
are you all so afraid of loosing your money per post? 

EDIT: @theymos: only 4 (including myself) dont earn something with their post in this topic. thats all you have to know

Do you want to have a link in my sig?
I will make at least 10 post a week.

You can choose:
1. the color of the rectangle
2. behind which rectangle the link is.

Price: 15$ a week (7 days) in BTC for 1 rectangle.

I don't accept links that are NSFW.

If I find out that you try to scam people with whatever you advertise in my sig, I will remove the link and you don't get the money back.

You would like to use an escrow? No problem. Just recommend one.

LOL

Only two members, in this topic, do not attempt to receive any BTC with their signatures: suchmoon and fillippone. Theymos and Quickseller have a tip address.

[DarkStar_]

LOL

Only two members, in this topic, do not attempt to receive any BTC with their signatures: suchmoon and fillippone. Theymos and Quickseller have a tip address.

I technically don't have any obligation (nor am I paid) to wear the ChipMixer signature. You also missed OgNasty, Jeremycoin, cryptohunter and alanst

[vit05]

LOL

Only two members, in this topic, do not attempt to receive any BTC with their signatures: suchmoon and fillippone. Theymos and Quickseller have a tip address.

I technically don't have any obligation (nor am I paid) to wear the ChipMixer signature. You also missed OgNasty, Jeremycoin, cryptohunter and alanst

I did not notice that Jeremycoin did not promote any business in his signature.OgNasty promotes his business, alanst is a newbie, cryptohunter should also be included, but with the neg trust, I do not know if he does not promote by choice or lack of.

Technically, I do not have a signature either, but it's just for lack of choice.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

We don't need the data to tell us that, however. Anyone who has been here for more than a month knows that the spam problem is because of these altcoin campaigns. When they can create the payment out of thin air with no cost to themselves, they are happy to pay for any old trash.

I believe the reason altcoin campaigns are the problem is as a result of the highlighted sentence above. I'm in support of altcoin campaigns not having the privilege to pay participates in their worthless token but not also in support of all paying in bitcoin. They should be given a chance to pay in selected altcoin. That's why I previously suggested this

there should be selected altcoin used for altcoin  bounty campaign payment. The forum has grow more than just bitcoin. I believe that's why we have grin as a payment option now.  So this is my suggestion, every altcoin bounty should pay their participates in the token of the blockchain their project are developed on.
Example, If your project is based on ETH or EOS blockchain and you want to run a bounty campaign participants will be paid in ETH or EOS  and not your worthless token. I believe this will also have an impact as they got something to lose if shitposters are been paid.

Altcoin campaigns have higher number of participants and paying all of them in bitcoin will cost them more than in most altcoin like EOS that has zero fee (not endorsing any coin here)  just explaining my statement with example.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

This forum can be saved from signature spams only when crypto is in bear market. Once if btc starts to reach out to a wider public and gets into the limelight, we would face an insanely tough situation preventing spams and saving this forum. With increase in btc prices, there would be a steep increase in ICO generation rates resulting in increase of spammer registrations in this forum. Even systems like Merit and implementing new Guidelines won't save this forum from spams and the situation would be uncontrollable as it was prevailing during 2017-2018 era.

For instance, let us take a simple scenario. Around 958,576 users have registered in 2018 and 493244 have registered in 2017. It's around twice as much as the users have registered. More than 50% of these were spammers, not really active or were just tired of spamming and left altogether during the bear market. Considerably the spams increased during this period. Either way bear market is a good time to implement any such new rules to the forum such as banning of alt related stuffs or signatures or implementing new rules as this would act as some kind of weapon during the upcoming spam war. Some prevailing problems which must be seen through,

[1] Signature spams starts with manager. They are the one who hire spammers to promote their project. If so, why not restrict topic starters in Bounties section to some sort of paid membership ranks like "Manager" Ranks and the prices should be around $50 or somewhere near. This would make the companies to hand over their bounty management to only people who have bought those ranks or some good Managers who are affording to pay.

[2] People here keep reminding me that we are in a bitcoin forum and not in a altcoin forum whenever someone requests for some additional sub-boards in Altcoins. If it is so, then why should we allow the promotion of alts here? We could ban them altogether.

[3] theymos could easily implement a new rule such like, only those who received 10+ merits in the last 120 days could use signature? Will this work really? I need community suggestions. But there seems to be another negative aspect such that merit abusers would get those.

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.

These were mentioned already, and seems to be a working idea. But practically it costs thousands of USD for the company to pay in btc considering the amount of registrations being done by bounty hunters which these companies are not ready to pay 

Almost all the cryptocurrencies were useless in the beginning, but they gained popularity and prices based on their use cases. Similarly tokens while they are announced in this forum for bounties have no real value but they might gain value in the future. I am not completely against usage of alts for bounty payments, but saying them useless is kinda incorrect.

I did not notice that Jeremycoin did not promote any business in his signature.OgNasty promotes his business, alanst is a newbie, cryptohunter should also be included, but with the neg trust, I do not know if he does not promote by choice or lack of.

I promote btc in my signature, satoshi pays for me. 

[Hhampuz]

[1] Signature spams starts with manager. They are the one who hire spammers to promote their project. If so, why not restrict topic starters in Bounties section to some sort of paid membership ranks like "Manager" Ranks and the prices should be around $50 or somewhere near. This would make the companies to hand over their bounty management to only people who have bought those ranks or some good Managers who are affording to pay.

Spending $50 for a "Manager" badge would do nothing to reduce spam. Are you aware of the amounts of money flowing through these campaigns and the people managing them?

[2] People here keep reminding me that we are in a bitcoin forum and not in a altcoin forum whenever someone requests for some additional sub-boards in Altcoins. If it is so, then why should we allow the promotion of alts here? We could ban them altogether.

We wouldn't have to ban altcoins as they are a part of the crypto life but limiting the ways they could market themselves here would be greatly beneficial. For example, what if the bounty managers of these would only count the posts they are making in the altcoin sections? That would be hard to police but it could be a step in the right direction.

[3] theymos could easily implement a new rule such like, only those who received 10+ merits in the last 120 days could use signature? Will this work really? I need community suggestions. But there seems to be another negative aspect such that merit abusers would get those.

That could be one solution although it wouldn't do much. Another thing could be to only allow Sr. Members + to wear a signature that contains code (I doubt a lot of companies would want participants in their campaigns that could only wear a single line of text).

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

Spending $50 for a "Manager" badge would do nothing to reduce spam. Are you aware of the amounts of money flowing through these campaigns and the people managing them?

If the prices of these badges were higher and assuming most of these ICO companies manage the bounties themselves, I believe Companies won't pay thousands of dollars for buying the badge.  Well if the price for Manager badge is high, then bounty management would become centralized with very few trusted and reputable managers. Yes that would be good, but doing so will also make these managers to demand for higher pay rates. $50 is literally very low but having some kind of payment would be better.

We wouldn't have to ban altcoins as they are a part of the crypto life but limiting the ways they could market themselves here would be greatly beneficial. For example, what if the bounty managers of these would only count the posts they are making in the altcoin sections? That would be hard to police but it could be a step in the right direction.

Might be a better idea. But we cannot assure how effectively this limits spam posting. If everyone work for what they are paid like what you, Yahoo, DarkStar does then we would not have seen these spams.

That could be one solution although it wouldn't do much. Another thing could be to only allow Sr. Members + to wear a signature that contains code (I doubt a lot of companies would want participants in their campaigns that could only wear a single line of text).

Yes, that's true. Shady companies don't spend for signature creations or for these review websites. They just come here announce their scam and start a bounty and run away with what they have gained. This should also be controlled to an extent. Though the forum acts as a decentralized one, but it also acts as a entity for promoting scams, hence theymos should get involved in this area and enforce much stronger rules.

[Lauda]

-snip-
Spending $50 for a "Manager" badge would do nothing to reduce spam. Are you aware of the amounts of money flowing through these campaigns and the people managing them?

This is indeed a very stupid suggestion. A single successful campaign could produce a hundred of these "managers".

-snip-
Well if the price for Manager badge is high, then bounty management would become centralized with very few trusted and reputable managers. Yes that would be good, but doing so will also make these managers to demand for higher pay rates. $50 is literally very low but having some kind of payment would be better.

No, it would not. As long as you have a small set of honest managers (i.e. non greedy), then that situation would remain fine. Most of the high rates nowadays come from fraudulent advertising, often off-site (plus they enroll their own army).

[KingZee]

For altcoin bounties I rarely see them use signatures as the main promotion medium. It's almost always twitter, telegram, and all sorts of social media spam marketing. They know their target audience and they know that the forums shun ICOs, in the boards I frequent the most I think I see one out of 6 people with a bounty sig rather than a service signature.

Of course the spam happening in the bounties section is pretty dumb, but I'm not going to comment on that to keep this on topic. Even if theymos said he doesnt explicitly like sig campaigns, he asked for possible improvements to how signature campaigns are ran here, take the chance to improve quality of life for managers/campaigners.

I could see a few suggestions myself but since the forum wants to stay detached out of all of it, it becomes tricky. One thing would be a better thread management of some sort to help campaign managers recruit new users. Sorting commenters by rank, maybe filtering them using merit, and so on to make it a lot faster to clear out the noise.

For users that want to participate in these campaigns, a simple notification on title change would do wonders. Campaigns open up and close new spots constantly. If someone who already applied, could be able to be notified once the title changes from CLOSED to OPEN, it would help them stay up to date.

[Alone055]

Few additional suggestion.
3. Individual not having gained a single merit in last 120 days will get signature disabled.
....
5. Paid option if somebody do not have merit.

These two suggestions are totally contradicting each other. What would be the use of the ban for not earning Merits in 120 days if a user can have the ban lifted by paying for it? It wouldn't reduce any spam in that way, since we all know how much money those spammers earn by spitting out crap all over the forum, and it wouldn't be a hurdle for them to get their signature bans lifted by paying a small amount.

[r1s2g3]

Few additional suggestion.
3. Individual not having gained a single merit in last 120 days will get signature disabled.
....
5. Paid option if somebody do not have merit.

These two suggestions are totally contradicting each other. What would be the use of the ban for not earning Merits in 120 days if a user can have the ban lifted by paying for it? It wouldn't reduce any spam in that way, since we all know how much money those spammers earn by spitting out crap all over the forum, and it wouldn't be a hurdle for them to get their signature bans lifted by paying a small amount.

It is on the same line of Copper Membership. User promoting their own business might will require this membership to promote their business themselves.
I do not think spammer will buy Membership.
Important thing is that  any membership did not give any right to spamming, so they can still be banned, or their signature can still be stripped if they found spamming.

[stompix]

If signature advertisements were as simple as clicking a box in your profile settings to activate it once you've reached the designated member level, and you received payouts based on views/clicks, that would be a pretty cool system.  No more signature campaign managers.  No more favoritism to alt accounts.  No more war on newbie accounts.  No more shit-posting.  

This would be so easy to abuse it will destroy every advertisement here.
Anyone could simply create a bot to run a hundred ip every day and click his own link, inflate the number of views each topic has by orders of 10 and what is worse, that could be done with free tools even a 7yo could install and run.

The only way to prevent this would mean to turn the sig space into googleads in terms of surveillance and filters, and I don't think theymos is that keen on doing any of this.

[Kopyleft]

From the discussion on this thread, it seems the problem is not the signature advertising, but the spam that comes with it from some participants who do not contribute quality.
There has been lots of suggestions on how to curb spam, increasing merit requirement to wear signatures, or encouraging bounty managers to reward quality posts only.
Admins can filter all the suggestions and come up with one which would not excessively alter the current forum protocol.

[bill gator]

[1] Signature spams starts with manager. They are the one who hire spammers to promote their project.

I disagree. Spam starts with the spammer and is then encouraged by the signature manager. These users were spammers before they got into a campaign and they will continue to be spammers once they are no longer in a campaign. If we got rid of signatures and advertising entirely we would still have spam, so it's unfair to lay that problem at the feet of campaign managers. They're making the situation worse by being terrible at their job and paying people to ruin our forum, but they didn't start it.

[pixie85]

[1] Signature spams starts with manager. They are the one who hire spammers to promote their project.

I disagree. Spam starts with the spammer and is then encouraged by the signature manager. These users were spammers before they got into a campaign and they will continue to be spammers once they are no longer in a campaign. If we got rid of signatures and advertising entirely we would still have spam, so it's unfair to lay that problem at the feet of campaign managers. They're making the situation worse by being terrible at their job and paying people to ruin our forum, but they didn't start it.

This is true only when the spammer has one account. If he has more the other accounts are only active when they are hired by managers and will not post anything when they are not paid to do so. It's the manager's role to see it and refuse to pay for spam posts. SMAS was a good idea but got abandoned.

[tyz]

Years ago, I participated on a forum where spam posting due to signature rewards was an issue, too.  Actually it was a pretty similar situation as it is on bitcointalk today.

After the introduction of a signature views measurement service, the campaign owners started to accept only members which had a high rate of views, mostly thread creators and creators of posts on popular and useful discussions with an interesting history. Or they paid rewards per view. Creating post number 1849 on page 190 on a pointless discussion thread, brought only a couple of views which finally became unattractive what caused an significant decrease of needless posts.

As far as I remember, it was not a native forum solution, rather a external service where a 1px image was added to the sig besides the text. Each time the pixel was loaded it counted the view. To prevent using visitor exchanges or other viewing tools, it locked the IP for a couple of hours to be counted for the same user.