Don't join spam bounties. Easy money does not help you to (quickly) get rich!

[Mehr Sher]

Absolutely agreed. We have to improve our selection, as often people wish for better results but they don’t think about improving their own choices or standard.

This is where I feel so right with going for Bounty Campaign that comes from reputed houses (companies), as that means there is no risk element involved at all. And when that happens, you are for sure able to extract benefits and bring out profitable results in your favour which makes it all super easy and cool.

[1715677786]

1715677786

[mersal]

Most of the bounties causing so what is the permanent solution for this?

We can ask the people not to join but they will run behind the bounties where the rewards are lucrative so it will be better to have some guidelines for creating the bounties and for the people who are managing it will help a lot.

[TheHas]

An idea - maybe you could make it a rule that if you have signature text or avatar in place, that you get a limit to the number of posts you can do a week.

If you have no sig, then you can post as much as you like.

For example, if you are a member with a sig - you get ten posts. If full then 15.

It would prevent the spam campaigns that just encourage fifty posts a week of nothing (i'm looking at you gambling website campaigns!)

[ice18]

Most of the bounties causing so what is the permanent solution for this?

We can ask the people not to join but they will run behind the bounties where the rewards are lucrative so it will be better to have some guidelines for creating the bounties and for the people who are managing it will help a lot.

I can see mostly who spam ann threads are newbies joined in bounty so to stop spamming, newbies must be restricted from posting in ann sections/altcoins or a newbie account must have a limited number of post he can create per month lets say only 30 post are allowed per month in this way spamming can be controlled.

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>

Many of the best posters wear a campaign signature as a means of passive income or play crypto, and the fact that they bear a signature does not cripple nor interfere with their ability to post.

The signature per-se is not a problem, and I actually barely notice them unless the posts are of a noticeably low quality and are posted in bursts of short spaced time periods. Then, paradoxically, I tend to notice the signature and conceptually may associate the campaign to a spam permissive campaign.

What matters is content, not the presence/absence/nature of the signature. Based on this, one could vouch for merits to play a role and create different posting threshold limits based on the number of earned merits in a given period of time. I doubt we’ll see this roll-out though. We would also need to consider that certain boards are not very merited (i.e. mining boards, some local boards), and thus delimiting the number of posts on a merit based proposal would not play out that well there.

[bitmover]

Many of the best posters wear a campaign signature as a means of passive income or play crypto, and the fact that they bear a signature does not cripple nor interfere with their ability to post.

I believe that good posters are just serious people in real life.
Wearing a signature that pays in BTC is an incentive to make even better posts, and spend more time in the forum (an in cryptocurrency subjects in general).

As wearing a signature these people can earn extra income, it is a nice incentive to keep posting, studying and helping new bitcoin users around the world. You are also helping serious projects, such as gambling, mixers, and other bitcoin related services. And you are also helping bitcointalk.org website, by contributing with good posts and helping users. I really see no problem.

Problems appears when managers are accepting spammers to their campaigns. Users that do not contribute to anything and are like parasites (as the managers who accepts them). Luckily, most of BTC paying campaigns are not managed by those people, and those spammers are mostly in altcoin related projects.

[lobcmt2]

When theymos launched merit system in early of 2018, he wrote that if spamming does not decrease and such annoyance from spam permissive signature won't be controlled or at least, reduced; he would consider to disable all signature campaigns paid in altcoins or tokens; or even more seriously disable all signature and related industry. Fortunately, merit system works, and recently a plagiabot works, so we might still see signature campaigns. Generally, participants will have to make better quality posts, it does not equal to high quality posts. But, at least they stop or reduce copy & paste; then reduce pace of spamming.

[joniboini]

But, at least they stop or reduce copy & paste; then reduce pace of spamming.

There's a massive improvement in this forum, especially on my local board after the merit system was introduced (well, not exactly one second after, maybe months or weeks after that). Not sure how related merit and the decrease of spammers are, as the increasing scam projects might also contribute to that condition. But overall, we can see which user is really making a good post and being appreciated, and which one doesn't.

After that, sooner or later more members try to be helpful in order to be more appreciated and have better luck with campaigns. Hopefully, it continues until the end.

[o_e_l_e_o]

There's a massive improvement in this forum, especially on my local board after the merit system was introduced (well, not exactly one second after, maybe months or weeks after that). Not sure how related merit and the decrease of spammers are, as the increasing scam projects might also contribute to that condition.

Loyce has some great data available here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5032314.0. This is regarding the 1 merit requirement to display a signature, rather than the merit system on a whole, however.

Essentially, after the introduction of the 1 merit requirement, the number of posts per week slowly fell by around 60% and then plateaued around that level. That is a huge reduction in spam. A compounding factor may be that the price was pretty static around $6,000 for most of these weeks, and then fell to $3,000 towards the end, and that may have contributed somewhat to the reduction in number of posts, but there is no denying that using merit to stop signature spamming from newbies made a big impact.

[Pmalek]

When theymos launched merit system in early of 2018, he wrote that if spamming does not decrease and such annoyance from spam permissive signature won't be controlled or at least, reduced; he would consider to disable all signature campaigns paid in altcoins or tokens;

We talked about this in Meta a few weeks ago.
The problem with altcoin signature campaigns is often in the bounty managers. They accept everyone that applies as long as they have the appropriate rank. The applicants post history isn't checked and therefore the quality of the posts is below standards.

This wouldn't happen with any of the reputable campaign managers that we have that manage Bitcoin campaigns. The solution is applying the same guidelines and standards in the altcoin section that we already have for bitcoin campaigns. 

[lobcmt2]

The problem with altcoin signature campaigns is often in the bounty managers. They accept everyone that applies as long as they have the appropriate rank. The applicants post history isn't checked and therefore the quality of the posts is below standards.

Managers of those campaigns don't check post quality of applicants at beginnings, and don't check post quality of participants during their time joining campaigns.
Agreed. Reputable campaign managers eliminate shitposters at starts, and during their participations, they will be eliminated if they don't meet minium post quality ask by campaign managers.

This wouldn't happen with any of the reputable campaign managers that we have that manage Bitcoin campaigns. The solution is applying the same guidelines and standards in the altcoin section that we already have for bitcoin campaigns.