New guidelines are needed for the Press board

[LeGaulois]

At the begining, I wanted to suggest to add a rule for the 'Press' board. Whatever the news is about no problem but it should come from reliable sources.

I often see websites posting fresh articles that are just old news spun to make it fresh, or articles with ridiculous points. CoinIdol is the perfect example currently, sometimes they're just freak, they publish bizarre stories and the sources are not verifiable anywhere.

So then I thought I'd read the rules of the Press board again, (it doesn't hurt from time to time to reread it ) and I found it was a common practice a very long time ago.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1958.msg24599#msg24599

The Press board replaces the Bitcoin press hits, notable sources thread.  The original motivation of the thread was to collect links that fit Wikipedia's definition of Notability.

I know a problem could be people arguing what a notable source is, or why 123.com is not 'notable' etc but there is surely a way to balance.

[1714140759]

1714140759

[1714140759]

1714140759

[o_e_l_e_o]

The Press section is a mess. 90% or more of the articles are barely even newsworthy, and certainly not from "notable" sources. CoinIdol, CoinTelegraph and CoinDesk are the worst offenders - several articles a day from each of these sites are posted by the same small handful of accounts on a daily basis. One of the accounts was recently banned, and in the appeal thread openly admitted to being employed by CoinTelegraph to spam the Press board with their content.

These sites are not "notable" by any means, but in addition to that, their content is usually trash. Articles about bitcoin being more popular on Google trends than stocks, or about bitcoin being centralized. Not newsworthy, and in some cases, not even true.

[hilariousetc]

Multiple suggestions have been proposed in the past including just locking/archiving it completely or only allowing posts from non-crypto related sites to stop all the advertising spam. Doing the latter would stop most of the crap but I think that board has served its purpose and is no longer needed now. Any relevant or important article can just be posted and discussed in the main Bitcoin board but at the moment the majority of people who create threads in there are either promoting a site or are getting away with legalised plagiarism which they can get paid for on most campaigns.

[o_e_l_e_o]

only allowing posts from non-crypto related sites to stop all the advertising spam

This would be my preferred solution (at least as a trial in the first instance), although I can also see the argument for just locking it completely. It served a purpose when bitcoin was this niche and relatively unknown development, and any mention of it in the media was a big deal. Now that bitcoin is regularly written about on most major news sites, regularly discussed on TV by most major news networks, even tweeted about by the president; "notable" press hits isn't really a meaningful concept in this context.

This "legalized plagiarism" as you put it is the lowest of the low - the absolute minimum amount of work needed to make a post which will be paid by a bounty and won't be deleted. My concern would be that if the Press board is more strictly moderated or locked, then these spammers would simply move to another board.

[hilariousetc]

This "legalized plagiarism" as you put it is the lowest of the low - the absolute minimum amount of work needed to make a post which will be paid by a bounty and won't be deleted. My concern would be that if the Press board is more strictly moderated or locked, then these spammers would simply move to another board.

It's only really there because it's pretty much the only board where you're legally allowed to get away with it. It's a board where essentially plagiarism is allowed as long as it follows the Press format and that's why people have taken advantage of it. Remove it and I doubt people will just start posting it elsewhere. If they do, they should probably be warned and then temp banned, especially if all or most of their posts are just press or promo articles. At the  very minimum some restrictions should be put in place and I think enforcing the notable Press hits clause should be applied ie no crypto-related sources.

[Quickseller]

Perhaps the press board could be configured so that it does not count for activity, and that signatures are not displayed in the board. Or at the very minimum, make this true for OPs of each thread.

I believe the above should remove most if not all of the incentive to do what is being described in the OP.

[hilariousetc]

Perhaps the press board could be configured so that it does not count for activity, and that signatures are not displayed in the board. Or at the very minimum, make this true for OPs of each thread.

I believe the above should remove most if not all of the incentive to do what is being described in the OP.

The posters that are spamming their articles as described by op probably care neither about signatures or post count, they just want to drive traffic to their sites by spamming links to them. The only people that care about their sigs and post counts in there will be signature campaigners, but this is a secondary issue of the type of spam op is describing.

[eternalgloom]

Hehe, I lol'd at the title, pretty funny stuff :')

I don't know though, it seems like that could very well be a very slippery slope.
Once you start moderating which websites can and can't be used, you might end up with something that resembles censorship.

That said, you do have a point and I would not oppose moderators tackling this on a case-by-case basis.
The painfully obvious spamming attempts should be removed for sure, but where do you draw the line?

Most news websites basically re-write stories from other websites, some are just better at it than others.

Perhaps the press board could be configured so that it does not count for activity, and that signatures are not displayed in the board. Or at the very minimum, make this true for OPs of each thread.

I believe the above should remove most if not all of the incentive to do what is being described in the OP.

The posters that are spamming their articles as described by op probably care neither about signatures or post count, they just want to drive traffic to their sites by spamming links to them. The only people that care about their sigs and post counts in there will be signature campaigners, but this is a secondary issue of the type of spam op is describing.

Indeed, they're just creating back-links. I doubt they even expect people to click on those links. Although, maybe they do, if they're posting hundreds of links each day.

EDIT:

Okay, just looked at some of those CoinIdol articles and while I do agree that they're pure crap, I doubt it's actually done maliciously.
I get the feeling that the person who's writing these articles isn't a native English speaker, but does kinda try to put in some effort.

Case/point: https://coinidol.com/profitable-mine-bitcoin/

Really looks like a very amateurish approach to starting a news website, but I would not classify it as purely spam.

[hilariousetc]

Hehe, I lol'd at the title, pretty funny stuff :')

I don't know though, it seems like that could very well be a very slippery slope.
Once you start moderating which websites can and can't be used, you might end up with something that resembles censorship.

That seems a bit extreme. The Press guidelines already states notable press hits. Some clickbait article from shitcoinnews.net really shouldn't count as 'notable'.

Indeed, they're just creating back-links. I doubt they even expect people to click on those links. Although, maybe they do, if they're posting hundreds of links each day.

Well whether someone clicks on them or not is besides the point really. I'm sure some do, but it's free to post here so any free advertising is better than nothing and they probably post here hoping that someone will click on them at least. I think most people probably don't click on signatures either, but it's still brand exposure, along with the backlink spam as you say.

[DooMAD]

The listed mod for that board hasn't been online since March, so maybe something needs sorting there first and foremost.

If the general Bitcoin Discussion board weren't such a cesspit, I'd be okay with closing the Press board and merging the two.  But as it stands, it's nice to have all the recent and unfolding events in one place and not buried underneath "who is satoshi x10^8247819124 ", "reason for bull/bear market x10^2418134 " and whatever other stuff too mundane to care about gets posted there.  Despite the initial posts in Press generally being a free pass to copy/pasta, the replies are generally of a higher quality than those in Bitcoin Discussion and the conversations are usually well-informed.  So for that reason alone, I'd be sad to see it go.

At the very least, I think a rule should be introduced (and enforced) that you have to include your own thoughts and opinions on the subject to accompany the article itself.  And not just a basic one-liner asking what other people think, either.  

I'm on the fence with blocking crypto-related sites.  I'd say treat it on a case-by-case basis.  They're not all as dismal as CoinIdol.    

[Lucius]

I post about Press board some time ago in this thread, and two accounts who make most of spam are banned (both reported by me for plagiarism), and one account is not interesting to post there anymore (ex. stake sig spammer). But as one of banned member say, nothing will not stop them to make new accounts and post again.

In past some of my threads are deleted in Press, and this is because this board should be only for Bitcoin related news, not altcoins or how MasteCard is making some crypto-wallet.

I think that it would be very hard to find balance in what is notable source, but to say no to coindesk, coindol and cointelegraph would for sure solve problem since 90% of articles come from these three sources. But I agree with DooMAD we should not go in that direction, censorship is the worst solution.

[Quickseller]

Perhaps the press board could be configured so that it does not count for activity, and that signatures are not displayed in the board. Or at the very minimum, make this true for OPs of each thread.

I believe the above should remove most if not all of the incentive to do what is being described in the OP.

The posters that are spamming their articles as described by op probably care neither about signatures or post count, they just want to drive traffic to their sites by spamming links to them. The only people that care about their sigs and post counts in there will be signature campaigners, but this is a secondary issue of the type of spam op is describing.

Perhaps a solution would be to have search engines not index threads in the press board. A warning message could also be displayed to those not logged in and those with little activity/login time that links posted and often very spammy/low quality.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The listed mod for that board hasn't been online since March, so maybe something needs sorting there first and foremost.
...
At the very least, I think a rule should be introduced (and enforced) that you have to include your own thoughts and opinions on the subject to accompany the article itself.  And not just a basic one-liner asking what other people think, either.

Yes and yes.

But I agree with DooMAD we should not go in that direction, censorship is the worst solution.

If you look at the Bitcoin press hits, notable sources thread, which was the precursor to the Press board, jgarzik uses the following phrase (emphasis mine):

"notable" is a loose definition that just means exercise common sense:  a mention from a blogger with 1000 hits/month is not notable, nor is your average forum post, nor is anything that gives an obvious impression of bitcoin community self-promotion.

I'd say sites like CoinIdol and CoinTelegraph pretty clearly fall under the category of "bitcoin community self-promotion". Sites which are entirely dedicated to churning out (poor quality) content about bitcoin or other cryptocurrency are not a "notable" place for an article about bitcoin to show up on.

I'm on the fence with blocking crypto-related sites.  I'd say treat it on a case-by-case basis.  They're not all as dismal as CoinIdol.

I actually wouldn't have an issue with articles from CoinIdol or similar showing up, provided they were of high quality, showing up infrequently, posted by genuine users, and sparking genuine discussion or debate. However, as it stands, one spammer who is presumably being paid by them just floods the board with every non-news, factually inaccurate, piece of word salad they churn out.

[Theb]

The problem is what websites/news sources do you count as a reliable source? Because every time I visit the board I'll just only see news articles from coinidol, coindesk, and cointelegraph and more often than not they always have a similar offering in terms of the quality of news they are offering. They always try to create news from tweets, current events and relate it to price movements in the market, criminal activities, and of course bans and regulations happening in the world. The worst part is they themselves are sourcing their news from one another and recycle it only a few tries to create their own news articles. If we will rule all this crypto specialized news websites we are only left with thomson-reuters and bloomberg as a reliable source for getting news articles the downside is they aren't even focusing on cryptocurrencies right now.

[hilariousetc]

The problem is what websites/news sources do you count as a reliable source? Because every time I visit the board I'll just only see news articles from coinidol, coindesk, and cointelegraph and more often than not they always have a similar offering in terms of the quality of news they are offering. They always try to create news from tweets, current events and relate it to price movements in the market, criminal activities, and of course bans and regulations happening in the world. The worst part is they themselves are sourcing their news from one another and recycle it only a few tries to create their own news articles. If we will rule all this crypto specialized news websites we are only left with thomson-reuters and bloomberg as a reliable source for getting news articles the downside is they aren't even focusing on cryptocurrencies right now.

Then just get rid of the board. The Press section was created when any news article was exciting and notable when it got mentioned by a big site, but now bitcoin is mentioned every day somewhere or another, and then of course there's all the coin-prefixed sites you mention that just regurgitate the same old story or make an entire article over what some celebrity tweeted about bitcoin or because John Mcaffe says bitcoin will be worth x amount and will eat his own dick if it doesn't get there. If it stays then we either need to prohibit those sites or elaborate on what notable actually means.

This was just posted in Press:

How to sell EBooks for Bitcoins

In this digital era there is no idea that seems too far fetched. For all the creative writers out there the online world provides a great platform to showcase and sell your work easily without having to wait for some publication agency to approve your book. All you have to do is set up a website and start selling your eBook. Now, you must be wondering as easy as it sounds, setting up an online store can be quite challenging. But, you will soon learn that it is actually quite an easy process, one that does not require a lot of high level technical know-how and expertise. We have put together a guide that will help you bring your dream of selling your book a bit closer.

https://blog.blockonomics.co/how-to-sell-ebooks-for-bitcoin-3d2b06567db8

That board really isn't for this sort of stuff.

[Theb]

If we will rule all this crypto specialized news websites we are only left with thomson-reuters and bloomberg as a reliable source for getting news articles the downside is they aren't even focusing on cryptocurrencies right now.

Then just get rid of the board. The Press section was created when any news article was exciting and notable when it got mentioned by a big site, but now bitcoin is mentioned every day somewhere or another, and then of course there's all the coin-prefixed sites you mention that just regurgitate the same old story or make an entire article over what some celebrity tweeted about bitcoin or because John Mcaffe says bitcoin will be worth x amount and will eat his own dick if it doesn't get there. If it stays then we either need to prohibit those sites or elaborate on what notable actually means.

This was just posted in Press:

How to sell EBooks for Bitcoins

~snip~

That board really isn't for this sort of stuff.

It's really not the board itself the problem here it's these members promoting these websites are. I remembered that some members here actually admitted that they are getting paid just to share every news from the website in the press board, they don't actually care about the news they only care about sharing all the articles being posted in this board. The end result is the press board becomes a news curator of worthless and unreliable news, some are not even related to Bitcoin just like what you have shared. If this board gets some kind of strict enforcement about what news to share and what news to not share then we might start to see that the Press board is useful on our part.

[suchmoon]

Then just get rid of the board.

Why not just give someone a shot at moderating it. LeGaulois or o_e_l_e_o or both, 3-month probation. If that doesn't work then kill it.

[d5000]

I very much agree with what DooMAD wrote. It would be a pity to have to close that sub-forum, because while definitively there is too much spam, it's a nice collection of news (like an internal news aggregator) and one of the few places where it's possible to discuss them if they're relevant. "Bitcoin Discussion" is too congested with trivial topics.

However, I have no problem to restrict the Press board to "non-Bitcoin" news sources. I also would suggest to sharpen the plagiarism rule for that particular sub-forum and don't allow posts that consist only of a cite of the article and a link to the source. Anyone wanting to post there should at least take the time and write a summary with his own words.

There should also be a "1 topic = 1 thread" rule. If different media outlets cover the same story/news, they should all be grouped in the same thread.

[actmyname]

"Bitcoin Discussion" is too congested with trivial topics.

We should be trying to clean that up as well. Obviously a difficult task but out of all the spam boards I've seen, BD is probably the least spam-heavy one.

However, I have no problem to restrict the Press board to "non-Bitcoin" news sources. I also would suggest to sharpen the plagiarism rule for that particular sub-forum and don't allow posts that consist only of a cite of the article and a link to the source. Anyone wanting to post there should at least take the time and write a summary with his own words.

I would suggest: users should write something that invokes discussion. A summary is not necessary to accomplish the task. Somewhere between a synopsis and a "thoughts?" remark would suffice, I think.

It isn't even that time-consuming, really. But if the opening post takes less time than most subsequent posts (excluding pasting in article and source) then there's a clear problem.

[stompix]

Nuke it! Seriously, nuke it! Or at least lock the old topics and the section.

We have hundreds of blogs and wannabe newspapers crypto orientated but we hardly have some worthy news even in one month time. And when there is something important it gets 10 topics in bitcoin discussion, 5 in economics and twenty in speculation.

99% of them are clickbait, poorly written 3 paragraph news that actually tells nothing in detail about the situation.
Every time there is something that makes me curious I have to google the news for other sources and more details, usually, the real event being totally different.