New guidelines are needed for the Press board

[LeGaulois]

I used CoinIdol as an example, but I can give others. Like the one telling JP Morgan has created its blockchain & coin. Yes, it's true but it was 2 years ago. Or the one telling Italy started to do x and y, you try to verify but you won't find any other sites reporting this news, you can translate in different languages just in case but you will find nothing! zero!

Initially, it's clear some users have no interest engaging in a discussion, it's just a matter to post "Flash News: Russia did this and that, paragraph, read more here" but there are truly some who are. You can find whole topics of 'normal discussions' (crazy right?). Try to read the same in a Bitcoin discussion topic. I find it hard to force people to add their own thoughts and I doubt it will be better. They will add shitposts, I prefer to read "Flash News: Russia did this and that, paragraph, read more here".

If I post something it's to be able to discuss with others on this subject, it's not to distribute the newspaper. In that case, I prefer to tell them how to use RSS.

[1715256728]

1715256728

[1715256728]

1715256728

[1715256728]

1715256728

[asche]

I tend to agree with stompix and hilarious'.

To be honest 90% of news about crypto is garbage, be it crypto press, which quality is way below sea level, or mainstream media posting non sense clickbait for their usual audience.

A good piece from either source (mainstream or crypto) is extraordinary rare, and shouldn't have a whole board dedicated to it.

I tried to use/read/post in that section at some point, but felt it was no more no less than the altcoins announcement section. Nobody else was reading it.

At some point you just have to cut your losses, and stop the section from going in circles.

@LeGaulois, maybe you could update your topic so that theymos might actually look at it. I wouldn't have if it wasn't because I know you

[hilariousetc]

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.

Well if it's to stay then it probably should have its own mod, along with stricter guidelines on what should and shouldn't be posted there. As for allocating new mods only theymos can do that so hopefully he'll make some changed based on this thread. Staff were pretty much in unison that something needs to change with it and if I remember correctly most were in agreement that it was no longer really needed.

I used CoinIdol as an example, but I can give others. Like the one telling JP Morgan has created its blockchain & coin. Yes, it's true but it was 2 years ago. Or the one telling Italy started to do x and y, you try to verify but you won't find any other sites reporting this news, you can translate in different languages just in case but you will find nothing! zero!

Altcoin or blockchain articles don't belong there, but that's another issue in that all sorts of alt coin spam and anything vaguely mentioning blockchain also gets posted there.

[Theb]

Initially, it's clear some users have no interest engaging in a discussion, it's just a matter to post "Flash News: Russia did this and that, paragraph, read more here" but there are truly some who are. You can find whole topics of 'normal discussions' (crazy right?). Try to read the same in a Bitcoin discussion topic. I find it hard to force people to add their own thoughts and I doubt it will be better. They will add shitposts, I prefer to read "Flash News: Russia did this and that, paragraph, read more here".

How about making a discussion after the news article share in the OP mandatory then? I love it when the OP aside from sharing the news also discussed the article on hand, it acts a conversation starter on how the thread will go and it simply mitigates the chances of having a free-for-all/post-what-you-want kind of thread. Aside from that it also makes the news more interesting especially when the OP is also active in the discussion, because sometimes when members post news articles I don't find interesting at first but they do start a discussion it makes me (and maybe other members) want to join the discussion at hand.

[hilariousetc]

Initially, it's clear some users have no interest engaging in a discussion, it's just a matter to post "Flash News: Russia did this and that, paragraph, read more here" but there are truly some who are. You can find whole topics of 'normal discussions' (crazy right?). Try to read the same in a Bitcoin discussion topic. I find it hard to force people to add their own thoughts and I doubt it will be better. They will add shitposts, I prefer to read "Flash News: Russia did this and that, paragraph, read more here".

How about making a discussion after the news article share in the OP mandatory then? I love it when the OP aside from sharing the news also discussed the article on hand, it acts a conversation starter on how the thread will go and it simply mitigates the chances of having a free-for-all/post-what-you-want kind of thread.

Seems like it would be a faff to enforce. Noticed this user today who's posts are 100% in the Press section posting articles to www.visionary-finance.com without any further comment

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2648997     goozij20

Many of the articles are also just about blockchain and not bitcoin-related.

[Lucius]

Many of the articles are also just about blockchain and not bitcoin-related.

As some others he is paid to post for that site, or he is directly connected with that site. In my opinion any topic not related to Bitcoin should be deleted, and this info should be pinned so members finally understand at least that rule.

We have members who abuse that board, there is no doubt with that - look at this one, complete post history in Press board from 2016.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=914598;sa=showPosts;start=0   user Jgilpulg

[DooMAD]

We have members who abuse that board, there is no doubt with that - look at this one, complete post history in Press board from 2016.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=914598;sa=showPosts;start=0   user Jgilpulg

That user could probably be replaced with a few lines of code, heh.  On that note, why not have a bot to scrape news sites and generate the topics, so that people interested in an actual discussion can then talk about them?  All the abuse is taking place in the first post, so that's the part we need to tackle.

[malevolent]

Staff were pretty much in unison that something needs to change with it and if I remember correctly most were in agreement that it was no longer really needed.

Yeah, already in 2014. It wouldn't be a great waste to see that section archived, if someone wants to share a piece of interesting news or a news article to spur a discussion, the Bitcoin Discussion board can still be used.

[LeGaulois]

...

Well as I was saying, I don't think it's going to suddenly make them interested to participate in discussions. They're going to force themselves to write something, and from that moment on if someone feels forced to write something he shouldn't post at all.
(That's why I said they'd just add their shitposts)

...

This member is another example I was thinking about. When I checked 2 random articles, one was a piece of news 2 years old and the second a copy of an article from Cointelegraph.

There is also ambiguity (or rather confusion) sometimes.

For example, we could read news about coinbase (because of this and that with Bitcoin)
But if Coinbase buys a chips potatoes factory, people think the board is a good place to post

@DooMAD
Smart idea. A bot auto-posting news would be great (if the sources are considered reliable)

Yeah, already in 2014. It wouldn't be a great waste to see that section archived, if someone wants to share a piece of interesting news or a news article to spur a discussion, the Bitcoin Discussion board can also be used.

Initially, it could be merged with the Bitcoin Discussion board with no problem, but Jesus Christ this board is ill. :/

[Onuohakk]

Mostly all the post in press board are been gotten from information shared on telegram forums. They copy and paste it there for information reaching out. Some of the information in press board are informative and enlighten about the happenings in cryptocurrency. I enjoy reading them all

[o_e_l_e_o]

Bumping this since the Press section has taken a nosedive again recently.

Since this thread a few months ago, I've been reporting lots of threads in press section with good success for various reasons:
- Not being a notable source (i.e. CoinIdol, CoinTelegraph, CoinDesk, any other crypto "news" sites which just constantly churn out terrible quality click bait)
- Not being about bitcoin (Lots of threads about Libra, altcoins, fiat banking, etc.)
- Not being newsworthy (Mostly articles which are purely price speculation)

If you go to the Press Board and sort by time/date of thread creation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=77.0;sort=first_post;desc), you can see the first page goes back 2 months, and threads generally have around 20 replies. Skip back a few pages and you will see an entire page taken up by a single week worth of topics, most with 0-3 replies. I think it's fair to say the quality of article and discussion in the Press board has gone up with all this extraneous nonsense being filtered out. A couple of the old spammers being employed by the "news" sites I've listed above have also been banned.

However, I am now having several reports against threads going "unhandled" and even a few marked "bad", where I am sure they should have been trashed along with the dozens others I've reported. For example:

[2019-10-17] Luxury Car Manufacturer Begins Accepting Bitcoin - A poor quality article from one of the usual suspect spamming sites, about a single retailer starting to accept bitcoin at a single outlet. How is this in any way a "notable press hit"?
[2019-10-11] Bitcoin Fails at Key Price Hurdle, Risks Return to $8,000 - Another poor quality article from another one of the usual suspects, which simply describes 24 hours of price movements. There is no news in this article; it is purely speculation, and if this is the quality of article which passes as "newsworthy", then we might as well shut the Press board down.

Many of these unhandled reports are against the same user - CryptoBry - who is signature spamming for YoBit. He currently has made 8 out of the last 13 newly created threads, and I have a bunch of good reports against this user (15 in the last month, all from new topics in the Press board), in addition to my now mounting unhandled ones. I've appealed in my report comments for a ban, but none seems forthcoming.

I'm loath to spend my time continuing to reporting these threads to just accumulate unhandled reports. Are we just giving up on the Press section again?

[DooMAD]

Is it perhaps time to lock and archive the (now 7 years old) Guidelines for Press board and make a new one specifically stating what the revised 'notability criteria' is?  I don't know if the spammers will actually read it or not, but, to play devil's advocate, it might be asking a little much to request they follow guidelines we can't even be bothered to formally publish in that sub.    

We need to make it abundantly clear which sources and subjects are not welcome if that's the road we're going down.

[asche]

A new guideline won't change much if there is nobody to enforce it, what the unhandled reports from o_e_l_e_o seem to indicate.

In the current state you could actually just close the whole section without losing any added value to the forum.

But yeah, deleting all of it, and starting fresh with a dedicated mod could work out, I guess.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think it would be a shame to see it go, as for the most part the spammers seem to avoid it (even with the ongoing Cryptotalk spam) and, particularly over the last few months, the quality of discussion is generally much higher than you get in Bitcoin Discussion.*

There's an argument to be made to simply ban all crypto-only "news" sites, but I think that would be a step too far. Although the articles they write are poor-quality, and the majority are click-bait nonsense (see the links in my post above) occasionally they touch on an actually newsworthy topic. When those articles are posted, they generate a discussion which is much more interesting and worthwhile than the article itself.

Perhaps something along the lines of to be "notable", the article either has to come from a notable source (i.e. mainstream media - CNN, Fox, BBC, Reuters, etc.) OR has to be about notable events (e.g. the economy of an entire county or the future of bitcoin itself, not "Winklevoss tweets bitcoin good, banks bad").

A new guideline won't change much if there is nobody to enforce it, what the unhandled reports from o_e_l_e_o seem to indicate.

I don't think my recent unhandled reports mean no one is looking at them, especially considering I've had others dealt with in the same time period. I think more likely is the moderator(s) who is looking at them doesn't think they warrant deletion, which is kind of my point. I've had dozens of threads exactly like these ones deleted over the last two months, and the board is better off for it. I'm wondering what's changed?


*The quality of discussion in Bitcoin Discussion is a whole 'nother topic.

[LeGaulois]

Back on topic. Since my original post, I noticed the 'Press' board is cleaner, I believe there were more members reporting the topics. There are still a few examples like CryptoBry's threads, so I would say there is still a change needed. Perhaps to disable the signatures to be displayed would be the best, even if some will think it's too radical


When you're used to reading the board you know which topic to not open.
If they don't know what to spam, the news is the perfect shortcut. You post the title, a paragraph, a link and voila! You can twist a sentence or 2 to look like you are adding your opinion to appear less a spammer. so pathetic.

*The quality of discussion in Bitcoin Discussion is a whole 'nother topic.

True but some users don't really want to see the Press mixed with Bitcoin discussion.

[Lucius]

I also notice that CryptoBry is trying to increase number of its posts by posting in Press, but also in Economic and Altcoin boards on the same principle by posting some news with the addition of his personal opinion. I write my opinion about his posting in his last thread, and so far there are no new entries from him.

That board only needs one moderator who will check it every day and delete anything that does not meet the criteria for that board. Closing that board would not solve the problem of bad news posting, some users are posting the same content in Bitcoin Discussion, Economics, Altcoin Discussion. In other words, the problem would only be moved to other parts of the forum.

[actmyname]

-snip-

The difference between posting just an article and posting the article along with a few lines of vague generalizations is very little and if there aren't any semi-insightful points beyond surface-level nonsense, then it is no different from a one to three-liner in any other section.

We should never be looking at posts that host any quotations as the holistic product of the accumulation but rather as a discussion using the quote as a launchpad. That is: the post should be able to create its own foundation separate of the quote as well as build upon it rather than only the latter.For example:

If you have a post like this, we should only be concentrating on the last line to gauge for spam/not-spam.

The price of bitcoin in the past few days has spiked and follows the flying Bartman pattern...
(continues on for about 20 lines)

this article talks about the price increasing, what do you think about the analysis regarding the bitcoin price?Addendum: question-based replies are some of the most rancid forms of spam because they "kind-of" pass as substantial but you could ask any vague bullshit question about a general premise, like "why price go up". Not sure about the moderation policy.

[DooMAD]

A new guideline won't change much if there is nobody to enforce it, what the unhandled reports from o_e_l_e_o seem to indicate.

Not exactly.  The point was that reported posts weren't being deleted because a mod reviewed the post and then marked the report 'bad'.  This indicates that there are differing views to what guidelines should be enforced, so some clarity on that is needed.

People certainly suggested that the crypto-media sites should be excluded from the Press board, or that price speculation isn't newsworthy, but I don't know if any of this is official forum policy yet.  And if it is, it needs to be stated in the guidelines.

I don't think it would be fair to write that sub off until we've actually made an attempt to enforce some new guidelines, and we can't do that if no one actually knows what they are.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The difference between posting just an article and posting the article along with a few lines of vague generalizations is very little and if there aren't any semi-insightful points beyond surface-level nonsense, then it is no different from a one to three-liner in any other section.

In many cases it is even easier to write a couple of lines of spam when you post an article, as you can just lift a couple of sentences from the article and reword them. No original thought required.

That is: the post should be able to create its own foundation separate of the quote as well as build upon it rather than only the latter.

That is the only thing holding me back from advocating for an outright ban on all crypto-only "news" sites. As I mentioned above, sometimes a trash article about an interesting subject spawns a good discussion, although it must be said more often than not the good discussion stems from the first couple of posters to reply, and less often from the OP, who is usually guilty of all the things we've just discussed.

This indicates that there are differing views to what guidelines should be enforced, so some clarity on that is needed.

Exactly this. The most recent thread in the Press Board is this: [2019-10-26] John McAfee Doubles His Bitcoin Price Prediction. The source is "cryptoglobe.com". The article is poor quality, and about a complete non-event: McAfee's price predictions are not newsworthy by any stretch of the imagination. Now, if that had popped up a month ago, I would have reported it without a second thought and would have bet bitcoin on that report being marked "good". Now, I honestly have no idea, since that article and content are not any more complete trash than the ones I've linked to above which have gone "unhandled".

[DooMAD]

This indicates that there are differing views to what guidelines should be enforced, so some clarity on that is needed.

Exactly this. The most recent thread in the Press Board is this: [2019-10-26] John McAfee Doubles His Bitcoin Price Prediction. The source is "cryptoglobe.com". The article is poor quality, and about a complete non-event: McAfee's price predictions are not newsworthy by any stretch of the imagination. Now, if that had popped up a month ago, I would have reported it without a second thought and would have bet bitcoin on that report being marked "good". Now, I honestly have no idea, since that article and content are not any more complete trash than the ones I've linked to above which have gone "unhandled".

I guess it becomes a question of where the line should be drawn.  The most recent topic is now [2019-11-03] Bitcoin YTD Performance Exceeds 140%, Outperforms Most Traditional.  Again from a cryptomedia site, again primarily regarding price, but I suppose at least this time it's more about measurable statistics than unfounded predictions.  Does it qualify as "newsworthy"?  What should the criteria of "newsworthy" be?  Is that price topic more worthy of discussion than McAfee's prognostications?  It feels like a bar needs to be set somewhere, but no one knows where that somewhere is.

Or instead of focusing on what's considered newsworthy, should the focus instead be on what generates the most compelling discussions?  It is, after all, a discussion forum and not a news archival site.  But again, what guidelines could we possibly set out to encourage that?