Limit signature campaigns

[TheRealAwesome31312]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I mean, if you can buy higher ranked accounts, well that kinda defeats the point of having ranking systems now doesn't it?

Sorry, I'm gonna keep this brief. I know there's been plenty of talking on this issue already.

[1713883348]

1713883348

[1713883348]

1713883348

[1713883348]

1713883348

[1713883348]

1713883348

[pugman]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

This isn't a freelancing place where people will stop doing what they do once they get paid. Limiting someone to post eliminates the whole purpose of a forum intended for discussion, regardless of how gruesome and clusterfuck of a spamhole the forum is. If there were an actual way of stopping spam, there'd be also no trolls, no memes, no nothing.

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I mean, if you can buy higher ranked accounts, well that kinda defeats the point of having ranking systems now doesn't it?

Sorry, I'm gonna keep this brief. I know there's been plenty of talking on this issue already.

How can anyone impose bans on account sales? Admins definitely don't have the time to investigate all of the 2 Million+ accounts here, and people sell these accounts all across the internet.

Sorry to break this down to you, none of this would actually work or help reduce spam. Its good that you're trying to find out possibilities to stop or reduce spam, but just know that if it were possible it wold have been in action by now.

[Steamtyme]

The problem is people shitpost for a lot of reasons. Some are promoting off forum sites by linking to it in their shitpost, some do so just to read how great they are, some because they think this is facebook. We have seen action when things are bad enough this year with campaigns and participants receiving temp bans, I think that sent a decent message out to most as we've seen people be more cautious about signing up blindly.

It doesn't matter the monetary limit you impose to someone it could be a couple weeks salary so they would gladly fill as many spots with alts and turn out garbage all week. If you want to make a difference, go around reporting posts, if their quality is poor it will result in them not being paid and losing the incentive.

Account sales suck, but not much can be done. People are willing to sell entire packages of personal documents for cash. So I don't think there is any reasonable level of precautions the forum could take to prevent someone from trading in accounts. At least now there is a good hacked recovery system to prevent hacked account sales as best can be done.

[cryptovigi]

...
I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.
...

It's totally nonsense! - By introducing such a ban you would limit the posting of the top 60 posters of this forum (from the chipmixer campaign) to 0.5 post per week while allowing shitposter from weak campaigns (or none) to post 100+ posts per week...

BTW nice nick ;-)

[hd49728]

Firstly, bounty hunters should read this thread: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)

Secondly, bounty managers should restrict appropriate maximum posts per week for their campaigns (their campaigns can be paid per posts or paid per week, but eligible maximum posts per week should be chosen appropriately).

Thirdly, bounty participants should have ability to keep in mind that campaigns don't ask them to hit maximum post-quota. They should try to only make posts if necessary. Without constructive ideas, it is better to solely read other posts, collect knowledge, information, ideas, useful sources, all of those ones will help participants have better ideas for their future posts.
Especially, they should pay more attention and more time to read this part:

Helpful suggestions:

• Firstly, just put some actual thought into your posts. Actually read the thread and the replies already posted. Often-times people will just read the title of the thread and post without fully understanding the topic or issue and make either irrelevant posts or say the same thing that has been said numerous times before.

• If somebody asks a specific question and it gets answered adequately within the first post or two nobody needs to read another ten replies saying the same thing just reworded slightly. If you cannot offer any additional info or clarify/correct something then you probably don't need to post it.

• If you struggle with English it's probably best to try stick to your Local boards. Your English does not need to be anywhere near perfect and you will not be penalised for this but if people generally can't understand what you're saying then it will likely be considered unsubstantial or spam.

• Short replies are not always bad and long ones are not always good. Sometimes all that is required is a simple one word yes or no response, but stretching out an answer just to appear constructive usually has the opposite effect.

Lastly, the forum has its report button.

To conclude, I don't think forum should have unofficial rules on maximum posts per day, per week.

[rhomelmabini]

The easy way to limit those who want to shitpost is report the shitposts they made, if you found someone selling or buying an account you can try to make a thread on reputation board for further reviewing so that other DT members will create a flag or put a negative trust on him. If you come across those don't hesitate to report or post a topic, that way we can somehow minimize  the spam.

[LogitechMouse]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

This is a forum where people are free to share their opinion whether it is consider a spam or shitpost or not and who the hell wants to stop posting if they know that they are earning thru it?? Its like "You don't like to have Gold". Who doesn't want money . They will do anything just for money

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I think the negative trust of the sellers is good enough to say that these persons are not trustworthy therefore, they must avoid them at all costs.

At this moment I don't see any solution to this spam problem rather than removing the signature campaign itself but for sure, the number of posts will decrease if that happen.

[Veleor]

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason <...>

How can anyone impose bans on account sales? Admins definitely don't have the time to investigate all of the 2 Million+ accounts here, and people sell these accounts all across the internet. <...>

Over 70% of registered profiles have never even posted on the forum and more than 159,000 profiles are banned. So the number of accounts that could potentially be for sale is far less than 2 millions.
And in my opinion, trading of Bitcointalk accounts can be forbidden on the forum itself with no difficulty.

[actmyname]

Disable signatures for a month. Please.

[hd49728]

Disable signatures for a month. Please.

Disable both signatures, avatars, and personal texts, because people can get payments from their avatars or personal texts. Forum will look purely clean without signatures and avatars.

[pooya87]

these limitations you are proposing will actually make things a lot worse.
for example if someone was earning $10 and you limit it to $5 then they will create 2 accounts and now they have to spam twice as much. if you ban account buys it will just migrate to somewhere else and because of that ban (less supply) the price of such accounts shoot up so there will be more incentive to do account sells and more people would start doing it (farming accounts and selling them). the result is more spam, more merit abuse,...

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Make bitcoin paid signature campaigns the only acceptable campaign on the forum and the spam level will reduce by 90% or make Bitcoin & Ethereum. (BTC for Bitcoin service section and ETH for Altcoin service section). Now to get a 99% reduction of spamming, implement a new rule that get your signature wearing privileges remove for 3-12months based on your level of spam, when you're caught shitposting (having a certain number of good spam reports against your account). I'm positive a decent number of users would change their posting habbit just to avoid getting banned from wearing signature ads.

The fact is, we're in a time, were people tend to earn from any social media platforms they're on. We shouldn't denial them that privilege unless they're caught abusing the privilege.

[hd49728]

Make bitcoin paid signature campaigns the only acceptable campaign on the forum and the spam level will reduce by 90% or make Bitcoin & Ethereum. (BTC for Bitcoin service section and ETH for Altcoin service section). Now to get a 99% reduction of spamming, implement a new rule that get your signature wearing privileges remove for 3-12months based on your level of spam, when you're caught shitposting (having a certain number of good spam reports against your account). I'm positive a decent number of users would change their posting habbit just to avoid getting banned from wearing signature ads.

The fact is, we're in a time, were people tend to earn from any social media platforms they're on. We shouldn't denial them that privilege unless they're caught abusing the privilege.

Since 2018, the forum has changed and become better, there are less shitposts, but shitposts still be here if we look at patrol.
Furthermore, the most common type of shitposts nowadays are proof of authentication posts
New restriction on airdrops / proof of authentication posts. Is it real?
Reporting Proof Of Authentication posts
Thousands of bounty participants repeatedly make their POA each week. If we randomly choose one user whom makes POA from patrol., then check that user post history, we will likely more than 90% of posts in post history is POA posts.
Additionally, I think issues will be improved better if restricting rights to join bounties, campaigns for only Junior Members and above; or only Members and above.
In patrol, we can see most of POAs made by Newbies.
Edit because don't want to make new posts 
I don't think this suggested solution is enough

Make bitcoin paid signature campaigns the only acceptable campaign on the forum and the spam level will reduce by 90% or make Bitcoin & Ethereum.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Don't get it, so why quote reply me? What does your statement have to do with mine?   Technically POA aren't spam but they can be used to spam and when you see such cases you do the needful, report the post and add an indication, it's an account used for thread bumping then the account would be nuked. The cases you mention is just a bump service which they could choose any mention to bump a thread but decided to use  POA. You should suggest a solution to that problem instead punishing all junior rank members.

Lol you edited your reply,  . The suggestion might not be enough but it might do the trick, we have to try it out before we conclude.

[Natalim]

I know you have a good intention on your suggestion, but I don't think it's gonna solve the problem.
One of the reasons why this forum is popular is because of the signature campaign, people came here not just to learn and participate in discussions but mostly to earn at the same time.

Limiting shitpost is the job of the mods, and I think they are already doing a great job as what I've read here and outside forum, they already keep deleting non sense posts, and I can also experience that, and I won't complain.

[Saint-loup]

Helpful suggestions:

• Firstly, just put some actual thought into your posts. Actually read the thread and the replies already posted. Often-times people will just read the title of the thread and post without fully understanding the topic or issue and make either irrelevant posts or say the same thing that has been said numerous times before.

• If somebody asks a specific question and it gets answered adequately within the first post or two nobody needs to read another ten replies saying the same thing just reworded slightly. If you cannot offer any additional info or clarify/correct something then you probably don't need to post it.

Lastly, the forum has its report button.

Unfortunately it doesn't belong to the "unofficial" rules.
"1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads." is not very clear for most users, and rather subjective.
I think members would be more vigilant about that and would have more scruples if it was clearly written in the unofficial rules. It would save time to everybody at the end.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

theymos isn’t going to stop or limit signature campaigns because they drive so much traffic & interest to the forum. Lots of people wouldn’t post here if they were abolished (you can view that as a good or bad thing).

What we need is much stricter campaign managers, really it’s their job to manage their posters & ensure spam is limited.

The campaign managers on all of the higher paying sig campaigns are great. It’s the alt & shitcoin, bounty etc managers who need to get their shit together.

You can all do your bit to limit the spam & shit posting. If you see a low quality post then report it to a moderator.
(Bottom right of each post).

[Jet Cash]

I think individual, static personal avatars are good. It's the animated ones, and the promo ones used by multiple members that are annoying.

Limiting signature earnings is a completely impractical solution in my opinion.

I believe account sales should be banned, and if there was any interest, I would be prepared to maintain a voluntary list of alts declared by their owners.

[tranthidung]

What we need is much stricter campaign managers, really it’s their job to manage their posters & ensure spam is limited.

You can all do your bit to limit the spam & shit posting. If you see a low quality post then report it to a moderator.
(Bottom right of each post).

Stricter rules on temporary offense.
The first offence lasts 7 days is too a short period, that I think should be expanded, longer than current one, to 1 or 3 months.
Second offence: 3/6 months.
Third offence: 6/12 months.
Fourth offence: permanently ban.

Let it be anonymous, just give us the numbers of those between 1 and 300 reports, those with reports from 300 to 1000, from 1000 to 2000, 2k to 3k, 3k to 5k and above 5k, or something like this.

Counts of members with good reports in the last year:

1-10: 5028
10-25: 399
25-50: 179
50-100: 82
100-200: 90
300-400: 35
400-500: 14
500-750: 20
750-1000: 12
1000-1500: 15
1500-2000: 7
2000-3000: 5
3000-5000: 5
>5000: 8

Thanks to all reporters; we couldn't do it without you!

Reporter badges should be considered as another type of recognition on forum contributions, besides merits.
From given stats, I think badges can be rewarded as:

• >=500 good reports
• >= 1000 good reports
• >=2000 good reports
• >= 5000 good reports

[NeuroticFish]

From given stats, I think badges can be rewarded as:

• >=500 good reports
• >= 1000 good reports
• >=2000 good reports
• >= 5000 good reports

Did it occur to you that then people will focus on reporting?
Some will create accounts for making 1-5 posts that are reported, yay.
Many will report posts that maybe don't need to be reported.
It'll just create another problem imho.

[Bttzed03]

I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

I think the forum admin and moderators don't have time to monitor all signature participants and implement that rule.

I'm not sure if you are targeting BTC-paying campaigns in your post. Altcoin bounties are paid at the end of the token sale and there's no way to determine the real $ value they earned during a week or a month.

.

This isn't a freelancing place where people will stop doing what they do once they get paid. Limiting someone to post eliminates the whole purpose of a forum intended for discussion, regardless of how gruesome and clusterfuck of a spamhole the forum is.

I concur.

[LoyceV]

It's totally nonsense! - By introducing such a ban you would limit the posting of the top 60 posters of this forum (from the chipmixer campaign) to 0.5 post per week while allowing shitposter from weak campaigns (or none) to post 100+ posts per week...

My thoughts exactly! If anything, knowing that someone is checking my post quality (first guitarplinker, now DarkStar_ made me much more aware of the need to put some effort in my posts.

Disable both signatures, avatars, and personal texts, because people can get payments from their avatars or personal texts. Forum will look purely clean without signatures and avatars.

While you're at it, remove usernames too That's going to be an interesting forum with totally anonymous users.

Make bitcoin paid signature campaigns the only acceptable campaign on the forum

I've suggested that before, "Tokens" created out of thin air have no real cost and can thus be used to pay as many spammers as possible.
Payment in Bitcoin ensures there is an actual cost for the campaign, and ideally there should even be a minimum payment per post.

I don't expect any of this to be changed though, as theymos values the freedom to do things, even if that creates some spam.

What we need is much stricter campaign managers, really it’s their job to manage their posters & ensure spam is limited.

Simply banning the ones that don't do their job (based on the existing signature campaign guidelines would be a good start already.

[bob123]

Did it occur to you that then people will focus on reporting?

I think that's the point.

The more people start reporting worthless spam posts, the more will be deleted.
And more spam being deleted means people will actually focus on not spamming this forum for a few cents.

Many will report posts that maybe don't need to be reported.
It'll just create another problem imho.

I don't think that would be a huge issue.

From the report-page:

Do not worry about your accuracy too much; one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports.

The badges would be for good reports. Reporting 100 posts which shouldn't be reported will not get anyone closer to a badge.
And then the reporting behavior might be changed.

But another requirement for the badges could also fix this potential problem.
Combine a minimum amount of good reports with a minimum amount of accuracy. Then people won't start reporting hundreds of posts just to get a few good ones out of it.

[DdmrDdmr]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

That is shifting the spotlight onto the wrong spot. Aside from it not even been feasible to control (income external to the forum,  very often in tokens, with no real market value during the campaign, and relayed months after the campaign ends), the problem is not on the amount of posting, but on the nature of the content.

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

The issue is that they are difficult to prove. People openly transact accounts to some degree here, simply because it is not explicitaly prohibited (although they may likely get trust tagged for it). If it were to be prohibited, people would hide their activity more here, but it would still go on elsewhere.

Proving that an account has changed hands is pretty hard, and even though I personally would prefer an explicit prohibition (simply to discourage in a more adamant manner this sort of activity, and to have a rule to be based to report them), It does seem that, more than “proven” cases, we would have to face “likely” cases, and banning on likelihood rather than on proof is probably what deters prohibition.

[LTU_btc]

these limitations you are proposing will actually make things a lot worse.
for example if someone was earning $10 and you limit it to $5 then they will create 2 accounts and now they have to spam twice as much. if you ban account buys it will just migrate to somewhere else and because of that ban (less supply) the price of such accounts shoot up so there will be more incentive to do account sells and more people would start doing it (farming accounts and selling them). the result is more spam, more merit abuse,...

It would happen before introduction of merit system. But now for random spammer it's almost impossible to build forum account from, or he have to put lot of efforts into it. Same goes with account sellers, I doubt that they have so many accounts farmed. It's questionable, how many of these account sellers in the marketplace really holds accounts that they're selling. I suppose that most of these sellers are just scammers.

[nutildah]

I think OP's post was fueled by this thread, which was originally housed in Scam Accusations before I "gave the moderators the impression that it was off-topic."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5172460.msg52067436#msg52067436

Its a fun read, highly recommended.

[drwhobox]

Disable signatures for a month. Please.

This will be an interesting experiment but without telling the expiry date of the experiment. The forum will see a dramatic fall of traffic in my opinion. Only those are very loyal and community person, they will stay here and continue.

[sandra_x]

Freedom of expression, right to say whatever you want in as much as you are not infringing on other peoples rights. The forum frowns on account sales and there are measure to punish serial spammers. For starters, those account do not get merits to rank up, I have also seen a full member get banned for shitty post.Also there nothing wrong promoting a project through bounties in as much as you also contribute to the development of the community

[NeuroticFish]

But the badges won't give you any direct advantage to earn money in this forum, except good recognition from other member.
Additionally, actively reporting posts doesn't prove you can make good posts which needed to join signature campaign, so i don't see any serious problem from badge.

In the same way as merit started to matter in (some) bounty /signature campaigns, sooner or later those badges may matter too. Also, humans are suckers for badges, you should know that.

Did it occur to you that then people will focus on reporting?

I think that's the point.

The more people start reporting worthless spam posts, the more will be deleted.
And more spam being deleted means people will actually focus on not spamming this forum for a few cents.

Sorry, I was not clear enough about my concerns. I was concerned about abuses in reporting, about too many reporting the same posts, about reporting posts that maybe don't need reported, about a bottleneck in mods activity.

From the report-page:

Do not worry about your accuracy too much; one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports.

I somehow missed that line. OK, then maybe I was overly concerned about a non-problem.

But another requirement for the badges could also fix this potential problem.
Combine a minimum amount of good reports with a minimum amount of accuracy. Then people won't start reporting hundreds of posts just to get a few good ones out of it.

Yep, this indeed sounds good.

[bob123]

In the same way as merit started to matter in (some) bounty /signature campaigns, sooner or later those badges may matter too. Also, humans are suckers for badges, you should know that.

While this may be possible, i think this doesn't make much sense, does it ?

(Especially) signature campaigns focus on good post quality.
Merit does - more or less - directly reflect exactly that. Badges for good reports are not an indication for high post quality.

Being a good poster and bringing value in terms of knowledge into this forum does not automatically mean engaging in the 'forum politics' (or call it whatever you want).


But i agree with your last statement, everyone loves shiny internet points 

[TheRealAwesome31312]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

This isn't a freelancing place where people will stop doing what they do once they get paid. Limiting someone to post eliminates the whole purpose of a forum intended for discussion, regardless of how gruesome and clusterfuck of a spamhole the forum is. If there were an actual way of stopping spam, there'd be also no trolls, no memes, no nothing.

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I mean, if you can buy higher ranked accounts, well that kinda defeats the point of having ranking systems now doesn't it?

Sorry, I'm gonna keep this brief. I know there's been plenty of talking on this issue already.

How can anyone impose bans on account sales? Admins definitely don't have the time to investigate all of the 2 Million+ accounts here, and people sell these accounts all across the internet.

Sorry to break this down to you, none of this would actually work or help reduce spam. Its good that you're trying to find out possibilities to stop or reduce spam, but just know that if it were possible it wold have been in action by now.

I didn't mean have them stop posting, I just mean, stop paying them once they've earned their $5 (Which is a couple of meals in the countries where most shitposts come from)

[NeuroticFish]

In the same way as merit started to matter in (some) bounty /signature campaigns, sooner or later those badges may matter too. Also, humans are suckers for badges, you should know that.

While this may be possible, i think this doesn't make much sense, does it ?

(Especially) signature campaigns focus on good post quality.
Merit does - more or less - directly reflect exactly that. Badges for good reports are not an indication for high post quality.

Being a good poster and bringing value in terms of knowledge into this forum does not automatically mean engaging in the 'forum politics' (or call it whatever you want).


But i agree with your last statement, everyone loves shiny internet points  

Correct. But nothing stops them ask - sooner or later - actually care about this forum. And there's the new shiny badge that's being invented.
You also admitted that Merit is not necessarily a reflection of post quality. So it doesn't help campaigns that much.
On the other hand, in the same way a Legendary is paid better for the same posts as a Hero, some extra badge may (or may not) count / look better / give more weight.
And we are back to the humans as suckers for badges  

I didn't mean have them stop posting, I just mean, stop paying them once they've earned their $5 (Which is a couple of meals in the countries where most shitposts come from)

I guess that you didn't realize yet that there are campaigns that pay more than 5$ for one post. Of course, such campaigns are (in theory) more strict and their posters are expected to post meaningful and helpful things (as opposed to spamming/shitposting).
So, as already said, the price measure is completely wrong, it will not stop the spam.

[Woodie]

Am certain this is aimed at bitcoin earning signatures but the most spam comes from the altcoin sigs that are managed by inexperienced managers which TBH is the source of this problem, and to have this cleaned up start with the sig managers themselves who keep trying to get this job without not really knowing the rules of the forum and not having the job experience itself.

[eternalgloom]

Why not just bring in a couple more moderators?
I know the Altcoin Discussion board could certainly use a couple more at least.

I kinda like the forum as it is right now, the spammers don't bother me too much anymore.
Just report spam posts and hope they get removed. You can even add a suggestion to nuke the account in question, if they're consistently posting spam.

The merit system did help a lot, since it's much easier to spot members who are likely not contributing anything.
If someone's been active for over a year and hasn't earned a single merit, he's probably a spammer.

Heck, people who haven't been able to earn at least some merit could perhaps have their signature disabled forum-wide.

[actmyname]

I don't understand this whole philosophy of "no sig campaigns = no traffic"

Why would you want spam for 99% of your traffic? Are you serious? In that case, why even bother with the merit system? That sure reduced traffic.

[pugman]

Over 70% of registered profiles have never even posted on the forum and more than 159,000 profiles are banned. So the number of accounts that could potentially be for sale is far less than 2 millions.
And in my opinion, trading of Bitcointalk accounts can be forbidden on the forum itself with no difficulty.

Sure, a rule could be potentially imposed stating that account sales is prohibited on the forum, and any one that tries to sell accounts gets their threads deleted or even their account banned. But that's only gonna make matters more worse, cause people will sell more accounts off-forum than on-forum and that will only give more room for scammers to scam because it'd be literally impossible to figure out if the account is sold or not.

I didn't mean have them stop posting, I just mean, stop paying them once they've earned their $5 (Which is a couple of meals in the countries where most shitposts come from)

Yeah I mean,that's what most campaigns do, they only pay for a certain amount of posts and there's a limit upto which you could potentially earn.

I don't understand this whole philosophy of "no sig campaigns = no traffic"

Why would you want spam for 99% of your traffic? Are you serious? In that case, why even bother with the merit system? That sure reduced traffic.

Because if there's more spam,  it means more signatures, and that means it appears almost everywhere==bigger reach, and who would care about the content of the text so long as the name gets spread all across the internet?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Account sales suck, but not much can be done. People are willing to sell entire packages of personal documents for cash.

Yep, and it's been going on for years unabated.  I have less of a problem with account sales for the purpose of earning more money in a sig campaign (though that's certainly a problem) than high-ranked, green-trusted accounts falling into scammers' hands.  And no, there's no way to stop it from happening--not on this forum and not anywhere else.

OP obviously realizes what the problem is here, but I don't like the solution he's proposed simply because it's impractical.  You'd need someone to enforce it, for one, and that isn't going to happen.  Nor would it be popular with anyone involved in sig campaigns, or even Theymos for that matter.  Lots of solutions to the spam problem have been suggested in the past few years, but Theymos hasn't put restrictions on campaigns (except for Yobit, which was a good move).  The best thing we got was the merit system, and that was huge.

I don't understand this whole philosophy of "no sig campaigns = no traffic"

I think it certainly would be a lot less if campaigns didn't exist.  Plus not all sig campaigners are spammers--it just so happens that most spammers are in sig campaigns here.  Does it even matter what the quality of the traffic is for earnings purposes?  I can't say I understand that aspect of how the forum earns money, but I'd think that traffic is traffic.

[philipma1957]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

This is a forum where people are free to share their opinion whether it is consider a spam or shitpost or not and who the hell wants to stop posting if they know that they are earning thru it?? Its like "You don't like to have Gold". Who doesn't want money . They will do anything just for money

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I think the negative trust of the sellers is good enough to say that these persons are not trustworthy therefore, they must avoid them at all costs.

At this moment I don't see any solution to this spam problem rather than removing the signature campaign itself but for sure, the number of posts will decrease if that happen.

90 day signature ban for the entire forum.

See what good it does or what harm it does.

No signature is fine with me.

In fact I will self end my non paid endorsement of the Avalon a841 and simplemining.net as of aug 9th.

Keep it simple.

[actmyname]

Because if there's more spam,  it means more signatures, and that means it appears almost everywhere==bigger reach, and who would care about the content of the text so long as the name gets spread all across the internet?

BCT could be monetized much further, but it has not. theymos didn't exactly have to roll out the merit system but he did. Users would still stay on the platform even if you saw banner ads because guess what: the altcoin sections are already so brutally filled with nothingness that it wouldn't change a thing. They'll just run in, post their garbage and then leave. For the majority of forum members, as long as there's money to be had, they will take it. Why do you think those ad programme sites are so popular (PTC)? There's an incentive involved and users don't care. Same thing with faucets, we should all know how ad-infested and seizure laden they are.

Does it even matter what the quality of the traffic is for earnings purposes?  I can't say I understand that aspect of how the forum earns money, but I'd think that traffic is traffic.

Quality doesn't matter if you're only considering the metric of forum views. However, the fact remains that these ads are more often than not going to be ignored by the masses of bounty hunters and other sig spammers. Since they don't read anything anyway, why would they bother with an ad? Certainly, the retention of attention is mitigated by the fact that spammers just want to see the title, post, and get out. Genuine traffic from people who care about discussion is more likely to attract users to a platform. They are also likely to have at least 1 bitcoin, which I doubt can be found in the masses of signature campaign members. Certainly, if theymos wanted to, he could increase the ad slot count or even make ads more common. Rather than 10%, make it 50%. Bump up the auction price. But since that hasn't happened I don't believe he thinks that any type of traffic, whether it come from spammers or genuine users, is fungible.

[hd49728]

Disable both signatures, avatars, and personal texts, because people can get payments from their avatars or personal texts. Forum will look purely clean without signatures and avatars.

While you're at it, remove usernames too That's going to be an interesting forum with totally anonymous users.

Interesting idea, I like it.

[The-One-Above-All]

Let's recap so far.

1. Initial GOOD suggestion - Let's remove SIGs.

2.  Bitcoin earning sig wearers shout  = Yes let's remove sigs BUT NOT OUR sigs (because we control the bitcoin paying sigs)

3. Yes let's remove everyone elses sigs but NOT OUR SIGS that's a great Idea.

4. Yes let's also make campaign managers be more strict

5. Great idea yes, only those that earn the most merits and don't have red trust can be on the sig campaigns let's make sure campaign managers be really strict. SO OUR PLACES ARE SAFE

6. Yes that is a brilliant IDEA we remove the accountability of sig campaign manager (who just says you need x earned merits per month and a clean trust sheet so don't have to justify their choices any further than that) and decentralize accountability to OURSELVES who govern merit and trust(abuse) but have no other ACCOUNTABILITY except TO OURSELVES and we won't be rocking that boat right??

7. EXCELLENT let's get on with it.


hahaha

NO NO NO NO

Remove ALL sigs FROM everyone. Let's boil this forum down to the REAL ENTHUSIASTS. The value of the forum is very LOW when 99% of it is incentivized for profit motivated posting. The value of the forum is HIGH when 100% of it is post out of enthusiasm for pushing forward bitcoin and creating a decentralized trustless end to end arena for finance and services et al

You come to the board and hit up alts or bitcoin sections (the main reasons to come here to locate new and interesting decentralized trustless projects) and you can not find anything other than a few semi interesting threads and even then the tiny % of valuable points made in each thread is just repeated in a slightly different format or drown out by low value spam and garbage. So you EFFORT TO REWARD RATIO of finding value is TERRIBLE and you don't visit and don't contribute as much.

The ALT board even just back PRE 2017 was very interesting. You would have lots of high value smart posters discussing lots of new and interesting designs, with a few average folks asking questions and trying to learn what they could.

Now they all left because the number of garbage threads started and filled with more garbage was so great and so fast that the interesting threads were on page 4 before you had time to have another look.

ALL OF THE CORRUPTION AND FIGHTING HERE is down to financial reward and self serving scumbags wanting to cream off the to sig spots and retain them. They do NOT want competition. You don't have to look hard to see this is correct do you. Fortunejack, chipmixer, everywhere oh look all DT and merit sources and their pals.

The shared goal should be bitcoin adoption and the support of new genuinely interesting projects. IT IS NOT it is simply about earning money here now. This board is targeted by organised groups of people to just milk and milk and milk the board and care nothing for the long term damage by choking off those that are intimidated by the amount of low level noise and scams pushed on them by groups of semi convincing scoundrels.

If you are to have campaign managers that are getting PAID then the accountability should lay with them ALONE. Not be able to fob off the responsibility for THEIR choice to corrupt DT's who AMAZINGLY are the ones that HAVE TAKEN UP ALL THE HIGHLY PAID BTC PAYING SIG SPOTS. Choosing themselves pretty much.

Any campaign manager that can not clearly demonstrate the applicant is NOT producing posts of a quality that match or surpass others on the campaign and have NOT scammed anyone then THAT CAMPAIGN MANAGER SHOULD BE REMOVED. If the person refused applied before one that was accepted.

If a campaign manager allows ANY proven scammer who is guilty of clear observable financially motivated wrong doing on to their project (JUST BECAUSE THEIR FRIENDS ON DT REFUSE TO GIVE THEM RED TRUST)  then THAT CAMPAIGN MANAGER SHOULD BE REMOVED and shamed.

Either remove all sigs = BEST OPTION

or

Remove the incentive to game and manipulate the broken systems of control so there is less injustice and less fighting = 2ND BEST OPTION.


We suggest removing all sigs/avatars etc for 6 months and from META board forever.  Then see how the board looks. You want to fuck off to a board full of sig spamming bots and low value garbage then go to another board. You want to contribute here for free but have invested in bitcoin or another project and want to help build your community here with others ready to make an investment then stay here.

Meta should be sig free right now. Let's only have REAL enthusiasts posting their "ideas" in here. Of course allowing sig spamming self serving scum whispering in theymos's ear and getting paid their sig spam bucks at the same time is not a good idea. Their prime GOAL is milking the board for self enrichment so their advice benefits THEM. Enthusiasts want the entire movement to succeed so their advice benefits THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT. It is not rocket science.

LOL how predictable was that from these guys

Yeah but don't ban our bitcoin based sigs
Yeah but make sure all sigs go through our campaign manager pals hands
Make it really strict on our terms that we control. LOL
scum bags.

Ban ALL sigs watch the weasels leave after a few months. Leaving behind the REAL enthusiasts. We may even get back all the brilliant people that don't post any longer.

If you HAVE to KEEP sigs to make sure the board generates a LOT OF MONEY then only allow sigs in the alt coins board and just write that place off for good then. It is has now diluted itself to total and utter trash. So just allow sigs to be placed there.

Actually the altcoins situation is a direct example of what happened to this board. The GOOD alt projects with some real talented developers are almost dead and gone and there is juts a mass of slowly dying dirt with not enough support behind any to sustain its existence.  You can't located them under the sea of shit alts from devs shoveling out tons of projects en mass. Dilution death. Same with this board. Too many people posting too much crap that is not needed just to get their post quota.

[actmyname]

Let's recap so far.

1. Initial GOOD suggestion - Let's remove SIGs.

A temporary signature removal will give us valuable data. Hence why I suggested a month. I have no issue with extending that amount of time to forever.

2.  Bitcoin earning sig wearers shout  = Yes let's remove sigs BUT NOT OUR sigs (because we control the bitcoin paying sigs)

It is no secret that users who are getting paid in worthless tokens would have even less incentive to post better quality replies. That's just how it is.

I have reported scores of users and the top offenders mostly in altcoin campaigns. Some are in low-paying BTC campaigns as well.

[philipma1957]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

This is a forum where people are free to share their opinion whether it is consider a spam or shitpost or not and who the hell wants to stop posting if they know that they are earning thru it?? Its like "You don't like to have Gold". Who doesn't want money . They will do anything just for money

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I think the negative trust of the sellers is good enough to say that these persons are not trustworthy therefore, they must avoid them at all costs.

At this moment I don't see any solution to this spam problem rather than removing the signature campaign itself but for sure, the number of posts will decrease if that happen.

90 day signature ban for the entire forum.

See what good it does or what harm it does.

No signature is fine with me.

In fact I will self end my non paid endorsement of the Avalon a841 and simplemining.net as of aug 9th.

Keep it simple.

I removed my non paid endorsements of avalon 841 and simplemining.net


my post total is more then 30,687

no matter what is decided about this I won't add a signature back for 90 days.
I left my opinion up about the need for alt coins.

[pugman]

Because if there's more spam,  it means more signatures, and that means it appears almost everywhere==bigger reach, and who would care about the content of the text so long as the name gets spread all across the internet?

BCT could be monetized much further, but it has not. theymos didn't exactly have to roll out the merit system but he did. Users would still stay on the platform even if you saw banner ads because guess what: the altcoin sections are already so brutally filled with nothingness that it wouldn't change a thing. They'll just run in, post their garbage and then leave. For the majority of forum members, as long as there's money to be had, they will take it. Why do you think those ad programme sites are so popular (PTC)? There's an incentive involved and users don't care. Same thing with faucets, we should all know how ad-infested and seizure laden they are.

For sure, the forum could use various means and methods when it comes monetization, but since theymos doesn't want money the forum probably won't be utilized to its full monetary potential, which is good and bad in their own ways. When money is involved, more people are eventually involved, and the originality of discussion reduces significantly as the clock ticks, and the place intended for discussion turns into a virtual brothel full of hookers and drunk cunts. Sounds about right, innit?

As for your say of banning signatures, stop altcoin campaigns instead of stopping all of the campaigns. I mean, most of the spam is because of fucking altcoins and horrendous shits. Keep only the bitcoin paying signature campaigns and see the difference. Make signature campaigns be available only for Full-members and above.

[Ranly123]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I mean, if you can buy higher ranked accounts, well that kinda defeats the point of having ranking systems now doesn't it?

Sorry, I'm gonna keep this brief. I know there's been plenty of talking on this issue already.

What? Stopping after getting paid for just $5? So what's the point of having a signature campaign? Also it's up to the owner of such account to sell or not since it's their own property. We know that selling account is prohibited but those high ranking people here that want to quit on signature campaign tend to sell their accounts for a reason that they are not using it.

[tranthidung]

What? Stopping after getting paid for just $5? So what's the point of having a signature campaign? Also it's up to the owner of such account to sell or not since it's their own property. We know that selling account is prohibited but those high ranking people here that want to quit on signature campaign tend to sell their accounts for a reason that they are not using it.

Now, let's make a forensic analysis to have clearer overview.
Being a forum user is easy, but being a constructive and helpful one is difficult, at the start, for all of us.
Being a signature hunter is so easy, but it should not be an original reason to be here. Since 2018, if someone originally started just to do signature hunting, they were wrong, and don't have chance to do this.
Without contribution, without merit, then they will be a Newbie, forever, and will have not chance to hunt for signatures. They can buy accounts, but the fact is they will not be able to get slots in good campaigns with bought accounts (rejected by managers, or get caught with negative tags).

The higher quality of posts users can make, and keep continuously posting, the higher probability they will have slots in good campaigns.
More contributions, less or without shitposts, higher extra income from signature, that never should be only reason to be here.

[libert19]

..for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

Pretty bad solution, nonetheless, imagine this gets implemented.

Mods will have to take care of hundreds of signature campaigns, it's thousands participants, many thousands of posts they make at daily basis, and campaign rates of these campaigns.

Also add to that those ICO campaigns where you are getting paid in their (shit) tokens, mods will limiting them at $5 calculating their ICO value and when it reaches market it would be like 5 cents (I being generous with this amount lol).

Point is, this won't solve anything and will make things extra complicated.

[Natalim]

Being a forum user is easy, but being a constructive and helpful one is difficult, at the start, for all of us.

I don't find it difficult because I do contribute the best I can, but I can't please everyone, some would see that I'm not contributing and that is based on their judgement, we can't control them. This forum is so big, it serves different members from different countries, some are fluent in english while some are not, and take note, majority of the managers are fluent in English and they also accept an English posters.

I don't really put a pressure to myself just to live the standard of being a forum contributor that anyone think because I find myself unique and I should have a freedom to post on whatever I like as long as it does not violate the forum rules.

Signature campaign isn't a job, it's just an extra privilege that we enjoy being an active forum member and we don't dictate if we can work for it, it's the manager that are making the rules and implementing it.

[tranthidung]

I don't find it difficult because I do contribute the best I can

In my opinion, it is always difficult at beginnings. New users have their difficulties to find out details on forum structures, rules (read but not thoroughly understand rules, I believe). However, if they have good attitude, to read and reread forum structures, rules patiently, then they will have acceptable level of understandings on those ones. They might have more comfortable experience during their time spent in the forum. It will be a really significant start points for them.
Without understandings on forum rules, forum structures, they neither do start their journey nor can contribute anything in the forum; just a kind of time-wasting.

[pooya87]

these limitations you are proposing will actually make things a lot worse.
for example if someone was earning $10 and you limit it to $5 then they will create 2 accounts and now they have to spam twice as much. if you ban account buys it will just migrate to somewhere else and because of that ban (less supply) the price of such accounts shoot up so there will be more incentive to do account sells and more people would start doing it (farming accounts and selling them). the result is more spam, more merit abuse,...

It would happen before introduction of merit system. But now for random spammer it's almost impossible to build forum account from, or he have to put lot of efforts into it. Same goes with account sellers, I doubt that they have so many accounts farmed. It's questionable, how many of these account sellers in the marketplace really holds accounts that they're selling. I suppose that most of these sellers are just scammers.

it can create incentive and when there is incentive they will find a way. it may even create a bigger merit selling market alongside the account selling market! both of which already exist on a smaller scale.

~

not letting campaigns paying in altcoins to operate is not only absurd but also it is like erasing the problem instead of solving it. because the problem is not the campaign's payment method, it is in the manager/owner paying people for their spam.
and opposite example is Yobit campaign which was paying in bitcoin and was responsible for a large amount of spam.

[tranthidung]

But the badges won't give you any direct advantage to earn money in this forum, except good recognition from other member.
Additionally, actively reporting posts doesn't prove you can make good posts which needed to join signature campaign, so i don't see any serious problem from badge.

Badges, if released, will have no financial benefits for users who got them, I believe.

Did it occur to you that then people will focus on reporting?
Some will create accounts for making 1-5 posts that are reported, yay.
Many will report posts that maybe don't need to be reported.
It'll just create another problem imho.

Without financial benefits, I don't think people will abuse to get badges.

not letting campaigns paying in altcoins to operate is not only absurd but also it is like erasing the problem instead of solving it. because the problem is not the campaign's payment method, it is in the manager/owner paying people for their spam.
and opposite example is Yobit campaign which was paying in bitcoin and was responsible for a large amount of spam.

It is just a secondary solution, not a preventive one, but it will have good impacts on spamming, because most of altcoins campaigns/ bounties encourage spam, and managed by inexperienced managers and companies run them don't care about post quality of their supporters. Most of campaigns paid in bitcoin managed by experienced managers, so at beginnings companies run them don't encourage spam; they care about their companies' reputation and probability to get benefits from their campaigns, because they have to pay for those ones. Such spam campaign like Yobit is so scarce, as I know.

Or this extra requirement

I also believe signature campaigns should have a rule that every participant should earn a certain amount of merit each period. If they don't they get removed, and someone else gets put in their place. This would mean you'll only be hiring those that are actively earning merit rather than have done in the past which means it would prevent them from getting complacent.

Reporter badges are definitely going to encourage certain types of users to report, generally those that like to stick out within a community, and I think that's fine. You'll find a lot of organizations offering achievements, and badges to encourage students to learn. For example, a number of language courses do it, as well as when we were all back in school as a kid we had a system where they would put stars on your report card if you done well etc. It does work even in adulthood.

I think that badge is a new tool to motivate users, like merit system.

Requirements for badges should be kept in secret. Users just keep doing their daily stuffs, posting, reporting; then someday they will hit figures of total reporting posts (or good total reporting posts), at which their badges appear. Same approach as work allocation on forum staffs and their payments (staffs don't know what other staffs allocated to work, and how much others get paid) - As I remember, @Welsh said about this.

From given stats, I think badges can be rewarded as:

• >=500 good reports
• >= 1000 good reports
• >=2000 good reports
• >= 5000 good reports

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I don't find it difficult because I do contribute the best I can, but I can't please everyone,

Just have to support you on this, the only reason people find it difficult is because they joined the forum with the wrong mindset. Ask yourself what makes a good forum user. It isn't rocket science to be one as all the attributes are quite easy to possess, some times you just have to fake it until it becomes a part of you. We have those that are working underground (spam hunters) but someone might review their account and place them below others just because they aren't getting merit like others as that is what most forum users now use to judge who is or isn't a quality forum user.  It isn't that difficult to be useful to the forum.

[Natalim]

I don't find it difficult because I do contribute the best I can, but I can't please everyone,

Just have to support you on this, the only reason people find it difficult is because they joined the forum with the wrong mindset. Ask yourself what makes a good forum user. It isn't rocket science to be one as all the attributes are quite easy to possess, some times you just have to fake it until it becomes a part of you. We have those that are working underground (spam hunters) but someone might review their account and place them below others just because they aren't getting merit like others as that is what most forum users now use to judge who is or isn't a quality forum user.  It isn't that difficult to be useful to the forum.

Exactly, everyone is different, it's like you are working in a company (signature campaign) that has a lot of employees, of course among the employees, there are best, average, and poor employees in terms of performance, and it's the campaign managers job to decide which to promote or to retain in a company.

Being just an ordinary member is different from being a campaign because if you are in a campaign, you have to follow the rules of the campaign and at the same time you need to follow the forum rules which sometimes put more pressure on your compared if you are a member without a campaign.

[hd49728]

@Natalim. That is why good companies hire professional, experienced, trusted managers to manage and promote their projects. It is better for companies in cost-effectiveness aspect. Good managers with their strict rules to choose participants among applicants will make sure average quality of participants is high, or at least above average (compare to other campaigns managed by bad managers.)

[Natalim]

@Natalim. That is why good companies hire professional, experienced, trusted managers to manage and promote their projects. It is better for companies in cost-effectiveness aspect. Good managers with their strict rules to choose participants among applicants will make sure average quality of participants is high, or at least above average (compare to other campaigns managed by bad managers.)

BTC paying signature campaign that are seen in services are mostly manage by well experienced managers and I think majority of the spams are coming from the bounty campaign (signature campaign) as most managers just accept sign up without reviewing the post quality of the applicants, just simply filling out the form, and you are part of the campaign.

[philipma1957]

We could simply stop all signature campaigns as a test. Maybe 30 60 90 days

Measure traffic on forum and make decisions on that.

I have not done a paid signature in three years.
I still post a lot.
So why do we think people will end posting. Traffic will lesson.

Other suggestions. Make Oct signature free month. Just October.

The forum will survive that.

I picked October because it would give people time to get ready.

If the forum can’t survive one month of no signatures it is fundamentally a flawed forum.

[actmyname]

We could simply stop all signature campaigns as a test. Maybe 30 60 90 days

Measure traffic on forum and make decisions on that.

I have not done a paid signature in three years.
I still post a lot.
So why do we think people will end posting. Traffic will lesson.

The forum attracted individuals pre-campaigns. What kind of users do we want on this platform? Spammers that are just here to make a quick buck (literally)? Or, do we want real discussion?

If we don't want real discussion then why have the Serious discussion & Ivory Tower boards at all?
If we don't want real discussion then why implement the merit system?
If we don't want real discussion then why put limitations on signatures?

It could be an advertising haven but it's not.

[philipma1957]

We could simply stop all signature campaigns as a test. Maybe 30 60 90 days

Measure traffic on forum and make decisions on that.

I have not done a paid signature in three years.
I still post a lot.
So why do we think people will end posting. Traffic will lesson.

The forum attracted individuals pre-campaigns. What kind of users do we want on this platform? Spammers that are just here to make a quick buck (literally)? Or, do we want real discussion?

If we don't want real discussion then why have the Serious discussion & Ivory Tower boards at all?
If we don't want real discussion then why implement the merit system?
If we don't want real discussion then why put limitations on signatures?

It could be an advertising haven but it's not.

To me I got here in 2012

 I did signature for 18 months from  some time in 2014 to 2015  most of the funds I rolled into my difficulty give away threads back in the early years..

 I stopped doing them {paid signature} because I decided they were not worthwhile to do from a moral level.

I did promote :

simplemining.net for free
sidehack for free .........still promote him via a giveaway raffle.
avalon 841 for free

after reading this thread and mentioning in some other threads prior to this about a temporary end to all signatures.

I have stopped promoting the avalon a841 and simplemining.net via avatar and signature.
I still have the usb stick give away for sidehack.

To me a 1 month holiday in October every year seems good.

Or pick November

or pick December.   I say those months as they are close to ongoing yet would give some time for adjustment.

How hard is it to shut the options down for a month.  Maybe it is too hard to do that (I doubt that)

Now even if done it does not stop a spam post with a link  I have reported many of them.

We may find  that spam posts with links go up 10 fold for the signature ban month.  
Thus we say okay lets  go back to signatures as it is the lessor of 2 evils.
As it is quite possible that paid signatures reduce the spam posts with an outside link.

[actmyname]

How hard is it to shut the options down for a month.  Maybe it is too hard to do that (I doubt that)

Now even if done it does not stop a spam post with a link  I have reported many of them.

We may find  that spam posts with links go up 10 fold for the signature ban month. 
Thus we say okay lets  go back to signatures as it is the lessor of 2 evils.
As it is quite possible that paid signatures reduce the spam posts with an outside link.

Your theory makes some sense if we're talking about throwaway accounts. However, since a lot of members want to keep their "rank privileges" I'm not so sure that they'll resort to link spam, especially if it results in a ban.

Spam is one thing but link spam is another. The latter should be more bannable and that would disincentivize users from going too crazily on the off-period. Especially if they have a chance of returning to signature campaigns.

I still say it's worth a shot, that we should try the experiment. Even a week or two would be fine. After all, with no incentive to post, we won't get horrible replies to useless threads.

[drwhobox]

Why would Theymos think of disabling signature when it's one of the reasons that makes this forum more popular? That's operating at a loss IMO.

I heard they keep saying that the forum has enough money and without traffic from the spammers the forum will be better off. Personally I think forum will lose most of it's traffic and people will move on to something else. Only the true bitcoin lovers will stay here.

[tranthidung]

Only the true bitcoin lovers will stay here.

Not only true bitcoin lovers, but also true forum lovers, includes true altcoin lovers, will stay here. Why true forum users have to leave the forum to find somewhere else? Bitcointalk.org is the biggest and most reliable forum in crypto. I have not seen other crypto forums that have multiple layers (Trust Flags, community-led spam-buster clubs, community-member-built plagiabot, scam-fighers, and more) of protections that are helpful tools to eliminate/ reduce scammers and scam projects.

[Welsh]

Did it occur to you that then people will focus on reporting?
Some will create accounts for making 1-5 posts that are reported, yay.
Many will report posts that maybe don't need to be reported.
It'll just create another problem imho.

Users won't report posts intentionally that they think are wrong reports, because it requires good reports to get a badge. Therefore, it would be counterproductive for them to report any old post. However, due to the amount of users reporting that will likely result in more bad reports, but that's a small trade off considering there should be a lot more good reports than bad.

[The-One-Above-All]

Let's recap so far.

1. Initial GOOD suggestion - Let's remove SIGs.

A temporary signature removal will give us valuable data. Hence why I suggested a month. I have no issue with extending that amount of time to forever.

2.  Bitcoin earning sig wearers shout  = Yes let's remove sigs BUT NOT OUR sigs (because we control the bitcoin paying sigs)

It is no secret that users who are getting paid in worthless tokens would have even less incentive to post better quality replies. That's just how it is.

I have reported scores of users and the top offenders mostly in altcoin campaigns. Some are in low-paying BTC campaigns as well.

Well, that is one way to look at it.

If you NEED financial incentive to post good replies then bitcointalk can do without you. If success of this trustless decentralized movement is not reward enough and incentive enough then goodbye.

There are several issues with this point of view.

1. Highly paid bitcoin signatures/campaigns seem to be the cause of a LOT of the corruption at the higher levels, and  DOUBLE STANDARDS are the most divisive and destructive negatives that seem to be the root cause of the disagreements with system controllers. (who (co)incidentally have the LIONS SHARE of those bitcoin paying campaigns. This greatly spoils the environment for all. The hostility and the sense of injustice. Neither are nice and put some people off. The DESIRE to remain in those sig sports or get into them allows merit and trust to become the gamed carrot and stick of group think and crushing of free speech ( the worst part of it all)

2. Highly paid sigs have MORE incentive to post needless FILLER posts to meet their MAX payment each month.If people view their bounty tokens as "worthless tokens" then why do they even bother posting at all and should have FAR less incentive to post at all. Why post needless filler crap for free? They (higher paid sigs) also have MORE incentive to post false, incorrect and misleading information to ensure they are the ones that stay in those highly paid sigs.  Those sigs DON'T seem to expire like the alt coin low value trash as you say. Once you worm yourself into one of these highly paid sig campaigns then you seem to be in it for months or YEARS on end. Of course the motivation to stay there will make you far LESS objective with regard how the board operates and stifles FAIR COMPETITION for those tiny tiny tiny % of sig spots.  Hence why they are HIGHLY damaging and corrupting. They must be deleted with ALL of the other signatures. I would say damage done from those wearing those highly paid  sigs is probably far more significant for the forum going forward than a sub board (alts) that is ALREADY pretty much destroyed,  but contained to a large degree so broadly speaking bitcoin is left alone.

Also clearing ONLY the "trash token bounty" sigs will do nothing. The projects will simply respawn with bunches of their own private post for shit tokens campaigns with fake conversation crap so there you are just kicking the can down the road. Alt board needs more than sig bans it needs a total rethink. The old noob jail was the ONLY sensible way forward. You make posting on the senior alt board a privilege that is revoked the moment you start spamming and fake conversation garbage. So you will need to be very sensible else back to noob jail and the long haul back. Bitcoin discussion is not so bad because you can't start a ton of fake conversations about alt projects there.

3, There is 3 clear types of shit posted that creates a sub-optimal forum performance.

a/ spam/filler junk/ parroting/ fake discussions etc etc  this is dilution and obfuscation of valuable posts. Average people can  filter it IF they want to put in the time.

b/ specious semi well presented faux rebuttals and faux support. THESE ARE WORSE and can dupe average to low minds into believing fake and incorrect garbage. There should be NO incentive for these specious arguments to be put forward. All financial motivation for them in terms of direct board generated revenue must be crushed where possible.

c/ Raging wars based on personal gains and grievance the largest MOTIVATION For which is always MONEY/FINANCIAL on this type of forum (excluding politics board etc). Wars and animosity will be a large and negative issue where people perceive UNFAIR reward and punishment in comparison to others. There must be transparent fair rules that ensure all are treated equally. Else people waste their time on personal grievances over contributing to pushing this movement forward. All the main arguments seem to be derived in reputation from a persons right to paid2post or rev streams got terminated. Some others though will fight merely on behalf of others or for the introduction of fairer systems that will be hugely net positive going forward for the entire movement and to guarantee free unfettered speech continues here.


4. The final but most important point though is this.

a/ you can delete the highly paid btc sig campaigns and lose a handful of the most corrupt and observably dirty individuals whose double standards seems to be creating most of the real wars here and NOT LOSE MUCH TRAFFIC AT ALL.  The boards revenue would be unaffected with their campaign adds being displayed directly by the forum not DT's creaming off those spots. Perhaps the board will MAKE MORE MONEY?? the board will have gained back it's free speech ( or in other words financial gain and membership to highly paid sig campaigns will not be dominating and influencing what you chose to post here)  and be less of an echo chamber. You will win win there.


b/ You can delete everyones sigs "shit tokens etc" and watch the traffic crushed by a HUGE degree, and lose a lot of the boards revenue due to long term huge traffic loss - board loses lots of money  and does not even really do anything except push the icos and projects to just pay for fake discussions etc which will just keep the general threads there low value. Perhaps open a SENIOR alt board which is sig free but has no other limits.

c/  You can delete both ?

Really the ONLY board damaged HUGELY that is worth worrying about in terms of success of this movement is the ALT boards. Bitcoin discussion is not TOO bad. It is still largely functional.

For the movements sake it is a tough call to kick sigs from the alt board. A lot of interest in decentralized trustless projects relies on them telling their pals you can make some quick bucks here pumping "shit coins" although awareness and involvement from that source will generate a certain % of successes and real enthusiasts regardless of financial net gain.

It's a tough call from the boards point of view. Especially as looking at the last ledger the board makes quite a bit on the traffic and adds.

WHATEVER !!! YOU WANT REAL ENTHUSIASTS FOR THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT AT THE TOP MAKING SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES OR INFLUENCING THEM. NOT THOSE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN SELFISH GAIN ONLY.

Decisions made in positions of power must be for the good of the movement not for the good of themselves first or perhaps ONLY.




TL: DR -  ( seriously?)

Remove Highly paid btc sigs ONLY (those should now be reserved for mods and direct forum advertisement)
 everyone else can sig spam on alt board with the rest of them for shit tokens and ensure that board only is low quality. (can make a sig free altcoin senior board)

- pros

remove the primary incentive for corruption, double standards ,  wars,  group think and echo chambers. Can provide funding for perhaps a couple of more full time mods that are fully accountable for their actions. Will help ensure that "ideas" voiced in meta (influencing system wide changes ) are the voices of those that are REAL ENTHUSIASTS not self serving scoundrels. Still attract all the traffic from the high volume of users on the alts boards, those posting on other boards can do it without sigs.

- cons

NONE

Remove tokens and crappy bitcoin paid sigs ONLY

Pros - will increase the concentration of valuable posters that are real enthusiasts, at least for now. alt coin boards will improve.

Cons - you will lose all of the benefits of removing the highly paid bitcoin sigs brings (see above lots of benefits)., you will lose huge volume and reduce revenue for the funding of the forum, perhaps even aid competition of other boards rising up.


Putting too much emphasis on reporting and snitching is not healthy at all.


Remove both = you do the math.

Whatever let's remove sigs from meta and rep asap.

[rosezionjohn]

I heard they keep saying that the forum has enough money and without traffic from the spammers the forum will be better off. Personally I think forum will lose most of it's traffic and people will move on to something else. Only the true bitcoin lovers will stay here.

This forum exploded because many people saw an opportunity to earn. I know of five other forums that will definitely welcome btc and more altcoin signature campaigns. Some high-ranking users here are well-off (maybe) and don't really need the added income but others will move or be more active in other forums.   


I see some user here suggesting the removal of signature but still proudly wearing one.   

[malevolent]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I mean, if you can buy higher ranked accounts, well that kinda defeats the point of having ranking systems now doesn't it?

Sorry, I'm gonna keep this brief. I know there's been plenty of talking on this issue already.

Newbies can already bypass many restrictions by buying Copper membership:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=credit;promote

Account sales are unlikely to be banned because people will still sell them off-site. How do you prevent that?

I see some user here suggesting the removal of signature but still proudly wearing one.   

They may believe that signatures in aggregate have a harmful influence on the quality of discourse on the forum, without thinking of themselves as a spammer (and without being one).

[TheRealAwesome31312]

I see some user here suggesting the removal of signature but still proudly wearing one.   

What I've learned from making this post is that a lot of people who are actually part of sig campaigns don't like the impact they've had on the community en masse. I've participated in a few sig campaigns myself. There's a small minority of sig campaign posters that aren't spammers.

[philipma1957]

How hard is it to shut the options down for a month.  Maybe it is too hard to do that (I doubt that)

Now even if done it does not stop a spam post with a link  I have reported many of them.

We may find  that spam posts with links go up 10 fold for the signature ban month.  
Thus we say okay lets  go back to signatures as it is the lessor of 2 evils.
As it is quite possible that paid signatures reduce the spam posts with an outside link.

Your theory makes some sense if we're talking about throwaway accounts. However, since a lot of members want to keep their "rank privileges" I'm not so sure that they'll resort to link spam, especially if it results in a ban.

Spam is one thing but link spam is another. The latter should be more bannable and that would disincentivize users from going too crazily on the off-period. Especially if they have a chance of returning to signature campaigns.

I still say it's worth a shot, that we should try the experiment. Even a week or two would be fine. After all, with no incentive to post, we won't get horrible replies to useless threads.

How about jan 1 to Jan 15th?

No avatar
no shit under the avatar
no signature.

do some stats and see how much traffic is lost.  see how many do shit spam links.



we could have a 2 week vacation for jan 1 to jan 15 and one for  july 1 to july 15.

[Natalim]

I see some user here suggesting the removal of signature but still proudly wearing one.   

What I've learned from making this post is that a lot of people who are actually part of sig campaigns don't like the impact they've had on the community en masse. I've participated in a few sig campaigns myself. There's a small minority of sig campaign posters that aren't spammers.

Most of the members who replied in this thread are wearing signature, so it's expected that they will not favor on limiting signature campaign .
Even when I was a low rank member, I already participated in signature and honestly that makes me active in this forum.

[Welsh]

Most of the members who replied in this thread are wearing signature, so it's expected that they will not favor on limiting signature campaign .
Even when I was a low rank member, I already participated in signature and honestly that makes me active in this forum.

Although, it would be a shame to ban something which in itself is fine, and the only reason its become a problem is because users are abusing it. However, if it were to get limited/banned then I probably wouldn't have an argument, because of the issues its currently causing the forum. There would be a whole load of users who would feel hard done by due to it being a minority, but maybe we should be looking at the campaign managers who are managing the participants. 

[Coyster]

After all, with no incentive to post, we won't get horrible replies to useless threads.

I do not think this is true in any way, there are a whole lot of users who are still newbies and a lot(member to legendary rank) who are not on a signature, yet they come up with "useless" and low quality thread.

Signature isn't entirely the problem, even if it may contribute to it to an extent, but with the example above it's clear it's not wholly the cause of spam.
It's in the nature of humans to speak on issues they have paltry knowledge on.

[actmyname]

I do not think this is true in any way, there are a whole lot of users who are still newbies and a lot(member to legendary rank) who are not on a signature, yet they come up with "useless" and low quality thread.

Argument over semantics...

I expect spam to decline by at least 90%. 10% of sig spammers will stay. Being forced to post in return for money, that's far more appealing than just posting because of an inflated ego and/or trolling.

[Zero1One0]

The signature campaign and bounties are not the same as it was compared to 2017 ICO boom.

Signature campaigns may die a natural death and spam may also die with it.

Just let nature take its course.

[Baronets]

The use of signature space is a reward for posters who contribute to a forum. I don't spend much time in forums that don't allow links in signatures. I think it would be helpful to make members aware that the content of their signature affects their reputation. If you promote scamming projects, then people will start to think of you as a scammer, even if it isn't true.

[hd49728]

The use of signature space is a reward for posters who contribute to a forum. I don't spend much time in forums that don't allow links in signatures. I think it would be helpful to make members aware that the content of their signature affects their reputation. If you promote scamming projects, then people will start to think of you as a scammer, even if it isn't true.

If the forum born without BB-coded signatures. Years ago, the forum born as the place for bitcoin discussion and developments. It will be fine if it return to its original version, non-signature forum. Then all ranks of accounts can be able to wear avatars, just disable signatures.

[noormcs5]

The use of signature space is a reward for posters who contribute to a forum. I don't spend much time in forums that don't allow links in signatures. I think it would be helpful to make members aware that the content of their signature affects their reputation. If you promote scamming projects, then people will start to think of you as a scammer, even if it isn't true.

If the forum born without BB-coded signatures. Years ago, the forum born as the place for bitcoin discussion and developments. It will be fine if it return to its original version, non-signature forum. Then all ranks of accounts can be able to wear avatars, just disable signatures.

There has been a great debate going on since years whether the forum should be Signature free or not. You can give endless arguments in favor or against it but if you ask me, i will like to have signatures on the forum. Not because that posters get some money for posting, but for the companies who knows that this is the biggest platform and their willingness to promote their business through this platform.

[Welsh]

The signature campaign and bounties are not the same as it was compared to 2017 ICO boom.

Signature campaigns may die a natural death and spam may also die with it.

Just let nature take its course.

They're still a big part of the forum, especially within the altcoin section. Bounties are crazy, and there's new ones popping up every hour. Bitcoin signature campaigns are dying out slowly probably due to the fact that Bitcoins price is fluctuating so much, and its considered more valuable. Now that ICO's know that they can offer their coin shares instead of Bitcoin which might very well never amount to anything they are opting for that approach. Being a Bitcoin forum I'd like to think these campaigns should be required to pay in Bitcoin or at least pay a fee to the forum in Bitcoin like already mentioned.

[hd49728]

There has been a great debate going on since years whether the forum should be Signature free or not. You can give endless arguments in favor or against it but if you ask me, i will like to have signatures on the forum. Not because that posters get some money for posting, but for the companies who knows that this is the biggest platform and their willingness to promote their business through this platform.

Signature itself does not do anything wrong or annoying. Only people who abuse the forum by wearing signature and spam around, with very low-quality, low-content posts are issues, not signature. Turn off all signature might have negative effects on forum traffic, and this is one of main reasons why signature will be here. There is nothing wrong or annoying if someone makes high quality, contentful posts with signature behind their post.

[Welsh]

Signature itself does not do anything wrong or annoying. Only people who abuse the forum by wearing signature and spam around, with very low-quality, low-content posts are issues, not signature. Turn off all signature might have negative effects on forum traffic, and this is one of main reasons why signature will be here. There is nothing wrong or annoying if someone makes high quality, contentful posts with signature behind their post.

I believe theymos has stated before that it isn't traffic he's worried about when concerning signatures, and has even hinted that in the future they might even be removed. If my memory serves me correctly what he did say was it would be a shame to sort of remove a ecosystem within the forum. Although, I haven't got the links/quotes on me now I can see if I can find them later on when I have a little more time on my hands.

[eternalgloom]

@welsh:

Was this the post? Probably not, but he did also state in this one that removing them would be possible.

It's too early to get a clear picture, but my thoughts so far:

First, most people complaining about merit are constantly posting garbage, and should not rank-up. The forum is not a welfare system; you don't run through a few hoops and then get paid for doing something that nobody actually wants. I like that good forum members can make money, especially when said forum members are in poorer countries and this is a major opportunity for them. I very much do not want to destroy the sig-ad/airdrop/bounty "industry". But I am not going to tolerate people posting garbage upon garbage. If the merit system completely fails and I can't think of anything else to replace it, then my next step will probably be to completely remove all ways for forum users to make money from posting (eg. removing signatures entirely).

--snip--

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350 (topic) || https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.msg29540717#msg29540717 (Exact reply)

Seems like it was given as an option for when the merit system fails. Has it failed? What's everyone's opinion on that?

[hd49728]

I digged and made this thread, which summarises process from which theymos asked for ideas from communites, came to original solutions (merit system & new rank requirements); to more restrictive improvements (old-era Junior Members demotion); and reminders on post-quality and potential conflict of interests between the forum, good users, and spammers.
Since 2018, what did you contribute to prevent signature ads removed globally?
Still not find the part mentioned about forum traffic.

[LoyceV]

Seems like it was given as an option for when the merit system fails. Has it failed? What's everyone's opinion on that?

I'd say the Merit system helped. It closed the flood gates so spammers can't create new high-ranking accouts, while existing rule breakers can get banned.
It's not perfect and there is still spam (especially on some boards), but in general I think the forum improved.

[actmyname]

Signature itself does not do anything wrong or annoying. Only people who abuse the forum by wearing signature and spam around, with very low-quality, low-content posts are issues, not signature. Turn off all signature might have negative effects on forum traffic, and this is one of main reasons why signature will be here. There is nothing wrong or annoying if someone makes high quality, contentful posts with signature behind their post.

I believe theymos has stated before that it isn't traffic he's worried about when concerning signatures, and has even hinted that in the future they might even be removed. If my memory serves me correctly what he did say was it would be a shame to sort of remove a ecosystem within the forum. Although, I haven't got the links/quotes on me now I can see if I can find them later on when I have a little more time on my hands.

[Stats]
Extrapolating the current "average posts per day" stat rounded to a nice 8000, we get 248K posts per 31-day month. Now, consider the post totals in mid-2013 and onwards. Signature campaigns were not nearly as big back then as they are now, especially in regards to bounties which make up the bulk of the spam.

Bad traffic will drop. Good traffic will increase.

[LoyceV]

[Stats]

Isn't this outdated? As far as I know, it's the average up to the end of 2017.

we get 248K posts per 31-day month.

A month ago, I created post #51835871. You just posted #52170396.
That makes 334,5K posts in a month.

Bad traffic will drop. Good traffic will increase.

A quick look at patrol shows a different story, unfortunately But it was probably worse before the Merit system.

[actmyname]

A month ago, I created post #51835871. You just posted #52170396.
That makes 334,5K posts in a month.

Even so, not a huge difference between the era prior to mass campaigning vs. now.

Bad traffic will drop. Good traffic will increase.

A quick look at patrol shows a different story, unfortunately But it was probably worse before the Merit system.

Could be somewhat the same due to the fact that Newbies don't automatically become Jr. Members.

[eternalgloom]

Seems like it was given as an option for when the merit system fails. Has it failed? What's everyone's opinion on that?

I'd say the Merit system helped. It closed the flood gates so spammers can't create new high-ranking accouts, while existing rule breakers can get banned.
It's not perfect and there is still spam (especially on some boards), but in general I think the forum improved.

Yeah I tend to agree with that, I mean it's absolutely fantastic that spammers will generally stay at lower ranks, which removes a very big incentive for them to post here in the first place.

A great side effect is that some would-be spammers have probably cleaned up their act a bit and have converted into contributing members.
Too bad you can't really get statistics on that, it's just something I've noticed by reading people's stories or actually seeing a change in someone's post history.

[Welsh]

[Stats]
Extrapolating the current "average posts per day" stat rounded to a nice 8000, we get 248K posts per 31-day month. Now, consider the post totals in mid-2013 and onwards. Signature campaigns were not nearly as big back then as they are now, especially in regards to bounties which make up the bulk of the spam.

Bad traffic will drop. Good traffic will increase.

Although, this is an interesting statistic to look at, and vaguely base it off. However, when considering the amount of exposure Bitcoin has since then, and the popularity that its gained through price surges, and whatever else. I wouldn't consider that a fair test. No doubt bounties bring a huge amount of traffic to the forum, however that's also part of the cryptocurrency world now, and I'm not sure if I'm willing to class that as bad traffic. After all, not everything in that area of cryptocurrency is dodgy. There's a lot of shit to wade through, but its got some promising ideas among all of that.

We only have to look at the top sections for total amount of posts on the popularity of those. However, considering bounties require users to make multiple posts that figure is also a little skewed. Some threads in the altcoin section you can literally go through a whole topic, and end up reporting 99% of the thread which is like 60+ pages long. This has generally reduced recently, and older threads are more subject to this.

Also, when comparing the amount of posts from the altcoin section to the Bitcoin section we have to consider there are a lot more alternative coins out there which appeal to a larger audience than just Bitcoin. This would then attract a larger audience generally. Although, Bitcoin is considered THE cryptocurrency by many, a lot of users will be looking to invest in new, and upcoming alternate coins because they offer something different. This is why we've seen such success with coins offering lower transactions fees, and faster confirmation times.

My original point is that signature campaigns aren't the sole reason of the vast activity difference between the Bitcoin sections, and the alternative coin sections. Although, of course its going to have some sort of impact on those figures its just hard to gauge how much of an impact that has had.

[LoyceV]

A great side effect is that some would-be spammers have probably cleaned up their act a bit and have converted into contributing members.

On the other hand, text spinners and generic shitposting bots get more advanced. Many posts make no sense, but it's a lot of work to manually justify deleting the work of a bot.

[HouseStark]

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason <...>

How can anyone impose bans on account sales? Admins definitely don't have the time to investigate all of the 2 Million+ accounts here, and people sell these accounts all across the internet. <...>

Over 70% of registered profiles have never even posted on the forum and more than 159,000 profiles are banned. So the number of accounts that could potentially be for sale is far less than 2 millions.
And in my opinion, trading of Bitcointalk accounts can be forbidden on the forum itself with no difficulty.

and you think majority of the account sales happen on forum here?...no one would even dare do that since they're afraid of being known and getting banned...ah well, i can't tell if those who do sell accounts openly on this forum get that many buyers lol
buh as the OP said...the sales happen at many places..(there's like a circus for that) so it's still difficult to track.

[friends1980]

If people could gain a bit of money whilst posting interesting stuff on these boards, I couldn't be happier about it. I hate spam but as long as people respect the campaign rules, I haven't got the least problem with it. Would also be a nice thing if campaign managers actually kicked shitposters out and reported spam posts.

Luckily we have the SpamBusters club who do a tremendously impressive job for this forum.

I often participate in sig campaigns. If I don't get enough interesting to fill my number of weekly posts, so be it, the week after there's a new chance to get stakes. If everyone could get this attitude and mentality spontaneously, this would be a better place already. Don't post if you haven't really got anything to say.

Don't punish people who participate in campaigns. Punish spammers and shitposters.

And REPORT EVERY SPAM POST!

[Findingnemo]

Don't punish people who participate in campaigns. Punish spammers and shitposters.

And REPORT EVERY SPAM POST!

Agree with this and also campaigners need to respect the project they were promoting.Paying one readable post worth more than 100 spam posts so rules also need to be set to bring the quality posts.If they have high number of posts means people will try to hit it hard with unsubstantial posts so decreasing the maximum post paid will bring lot of changes to spam related issue.

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

[hd49728]

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

I don't catch your ideas here.
If you think such rule should be updated in forum, why not ask for automatic feature to lock threads after total posts inside threads hit 100?
Anyway, I don't think your ideas (in case I catch it correctly) is logically. Good posts are good posts, whatever they are 100th, 200th, or 1000th position in threads. Shit posts are shit posts, whatever their positions in threads.

Please don't ask for rule to stop people making their good posts, and giving their hands (through their posts) to help others.
Legendary members (good ones) should keep posting and help community or they should switch to read-only mode when they reach that rank or reach a fixed number of merits?

[LoyceV]

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

You mean like this:

6. Posts in spam megathreads (based on my opinion), ~snip~ will not count.

[finaleshot2016]

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

What if the threads get more interesting every time when a user replies on it? As long as it's a quality post even it's in a spam thread, it should be considered.

If you're a good poster and tried to post on a spam thread, there's a possibility to change the mood on the discussion. Instead of shitposts, it might change due to your intellectual statements. Also, not all of the 100 replies thread are full of spams and shitposts, I already saw a thread with multiple pages that consist of technical and analytical statements. In a thread, there are different kinds of posters, some of them are just spamming and some are trying to make quality posts that will engage in good discussions.

[hd49728]

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

You mean like this:

6. Posts in spam megathreads (based on my opinion), ~snip~ will not count.

Such rule is unnecessary, because campaign managers have their own local rules for their campaigns. They have rights to judge which posts will be counted, which posts will be uneligible (where posts made and / or their quality)
A good post does not need to be too long to help other.
SpamMeta threads should not be counted, I agreed; but 100 replies are too litle to call as SpamMeta threads. If there is a strict rule, all posts made in serious spam sections should not be counted. But it is managers' issues, and their campaigns, not forum issues.

My post in this thread is the #95. 

[friends1980]

I remain a huge defender of holding bounty managers responsible for the quality of their participants' posts.

I've written a Meta post about this before. I still believe we should attack bounty managers on their own rules.

During the last days, I've sent PMs to several bounty managers who had shitposters in their campaign. One told me to piss off. An other one kicked the shitposters out and actually cancelled the campaign for a fresh restart.

You see: it is possible - edit: and I respect the guy for taking such courageous decision.

Again: keep reporting shitposts, especially the ones wearing signatures. It really hurts them if they haven't reached their weekly minimum for a few weeks.

[Joel_Jantsen]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

That would just promote account farming and members will start using multiple accounts to double the earnings for the day. Aso, the quality signature campaign service will suffer if they're forced to hire more people to match their minimum requirement.

I mean, if you can buy higher ranked accounts, well that kinda defeats the point of having ranking systems now doesn't it?

Netflix accounts can be bought for dirt cheap with premium subscriptions correct? Doesn't mean that dissolves the point of selling premium plans.

[ololajulo]

Reading through the signature campaign guidelines, one will notice that we still break this sometimes, especially, adding more posts to already answered OP. Signature campaigns had reduced significantly among bounties so also the numbers of expected posts per week and still wonder why we still struggle to get good things around, the forum moderator has been working to uphold those standard but I dont think signature campaign is serving the purpose of that awareness to get investors from this forum as expected. We need to derive more measures not actually strict but can contain members.

[Pmalek]

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

I don't think that rule does anything good. Spammers can post in old multi-page threads or just change their habit and post in newly created threads for their posts to count.

Since LoyceV also quoted your reply I will use him as an example. He has a thread that he bumps when Bitcoin fees are down. Today he wrote the #149th post in that thread > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2848987.msg52202706#msg52202706

If a rule like that would be implemented, his post telling users that fees are down again and they can now consolidate their inputs would not be paid but pointless comments in newly created altcoin threads discussing new moon projects would. 

[LoyceV]

Since LoyceV also quoted your reply I will use him as an example. He has a thread that he bumps when Bitcoin fees are down. Today he wrote the #149th post in that thread > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2848987.msg52202706#msg52202706

If a rule like that would be implemented, his post telling users that fees are down again and they can now consolidate their inputs would not be paid but pointless comments in newly created altcoin threads discussing new moon projects would. 

That's a bad example, I don't expect my bumps to be paid.

[tranthidung]

That's a bad example, I don't expect my bumps to be paid.

Pmalek expressed his opinion incorrectly, I guess what he meant is good posts should be counted as eligible posts for payments in campaigns. Managers are responsible to judge which posts are good and eligible to get paid; and ordinal number of posts inside threads are non sense to judge post quality or to reject payments.
The mentioned post is a bump, but if we eliminate this line

Consolidate Bump!

That post is actually an informative and helpful one, and clearly not a bump post. It is a bump post for old readers of that threat, but for new visitors, it is very informative and helpful.

[actmyname]

If you read a post and you think, "nothing has been gained or truly said from this post," then it may well be spam.

[Findingnemo]

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

I don't catch your ideas here.
If you think such rule should be updated in forum, why not ask for automatic feature to lock threads after total posts inside threads hit 100?
Anyway, I don't think your ideas (in case I catch it correctly) is logically. Good posts are good posts, whatever they are 100th, 200th, or 1000th position in threads. Shit posts are shit posts, whatever their positions in threads.

Please don't ask for rule to stop people making their good posts, and giving their hands (through their posts) to help others.
Legendary members (good ones) should keep posting and help community or they should switch to read-only mode when they reach that rank or reach a fixed number of merits?

I am talking about signature campaign rewards so there is no need to have such auto lock feature,but when the post made after the 100th reply then it won't be counted towards the payable post but if you want you can still reply to 1000th post if it is subjective to do discussion but it won't be paid,such rule can bring spam mega threads to an end I believe.

[hd49728]

Your post is 103th in this thread, so honestly I don't think post is at 100th, 200th is trash by default. Good posts are always good posts, whichever ordinal positions in threads. Trash post is trash one even it is at second position, just after OP.
If this one considered, it might result in another trend, spam threads, instead of spam posts. Creating threads, then locking them after 100 posts, and starting new threads.

[Findingnemo]

Your post is 103th in this thread, so honestly I don't think post is at 100th, 200th is trash by default. Good posts are always good posts, whichever ordinal positions in threads. Trash post is trash one even it is at second position, just after OP.
If this one considered, it might result in another trend, spam threads, instead of spam posts. Creating threads, then locking them after 100 posts, and starting new threads.

I think chipmixer already have this rule but not 100 replies,its just spam mega thread won't counted as paid post even if it is not a spam reply and also altcoin section replies won't counted for their paid posts so the result is most HQ campaign in this forum its being.So it could bring some change if it will be implemented by all the managers is just my opinion.

[hd49728]

I think chipmixer already have this rule but not 100 replies,its just spam mega thread won't counted as paid post even if it is not a spam reply and also altcoin section replies won't counted for their paid posts so the result is most HQ campaign in this forum its being.So it could bring some change if it will be implemented by all the managers is just my opinion.

Spam mega threads depend on managers' opinion.

6. Posts in spam megathreads (based on my opinion)

Post length does not determine post quality

4. There is no minimum length to make a post constructive, but you can expect scrutiny. If you can post a constructive post in 12 words, you don't need to make it longer.

I think there are not exact standards for post-length or spam megathread, so let it be verified by managers. If there are a cut-offs, it should be something more than 100th post.

[shield132]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I mean, if you can buy higher ranked accounts, well that kinda defeats the point of having ranking systems now doesn't it?

Sorry, I'm gonna keep this brief. I know there's been plenty of talking on this issue already.

The campaigns which have shitposters are in black list, for example take Yobit, their campaign was banned, so isn't point still reached?
Campaigns aren't like orders, you post on this forum, see news and etc and at the same time get reward for it.
Did you ask something there and didn't you get good answer? I highly doubt that, maybe you would get some shit posts but most people there tries to really help each other, for example take mining and technical discussion sections.
You can easily ignore what you don't want to see.

[Pmalek]

...also altcoin section replies won't counted for their paid posts....

Posts in the altcoin boards are not counted because ChipMixer is a Bitcoin mixer and therefore needs no advertisements in the Alt boards.

That's a bad example, I don't expect my bumps to be paid.

Maybe not the best example you are right but I still don't agree that the post is in any way useless even if it is a bump. It is also not a regular bump because you bump the thread in the hours when the fees are low. If I didn't know how to check the mempool or the fees myself and I saw your bump post at the right time you could save me some money. Therefore I still think it is useful.

There are at least 3 pages of discussions in that thread starting from post #101+. I was trying to make a point that the number of the post in a thread has no connection to spam.   

[LoyceV]

I think there are not exact standards for post-length or spam megathread, so let it be verified by managers.

A good post is worthless if it's posted on page 200 of a spam thread. Nobody is going to read it.
On the other hand, a much smaller thread on the same topic as thousands of other threads doesn't add any value, even if it only has one page.

[hd49728]

I think there are not exact standards for post-length or spam megathread, so let it be verified by managers.

A good post is worthless if it's posted on page 200 of a spam thread. Nobody is going to read it.
On the other hand, a much smaller thread on the same topic as thousands of other threads doesn't add any value, even if it only has one page.

I agreed with you that threads with 200 pages should be considered as spam mega threads (they actually are).

100th post or post in 100th page is different. You likely misunderstood what I am discussing with Findingnemo.  

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

[Findingnemo]

...also altcoin section replies won't counted for their paid posts....

Posts in the altcoin boards are not counted because ChipMixer is a Bitcoin mixer and therefore needs no advertisements in the Alt boards.

Spam is the main reason why they stopped counting posts on those boards since the chances of reading those posts by someone is really less,so bitcoin mixer is not the real reason why they skipped it.

100th post or post in 100th page is different. You likely misunderstood what I am discussing with Findingnemo.  

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

Even 100th post in a thread has less chance of reading by anyone,okay now lets imagine what if there is a rule no posts will be counted for payments if it is in 11th page?

[iamsheikhadil]

This forum was created to discuss the application and growth of crypto and bitcoin in specific

So, any activity other than normal discussion is just a side stuff and not the main. That includes signature campaigns.

Signature campaigns aren't and shouldn't be the main goal of an user of bitcointalk.

However, the moment there's a rule created to target post count against the "importance" of signature campaigns, it sends a message that sig. campaigns are the most prioritized which can have an influence even on posting on the forum.

And it goes directly against the mission and aim for which this forum was created. Hence, if necessary, I would suggest a ban on all signature campaigns instead of limiting post count if it ever goes to that.

Not an enemy of signature campaigns, just that it shouldn't influence the normal confabulation regarding Bitcoin in the forum )

[Findingnemo]

This forum was created to discuss the application and growth of crypto and bitcoin in specific

So, any activity other than normal discussion is just a side stuff and not the main. That includes signature campaigns.

Signature campaigns aren't and shouldn't be the main goal of an user of bitcointalk.

However, the moment there's a rule created to target post count against the "importance" of signature campaigns, it sends a message that sig. campaigns are the most prioritized which can have an influence even on posting on the forum.

And it goes directly against the mission and aim for which this forum was created. Hence, if necessary, I would suggest a ban on all signature campaigns instead of limiting post count if it ever goes to that.

Not an enemy of signature campaigns, just that it shouldn't influence the normal confabulation regarding Bitcoin in the forum )

We cannot deny that signature campaigns did some good thing to the forum as well like bringing the investors and giving the real sites related to cryptos but in the recent days especially after 2017 spam begins to corode the forum due to bounty hunters.

Theymos got aware of this and then implemented merit system to bring some changes if that won't work for years then there will be no more signature campaigns here as theymos stated.

[friends1980]

Consolidate Bump!

That post is actually an informative and helpful one, and clearly not a bump post. It is a bump post for old readers of that threat, but for new visitors, it is very informative and helpful.

Your bumping deserves a thread on its own.

In terms of Merit, you're probably the most over-rated member of this forum. Even now, when we are talking about signature campaigns, you absolutely need to talk about bumping, because you know very well that what you are doing is not right and you need to find an excuse for your own behavior. It would never be accepted from a Member, a Junior or a Newbie. At least learn to shut your mouth when you should.

I think the forum community is wise and intelligent enough to decide if a thread is "informative and helpful" or not. If not, it will disappear and be replaced by newer, more recent and more up-to-date threads. It's what normal people call "dynamics" of conversation. Do you really think the forum couldn't survive without your oh-so brilliant posts?

I'd never have posted this message, if at least you would have had the decency of not posting the message I quoted. I am not even talking about your other self-confirmation threads, or the bumping of your old posts - which were by the way all reported and all deleted by the mods. But you asked for it. You know very well you are bumping for Merit and not for the sake of the forum.

You're the most pathetic Hero Member on the boards, mate, and the most over-rated one. I don't care how many Merits and posts you have. To me you are and will always be an ordinary Merit beggar.

You're a horrible example for newcomers.

[philipma1957]

And also having rule like "Posts in a thread after 100 replies won't be counted for paid post" will bring a huge change.

I don't catch your ideas here.
If you think such rule should be updated in forum, why not ask for automatic feature to lock threads after total posts inside threads hit 100?
Anyway, I don't think your ideas (in case I catch it correctly) is logically. Good posts are good posts, whatever they are 100th, 200th, or 1000th position in threads. Shit posts are shit posts, whatever their positions in threads.

Please don't ask for rule to stop people making their good posts, and giving their hands (through their posts) to help others.
Legendary members (good ones) should keep posting and help community or they should switch to read-only mode when they reach that rank or reach a fixed number of merits?

No but they could not have a signature for profit or to promo for free.

It is what I did due to this thread being started.

I used to promo the Avalon a841 for free
I send to promo simplemining.net for free

I dropped both due to this specific thread.

I still say shut it all off for 1 month. No avatar no signature nothing for December each year.

[darklus123]

The real problem that needs to be addressed are actually the "Paid" Signature campaigns. So I personally think that banning signature campaigns is still not the solution.  

When it comes to limiting signatures it might be a good idea. All the paid signatures should I think needs to make an application inside this forum. We should form a committee I highly suggest that it will be from the DT and Mods. Then we should form an agreement that anyone who wishes to apply should understand the risk of being tagged if proven spamming.

I know that trust system should not be used for spamming but I think it can be the best tool. We just need to have the right people.

While bounty campaigns on the other hand should have a separate site where they will be posting there proofs instead of here. Bounty campaign should also go to the application process. This idea is pretty raw and might have a loopholes that I haven't tought of.