Limit signature campaigns

[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.

[1714755794]

1714755794

[1714755794]

1714755794

[1714755794]

1714755794

[1714755794]

1714755794

[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.