Limit signature campaigns

[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.

[1714935103]

1714935103

[1714935103]

1714935103

[1714935103]

1714935103

[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Isn't this outdated?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.