Add "Manager" link to signatures

[Welsh]

If this were to be a thread as Welsh suggested, users would need to quote relevant spammy posts rather than just report users by names, as I'm still going to be reporting these posts to moderators for deletion as well as reporting the user to the manager. That would be a huge amount of work though, to manually quote and copy each post in to a thread, and would slow own my reporting speed massively. A second button as suggested in the OP would be a neater solution.

My stance would be trying to cover this from as many angles as possible if we are to do it properly without adding it as a core natively into the forum software. Creating a userscript would be beneficial to those that are willing to use it, however many users will stay away from userscripts, and therefore we might lose out on a few reporters. Having both a userscript, and an alternative such as a thread which is available to anyone would mean anyone willing to put effort in will be able to report.

Eventually, we could form a unified spammers list which all campaign managers use, and agree on (like SMAS). However, that would likely prove difficult as these are largely subjective cases when excluding users. Thus, the thread would provide users a platform to publicly report users, and the thread owner could send that list off every week or so to the campaign manager. Obviously, getting permission to send the messages regularly to the campaign managers.

We cover the spamming issue with signature campaign users as much as possible from a forum moderation point of view, but that probably just means that they get their post deleted, unless they're an exceptionally ban poster, and they may run into a temporary ban. However, these issues are separate to signature campaign guidelines, and in many cases the signature campaign rules are more defined, and comprehensive. Therefore, what might require deletion from a forum stand point of view, might well warrant removal from the campaign from a signature campaign managers point of view, but these are definitely not mutually inclusive.

[1715000449]

1715000449

[Deathwing]

-snipped-

-snipped-

It is definitely a solid idea regarding both userscript and thread/list working hand-in-hand, however, doesn't the second part of your suggestion requires too much work? Especially for the thread manager to constantly receive reports, list and archive them and then send them to the necessary person for each campaign every single week. On top of that, there is one huge thing that we, or pretty much anyone can't agree upon. What determines if a post is spam, shitpost or not? I've seen 2 paragraph texts in some categories where the reply of the user does not even make any sense in comparison to the thread. Some people just say "Good work, thanks." by writing "I have reviewed your reply and have liked it exponentially. This is one of the very best and concise works I have seen. I would like to thank you for sharing this bit of information and allow oneself to indulge in this pool of knowledge." just so that they can get paid from the signature campaign and avoid being banned for short posts.

TLDR; The idea of having a thread manager and userscript as an optional form of reporting is good. However, there has to be a person without any social life, checking the thread all the time, making lists and archives of the posts. (for evidence purposes) On top of that, spammy posts are heavily subjective. Some spammers are getting good at spam, even though it contributes absolutely nothing to the thread (not even an opinion) they are able to write long texts which can escape anyone's eyes. Even on top of that, some people may post what seems to be a constructive answer but with a hollow meaning.

[Welsh]

TLDR; The idea of having a thread manager and userscript as an optional form of reporting is good. However, there has to be a person without any social life, checking the thread all the time, making lists and archives of the posts. (for evidence purposes) On top of that, spammy posts are heavily subjective. Some spammers are getting good at spam, even though it contributes absolutely nothing to the thread (not even an opinion) they are able to write long texts which can escape anyone's eyes. Even on top of that, some people may post what seems to be a constructive answer but with a hollow meaning.

Its a lot of work, but I'd estimate collecting, archiving, and sending would only take around an hour or two every Sunday. This doesn't necessarily have to be managed by one person either. The thread manager is simply organizing the thread, and composing it in a readable way to the individual campaign managers. Plus, we would already be expecting the signature campaign managers to be doing this, but that's not always the case.

Those great project, and thank you posts not only break the forum rules, but likely break any respectful signature campaigns rules. When I'm dealing with reports (this week I've been ill so rather slow dealing with them) for forum issues then I tend to not even look at if the user is wearing a signature or not. That injects bias, and can lead to being more harsh than you would have without seeing it. I might pick that up subconsciously, and maybe its a good idea for me to nullify that by enabling "Don't show users' signatures." when I'm dealing with reports.

The spam posts are highly subjective like you say, however I'd encourage anyone who thinks a post is spam to report it in that post. The thread manager will not be rejecting reports, but simply compiling them, and sending them off to the appropriate signature manager. Therefore, when the signature manager reviews them he's the only one making the decision whether its a valid report or not, and can manage those reports per the signature guidelines.

In the perfect world all signature managers would be doing this themselves, but despite them receiving a nice little paycheck to do this they just don't. Of course, there are some noteworthy managers which are reviewing every post, but even then mistakes can be made, and the odd missed user might occasionally happen.

[Deathwing]

At least 85% of this list. (I did a manual check, might be mistaken) are members of Cryptotalk signature campaign and they were posting a lot in the past few days, as soon as the 10 posts/per day rule was introduced, this is what their 24-hour posting record looks like. (Thanks @LoyceV for the tool) Give or take 40 to 50 members all posting 10 or so posts because of this change, as I mentioned previously, however, there might be some exceptions as I had to go through all profiles and their recent posts manually to inspect. If the thread similar to SMAS were to be a thing, I believe things like this should be checked as well. If a person is posting on the forums just so that they can reach the maximum payment amount of their signature campaign, I believe that they are not being honest whatsoever. This list is long, even longer than what is shown in the picture. There are some people who deliberately post an extra or two or people who deliberately leave their post count lower than the maximum paid posts.

[Welsh]

I believe things like this should be checked as well. If a person is posting on the forums just so that they can reach the maximum payment amount of their signature campaign, I believe that they are not being honest whatsoever.

This is definitely something that I would consider as a campaign manager, but it wouldn't be the only determining factor of course. When used in conjunction with other behavioral habits then it can be a vital tool.  From the point of view of the signature campaign manager, and those that are hiring the manager to then hire users to advertise for them. You'd be expecting users to be active in the community already, providing substantial posts which are likely to be recognized by a good amount of users, and have decent exposure through other means.

That decent exposure from other means could come from merit received, and other sites which are displaying how many merits was sent one week, and to who. It shouldn't all be based on posts alone. It seems the correlation with users who are posting the maximum amount, and then stop posting completely are the ones with the generic low quality posts. Of course, this isn't always the case, but is definitely something worth looking at when reviewing participants.

[DiamondCardz]

I mean, I'm on that list @Deathwing, and I'm certainly not posting just to hit my campaign target. I post a lot on the forums when I actively use it regardless - generally in the range of 5 to 15 posts a day.

I would agree though that most likely most of the people on that list are just posting to hit requirements. Personally I think we are far too lax on what constitutes a low-quality post. People know the requirements now and write just enough to allow themselves to evade bans and exclusions from campaigns. I believe you or someone else called these "borderline cases" and it's a very apt term.

The problem is, if we remove the posts where they look substantial but the moderator believes there's little meaning, the danger is that removal becomes more of a subjective process. That's why it absolutely is down to managers to sort it out because they should be subjective about their campaigns. I'll reiterate that Cryptotalk needs to have more than one manager.

To tie this in a little bit more to the OP - I think the best way to satisfy everyone re: reporting to managers is by making it mandatory for all signature campaigns to include a link to the campaign manager's profile in their signature BBCode.

[Welsh]

I mean, I'm on that list @Deathwing, and I'm certainly not posting just to hit my campaign target. I post a lot on the forums when I actively use it regardless - generally in the range of 5 to 15 posts a day.

Its a tool which should be used in conjunction with other factors. Its an aid, and not a be, and end all solution. The tools exist, but only a few managers are utilizing them effectively.

I would agree though that most likely most of the people on that list are just posting to hit requirements. Personally I think we are far too lax on what constitutes a low-quality post. People know the requirements now and write just enough to allow themselves to evade bans and exclusions from campaigns. I believe you or someone else called these "borderline cases" and it's a very apt term.

I don't know about the community consensus, but the way I look at it is the signature campaign process shouldn't be a guaranteed payout every week. What I mean by that is participants should be under constant review, and these borderline cases are the ones that should be considered for removal for better users. Thus, the signature campaign would always be evolving to include the best of the best posters that have applied, and possibly keep certain users in a queue so that once you have determined these borderline cases these users in the queue could be sent a message to see if they would be interested in joining the campaign still, and then removing these borderline cases.  Note, that these users wouldn't be banned from the campaign per say, but removed for a better poster at that time. They could apply again after a certain period of time has passed which would be determined by the manager. This would hopefully encourage users to always be thinking, and posting substantial posts rather than getting into a campaign, and then letting their posting habits drop once they're receiving their weekly payments.

Signature campaigns should not be black, and white; so just because a user is deemed borderline doesn't mean you shouldn't be looking to improve the quality of users, and therefore promoting more effective advertising by replacing them with better posters at the time.

To tie this in a little bit more to the OP - I think the best way to satisfy everyone re: reporting to managers is by making it mandatory for all signature campaigns to include a link to the campaign manager's profile in their signature BBCode.

I think we are far more likely to see signature campaigns completely banned outright rather than placing restrictions that signature campaigns have to abide by to operate on Bitcointalk.

[DiamondCardz]

I think we are far more likely to see signature campaigns completely banned outright rather than placing restrictions that signature campaigns have to abide by to operate on Bitcointalk.

Do we not already place restrictions on them already? There are requirements that they have to follow to be allowed to operate, involving removing spammers, so on and so forth, and there are written processes which can be followed by Global Moderators in order to warn them to improve and ban them if they do not.

The problem is that Cryptotalk's advertising plan is to just get as much exposure as possible, good or bad - they don't care about quality I think. Which makes sense - they are trying to attract as many users as possible to their forum irrespective of who they are.

[Welsh]

Do we not already place restrictions on them already? There are requirements that they have to follow to be allowed to operate, involving removing spammers, so on and so forth, and there are written processes which can be followed by Global Moderators in order to warn them to improve and ban them if they do not.

The problem is that Cryptotalk's advertising plan is to just get as much exposure as possible, good or bad - they don't care about quality I think. Which makes sense - they are trying to attract as many users as possible to their forum irrespective of who they are.

That's more or less forum guidelines though. If you break a rule you'll likely get a warning whether that's through a personal message or deleted posts. Warnings can also be temporary bans.

The only signature campaign guidelines there are is this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0 which are somewhat common sense except for the ban duration, and a lot of it is just advice.  Anyway, this doesn't necessarily have to be a restriction from the forum, but could be something which the campaign managers try to enforce. If the campaign managers require from their employer to include their contact details within the signature then that could prove to be beneficial to the community.

[shield132]

Great idea, it will really significantly reduce the numbet of bad posts and also people won't say everytime "ban signatures" and something similar. Along with merit, this will be a great combination and double win.
But it will take some work from theymos, idk how he will act but another great idea will be: When you click on report moderator, let this message to be sent to campaign manager. This way there won't be need of clicking on report to moderator and manager seperately. I think it won't be hard. Take one sig code - set managet's link on that. Idk whether it's easy to do something with forum's cms but hope it's possible and not hard.