Suggestion to reduce signature campaign spam posts

[ptrk]

Despite recent efforts to reduce signature campaign spam, it is still ubiquitous. How often do I read any meaningless posts in any dead threads or other completely irrelevant posts in poor quality by users wearing a advertisement in the signature.

In my opinion, this is also due to the fact that the minimum number of posts for signature campaigns is far too high and the participants are virtually "forced" to write useless posts. Normal active users write between 3-4 posts a week, if at all. However, many signature campaigns require at least 15 or 20 posts.

Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?

The maximum number of posts can still be chosen arbitrarily, as there are also some power users who write many high quality posts.

What do you think?

[AB de Royse777]

~snip~
What do you think?

When you find a meaningless post or spam that is off topic then report it to the moderator. This is as simple as it is.

Talking about the signature campaigns, I think it really up to the dev and the manager who is managing it. They are spending money to get exposure for their business or product whatever it is and they should have the full right to chose what they want keeping the forum interest in mind.

We really can not force them to do certain things that may lose their interest to advertise in here too. It always has to have a balance and I think we are not doing bad in it so far.

[Welsh]

How many times do you report the posts you come across to either the moderators if it's bad enough that it warrants removal from the forum or to the campaign managers running their signature campaign? Rather than restricting signature campaigns it would be better to just hold the signature campaign managers responsible, as well as those making those posts.

I'm not saying you have to report, but the tools are there to deal with the issues we have in the community, as a community by reporting, and bringing certain users to the attention of the signature campaign manager.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Rather than restricting signature campaigns it would be better to just hold the signature campaign managers responsible, as well as those making those posts.

Agreed, plus this has been suggested at least once before and I don't think Theymos is interested in imposing strict rules on signature campaign managers or owners or the campaigns themselves. 

And hey, at least Yobit's campaign lowered their posts per day maximum to five, which should help things considerably even though Yahoo62278 is doing a fine job managing that campaign.  Aside from all the bounties, that's probably where most of the shitposting offenders are coming from these days.

Normal active users write between 3-4 posts a week, if at all. However, many signature campaigns require at least 15 or 20 posts.

15 to 20 posts per week really isn't a hell of a lot, and that leaves you plenty of time to think about what you're writing.  Unfortunately I think the issue is that a lot of campaign participants (and bounty hunters) have multiple alts, each also participating in campaigns and this spreads their posting time kind of thin--so they don't put much effort into their posts.

I'm fine with reporting what I perceive as shitposts, and at least it makes me feel like I did something to help the problem rather than wait for a new rule to be made.  I would suggest OP do the same.

[rhomelmabini]

Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?

It's the signature campaign manager's decision at all to limit the posts of a participant per day/week because participants are paid by it but it is the manager's duty as well to warn or remove the participant if he just does some countless spam. If you stumble upon spam post it's just simple to click that "Report to moderator" button so you can inform mods or as what Welsh just said you may contact the manager if he just posting spams.

Probably you've read spam posts on some threads that aren't moderated well or that/those user/s are probably wearing signatures that aren't properly managed by the manager of that signature, most often that really happens.

[hd49728]

There is nothing new to fight against spammers. We already know how to do this as long as the forum releases new spam-fighting systems like bump score months ago.
In a nutshell, to effectively fight against spam, it requires strong cooperations among users (through their reports and their posts), admins/ moderators (how they handle reports from users), and managers of campaigns (how they manage their campaigns: choosing participants and kick out bad participants over time).
There are some good points you can find in my topics:
Since 2018, what did you contribute to preventing signature ads removed globally?
Cleaning up the house in Bitcoin/ Altcoin/ Gambling Discussion boards

Reporting bad posts is a good tool that officially provides by the forum. [Guide] Reporting effectively.
Beyond using the report button to report to moderators, you can report bad posts or topics to that one:
[CLUB] The SpamBusters! Busting rule-breakers for more than a year.
There are thousands of spammers detected and destroyed by the Spambuster club.

[actmyname]

I'm not saying you have to report, but the tools are there to deal with the issues we have in the community, as a community by reporting, and bringing certain users to the attention of the signature campaign manager.

My problem with reporting is that despite having more than a hundred reports (76 users), most of them are left unaffected by the deleted posts.

I think that some of the offenders at the top of this list are banned, but they have over 200 deleted posts.

Code:

562| Vinaa77
379| ardentvolcanoes
362| Fredomago
331| Irvinn
330| joshy23
308| zhekinsp
295| goaldigger
267| thirdlight
261| Adriano2010
248| syamster
216| horrifiedx1
214| mersal
199| Rufsilf
179| rachman mahesa
179| Klausi
179| Cherylstar86
176| Vaculin
172| MFahad
169| Dhoe
168| Bagaji
164| iMark
157| Indrawan77
155| Karmakid
152| yvesp110
151| Ayiranorea
149| MonaLeeTracy
148| kayvie
144| whirlcoin
143| Xampeuu
142| ShowOff
142| Moiyah
140| logicgate
140| iamzill
139| Wawa2013
137| avarnet
135| cribusen
134| bobby1776
133| semobo
133| quality.crypto
132| Noilee
129| coin_1122
125| XCANA
125| trauchot
125| Bitfling
124| leetcoiner
124| FlightyPouch
123| prof7bit
123| Finestream
122| btccoffee
120| xSkylarx
120| CaptainKid
120| ajeef
119| Tungsten-1
119| coingrowth
119| breathlessz
116| partysaurus
114| cvasy
113| radjie
113| Kay94
112| S4VV4S
109| zidanw
109| Pamadar
108| bitcoinposts
107| Best Dreams
106| Ranly123
106| nur rochid
104| Panchum
104| immortal4now
103| pungopete468
103| miklesm
101| TIDOVEE
101| SaidNurs
101| Prompyboo
101| ILScoin
100| wahyu wida
100| devis9990i

It just feels like there's been a lot of leeway. I remember seeing more temp bans for spam in the past.

[panganib999]

In my opinion, this is also due to the fact that the minimum number of posts for signature campaigns is far too high and the participants are virtually "forced" to write useless posts. Normal active users write between 3-4 posts a week, if at all. However, many signature campaigns require at least 15 or 20 posts.

This number of required posts per day would really be draining for a person since human body isn't that powerful and has its limits, especially mentally. When the members that are part of bounties continually deals with the long term stress and activation of their brain, their body's stress response releases cortisol that is higher than the usual level, this will eventually interfere with body's function, amd since the members are highly obliged to make a content and post something just so they would still get paid and won't get kicked out of the campaign. I think what is needed to be done for this spamming problem to be resolved is to really lower the post count per day, now if lowering the count of posts needed isn't possible, the campaign could set up a higher standards in accepting members that will participate to the campaign, just so the quality of the posts are guaranteed since the dedication and the ability of the member is also guaranteed.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

This forum is largely campaigners just talking to themselves. I don't understand how anybody makes money advertising here. Its almost like they feel the need to run a charity to absolve themselves of their sins. especially Chip mixer.

There's more to advertising on the forum than just individuals discussing within the forum. I'm not a participant of chipmixer but I have referred the mixer to individuals (from my country) not even users of the forum, to use their service to mixed their bitcoin on multiple occasions. Same scenario can be said about crypto related sportbooks, I have previously referred cryptocurrency enthusiast that were interested in gambling with cryptocurrency to the sportbooks advertise here and I know same thing can be said by other users.

The forum is a host to individual from different geographical region, project with millions raise and probably would be interested in mixing this coins to stay  more anonymous (via wallet), which mixer do you think they'll patronize? In my opinion, the reputation gotten from adverting on the forum is very vital, you think chipmixer would had been actively spending millions advertising on the forum for over 2years if the forum wasn't profiting them?, I don't think so.

[actmyname]

I wonder how many of these posts would have been written if the poster wasnt part of a campaign of sorts.

If theymos decided to try out my experiment of a one-month signature ban, we would find out.

This forum is largely campaigners just talking to themselves. I don't understand how anybody makes money advertising here.

It must, since long-running campaigns would not bother continuing when they are shown to be unprofitable.

Its almost like they feel the need to run a charity to absolve themselves of their sins. especially Chip mixer.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[AB de Royse777]

I wonder how many of these posts would have been written if the poster wasnt part of a campaign of sorts.

If theymos decided to try out my experiment of a one-month signature ban, we would find out.

This will be really interesting to see. I hope he does this for some undeclared amount of time instead of saying a certain date to end.

~ some butt hurt truth ~

[DireWolfM14]

Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?

I think you would have a hard time convincing the Anarcho-Capitalist that own's this place to put any such restrictions on campaigns.  However, that's not so say that he won't step in if things get out of control.  The Yobit ban earlier this is year was a prime example.  And, the way the Yobit campaign has been running since it's return it's a prime example of how the community will step up and address spam.

Like others have said, report spammers to the mods if appropriate, or the campaign manager if he's a subtle spammer.

I don't understand how anybody makes money advertising here.

Many thousand sets of eyeballs per day. 

[Upgrade00]

Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?

This would be difficult or impossible to enforce on the forum. It would take collective effort from the moderators and also regular members to supervise every project run on the forum, especially as some are run on external platforms and linked to BT, if this efforts were channelled to making and marking reports, I believe it would have a much better effect on the forum.
Theymos has once discussed signature bans, but so far he has explored so many other measures to reduce spam with varying degrees of success.
Reporter badges is one measure I would love to see implemented.

[Harlot]

It's not the number of posts required to reach payment the problem but it's the quality of participants have in each campaign is. If you look at most participants part of a sig campaign they their post lacks quality since they aren't really interested in the topic, they are just posting because it seems to them that they can reply to it as easily as possible they only read the title and go ahead and post something without even reading the previous posts made. All they see is the requirement and they don't see the forum as itself being interesting for them to relate too. That's why a more realistic approach is to have a much strict campaign managers monitoring quality so that even senseless shitposters and spam posters won't be a part of any campaign therefore reducing senseless posts running around in the forum.

[LTU_btc]

Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?

I don't think it's good idea If such low minimal number of posts would be introduced, advertising through signature campaigns would be not effective. But as you say, max number of posts would be optional. So, most of sig campaign participants still would posts as much as possible to maximize their earnings. So, such change in rules wouldn't have any effect.
And I think number of posts isn't an issue, especially when almost all Bitcoin paying campaigns are managed properly. I can talk from my experience. My campaign requires to make 25 posts, but usually I make 30-35 posts week, because I just don't think about my campaign quota when posting. Even when I was without campaign, I was making similar number of posts.

[UserU]

Unless we see more campaign managers that take a stance against such posting, we've to either ignore or just scroll past them.

After all, those things don't break any forum rules.

[Lucius]

I agree with members who, as one of the anti-spam measures point to "Report to moderator button", but one should not neglect also the available option called "self-moderated thread" which gives anyone who opens the thread the opportunity to be their own moderator.

Personally, I try to make an impact in this way, and I notice that most of the users who have the intention to post some spam avoid posting in such threads. Of course, there are always exceptions, those who don't understand what spam is, or why someone is open self-moderated thread.

There is no universal solution to reduce spam posts (except total ban), but if everyone takes some of the responsibility, I think spam can be reduced to an acceptable extent.

[hd49728]

I agree with members who, as one of the anti-spam measures point to "Report to moderator button", but one should not neglect also the available option called "self-moderated thread" which gives anyone who opens the thread the opportunity to be their own moderator.

Relates to self-moderation, I think users who have not yet thoroughly know about it should read the announcement of this feature from theymos, years ago: Self-moderated topics

In most sections, you now have the option of marking topics self-moderated when creating them. In self-moderated topics, the OP can delete replies. The option for enabling this is under "additional options". Topics cannot be converted to self-moderated topics after creation.

There are no rules to self-moderation. In self-moderated threads, replies belong to the OP. In other threads, replies belong to the respondents individually. Think carefully about whether you want to reply to a self-moderated topic, as your post may not be given due respect.

Tell me if there are any bugs. If this ends up not working out well, I might remove it.

Self-moderated topics? Can you say what boards this applies too? This is going to be bad if it is on certain boards, cause some people can edit threads to benefit them, I really hope it is just the off-topic board.

The excluded sections are Meta (except for this topic), Scam Accusations, Important Announcements, and Auctions. Tagged scammers can't use this feature. You don't have to participate in self-moderated topics if you're worried about manipulation by the OP.

[hilariousetc]

Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?

Doing this is pointless if nothing changes at the manager level as the abusers will just jump though the required hoops to abuse the campaign at any cost. If a campaign pops up here and they have little to no management or quality control then it will be abused regardless of how many posts they can or can't make. If you limit it to x amount of posts then they will just create or buy multiple accounts to maximise earnings as many are already doing on certain campaigns. Decent posters can make 10-20 posts a day, but they're not the problem; it's the shitposters on shitcampaigns that shouldn't even be allowed to operate here that are causing the damage and the ones that can't run a campaign to an acceptable standard should be dealt with in other ways.

[TheUltraElite]

Despite recent efforts to reduce signature campaign spam, it is still ubiquitous.

Like what?

How often do I read any meaningless posts in any dead threads or other completely irrelevant posts in poor quality by users wearing a advertisement in the signature.

Use the report to moderator button. It has a good use if you use it regularly. You even get a score to boast off in this forum.

In my opinion, this is also due to the fact that the minimum number of posts for signature campaigns is far too high and the participants are virtually "forced" to write useless posts. Normal active users write between 3-4 posts a week, if at all. However, many signature campaigns require at least 15 or 20 posts.

Again you are putting in your personal opinion. Report he post if you feel it is irrelevant. But at times threads are created to be converted to cesspool of spam by another poster. So its not really a fault of the manager here unless they start removing participants for this.

Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?

This forum administration does not deal with campaign managers, as of now.
If some members are forcing themselves to post, then they wont receive much merit for them, leaving out some exceptions. That does control the spamming habits of some users.