Option to disable signatures as alternative to self-moderated

[suchmoon]

Here is another idea to add to the list of useless ideas. I apologize if this has been suggested previously. A quick search in Meta didn't reveal anything.

Add a check box on the "Start new topic" page that would disable (hide) all user signatures in that topic.


Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

Just like self-moderated, it should only be allowed to set while creating a thread and shouldn't be allowed to change. It should be indicated at the top of the thread that signatures are not shown. Optionally, there should be a way for campaign managers to see how many posts users made in such threads or some other metric that would help them count paid posts without going into each thread.

Advantages over self-moderated:

• Doesn't have the censorship stigma.
• More likely to prevent signature spam (a disincentive to post).
• Less work for the OP.

I'm thinking this could help Bitcoin Discussion, Altcoin Discussion, Gambling Discussion, B&H, etc. Right now I'm struggling to find any significant thread there that wouldn't be drowning in sig spam beyond page 10. Reporting those posts is also a big hassle. Sig spammers have evolved and post multi-line generic garbage that mentions a few words from the thread title so at first glance it seems somewhat on topic. Probably a lot of work for moderators too, trying to figure out whether the vapid word salad is on topic or not. Prevention is better than cure, right?

[rosezionjohn]

Will the OP's signature be disabled too if s/he chooses that option? If that's what you had in mind, I think we will also see less new topics in those boards you enumerated. That should be good since only those who are really interested in a discussion will create new topics.

[TMAN]

Solid idea moonie.

You could expand it and automatically drop sigs at X pages.

It will highlight the shit managers and the shitposters who moan when they stop getting paid.

Discussion is fun, but shitposting hearts my eyes

[jackg]

You could expand it and automatically drop sigs at X pages.

Yeah that's the good idea... We have serious and ivory for no sig altogether but stopping past 10-20 replies or even 4 pages is great (mods could be able to impose it too).

[DireWolfM14]

Advantages over self-moderated:

• Doesn't have the censorship stigma.
• More likely to prevent signature spam (a disincentive to post).
• Less work for the OP.

Excellent points, and a good suggestion.  I don't know that I would limit it to the boards you've highlighted, maybe allow the option forum wide.

I was actually thinking about this some time ago when I wanted to start a thread in meta, but didn't want signatures to show up for... reasons.  I notices that the WO thread doesn't display sigs, despite no signature restrictions in the Speculation board, and was wondering how that was accomplished. 

If I start a thread in Serious Discussion, and then move it to another board will signatures remain disabled in that thread?  I thought about trying it, but never have.

[JaredKaragen]

no signatures on any self moderated thread?

This could make things spicy from both perspectives... but maybe I didnt think deep enough about it yet....


But I absolutely love the ability to remove sigs from a thread....    for the exact same main reasons of being a disincentive to post useless shit.

I was VERY good about not abusing posts when I had a sig....   
I may have posted a lot in waves when looking at my old history, but they were usually focused around certain project releases, or things like my batch scripts and compilations.

[jackg]

If I start a thread in Serious Discussion, and then move it to another board will signatures remain disabled in that thread?  I thought about trying it, but never have.

No it won't remain disabled...


If it's avaliable on every board then it's actually not the worst idea (some marketplace sections for example would benefit) but tech support probably wouldn't see much difference other than on ann threads or discussions of hacks.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Will the OP's signature be disabled too if s/he chooses that option? If that's what you had in mind, I think we will also see less new topics in those boards you enumerated.

Yeah, but I bet most thread starters in those sections wouldn't even use the option, because most threads are started by garbage shitposters for the purpose of having a new thread for their alts and other shitposters to poop in.  It's the same game that's been played for the last few years and it won't end.

However, I really like the idea.  I think it would be great if it wasn't made known whether or not signatures were blocked in any given thread, and members would have to take their chances if they were the first one to post in it, and some might not even notice (since shitposters usually just reply to the thread title) until they've made a post they won't be getting paid for.

Or would they get paid for it? 

Optionally, there should be a way for campaign managers to see how many posts users made in such threads or some other metric that would help them count paid posts without going into each thread.

That would probably be the hardest part of this idea, but if it's not an insurmountable one I'd love for it to be implemented.  This is a really good proposal, suchmoon.  I fully support it.

[TMAN]

You could expand it and automatically drop sigs at X pages.

Yeah that's the good idea... We have serious and ivory for no sig altogether but stopping past 10-20 replies or even 4 pages is great (mods could be able to impose it too).

After 4 pages of no sigs then only those who are really interested and actually providing value to a thread will keep posting. That is a decent idea if I made it myself

[dkbit98]

I don't think this is needed at all.
You can simply go to Look and Layout Preferences options in your profile and disable or enable all signatures in forum, but I am sure you know about this.

[TMAN]

I don't think this is needed at all.
You can simply go to Look and Layout Preferences options in your profile and disable or enable all signatures in forum, but I am sure you know about this.

It’s to stop spammers getting paid for posting the shitdrivel we see in most long posts

[suchmoon]

Will the OP's signature be disabled too if s/he chooses that option? If that's what you had in mind, I think we will also see less new topics in those boards you enumerated. That should be good since only those who are really interested in a discussion will create new topics.

Yes, I would suggest to apply it to everyone including the OP if that option is checked. I don't know if this would reduce the number of topics - threads with signatures could still be created and NOT hiding the signatures would still be the default option. This suggestions is just for those users who want to say something in e.g. Bitcoin Discussion but don't want sig spam in their thread.

Excellent points, and a good suggestion.  I don't know that I would limit it to the boards you've highlighted, maybe allow the option forum wide.

I wouldn't limit it. It should be available in any board including Meta but I think it would benefit most the ones that I mentioned, perhaps a few others.

I don't think this is needed at all.
You can simply go to Look and Layout Preferences options in your profile and disable or enable all signatures in forum, but I am sure you know about this.

I'm not bothered by signatures themselves. I'm bothered by shitposts and I'm suggesting that hiding signatures in a specific thread would reduce the number of useless shitposts in that thread.

You could expand it and automatically drop sigs at X pages.

This could be interesting. It might incentivize creating more shorter spamthreads. On the other hand spammers could make shorter threads now too, but many still choose to pile into long megathreads instead of creating new ones. Not sure what's up with that.

[gentlemand]

I'd be very interested to see how it played out however the average shitposter is so mindless they may not actually notice. It's not as if they actually read anything beyond the headline or even all of the headline. They rush in, squeeze out their loaf, and run away. It might take a few years to sink in or never.

We have the ivory tower and serious discussion sections to refer to but they're entirely and clearly sig free.

[suchmoon]

I'd be very interested to see how it played out however the average shitposter is so mindless they may not actually notice. It's not as if they actually read anything beyond the headline or even all of the headline. They rush in, squeeze out their loaf, and run away. It might take a few years to sink in or never.

Good. They won't get paid and possibly get kicked out of campaigns for not meeting their quotas. No more spam next week then.

We have the ivory tower and serious discussion sections to refer to but they're entirely and clearly sig free.

I would imagine a sig-free thread in e.g. Altcoin Discussion would get more replies due to more overall traffic in that board, and it would fit better than having an altcoin topic in SD/IT. Hopefully it would end up somewhere between SD/IT and the regular spam in terms of quality.

[yahoo62278]

Not picking on anyone with my comment here, but I think if this option was implemented then it should only be allowed if users themselves are not wearing a signature. Would seem kinda hypocritical if wearing a paid sig and didn't wanna see them when reading threads.

[suchmoon]

Not picking on anyone with my comment here, but I think if this option was implemented then it should only be allowed if users themselves are not wearing a signature. Would seem kinda hypocritical if wearing a paid sig and didn't wanna see them when reading threads.

We already have an option in user profile to actually hide all signatures and I know at least one user (who is also in this thread) who has admitted to be using it

What I'm suggesting is not hypocritical the way I look at it. Let's see. I create a thread with this suggested option. My OP does not have signature. All my replies in it don't have signatures. All replies from other users don't have signatures. Sounds fair to me. I'm not getting paid and others don't get paid in that specific thread. We can be as serious as we want or post memes and limericks.

Again, as others mentioned SD/IT/WO already have that, and some campaigns don't pay in Off Topic, P&S, etc, so it's the same thing just at a thread level.

I do realize this would add work for managers so that's why I suggested some helpful post counting option should be implemented along with this.

[Welsh]

I don't think this is needed at all.
You can simply go to Look and Layout Preferences options in your profile and disable or enable all signatures in forum, but I am sure you know about this.

You might want to see the signatures, but for a specific thread you'd like to discourage those that are posting for the sole purpose of earning from a campaign. Although, this feature alone simply just doesn't solve that, it would be up to the signature campaign managers to identify these threads, and not pay users for their posts within the thread. Therefore, you'd likely see users still posting within the thread for a chance that they may still be paid.

Its more of a way of discouraging users, and isn't a complete solution to anything, but is likely better than disabling signatures globally. Of course, alternatively you could specify a local rule of no users posting within the thread if they have a paid signature, and because the thread is self moderated you could remove them yourself. The drawback to this is direct censorship, whereas a checkbox to not allow signatures isn't censorship of the user directly, but the services they're advertising.

[suchmoon]

Of course, alternatively you could specify a local rule of no users posting within the thread if they have a paid signature, and because the thread is self moderated you could remove them yourself. The drawback to this is direct censorship, whereas a checkbox to not allow signatures isn't censorship of the user directly, but the services they're advertising.

Having a paid signature by itself doesn't mean crap, just look at me, I was posting the same type of garbage before Chipmixer too...

So no, I wouldn't want to prevent everyone with a paid signature from posting, let alone use self-mod to enforce it. Just to prevent those who post only to get paid and wouldn't post otherwise.

And it's not so much against services or advertising. If there was an easy option to enable signatures for certain "quality" replies - that's fine too. Perhaps if a post earns merit in such a thread then its signature becomes visible? Might be prone to some abuse and might get even more complicated for campaign managers.

[hacker1001101001]

I liked your suggestion, and that one can heavily increase the level of content in the sections like Bitcoin Discussion. It's baked and ready to be piled up in theymos's long to do list.

We already have an option in user profile to actually hide all signatures and I know at least one user (who is also in this thread) who has admitted to be using it

I know who you are pointing to ! Mr.TP...

[TheNewAnon135246]

I like the suggestion a lot. I'm seeing a huge increase of idiotic signature posts across the forum. Here is a great example (a reaction to someone posting a few online shops):

It is impressive and involved comprehensive research to compile these resources. It is a short cut in gathering various projects across  blockchain Technology.  And you have as well helped in creating awareness about the various projects. To be sincere, some of the projects are new to me, but these compilation has empowered me to research about them.  I believe that this will be appreciated by other people too, you should as well publish it on other platform