Signature spam - how to force users to read before replying?

[Rikafip]

I did a test and report 3 posts from this thread, by using this in report "The user repeats exactly what has already been said in the post" as suggested by @LeGaulois and all 3 post are deleted. I know that some will surely hate me because I will report such posts, but I believe that it can have a good effect and that some users can change for the better.

Good job! I agree, reporting posts is not in vain. Some people might say "this is not our job" or "its pointless as spammers never learn" but I've seen cases where people posting changed for better after contacting them.


Not strictly connected to this, but what I would like to see is people reporting poorly written opening posts in the topics more often, instead just answering them, as it's kinda harder to get such topics deleted when they get more  answers.

[1715570021]

1715570021

[1715570021]

1715570021

[1715570021]

1715570021

[1715570021]

1715570021

[Igebotz]

Let's say for example you report some scammer/abuser, and he retaliates by activating his army of alts that are following you around and keep disliking/downvoting your posts. If mods have to intervene in those cases, that would just mean more work for them. .

This could be a great factor to consider before putting such a system in place but it not different from the trust system on BTT where the trust system is being used as a weapon of retaliation. Like I said before there is no perfect system, the dislike and like system would work perfectly if it's limited to certain ranks (Sr. Members upwards )

On the Atlcointalk forum there is a + karma and -Karma on every profile to fight against shiposters and it works perfectly because negative karma reduces your activity points thus making it impossible for such user to rank up.

[Rikafip]

On the Atlcointalk forum there is a + karma and -Karma on every profile to fight against shiposters and it works perfectly because negative karma reduces your activity points thus making it impossible for such user to rank up.

Just because something works (If you say so as I never visited that forum) on altcointalk doesn't mean it would work here. This is much bigger forum, and with people having financial incentive to retaliate against each other and long standing feuds. Theoretically, I like the idea of downvoting, but knowing bitcointalk it would be abused. Forum staff is probably aware of that and that's why we won't see something like that implemented anytime soon. Same goes for de-meriting, which was also suggested more times, and would lead to the same thing.

[UserU]

Same goes for de-meriting, which was also suggested more times, and would lead to the same thing.

Imagine Campaign Managers having to deal with deranking; more headaches to deal with too. Definitely not a good idea.

[Igebotz]

.

Just because something works (If you say so as I never visited that forum) on altcointalk doesn't mean it would work here. This is much bigger forum, and with people having financial incentive to retaliate against each other and long standing feuds. Theoretically, I like the idea of downvoting, but knowing bitcointalk it would be abused.

I think with the following highlighted reasons no system would work effectively on the forum, I think those were the reasons the trust system is not moderated, it could have been worse than what we have now.

Imagine Campaign Managers having to deal with deranking; more headaches to deal with too. Definitely not a good idea.

This is not even the worse part of it, de-meriting would cause 12th century slavery on the forum, merit source would be more powerful than theymos ; having the right to de-merit already merited users to scratch if you deal speak against them, you must be loyal to them all the days of your life on the forum.

[Lucius]

Not strictly connected to this, but what I would like to see is people reporting poorly written opening posts in the topics more often, instead just answering them, as it's kinda harder to get such topics deleted when they get more  answers.

I totally agree with that, some things are better cut at the root than letting them develop to the point where they become shitposting mega-threads. We have one such recommendation in Bitcoin Discussion, and it would be good if each board has an additional explanation of what a low quality topic is and what all users should adhere to.

[BurningChrome]

Not strictly connected to this, but what I would like to see is people reporting poorly written opening posts in the topics more often, instead just answering them, as it's kinda harder to get such topics deleted when they get more  answers.

I totally agree with that, some things are better cut at the root than letting them develop to the point where they become shitposting mega-threads. We have one such recommendation in Bitcoin Discussion, and it would be good if each board has an additional explanation of what a low quality topic is and what all users should adhere to.

When I came here, I noticed that a lot of members were opening up new topics when there was already a similar discussion going on. This is prohibited in most online communities. I wonder why it does not apply here as well? This might have something to do with the mindset of today's youth who want everything instantly. My experience of using various social media platforms for many years has taught me to respect the netiquette and best practices of communities.

[BlackHatCoiner]

When I came here, I noticed that a lot of members were opening up new topics when there was already a similar discussion going on. This is prohibited in most online communities. I wonder why it does not apply here as well?

I actually agree with that mindset, but only for huge forums like this one. Yes, usually in RPG forums, opening a thread that has the same discussed subject should be closed or merged with the official one. But, for bitcointalk or any other forum that has millions of users, I find it unfair to not be able to discuss freely.

If someone opened a thread back in 2011 talking about mining with GPUs, it doesn't mean that I have to necessarily ask my question there. I could simply create my thread explaining my issues. Remember, once a new thread is created, it notifies the sub-forum watchers and they can judge by the topic title if they're interested in.

The wall observer is the only exception fortunately; I honestly couldn't be notified every time the price dumped/pumped with a new thread.

[Pmalek]

When I came here, I noticed that a lot of members were opening up new topics when there was already a similar discussion going on. This is prohibited in most online communities. I wonder why it does not apply here as well?

The information in an already existing thread might be outdated. Bitcoin and the blockchain is an evolving ecosystem. The rules and solutions proposed a few years ago might not work today, or the steps to resolve specific problems could have changed. Don't forget that we are also dealing with different software and hardware and what might be the best option for one software/hardware, might not work as well for the other.

Very often it's not suggested to necro bump an old thread unless you are bringing something useful to the discussion. It is suggested to users to create their own threads instead.

[BurningChrome]

When I came here, I noticed that a lot of members were opening up new topics when there was already a similar discussion going on. This is prohibited in most online communities. I wonder why it does not apply here as well?

The information in an already existing thread might be outdated. Bitcoin and the blockchain is an evolving ecosystem. The rules and solutions proposed a few years ago might not work today, or the steps to resolve specific problems could have changed. Don't forget that we are also dealing with different software and hardware and what might be the best option for one software/hardware, might not work as well for the other.

Very often it's not suggested to necro bump an old thread unless you are bringing something useful to the discussion. It is suggested to users to create their own threads instead.

I wasn't aware of that, thank you. However, I guess it's not a good idea to create a new discussion thread if one already exists with a similar topic and active discussion?

[UserU]

I wasn't aware of that, thank you. However, I guess it's not a good idea to create a new discussion thread if one already exists with a similar topic and active discussion?

You could say that. Funnily though, those that are updated/ active tend to have people spouting the same thing over and over.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I wasn't aware of that, thank you. However, I guess it's not a good idea to create a new discussion thread if one already exists with a similar topic and active discussion?

If there's a recent and active one then no, you shouldn't create a new thread if it basically deals with the same material being discussed.  However, if you do a search to find out if there's a thread about something you're thinking of starting a thread about and it turns out there's a thread from 2 years ago, then I'd say go ahead and create a new one. 

"Necrobumping" or resurrecting an old thread is against the rules, but I'm not sure if the rules spell out how old the thread needs to be in order to consider it a necrobump.  I think it also has to do with how relevant/important the post is that bumps it.  Sometimes you see members bumping threads from 2012 (or earlier) just to write something short and stupid.  There's no need for that.  And some would consider bumping a 4-5 month old thread to be necrobumping, but I think that's a little extreme.

[BITCOIN4X]

"Necrobumping" or resurrecting an old thread is against the rules, but I'm not sure if the rules spell out how old the thread needs to be in order to consider it a necrobump.  I think it also has to do with how relevant/important the post is that bumps it.  Sometimes you see members bumping threads from 2012 (or earlier) just to write something short and stupid.  There's no need for that.  And some would consider bumping a 4-5 month old thread to be necrobumping, but I think that's a little extreme.

At least users will be warned and consider starting a new thread when they want to reply on a thread that hasn't been posted for 120 days or more. I think it will be the benchmark for us to start a new thread.

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

But if they believe that the replies are quite useful and important then I don't think it will count as necrobump. Just useless replies whose purpose is crashing thread is part of necrobump in my opinion.