[Proposal] Tackling the spam

[BlackHatCoiner]

This thread should be read mainly from those who maintain and are responsible for this forum such as the admins & mods.

Prologue.

I was just reading this topic about the degradation of the Bitcoin discussion board and I felt kinda disappointed that the main subforum of bitcointalk is so ruined. Briefly, there's incentive on spamming this neglected and undervalued board and it's clearly due to signature campaigns. Signature campaigns and bounties are the reason for this uncontrollable spam, but not the cause.

All that account marketplace and this unbelievably disadvantaging hurry to fulfill the requirements for getting paid at the end of each week originate by the irresponsibility of those who hire. Thus, the source of the problem isn't the spammers nor the existence of those campaigns; it's the falsely way some folks choose to incentivize the users.


To understand this better.

If I came to you and told you that I'll pay you $50 each week, for creating many nonsensical-shitty posts at the same thread for spreading my product all over the first five pages, it's not (only) your fault for bringing all these meaningless discussions, but the guy's who incentivize you.

We may stop those specific users from discussing (so cunningly between their possible alts), such as by reporting frequently, but after all, we just paper over the cracks; the manager will sooner or later find others (or the same) greedy users who'll do the job. The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.


How to.

To achieve this, the wearing of a signature has to be handled more strictly. It must be forbidden to advertise a product without informing this forum first. This will cover the campaigns that are ran outside the forum and the managers who act irresponsibly without facing the consequences. This way, there can't be a campaign that will result into spamming without any punishment; the forum can comprehend the manager who's responsible for a campaign at any time.

A user can't wear a signature that contains a product and submit posts simultaneously (which is what led us to spamming) unless they have been approved by a manager to do so.

If the participant is found to be abusing the campaign by spamming, the manager has to remove him within a reasonable time limit such as a week, otherwise they're both culprits of filling the forum with illicit content.

Users can't just become managers if their application isn't approved by the forum. The users have to pass some sort of managing exams for being allowed to act likewise.


More rules can be introduced to this forum polity if they appear to be needed.

[1714060772]

1714060772

[Saidasun]

I do not think it is a good idea to bring centralization into approving campaign managers. I think we should just ban campaign managers that are not checking the quality of the members in their campaign and if they are found to be contributing to the degradation of the forum repeatedly they should be permanently banned. This is the only way you get the campaign managers to take their job seriously. I have heard that campaign managers are paid 100s of dollars a week and some of them are checking anything and are just submitting the payments. I think we could trial this idea in the bounty board because that is where most of the bounty managers that do not care about the forum are running their services.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I do not think it is a good idea to bring centralization into approving campaign managers.

Here's the abuse of that word again! It is hunting me wherever I go. The managers are already into the admins' fate; they can't do whatever they want. Every community has to work hierarchically, otherwise it's a mess.

This is the only way you get the campaign managers to take their job seriously.

I firmly disagree; they'd take their job even more seriously if the spam was tackled with this professional way. The less the managers, the greater the earnings of the current ones. The less the signature campaigns, the more they can ask from their clients, because they're offering a better service.

[Saidasun]

I firmly disagree; they'd take their job even more seriously if the spam was tackled with this professional way. The less the managers, the greater the earnings of the current ones. The less the signature campaigns, the more they can ask from their clients, because they're offering a better service.

Competition is what creates motivation not the lack of competition if you only have a couple of managers and it was hard to replace them they would become more complacent than now. The admins do not punish the campaign/bounty managers atm they only punish the sig spammers that are a part of the campaign. If they started punishing the campaign/bounty managers that is when they will change to become more constructive.

[Charles-Tim]

The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.

If this forum is getting too strict, the users of this forum will reduce, I am not encouraging spamming but neither should I encourage too stringent rules that might possibly harm the forum. I did not comment on that last thread just because I know good posters can decide to ignore some boards and/or some users. It is true that some users only want to spam, but the Bitcoin boards is not bad to the extent these stringent rules have to be enforced. We still maintain high quality Bitcoin boards (I do not know of altcoin boards), it will not be good to turn this forum into what only stale users will only be able to visit without encouraging news users. If you see any spam post, you can report it, I always report some spam posts and removing such posts by moderators is very fast, if the moderators are excellently responding to posts that are reported, I think we should just not go further about this. Also, some good posters ignore some boards, if they do not see it useful for them. This forum is working good with the active report button.

[Saidasun]

If this forum is getting too strict, the users of this forum will reduce, I am not encouraging spamming but neither should I encourage too stringent rules that might possibly harm the forum. I did not comment on that last thread just because I know good posters can decide to ignore some boards and/or some users. It is true that some users only want to spam, but the Bitcoin boards is not bad to the extent these stringent rules have to be enforced. We still maintain high quality Bitcoin boards (I do not know of altcoin boards), it will not be good to turn this forum into what only stale users will only be able to visit without encouraging news users. If you see any spam post, you can report it, I always report some spam posts and removing such posts by moderators is very fast, if the moderators are excellently responding to posts that are reported, I think we should just not go further about this. Also, some good posters ignore some boards, if they do not see it useful for them. This forum is working good with the active report button.

If we are too lenient then members will leave the forum any way and will go to places like Reddit. We are already fighting a losing battle because Reddit is a more popular platform and the format of it is more popular among young people. If we continue allowing spammers to spam what ever they want then we will lose the experienced members because they will be sick of it. The other topic showed that most people are ignoring or sick of the spam in Bitcoin Discussion. I think we need to concentrate on making the forum the best place for good discussions instead of worrying about losing members. Members will come to a quality forum because Reddit is low quality if we can beat them on quality then people will continue to come here.

[Charles-Tim]

If we are too lenient then members will leave the forum any way and will go to places like Reddit.

I am not implying leniency, in fact, the moderators are not lenient towards spammers, they even ban spammers if they have no good work already on this forum before, and the ones that deserved not to be banned can be temporarily banned. So, nothing like leniency when it comes to spamming on this forum. Also just know that many posts on Reddit is not as quality as many posts on this Bitcoin boards of this forum, they can just go to Reddit for pump and dump information or less quality posts. This forum in term of Bitcoin discussion is far better than any other forum.

We are already fighting a losing battle because Reddit is a more popular platform and the format of it is more popular among young people.

This should not be about spamming, Reddit was even created in 2005 before Bitcointalk that was created in 2009, Reddit is not only focusing on cryptocurrencies but many other discussion are on Reddit. We can also still discuss about this forum having alternative attractive, mobile friendly sites and mobile apps. Although, I will most likely stick to this present site.

If we continue allowing spammers to spam what ever they want then we will lose the experienced members because they will be sick of it.

With what I still noticed about this forum, this is not possible, also, this forum does not condone spamming. This has been repeated countless numbers of times that spam posts should be reported. Or have you reported any that was not deleted?

The other topic showed that most people are ignoring or sick of the spam in Bitcoin Discussion.

You are right, but we can do the forum good as we are reporting it, do not be tired of reporting spam.

I think we need to concentrate on making the forum the best place for good discussions instead of worrying about losing members.

You have to consider the two, but if the members are spammers, they have to be banned.

Members will come to a quality forum because Reddit is low quality if we can beat them on quality then people will continue to come here.

No forum is still quality like Bitcointalk when it comes to Bitcoin discussions.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The admins do not punish the campaign/bounty managers atm they only punish the sig spammers that are a part of the campaign. If they started punishing the campaign/bounty managers that is when they will change to become more constructive.

You're contradicting yourself. That's the very reason I made this proposal.

You are right, but we can do the forum good as we are reporting it, do not be tired of reporting spam.

You should not be tired of reporting spam, if the system you're working isn't structured to have spam. I thought that using the idiom “paper over the cracks” was sufficient to understand that while you may report frequently, there'll always be spammers this way.


I don't want to be rude, but please don't derail this thread with the Reddit comparison. It's off-topic.

[Saidasun]

The admins do not punish the campaign/bounty managers atm they only punish the sig spammers that are a part of the campaign. If they started punishing the campaign/bounty managers that is when they will change to become more constructive.

You're contradicting yourself. That's the very reason I made this proposal.

I do not think I am contradicting myself I understand the reason you proposed what you have but I think it is better to serve out bans to campaign / bounty managers instead of the forum choosing who is allowed to manage campaigns. This way it is fair to everyone creates competition between campaign/bounty managers and deals with the problem of spammers. I agree with your proposal that something has to be done but I am suggesting a alternative way which I think is more fair and achieves the same result.

[Kittygalore]

For the wearers of signatures, how will it be considered a spam, I always try to chase the maximum posts per week and I don't burst post. Will I be affected by this because I feel like it attacks those campaigns that pays per post?

[UserU]

For the wearers of signatures, how will it be considered a spam, I always try to chase the maximum posts per week and I don't burst post. Will I be affected by this because I feel like it attacks those campaigns that pays per post?

Because of the quota, they try to reach them by posting whatever that comes to their mind, often ignoring other posters and solely focusing on the OP's content.

Then there are those that might not have time to post consistently over the week which could be due to an IRL job, and when they realize they're falling short of the minimum threshold, they burst post.

Non joiners or even joiners themselves might find it hard to shake off the impression that sig campaign bearers tend to shitpost, but what to do, to each his own. Still, there are some legit posters out of the many.

[Kittygalore]

~

Then there are those that might not have time to post consistently over the week which could be due to an IRL job, and when they realize they're falling short of the minimum threshold, they burst post.

I don't have any qualms with quota, it makes you work hard for what you have. I feel like those people that burst post because of having other jobs is an excuse, I mean it's not like posting in the forum is time consuming, pretty sure that people will find a way to complete their quota. Also, isn't that the point of posting in the threads? To answer the OP if it's your first post in that thread?

[LoyceV]

The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.

Have you seen this topic? Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)
The rules have been in place for almost 5 years, but unfortunately they're not enforced. Enforcing them would basically mean Mods have to do the campaign manager's job, and that's a lot of work.

It must be forbidden to advertise a product without informing this forum first.

That goes directly against the forum's mission to be as free as possible. Theymos' post under this quote is worth reading too.

[UserU]

I don't have any qualms with quota, it makes you work hard for what you have. I feel like those people that burst post because of having other jobs is an excuse, I mean it's not like posting in the forum is time consuming, pretty sure that people will find a way to complete their quota. Also, isn't that the point of posting in the threads? To answer the OP if it's your first post in that thread?

Sometimes when the job tends to be too time-consuming, you tend to overlook/ take things for granted. It happened to me before so I could relate to that.

About the OP thing, most of the time the first few replies would already address the concern/ issue. It's just that those posters downright tend to ignore anything else because they don't want/ plan to engage with other users:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5337846.0

I see we’re still congratulating a banned account on this thread (OPs) …

If anybody is interested in seeing the first merited post of any (non-airdropped) merited account, I’ve updated a file which I published some months ago on another thread. Data is now as of 13/08/2021:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_I7WfxSnzOe7wvjE9dJ-aqH59PnfsMnKSVzycYljrx0/edit?usp=sharing

Anecdotally, there are 113 accounts that were awarded 50 Merits on their first received merit TX. Going some of them is not for the faint of heart …

[Kittygalore]

~

About the OP thing, most of the time the first few replies would already address the concern/ issue. It's just that those posters downright tend to ignore anything else because they don't want/ plan to engage with other users:

Well, if that's the case then shouldn't it automatically be locked or the mods should've locked it already if the issues addressed already since most incoming replies would just be a tangle of the OP and I feel like we need more of this engagement thing with users creating this threads.

[UserU]

Well, if that's the case then shouldn't it automatically be locked or the mods should've locked it already if the issues addressed already since most incoming replies would just be a tangle of the OP and I feel like we need more of this engagement thing with users creating this threads.

The OPs has to either lock them, which is a miracle if they happen or we could simply report them to the mods and they'll get locked soon enough.

If it encourages discussions between users, that's fine in my books. In the gambling section, most of the posts are in response to other quotes.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Have you seen this topic? Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)

Yes, once I read about the current situation of the Bitcoin discussion, I searched for that rule and realized it isn't enforced.

The rules have been in place for almost 5 years, but unfortunately they're not enforced. Enforcing them would basically mean Mods have to do the campaign manager's job, and that's a lot of work.

Obviously, they can't do all the work; that's why I made this proposal. Also:

The government cannot enforce its mountain of laws and regulations without voluntary compliance

That goes directly against the forum's mission to be as free as possible. Theymos' post under this quote is worth reading too.

I get that this forum is meant to remain as free as possible, but if we don't deal with this problem, forum's freedom will essentially continue being abused.

[Stalker22]

We already have a method to fight spam. It is the merit system. I do not understand why managers do not use it more effectively.
For example, if a user posts 50 times per week without earning a single merit, they are very likely signature spammers.

Additionally, "posts deleted" should be visible in a member's profile. This is the most accurate metric we can use to determine if a member is spamming.
For example, according to the bpip.org website, there are some members who have a posts made/posts deleted ratio of 5/1 and still participate in signature campaigns. This indicates that the campaign manager is not doing his job properly.

[ABCbits]

How to.

--snip--

Those 4 "How to" require active intervention by admin, moderator and manager. I doubt any of them are willing to review the company or approve the user manually. I would suggest only enable signature if the user receive X merit within last Y days (for example X is 8 and Y is 120). The hardest part is determining X/Y value, but admin only need to do it once.

[LoyceV]

We already have a method to fight spam. It is the merit system. I do not understand why managers do not use it more effectively.

From a campaign manager's perspective, fighting spam is often not worth the time. Running a tight campaign without spam is much more work than only counting the posts at the end of the week, while it also means less posts are made so they earn less. As long as the campaign manager doesn't risk a ban, many of them don't care.
The campaigns itself don't care either, as long as they can pay with made-up tokens. I've suggested before to only allow campaigns that pay in Bitcoin so they really have to pay for it, but that didn't happen.