[List]Gambling Board Spammers; Concerns, Solutions & Suggestions

[UmerIdrees]

I have a great list for you if you really want to identify more spammers on the gambling board, but because the list is long, it's only the top 100 in the last 34 days I've add in the list.

Code:

100. JollyGood [95]
-
-
434. indah rezqi [34]

Are you saying according to your great list:

I stand at #100 therefore = spammer?
you stand at #434 therefore you = spammer?

-snip-

Having lots of posts doesn't mean they are spammers, on the other hand having few posts doesn't mean they are good posters either. Quality is judged based on what you write and it really depends on the knowledge and perspective of everyone who judges. There's no set standard for it, but maybe when it's written over and over again on the same board or thread then they can be considered spammers.

You can tell the spammer's habits, they are quite easy to spot especially when they are just hiding on boards that hundreds or thousands other spammers like. Honestly I was surprised when you said yourself a spammer but in fact you rank up. That's kind of funny.

That is what I am asking him, did he call himself a spammer yet at the same time contradict himself by saying he was not  a spammer or a lesser spammer? And all those on his great list (including myself) also spammers?

What am I reading from him?

Lol, that was interesting 

I guess he thinks that those who posted more in the gambling section are the spammers while this is not the case. If this was the criteria then all the highest posters would have been declared spammers by now

[1714224049]

1714224049

[1714224049]

1714224049

[1714224049]

1714224049

[JollyGood]

I think he did not like it when his name was added to a list and he might have a case for being either upset or offended but I would like him to explain exactly what he means with his own list. Just by posting regularly in particular threads or boards does not make a member  a spammer by default.

Lol, that was interesting 

I guess he thinks that those who posted more in the gambling section are the spammers while this is not the case. If this was the criteria then all the highest posters would have been declared spammers by now

[Saint-loup]

Maybe some campaign managers feel pressured in to filling slots therefore allow many things to take place which they normally would not. It depends on the campaign manager and also on the business being promoted. I agree, lowering payment and bonuses will probably bring an even lower quality of post from spammers but there is no easy solution except to self-moderate threads in boards where signature spammers and scammers are running riot.

It's not up to campaign manager all the time I think. Sometimes, project representative also mention some rules and among them, I have always seen they have a high number of post requirements in gambling sector. Personally, I don’t like to force users to post on any section but projects requires a minimum number. Campaign manager can recommend to lower it which I did too but sometimes, you can't follow your own. You have to hear the project owner.

I don't understand why "project owners" as you say don't pay participants with free bets/spins/chips? It would guarantee them to have posters knowing their platform and being real gamblers. They could also ask a minimum weekly wager requirement on their platform to be accepted and kept in their campaign or at least some proofs like a gambling history sent by PM showing that the participant is a real active gambler.

I went through a few of those megatrends, I wonder if even 5% of the post would qualify as being about gambling.
Since I'm pretty sure a lot of the posters don't actually gamble or don't have a clue how to place a bet other than on the winner, most of the discussions there could be classified as football fans talking about their team, one post in one hundred talks about spreads, about handicaps about anything, it's about X beat Y so they might beat Z, A is a great player or bad one, xerox copies.

I totally agree with you, they don't even try to make predictions most of the time. Since they don't know anything about gambling they just make posts about the last game or race they've watched on TV, listened on the radio or read on a sports newspaper.

That being said, I've been always curious, in that whole mess of a board, is there a horse racing topic as I haven't seen one and it's the only spot I actually gamble on, not just watch.

You are right, it would be a very interesting thread though. It's sad to see that real bettors like you don't even dare to post there anymore.

[Falconer]

-snip-

-snip-

Looks like you two misunderstood indah rezqi post, I don't think he's saying everyone on the list is spammers, but maybe he just wanted to say some of them are spammers if the OP wants to really do some research. But I hope indah rezqi comes to explain for you.

Even if your name is in the top 100 posters based on that list, I would never consider you a spammer if you really care about quality. If I review the list, then there are several 1xbit posters on the list that you might think of as spammers all along. So I thought it was just a list of active poster name on gambling board for the past month, but not all of them are spammers but yes there are spammers too. I'm just thinking positive at the moment.

[Danydee]

I have a great list for you if you really want to identify more spammers on the gambling board, but because the list is long, it's only the top 100 in the last 34 days I've add in the list.

https://ninjastic.space/search?after_date=2022-08-01T00%3A00%3A01&before_date=2022-09-03T23%3A59%3A59&board=56&child_boards=true

Code:

1. KTChampions [379]
 . . . 

  KTChampions ? ?  All what I know about him is that is a real champion in all what belongs to sports predictions etc. ..

 Taking a quick look in his post history maybe show that he's very present in the gambling boards but taking the time to see into his messages clearly show that he is very far from what can be considered as a spammer !  All his interventions are pertinents and well structured!



 Alought I see your list is pretty huge to say you have checked every user's conduct!

[indah rezqi]

Having lots of posts doesn't mean they are spammers, on the other hand having few posts doesn't mean they are good posters either. Quality is judged based on what you write and it really depends on the knowledge and perspective of everyone who judges.

I totally agree with your assumption, there is no fixed standard in post quality assessment because every user has a different point of view. But as long as it's written constructively in the thread then I don't think it's spam.

That is what I am asking him, did he call himself a spammer yet at the same time contradict himself by saying he was not  a spammer or a lesser spammer? And all those on his great list (including myself) also spammers?

I'm not saying you're a spammer even if you're in the top 100 posters list on the gambling board. Each user will be judged on a case by case basis and posters deemed good are not worthy of being called spammers. It is an incomplete list for posters on gambling boards, and in that post I just advised the OP that the full list must have spammers if he wants to add them to his ignore list in the future.

KTChampions ? ?  All what I know about him is that is a real champion in all what belongs to sports predictions etc.

You only highlight posters that you think are good, but indirectly you have ignored spammers. Find out how many 1xbit posters who no longer care about their reputation are on the list I posted but I wonder why some of you don't want to talk about it but seem to think I've rated the top posters there so badly.

[Stalker22]

Having lots of posts doesn't mean they are spammers, on the other hand having few posts doesn't mean they are good posters either. Quality is judged based on what you write and it really depends on the knowledge and perspective of everyone who judges.

I totally agree with your assumption, there is no fixed standard in post quality assessment because every user has a different point of view. But as long as it's written constructively in the thread then I don't think it's spam.

It is not just his assumption, it is the facts. Spam is not defined by the quantity of posts but by their quality. And, besides, moderation standards are in place to ensure that this forum remains a friendly and welcoming environment for everyone who participates here.

You made a list of the Top 100 most active members in the Gambling board. That is fine, but that does not mean they are spammers. If you want to make a list of the biggest spammers on the forum, check the moderation logs.


https://bpip.org/Profile?id=1189222

If one out of every six of your posts gets deleted by the moderators, it is quite clear that you are violating the forum rules. A lot.

[m_nief]

May I know what criteria called with gambling board spammer?
I saw in several user got tag as as gambling board spammer make their viewed about soccer predicting, discussing about their favorite team and some time they post about match result.
I can't imagine user got tag with gambling board spammer when posting about soccer match result, make predicting about team winner before games began.

[skarais]

May I know what criteria called with gambling board spammer?

Do you have any posts deleted on the gambling board so far? If yes, then I think it can be a consideration for you to get answers about the spam post category on the gambling board. Wherever you post, if the quality is poor then it can be considered as spam.

I saw in several user got tag as as gambling board spammer make their viewed about soccer predicting, discussing about their favorite team and some time they post about match result.

Ask the person who tagged him, he can definitely give the answer. I'm just assuming that the poster is just spamming and maybe making some repeat mistakes. But trust feedback is not to tag spammers, it should be used for something to do with trading or anything like that. Report spammers and their spam posts, that's much more recommended as I think it's the moderator's job to deal with it.

[Poker Player]

I just remembered this thread, when visiting one of the gambling section:

Kings Club Poker, semi-private games, mainly for serious poker players

This reply, this reply and this one are pure garbage disguised as a supposedly certain quality by the lenght of the answer (they are not one liner spammers) and by saying things that to those who have some idea of poker but not much may perceive as meaningful.

Two of them are part of the spammer blacklist and I am not surprised that they write like this because it is clear that they have experience. They write in a way that is still garbage but may appear to be of some quality at first glance.

For me the problem is that they get paid for that.

[Saint-loup]

I just remembered this thread, when visiting one of the gambling section:

Kings Club Poker, semi-private games, mainly for serious poker players

This reply, this reply and this one are pure garbage disguised as a supposedly certain quality by the lenght of the answer (they are not one liner spammers) and by saying things that to those who have some idea of poker but not much may perceive as meaningful.

Two of them are part of the spammer blacklist and I am not surprised that they write like this because it is clear that they have experience. They write in a way that is still garbage but may appear to be of some quality at first glance.

For me the problem is that they get paid for that.

I agree with you, some members are very talented to make long meaningless posts, not ashamed to repeat several times the same thing with different words frequently. It seems to prevent them from being reported to moderators and even from being removed from their campaign despite being already tagged as spammers, receiving almost no merit and posting hundreds posts by month, they even receive bonuses for their spam actually.

[Danydee]

Even if getting a perfect ignore list there will be new accounts or just other users that just starts and so repeating the same problem.

I think this/the solution  is regulating the signature campaigns by the forum staff,
make strict rules for managers as for example, define a maximum limit to the minimum post count required from a user,
forbid the rule of posting on specific boards.. or maybe allow a max amount of posts per manger

I would add to forbid imposing setting an avatar and personal text, so let the choice to the users setting it or not,  .. by motivating, against remuneration or privileges! ?

[imamusma]

Do any of you have a profile setup like this? I think this can help you not see the different avatar and signature of each campaigner. See what positives you'll get, you're bound to be reading what users write more often than who writes for what campaigns.



A lot of people say it doesn't make sense to pay someone with spam or very low quality posts, so I'm sure you must be discussing post quality more often without caring about what they're getting from the campaign if you have profile setting like that. But the downside is that the campaign doesn't expect this to be done by everyone because it won't make their site known.

[Poker Player]

I think this/the solution  is regulating the signature campaigns by the forum staff...

I doubt very much that this will be done. I understand that the owner of the forum is more of a free-for-all and let things self-regulate.

Do any of you have a profile setup like this?

Not in my case. But there are some members who do, I remember for example The Pharmacist. I am not going to put the signatures in ignore because it would be like biting the hand that feeds me.

[Maus0728]

Do any of you have a profile setup like this? I think this can help you not see the different avatar and signature of each campaigner. See what positives you'll get, you're bound to be reading what users write more often than who writes for what campaigns.

Sometimes seeing other member's signature space and avatar helps you to identify which member is shitposting or not. There are signature campaigns that require their members a fuckton of post per week where whoever joins that campaigns, you can automatically consider some of them as spammers.

A lot of people say it doesn't make sense to pay someone with spam or very low quality posts, so I'm sure you must be discussing post quality more often without caring about what they're getting from the campaign if you have profile setting like that.

Regardless if you have settings like this, it doesn't change the fact that they are still getting paid with or without you seeing their signature. But that's just me.

[_BlackStar]

Do any of you have a profile setup like this? I think this can help you not see the different avatar and signature of each campaigner. See what positives you'll get, you're bound to be reading what users write more often than who writes for what campaigns.

No, I don't think it's the best solution if you want to get spam from multiple users on any board. You shouldn't look at who he is and what campaign he's promoting to determine spam posts, it has to be what he wrote. I wouldn't have a profile setting like that, but I'm sure some people have. I don't know who.

A lot of people say it doesn't make sense to pay someone with spam or very low quality posts, so I'm sure you must be discussing post quality more often without caring about what they're getting from the campaign if you have profile setting like that. But the downside is that the campaign doesn't expect this to be done by everyone because it won't make their site known.

Again quality does not depend on what your username is, what rank you are, what campaign you are promoting, but quality is a product of the knowledge you have. So you don't have to hide your avatar and signature to find them. But I just realized that avatars and signatures can also be hidden.

[lalabotax]

These users have zero knowledge of the game(Football) you can check their post history for details!

Code:

-snip-
lalabotax
-snip-

I'm shocked to see my name on the list. I don't know in what way you determine me as a spammer.  
I am aware that I am not a high-quality poster but I didn't make posts indicated to be out of topic or made some posts in a row. I also never made some similar posts on several threads. Why do you call me a spammer? Do I make a lot of posts indicated as spams? Give me the proof or evidence.

Remind the definition of spam!

Spamming is the use of messaging systems to send multiple unsolicited messages (spam) to large numbers of recipients for the purpose of commercial advertising, for the purpose of non-commercial proselytizing, for any prohibited purpose (especially the fraudulent purpose of phishing), or simply repeatedly sending the same message to the same user.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming

Anyway, I see many of the people on the list are members from Indonesia. Do you have a problem with Indonesian members? I hope there is no political matter when you determine the names on the list above. I'm so sorry I suspect it because you are against us, but you don't care with real spammers of 1xbit signature participants. Do you think they are better than us (people on the list and me)?  

Top gambling board spammers; excluded 1xbit spammers.

N/B: Casino campaign managers should take note of these users. Added to ignore list.

It is not your business, let the campaign managers consider whether to take an action or not. This accusation is also quite subjective, it is based on own perception. It will be valid if it is determined by a team consisting of members who are neutral, do not side with any group and have a good reputation in spam cases. The candidates of spam busters on Bitcointalk Community Awards are the most recommended people. See here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5390008.0.

Regarding the issue,
-snip-I remember when I wanted to have some gambler on Thunderpick signature campaign, it was hard to decide if they were really gamblers or not. By judging their post, I thought they don't gamble but they pretend to be gambler lol.

Do you assume a non-gambler cannot join casino signature campaigns, sir?
It is in your signature campaign, sir. But in my signature campaign rules (and also in other campaigns), there is no statement that the participant should be an active gambler. So, I think it is not a must to be an active gambler to participate in the signature campaign. Except, the manager stated it is for active gamblers only.

In addition, I'm against those people who pretend to be a gambler, but nothing wrong with people who join the discussion by explaining their opinions.

Some of the managers are also unfamiliar with the game, making it difficult to moderate participants. We do our best to help.

Which managers do refer to?
You must clearer this part. You accuse them of being unprofessional or less of knowledge.
Even if they don't know the game, you should understand that they don't work alone, they have some assistants. They must hire professional people who know well everything related to that jobs, including the games.

[Danydee]

I think this/the solution  is regulating the signature campaigns by the forum staff...

I doubt very much that this will be done. I understand that the owner of the forum is more of a free-for-all and let things self-regulate.

 This is like for how there is rules that even fram the form of post, "no low quality", "no off context", "no two words"... It would be nice if campaigns too get rules to not be broken!

[lizarder]

The impact of spammers?

• Misdirection for beginners

• Making issues that are not in accordance with the facts

• The forum is filled with posts that do not meet the element of certainty

• Posts are not represented with knowledge that is in accordance with the topic of discussion

• Discussions on the Gambling board are only for filling in weekly posts, although some people don't understand the football part at all

Therefore, I think it's important to know what the post quality standards are like, Is it related to substance and statistics?

Because when it comes to assessment, everyone has a different perception, for example how to judge one post with another, maybe I think their posts are good and constructive, but for other people, that's not necessarily the case.
I think this standard is still gray, so it's easy to say, post A is good, post B is constructive, post C is innovative, and post D is useless.

as once conveyed by @BlackStar

Again quality does not depend on what your username is, what rank you are, what campaign you are promoting, but quality is a product of the knowledge you have. So you don't have to hide your avatar and signature to find them. But I just realized that avatars and signatures can also be hidden.

Although personally I'm still classified as a spammer, maybe!!!

[stompix]

My brief half of week experience with the gambling section  

1) Opened a self-moderated [ur=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413000.0l]topic[/url] about horse racing, the self-moderated stuff combined with the fact that you can't post about Lewandowski going to Barcelona for $50m every week to make your quota and the topic is dead.
2) A non-moderated topic asking about what a trifecta is uncovered in less a day a ton of horse racing gamblers, of course, on paper  

Conclusion:
Self-moderated topics won't prevent s&*^

Proposal:

This could be achieved with the cooperation of a few signature managers and with the actual casinos and sports betting websites that really care about people wanting to gamble and not fan talk about Lewandowski going to Barcelona for $50m.

So, how about this change in the criteria of posting x times in the gambling section:
Rather than having 10 out of 25 posts in the gambling discussion section, either keep or erase this altogether but make half of the previous quota to be mandatory about actual gambling.

This means no posts like:

Barcelona bought Lewandowski for $50m and this will be a match against his former team ...more lines of garbage

and more like

Lewandowski after the last match has only a 1.85 odds of scoring and 5.5 to score twice, and it's just 1.9 for over 3.5 goals for the match, combining one of those with.....

Gambling websites should be interested in promoting talks about real gambling, about their odds, about their winning, and not fan talk about Lewandowski going to Barcelona for $50m, so this requirement would be in their interests.
Would it cut down spam, maybe, maybe not that much but this is clear. It will make spammers work way harder than just rephrasing their last posts from one week ago and it will help a lot in trimming down those who obviously have no clue what they are talking about.

Oh, did I mention Lewandowski going to Barcelona for $50m?