A proposal to "hush" other users

[PowerGlove]

I've seen a few posts from more experienced members either using or suggesting the use of the "ignore" button. At first, this struck me as unnecessary, but as I've been finding my feet and exploring the forum more, I'm starting to see their point.

There are so many redundant posts needlessly repeating the same information and/or posts where the poster hasn't just failed to read the whole thread before posting but has clearly failed to read even the initial post. To be clear, I'm not referring to redundant topics, which bug me far less, because an old topic covered again by a new user still provides an opportunity for fresh insight. I'm more referring to the situation where 30 users all produce similar low-value "answers" in a given topic.

I'm not sure why there are so many posts like this, but my best guess is that it's users either trying to rank up quickly or trying to fulfill their signature campaign commitments. I've got some empathy for both kinds of user but this type of activity is really lowering the signal to noise ratio and getting in the way of meaningful discussion.

Although I'm very tempted to start, I'm still reluctant to ignore users because it feels "permanent" and I don't want to miss out on their contributions if they decide to change their posting habits. I'm aware that I could remove them from my ignore list in the future, but I also know that I'm unlikely to periodically re-evaluate them and so will probably just leave them there indefinitely.

So, what I would really like is if next to "ignore" there was a less drastic option that only added them to my ignore list temporarily^[1], something like this:



That way, I can "hush" with reckless abandon and still be assured that nobody will fall off my radar forever.

If users started to regularly "hush" each other for low-quality posts then a useful per-user statistic "H" might be the following:

    H = (T / P) ** (1 - S)

Where:

    T = The number of times this user was hushed in the previous activity window.

    P = The number of times this user could potentially have been hushed in the previous activity window.

    S = A severity/harshness control between 0 and 1.

I imagine that if this "hush factor" were shared with campaign managers (no point in paying for posts that aren't being seen) so that they could adjust their payments by it (i.e. scaling the payout by 1 - H), that would make a compelling disincentive for bad posting behavior.

Setting "S" to 0.5 would be a good starting point, but someone (presumably @theymos) would have to carefully fine-tune it to decide how punitive this countermeasure should be.

Edit: [1] After thinking about this more, I think a "hush" should last for the rest of the current activity window and not some arbitrary length of time like 10/20/30 days. This alignment reduces the number of edge cases and makes calculating "P" simpler.

[1713291362]

1713291362

[1713291362]

1713291362

[1713291362]

1713291362

[1713291362]

1713291362

[1713291362]

1713291362

[tranthidung]

I've seen a few posts from more experienced members either using or suggesting the use of the "ignore" button.

When merit system was kicked off, people created a lot of topics, complained a lot and begged for merit with low quality posts a lot. The user I knew who used Ignore button (at least the user publicly wrote it) is Jet Cash.  

Sorry - I've put them on ignore so that I can't give them any merit by accident.

So, what I would really like is if next to "ignore" there was a less drastic option that only added them to my ignore list temporarily (say for 10 days), something like this:

I don't think it is necessary.

• 10 days or 30 days are not long enough to change a user. It should be months.
• Forum unofficially has it. It does not completely exclude the ignored member from your view. You still can see the username and if you want, you can click on unignore anytime.

[LoyceV]

At first, this struck me as unnecessary, but as I've been finding my feet and exploring the forum more, I'm starting to see their point.

It took me much longer before I started using "Ignore". Now I love it, it saves time not reading useless posts.

I'm still reluctant to ignore users because it feels "permanent" and I don't want to miss out on their contributions if they decide to change their posting habits.

Have you tried the Ignore button? Posts made by Ignored users show a Show/Hide link, so you can once in a while "review" them when they post in a topic you're reading. Or just wait for someone to quote them.

So, what I would really like is if next to "ignore" there was a less drastic option that only added them to my ignore list temporarily (say for 10 days), something like this:

Given how rare forum updates are, I don't expect this to happen. And I don't think I'd use it.

I'd be much more interested in a data dump of all Ignored users. That would give great statistics! And drama

[Charles-Tim]

I am still finding it difficult to ignore a user, but I find it lazy and difficult for me to still read some user's posts. Never mind this, not that related to what this thread is all about.

To ignore a person for certain period of time can be useful, but why the use of hush and why relating it to campaign and what could be hurtful to bounty hunters when this forum works good with how it is presently.

I don't think it is necessary.

I too do not see it necessary.

It took me much longer before I started using "Ignore". Now I love it, it saves time not reading useless posts.

Ignoring low quality posters, but did you think merit sources should also ignore users? Never mind me, people are different and some user's posts are so annoying.

[LoyceV]

Ignoring low quality posters, but did you think merit sources should also ignore users?

Most definitely! Being a Merit source is a volunteer position, I don't get paid to do it, and I don't want to spend extra time reading shitposts. If I see a shitpost on the tech boards, I like to make sure I never Merit that user.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It shouldn't be up to every single individual user to manually filter out the spam, but sadly, that's what it has come to. We have very clear forum rules as well as very clear signature campaign rules, which are widely ignored and completely unenforced. Here are what they say:

Staff do not want to hand out bans for unconstructive posts but if we feel that you as a user are continually making very poor or unsubstantial posts due to your paid signature the following bans will be issued:

First offence: 7 days
Second offence: 14 days
Third offence: 30 days
Fourth: Permanent ban

If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way.

Even the most egregious spammers are not banned and campaign managers are never sanctioned. If we aren't even going to enforce the very forgiving rules that we have, then you are going to have no luck trying to get this new feature implemented I'm afraid.

Here's another suggestion instead:

Use ignore. On the 1st of each month (or some other time frame which suits your needs), go to "Profile" -> "Ignore user options" and copy your entire ignore list in to a spreadsheet. Then clear your ignore list and start again. Repeat. After 3 or 4 months, any user which has been on every one of your historical ignore lists gets added to a permanent ignore list. From the 1st of each month going forward, instead of wiping your entire ignore list you wipe it and replace it with your permanent ignore list. This means that you aren't condemning any user forever based on a single post which you hit ignore on, but repeated shitposts will eventually get filtered out permanently. Going forward you can give a user "Three strikes" or something similar before adding them to your permanent ignore list.

[Daniel91]

Ignoring low quality posters, but did you think merit sources should also ignore users?

Most definitely! Being a Merit source is a volunteer position, I don't get paid to do it, and I don't want to spend extra time reading shitposts. If I see a shitpost on the tech boards, I like to make sure I never Merit that user.

In fact, when I come to the forum, I already know most of the users and I read posts from those members who inspire me with their posts, and I don't expect too much from newbie members anyway.
However, when I accidentally read a bad post, I don't use the ignore button because I believe that every new member can eventually become a good member, through the acquisition of experience and knowledge over time.
If a bad member eventually becomes a good member and starts writing quality posts, and I put him on the ignore list in the beginning, that means I won't be able to see his good posts later and reward him with merits.
Of course, a lot depends on the motivation of the new members, whether they are here solely for the possibility of earning or to learn something, but that quickly becomes obvious.
I'm not on the forum often, so I don't worry too much about whether I'll see a lot of shitposts or not. I simply skip bad posts and forget about it, and reward good ones with merit.

[NeuroticFish]

There are so many redundant posts needlessly repeating the same information and/or posts where the poster hasn't just failed to read the whole thread before posting but has clearly failed to read even the initial post. To be clear, I'm not referring to redundant topics, which bug me far less, because an old topic covered again by a new user still provides an opportunity for fresh insight. I'm more referring to the situation where 30 users all produce similar low-value "answers" in a given topic.

Well, ignoring users is not the correct solution for this. You will have to make good use of:
* ignore boards (some boards bring more spam than information and may not even be interesting for you)
* report post (to get the spam removed) - I'll add here that reporting is not meant to be overly accurate

I'm not sure why there are so many posts like this, but my best guess is that it's users either trying to rank up quickly or trying to fulfill their signature campaign commitments. I've got some empathy for both kinds of user but this type of activity is really lowering the signal to noise ratio and getting in the way of meaningful discussion.

You are pretty much correct imho.

Although I'm very tempted to start, I'm still reluctant to ignore users because it feels "permanent" and I don't want to miss out on their contributions

In most cases you'll lose nothing. I also think that adding complicated rules is not necessary.
You can, for example every Christmas (when we are supposed to be better), clear up completely your ignore list to give everybody a second chance.

[Upgrade00]

Although I'm very tempted to start, I'm still reluctant to ignore users because it feels "permanent" and I don't want to miss out on their contributions if they decide to change their posting habits.

I don't quite see the ignore option as permanent, even though I don't use it often.
When scrolling through the forum, you can still see the replies of users you've ignored, and their threads are still visible on the board landing page, it's just dimmed and not as visible as others.
The point is, ignored users do not fall under your radar
 You can always temporarily unignore them to check out what exactly they posted, and if it's more of the same, you keep them on your ignore list. If, however they've improved, you can consider leaving them unignored, or check their profile to check their last couple of posts.

Theymos is highly unlikely to add a new feature, so it's up to you to regulate it the way you want.

[Smartvirus]

I dont know but ignoring users comes very difficult to me. In an instance, you've subjected someone to be complete garbage on there view points because you don't agree. Possibly they could be real garbage and I've even heard of users that ignores a whole board. Its entirely there choice but for me, I make a conscious effort to note these users and more of skim over there posts and the few others for which, I find the first few lines uninteresting to those that actually interest me and the users too.

So, what I would really like is if next to "ignore" there was a less drastic option that only added them to my ignore list temporarily (say for 10 days), something like this:

I have unintentionally ignored a few users in the past and each time, my attention is always drawn to them as it's always clearly written below there user to have been ignored. There user name would be displayed but there posts on the other hand is what you don't find. Hence, in contrast to having them permanently ignored, you can go ahead to unignore them and not get to wait on a time frame.

Also, ignore comes with a downside as, should another user quote an ignored users post, you get to see them and if your conscious enough, you could recall to have put them on ignore and maybe go straight ahead to unignore them.

We might not need another icon that ignores or "hush" someone for a couple of days or months. I'll rather suggest that we have a programmable meter for the current ignore botton. Just as we have on the login page that you could determine how long (either 60minutes or hours) you which to stay logged in but in this case, we could have a weeks or months or indefinitely as an option to select from and have people make there choices on ignore. This works too right? Although, it might be time consuming for some. Either way, it still serves some purpose if need be.

[PowerGlove]

10 days or 30 days are not long enough to change a user. It should be months.

@tranthidung: That would suit me better too, but I tried to pick an interval that would be on the same order as an activity window, so that "H" could change fairly quickly (i.e. better posting habits = better "H" without having to wait too long).

Have you tried the Ignore button? Posts made by Ignored users show a Show/Hide link, so you can once in a while "review" them when they post in a topic you're reading. Or just wait for someone to quote them.

@LoyceV: No, I've never used it. I just assumed if I did that they would disappear from view completely. I probably should have tried it before posting though.

3. How exactly do we get P number?

@ETFbitcoin: For a new activity window, each user's "P" starts at zero. Then "P" gets incremented every time one of their posts is rendered/viewed by a logged-in user, you just have to be careful not to count views more than once per logged-in user.

4. With current formula, H value is likely to be unstable. IMO using scaling such as log scale is needed.

@ETFbitcoin: Yup, I just put in a quick non-linear adjustment on top of a ratio without thinking about it too deeply. If you mean unstable as in "sensitive" or "changes non-smoothly" then that's by design.

Use ignore. On the 1st of each month (or some other time frame which suits your needs), go to "Profile" -> "Ignore user options" and copy your entire ignore list in to a spreadsheet. Then clear your ignore list and start again. Repeat. After 3 or 4 months, any user which has been on every one of your historical ignore lists gets added to a permanent ignore list. From the 1st of each month going forward, instead of wiping your entire ignore list you wipe it and replace it with your permanent ignore list. This means that you aren't condemning any user forever based on a single post which you hit ignore on, but repeated shitposts will eventually get filtered out permanently. Going forward you can give a user "Three strikes" or something similar before adding them to your permanent ignore list.

@o_e_l_e_o: I think I'll start doing that, thanks. I'll also occasionally use Loyce's suggestion about "peeking" at posts every now and then.

[Mr.right85]

If users started to regularly "hush" each other for low-quality posts then a useful per-user statistic "H" might be the following:

    H = (T / P) ** (1 - S)

Where:

    T = The number of times this user was hushed in the previous activity window.

    P = The number of times this user could potentially have been hushed in the previous activity window.

    S = A severity/harshness control between 0 and 1.

I imagine that if this "hush factor" were shared with campaign managers (no point in paying for posts that aren't being seen) so that they could adjust their payments by it (i.e. scaling the payout by 1 - H), that would make a compelling disincentive for bad posting behavior.

Setting "S" to 0.5 would be a good starting point, but someone (presumably @theymos) would have to carefully fine-tune it to decide how punitive this countermeasure should be.

Am still having a little difficulty in following up on these calculations with regards to having it shared with campaign managers to be a determinant on unincentivised posts.
Like, how do they come to make such conclusion given that, we've got thousands of users on the forum including newbies and these guys aren't restricted to participating on advertised services on the forum. Therefore, they stand as potential customers to offered services.

Again, these "HUSH" would be individually given and there are chances that, not even half of the forum would "HUSH" a particular user or even get to share with campaign managers and as such, it becomes statistically insignificant and might not appeal to campaign managers. How then do we work that?

That way, I can "hush" with reckless abandon and still be assured that nobody will fall off my radar forever.

Considering the fact that users could get abandoned on a radar forever,
Won't having a list just like we do in the trust inclusive be nice for ignored users. So if it becomes a matter of necessity that some users have been ignored for so long or without conscious thought, a glance and one could find what's wrong.
I'll give you an example of how such ignores could course some complication when users forgets what have been done previously right here:

Wait, what is f**king wrong!

A listing could serve as some pointers.

[PrimeNumber7]

So, what I would really like is if next to "ignore" there was a less drastic option that only added them to my ignore list temporarily (say for 10 days),

Someone might be willing to make a userscript that keeps track of when users are added to your ignore list, and will automatically remove them after x time.

If users started to regularly "hush" each other for low-quality posts then a useful per-user statistic "H" might be the following:

    H = (T / P) ** (1 - S)

Where:

    T = The number of times this user was hushed in the previous activity window.

    P = The number of times this user could potentially have been hushed in the previous activity window.

    S = A severity/harshness control between 0 and 1.

In the past, the forum had implemented a feature in which the "ignore" button was more prominent if a certain threshold of people added the person to their ignore list. The problem with this type of feature is that it is trivial to spam the system via fake/bot accounts. Even if a merit or rank threshold were to be required for the score to be impacted, it is very difficult to enforce the reason that someone "hushes" a person.

[PowerGlove]

Again, these "HUSH" would be individually given and there are chances that, not even half of the forum would "HUSH" a particular user or even get to share with campaign managers and as such, it becomes statistically insignificant and might not appeal to campaign managers. How then do we work that?

That's what "S" is for. If you set S to 0 then "H" just becomes a simple ratio. If only 10% of logged-in users hush you, your H (for that activity window) is 0.1 and assuming that signature campaign managers adopt a system of scaling their payouts by 1 - H, you would receive 90% of your normal payout. If you set S to 0.5 then the same amount of hushes (10%) gives you an H of ~0.32 and your payout would be 68% of normal. Not many people have to use the hush system for it to be effective. I could see S being set pretty high initially, and then lowered over time if more people started to use it.

I'm not sure how signature campaign managers would get access to these "H" values though. I don't like the idea (not sure why) of having it be publicly visible on your profile, so maybe a forum-provided CSV file that gets updated at the end of each activity window? I don't think campaign managers would need much convincing to download and use such a file when issuing payments.

[1miau]

Interesting idea and I would really like to see such a proposal at least some time as a trial.  

While "ignore" is indeed a very hard punishment, especially when it comes from a Merit source, a "hush" could be like a second chance.
At least for semi-constructive accounts.

However, I don't know if participaction is high enough to result in a resonable added value for a "hush score". A hush score, where almost noboby is participating would be pretty meaningless.
I'm sure we could find incentives to use it but then, we should also consider the following thing:

Display posts from accounts on our "hush list" changed to (dark) grey.
Doing so, would make posts still visible but you can skip them more easily:

I'm hush and I'm here to shitpost, therefore, I'm on the hush list of many contributors because my posts are so generic...

That way, I can "hush" with reckless abandon and still be assured that nobody will fall off my radar forever.

Considering the fact that users could get abandoned on a radar forever,

At least plagiarizers should be hushed for some time (until their next plagiarism is reported)

[PowerGlove]

3. How exactly do we get P number?

@ETFbitcoin: For a new activity window, each user's "P" starts at zero. Then "P" gets incremented every time one of their posts is rendered/viewed by a logged-in user, you just have to be careful not to count views more than once per logged-in user.

It's rather simple, but i expect P number for post on first page would be rather high. Some member might only read the thread, then going to latest page.

That's true, accounts that tend to post early in a thread would presumably have a higher P value (assuming that posts on later pages are read less). But I don't think this effect would be significant.

I'm sure you already understand this, but (for the sake of clarity) it's important to remember that P is not per-post but per-user (i.e. if any one of your posts has been hushed, it's as if all of them have been, but T and P only get incremented once).

So, if you didn't hush any of another user's posts (but did read at least one of them) in a given activity window then their T gets left alone and their P gets incremented.

If you did hush any of another user's posts in a given activity window then both their T and P get incremented.

Once you've hushed a user, you won't see their posts for the rest of the activity window (see OP edit) and so won't be able to hush them multiple times (i.e. more than once per activity window).

4. With current formula, H value is likely to be unstable. IMO using scaling such as log scale is needed.

@ETFbitcoin: Yup, I just put in a quick non-linear adjustment on top of a ratio without thinking about it too deeply. If you mean unstable as in "sensitive" or "changes non-smoothly" then that's by design.

It's by design? Ok, but i find it's not useful when P value is low.

I see your point, but if P is very low then very few (logged-in) users are reading any of your posts. I don't think that's likely to happen while being in a signature campaign and posting regularly.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I'm not sure why there are so many posts like this, but my best guess is that it's users either trying to rank up quickly or trying to fulfill their signature campaign commitments.

It used to be for both of the reasons you mentioned, though since the merit system started in 2018 it's really only because members want to get paid for their post.  If you look at the members who are making those redundant posts (depending on which section you're in; the ANN sections might be excluded), it's almost guaranteed that the members making them are advertising something.  Sometimes (like the ANN sections) it's to bump threads, but that's less often true.

And man, it used to be much worse than what you're probably seeing, although I don't know which sections you read the most.  All of those posts where you could tell that the posters didn't read anything used to drive me batty.  But I've used the ignore button to good effect, and my ignore list is large.

Although I'm very tempted to start, I'm still reluctant to ignore users because it feels "permanent"

I'm going to admit: I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but even the second post made mention of the fact that ignoring someone isn't permanent.  With that being the case, I highly doubt Theymos is going to consider your idea when he's ignored so many other ones in the past.  I appreciate you trying to make the forum better, though.

[dkbit98]

Although I'm very tempted to start, I'm still reluctant to ignore users because it feels "permanent" and I don't want to miss out on their contributions if they decide to change their posting habits. I'm aware that I could remove them from my ignore list in the future, but I also know that I'm unlikely to periodically re-evaluate them and so will probably just leave them there indefinitely.

I don't ignore members right away but if I see someone repeats posting spam and low quality post, than I just push the magic ignore button.
This is not so drastic as it seems because you can still see they are posting something and you can partially preview their post or temporary unignore if you want to read what they said.
Ignore is one of the best features for me on bitcointalk forum, and I would even go one step further and add total black/hide users to make forum cleaner for me.

So, what I would really like is if next to "ignore" there was a less drastic option that only added them to my ignore list temporarily^[1], something like this

This is not going to happen unless someone creates script or browser extension for that, but personally I think this is waste of time.
Like I said before, current ignore option is not permanent and you can unignore member any time you want, and ignore it back again.

Have you tried the Ignore button? Posts made by Ignored users show a Show/Hide link, so you can once in a while "review" them when they post in a topic you're reading. Or just wait for someone to quote them.

This option never worked correctly for me, or should I say sometimes it works but most of the times it only shows first line of text.
I don't know if this is browser related, issue with BPIP extension or something else, but I never deeply researched it.

[LoyceV]

This option never worked correctly for me, or should I say sometimes it works but most of the times it only shows first line of text.

On mobile, I get the first line only when showing ignored posts. On desktop, it works as expected.

[dkbit98]

On mobile, I get the first line only when showing ignored posts. On desktop, it works as expected.

You are probably using different browser on your mobile, but desktop and mobile devices are formatting text differently so that may be the case.
Oh btw what method are you using to improve bitcointalk forum readability on smartphones, and please don't tell me to use bigger screen?  

Here is example of one ignored member and his post in desktop browser.
This is his post being ignored by me:



This is when I click on Show/Hide, and I can click few times down and see only Thank You text, second and third line are not shown:



And this is unignored post: