Is Thread Quality Falling?

[Majestic-milf]

 Welsh rightly summed the whole thing up. Another question you need to ask yourself as the op is this; "am I contributing to the rate at which thread quality is falling" because if we look at it, we raise up issues sometimes but don't know that we're actively helping in that area. These days what's going on in the forum is reshuffling and recycling, it's only a few threads that hold value.
The only thing to do is complain less and take conscious steps to creating less low value content.

[Nathrixxx]

Two things I've observed to say the truth about the forum and the pattern in which people are making posts.

1. There's lesser engagement in the rate of having new threads that are of quality content especially on Bitcoin-related boards, maybe it could be for any reason, but as some have already suggested, we are all part of this issue, because we have to contribute our own quota in setting an example for others to follow.

2. To say the fact, the Bitcoin discussion board is one of the least merited boards, maybe the reason for that could be from the first point I already mentioned, that few quality posts are seen. Still, we can always draw more attention to Bitcoin-related boards; this affects all of us, and we are all concerned about making this change.

[NotATether]

I've noticed a surge in low-paying sig campaign positions that has taken place over the last 6 months or so. This has caused people to fire up or purchase old accounts that enroll in these campaigns and then flood the forum with low quality content. Motivation is everything, and also, you get what you pay for.

The solution for this ^{in my totally unbiased opinion seriously} is to simply raise the campaign rates and slash the number of campaigns dramatically.

This will increase competition for campaign spots, thereby forcing post quality to go up.

[sleepfirefly]

Yet another quality post query, can I still say that quality post is subjective, personally I think it still depends on you but generally you are right there have been nothing interesting actually happening around bitcoin to actually call for quality post.

im still a newbie so maybe that’s why i am not yet immune to the posts at bitcoin discussion board   but if i would want to read about more complex or interesting topics i would find it on the technical boards

[Lucius]

I've noticed a surge in low-paying sig campaign positions that has taken place over the last 6 months or so. This has caused people to fire up or purchase old accounts that enroll in these campaigns and then flood the forum with low quality content. Motivation is everything, and also, you get what you pay for.

The solution for this ^{in my totally unbiased opinion seriously} is to simply raise the campaign rates and slash the number of campaigns dramatically.
This will increase competition for campaign spots, thereby forcing post quality to go up.

Unfortunately, the current way sig campaigns operate is focused mainly on quantity, not quality. If the focus were on the latter, then probably half of the spots offered in sig campaigns could not be filled. If only one sig campaign were opened that would offer higher pay rates in combination with higher requirements (say 200+ merits in 100 days) it would pick up all the best posters and leave all other campaigns in a very unenviable position.

[Satofan44]

Maybe. However, in comparison to our 'competitors' i.e social media. I'd say we're still a lot better for lengthy in depth discussions. I don't think there's anywhere else that offers the same level of depth. So, while it might be declining I still think its better than all the alternatives.

Just because things are worse somewhere else, that does not mean that the situation here is not deteriorating and that something shouldn't be done about it. You are one of the very few staff members that even gives an opinion in any of these threads. What gives? The others are completely apathetic as long as they receive some money for moderating? Or perhaps you are afraid to comment on your colleagues even without mentioning specific names?  

Just because a thread may include a piece of recent news or a new tweet, that does not mean that the topic is not rehashed. This is a method that gives the thread a bit more credibility to the naive and is often done by spammers. Don't tell me that it isn't happening when even the first page is proof that it is happening.

I hope you know that we have more of repeated discussions on the forum if you go down the memory lane of some boards? Even before I join the forum or you as well it has been a regular behaviour of users to recreate topics about old discussions, update it with some latest happenings.. that doesn't mean it's created by spammers. I've seen external visitors sometimes registering account to ask questions that had been answered years ago and it will strike a New discussions. That doesn't make anyone a spammer.

I'll agree with you on the matter of the gambling board ranking as the first because majority of users are made to post on the gambling board due to their signature campaign requirements. And some people here on the forum are real lovers of gambling and sports, so they have little interest on bitcoin discussion and other related, that doesn't make them spammers as well..

While you have a point, you have to make a nuanced differentiation here. There is a big difference of revisiting some quality topics by users who understand them and in the context of new knowledge or news. For example, we could be discussing new advances in quantum computers, some newly considered signature algorithms or some very specific BIPs that relate to this topic. This is the correct way of doing this. Alternatively you may even rehash some ideas of others or a lot of ideas of others, but if the work is considerable then it is very welcome -- like we did with this topic, it took us months of semi-active work to get this thread out. This is very different from the examples that I have provided, these threads are not needed:

• Should Bitcoin Be Taught in Schools or Remain Self-Taught? Here’s My Take
• Will you still hold?
• Are people still doubting Bitcoin.
• Is holding Bitcoin harder financially or psychologically?

They are completely generic, dumb (such as the one about doubt, as there will always be some people that doubt something) and unnecessary spam. They have been talked about thousands of times.

It varies a lot over time. There are days or weeks in which I can find barely anything interesting to read let alone something that is worth writing a response to. In the recent days it was again like this, I have noticed it as well.

Yeah I believe I noticed it now
Due to the December break that allowed me free time to really surf the forum
Had quite a sum of smerit and was looking for how to share them.

Some days it is really bad, other times it is decent enough.

I won't want to call some of them spammers especially some of the newbies in this regard because some might just be ignorant and don't also ignore the fact that not all article or blog post especially relating to cryptocurrency are sensible or true like Cointelegraph and that might just be where they get their advise, but to be honest, the quantum computing threat on Bitcoin is pretty much tiring, speaking as if quantum computing is the end of Bitcoin.

I think that this view is a bit naive considering the number of account farmers here, if I may say so. From what I can see, many users are posting generic threads to create a ground where their other accounts can write generic shitposts. If you would create many of such threads with one account, you would draw too much attention. The easiest is to open a thread with new accounts or different accounts over time. Read users, those that are not dumb, lazy and who are not farmers will do a lot of research before they consider opening a thread. Those that rush to open threads are either very dumb, spammers or account farmers. Neither of these users are needed.

[Cookdata]

Two things I've observed to say the truth about the forum and the pattern in which people are making posts.

1. There's lesser engagement in the rate of having new threads that are of quality content especially on Bitcoin-related boards, maybe it could be for any reason, but as some have already suggested, we are all part of this issue, because we have to contribute our own quota in setting an example for others to follow.

I'm not sure if it's about engagement in general, there are engagements on posts but the engagement are towards low quality post and in that regards, we can say it's not even engagement any more but spam of posts. You see a random post with few lines get 10 pages of discussion but real posts and thread get like 3 pages, that means people are not engaging on intellectual post, rather something easy they can write and click on submit and then move to the next one.

2. To say the fact, the Bitcoin discussion board is one of the least merited boards, maybe the reason for that could be from the first point I already mentioned, that few quality posts are seen. Still, we can always draw more attention to Bitcoin-related boards; this affects all of us, and we are all concerned about making this change.

https://bitlist.co/board/1?date_min=2025-01-09&date_max=2026-01-09

I wouldn't say you are wrong but chart don't lie. This is a chart from Bitlist about monthly distribution of merit in the last 1 year you can see the pattern, it doesn't look like there is a drop in distribution, the only decline was on this month and we can't conclude yet because we are not half of the month yet, it can go up or even higher. Maybe Christmas holidays and New year celebrations, they were less active merit source and it's understandable but Bitcoin discussion is active with fair merit distribution.

[KingsDen]

Maybe. However, in comparison to our 'competitors' i.e social media. I'd say we're still a lot better for lengthy in depth discussions. I don't think there's anywhere else that offers the same level of depth. So, while it might be declining I still think its better than all the alternatives.

Just because things are worse somewhere else, that does not mean that the situation here is not deteriorating and that something shouldn't be done about it. You are one of the very few staff members that even gives an opinion in any of these threads. What gives? The others are completely apathetic as long as they receive some money for moderating? Or perhaps you are afraid to comment on your colleagues even without mentioning specific names?  

See it from this angle;
Because things are worse elsewhere and because we are leading in terms of lengthy and in depth discussion, we shouldn't worry much and  treat the general decline as a universal problem. Maybe people are tired of teaching others, perhaps they are tired of championing a new idea. No one wants to put in hard work again if the crappy AI can ruin all efforts in a jiffy.

I can testify to the spontaneous decline in quality and interest, but I don't think we can do much to revive it. We can only wait on trend to do it for us. The most important thing is that we know bitcoin, we trust it, and we protect it.

[Amphenomenon]

I won't want to call some of them spammers especially some of the newbies in this regard because some might just be ignorant and don't also ignore the fact that not all article or blog post especially relating to cryptocurrency are sensible or true like Cointelegraph and that might just be where they get their advise, but to be honest, the quantum computing threat on Bitcoin is pretty much tiring, speaking as if quantum computing is the end of Bitcoin.

I think that this view is a bit naive considering the number of account farmers here, if I may say so. From what I can see, many users are posting generic threads to create a ground where their other accounts can write generic shitposts. If you would create many of such threads with one account, you would draw too much attention. The easiest is to open a thread with new accounts or different accounts over time. Read users, those that are not dumb, lazy and who are not farmers will do a lot of research before they consider opening a thread. Those that rush to open threads are either very dumb, spammers or account farmers. Neither of these users are needed.

Not really, I like to add to rather said comments rather than starting and stating what other said. To be honest, I will have to agree that majority of the newbies posting these can be alt accounts like you said but I was referring to the maybe 1% who are actually ignorant and may take correction and generalizing might just be a wrong move here.

I don't often like speaking on most newbies post since they follow cycles and I often see them as alt but still I don't like generalizing and so often stick to ignoring just threads and that's why I don't really enjoy the Beginners and Help board, seeing somehow the same post continually can be tiring.

[fillippone]

Concerning if post or thread quality is failing, I read somewhere that fillippone made a very salient point why it seems that quality is failing. He said that in the early days of bitcoin, we do not have large or ample knowledge of bitcoin, so many threads therefore appeared quality. But today, bitcoin has gone global, likewise its knowledge. So, you don't expect that people start creating posts teaching what has been taught or known before.
I agree with him.

Well, I still believe there is a good rationale in this.
When this forum was initiated, you had to be in the top 0.01% of the population in IQ to even hear about Bitcoin, let alone participate in the debate on this forum.
Today, Bitcoin is a well-known phenomenon, and you can be attracted to this forum for a variety of reasons.

[fillippone]

Shitposters ranked up speedily, that's amazing for them but a severe failure of merit system and the forum.
After they ranked up, worn signature, earned money, their shitpost productivity increases more signifcantly, and make the forum worse.

I think you're on to something. Lately, I've been Ignoring more and more users who "earned" a decent amount of Merit.

That's an interesting way of looking at "dynamics" on the forum; it would be nice to see it implemented on an extension or something similar (*Ace*, are you there?).
I don't see shitposter ranking up easily as a failure of the merit system.
I would say the merit system failed if good posters don't rank up easily.

In my merit awarding thread, maybe a few, or a lot of merit-worth posts (according to my own criteria) turned out to be given to shitposters. I plead guilty to that.
In the big scheme of things, 42 merits don't change much. As LoyceV recognised, there are shitposters with hundreds of merits.

[Hyphen(-)]

Well, I still believe there is a good rationale in this.
When this forum was initiated, you had to be in the top 0.01% of the population in IQ to even hear about Bitcoin, let alone participate in the debate on this forum.
Today, Bitcoin is a well-known phenomenon, and you can be attracted to this forum for a variety of reasons.

Exactly, I have the same belief because we can’t keep having the same people here and the same conversation just as things change with time; but if we compare the past with now especially in the forum, we can see changes and how Bitcoin has been everywhere which I am very sure this forum have a great impact in that; so the discussion is now based on what is happening around the crypto market and how Bitcoin has become in the recent days.

I think the Bitcoin Technical discussion and support board speaks more about Bitcoin techniques and others, while the general board for Bitcoin discussion is mainly for market analysis and adoption of Bitcoin even though some good conversations are going on there.

[*Ace*]

Shitposters ranked up speedily, that's amazing for them but a severe failure of merit system and the forum.
After they ranked up, worn signature, earned money, their shitpost productivity increases more signifcantly, and make the forum worse.

I think you're on to something. Lately, I've been Ignoring more and more users who "earned" a decent amount of Merit.

That's an interesting way of looking at "dynamics" on the forum; it would be nice to see it implemented on an extension or something similar (*Ace*, are you there?).
I don't see shitposter ranking up easily as a failure of the merit system.
I would say the merit system failed if good posters don't rank up easily.

In my merit awarding thread, maybe a few, or a lot of merit-worth posts (according to my own criteria) turned out to be given to shitposters. I plead guilty to that.
In the big scheme of things, 42 merits don't change much. As LoyceV recognised, there are shitposters with hundreds of merits.

Here I am, Fillippone! I've read part of the thread, not all of it to be honest. But what exactly would you like to see included in a userscript or web browser extension?
Let's see if I can be of help or if it's something complicated.
Unfortunately, evaluating a post is always subjective! What I might label as a quality post, you might label as useless or not very useful.

I was thinking of adding a figure under each user profile that calculates the total average of Merits received based on the posts written. Could that be useful?

[Mahiyammahi]

Yeah I know understand how we say quality is subjective but there's some level of objectivity
I realized since last month or some weeks
The threads relative quality has fallen
Especially in the Bitcoin Discussion board (don't frequent beginners and help that much anymore)


Is it that there's nothing interesting happening anymore or I'm the one that needs to stop taking coffee. .if not the above what could be the problem? Leaning towards the former though.

You won't find quality post every time, People came here, learn, ask their question and get all the responses. Bitcoin has launched 17 years it doesn't means those who is in the forum has all the knowledge about bitcoin. Our forum is still growing , so if you don't find anything interesting you just simply skip that post. Unless it's totally garbage , if you find one simply report it to the moderator.

There is the report option for that reason.

[fillippone]

I was thinking of adding a figure under each user profile that calculates the total average of Merits received based on the posts written. Could that be useful?

That would be my idea, as suggested by LoyceV analysis. Two ratio: merit/post since registration (something that should be easily achievable by parsing the very same informations already displayed, and the merit/posts ratio of the last 120 days.
I have no clue which trickery you could use for this last ratio.

[*Ace*]

I was thinking of adding a figure under each user profile that calculates the total average of Merits received based on the posts written. Could that be useful?

That would be my idea, as suggested by LoyceV analysis. Two ratio: merit/post since registration (something that should be easily achievable by parsing the very same informations already displayed, and the merit/posts ratio of the last 120 days.
I have no clue which trickery you could use for this last ratio.

I was checking the forum to see how to find certain data. My idea was to use fetch via JS and take the data directly from the DOM of forum, without using external services.
In this case, I wanted to use four important pieces of data:
1. Total posts
2. Total merits received
3. Total merits received in the last 120 days
4. Profile age

And create an ad hoc formula to determine the user's quality rating

For example
>100 = Legend
>80 <100 = top contributor
>50 <80 = good poster
>20 <50 = normal user
<=20 shitposter

This is just an example, the main problem would be assigning this score.
The formula to use, and whether it is reliable as a formula!
Let's say it's a fairly complex idea! I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[DPHOR]

There are quality threads and topics but this depends on how you view it from your own side, there people who values every single post while there are people who seems to be weird about every single post as there is no much changes in most of the post. Most times there are repetitive topics with just a little change in either title or subject matters. That is why many people today do reply and analyses  post from it title without them dip down their heads to read the body of the message to know what the writer is trying to convey around the community.

[Adbitco]

Is it that there's nothing interesting happening anymore or I'm the one that needs to stop taking coffee. .if not the above what could be the problem? Leaning towards the former though.

Have you visited the technical discussion before?
Yes, that section is also helpful and anyone who is that active on that side that knows things about technical discussion would find interesting topic in that area. You also go to development board there you would find things that could interest you that much. However, there are lot of topics that has been created for long which most times people find it that difficult to stumbled upon such topic knowing too well is been long it was created, so what people does is to make new topic to continue their discussion over there.

[AakZaki]

Unfortunately, the current way sig campaigns operate is focused mainly on quantity, not quality. If the focus were on the latter, then probably half of the spots offered in sig campaigns could not be filled. If only one sig campaign were opened that would offer higher pay rates in combination with higher requirements (say 200+ merits in 100 days) it would pick up all the best posters and leave all other campaigns in a very unenviable position.

On the other hand, such conditions would also create a considerable gap between the participants. Writers who are truly active and consistent in maintaining quality will benefit even more, while most other participants will be eliminated for not being able to meet those standards.

This has the potential to make the campaign ecosystem unbalanced and less inclusive. Additionally not all advertisers have the same goals, some are just pursuing broad exposure, not in-depth discussions. If all campaigns are forced to follow the same high standards, the variety and dynamics of the forum can be reduced. Ultimately, a balance between quality and quantity is still needed for signature campaigns to run healthy, competitive and remain attractive to the various parties involved.

[Lillominato89]

I was thinking of adding a figure under each user profile that calculates the total average of Merits received based on the posts written. Could that be useful?

That would be my idea, as suggested by LoyceV analysis. Two ratio: merit/post since registration (something that should be easily achievable by parsing the very same informations already displayed, and the merit/posts ratio of the last 120 days.
I have no clue which trickery you could use for this last ratio.

I was checking the forum to see how to find certain data. My idea was to use fetch via JS and take the data directly from the DOM of forum, without using external services.
In this case, I wanted to use four important pieces of data:
1. Total posts
2. Total merits received
3. Total merits received in the last 120 days
4. Profile age

And create an ad hoc formula to determine the user's quality rating

For example
>100 = Legend
>80 <100 = top contributor
>50 <80 = good poster
>20 <50 = normal user
<=20 shitposter

This is just an example, the main problem would be assigning this score.
The formula to use, and whether it is reliable as a formula!
Let's say it's a fairly complex idea! I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Do you already have a formula in mind?
I would be very curious to see it in action and give you some feedback on it. Determining whether a post is of high quality or not is very difficult, so how could you do that simply by using this data? In my opinion, it could generate false positives.
But if it can help distinguish between those who only post for signature campaigns and those who are actually trying to contribute to this forum, then the script could still be useful.