To what extent can an open forum guarantee High Post Quality?

[Zoomic]

There have been increasing concerns about declining post quality across various boards (especially The Bitcoin Discussion Board). While the concern is understandable, I think it is important to step back and examine the structural nature of Bitcointalk as a forum.

Bitcointalk is a free and open membership forum. Registration does not require passing any foundational knowledge test. Like, new users are not asked to demonstrate  simple understanding of:

• What Bitcoin is
• What decentralization means
• What an open-source protocol is
• What Taproot introduced
• How Schnorr signatures work

There is no screening mechanism designed to filter for technical competence at entry.

Additionally, there are no strict board-level access restrictions. Any registered user can post in technical or economic boards regardless of experience level. The forum relies primarily on community driven moderation mechanisms such as merit, reporting, and reputation systems rather than pre-qualification.
Given this structure, expecting a high percentage of users to already possess strong Bitcoin knowledge may not align with the forum open-access design.
This does not mean low-quality content should be accepted or encouraged. However the responsibility for maintaining standards rest more on:

• Merit incentives
• Active moderation and reporting
• Constructive correction
• Experienced users setting examples

Open systems naturally produce both signal and noise. The question should not be how to eliminate all low-quality participation, but how to consistently elevate high-quality contributions.

I would be interested in hearing whether you believe that structural changes are necessary, or whether the current decentralized moderation model remains valid for the forum.

[Mia Chloe]

• Merit incentives
• Active moderation and reporting
• Constructive correction
• Experienced users setting examples

Even if you do have a point , on a sincere basis is there any of these that isn't in place on the forum? Merit already exists so does active moderation and reporting too. For constructive correction it's not very effective since those who will post trash will post trash no matter how tight you try to make the system.

Experienced users setting example is only effective if those who these examples are being set for are willing to trial in that direction else it's same outcome.

[EqualTowel2294]

One of the bitter truth which many might not be bold to tell you as the source of the problem for the increase in low quality post is SIGNATURE/AVATAR CAMPAIGN, if their is no monetary reward people will not be posting even when they don’t have what to contribute, as they need to meet the required post needed to get paid they will always want to post anything, not like those who are out for genuine contributions base on what they know not because they need to get paid

[Satofan44]

Merit incentives

The incentives around merit here are completely broken, it has nothing to do about the quality of the post -- the only and primary metric through which one receives the most merit is popularity. Make yourself popular, be a yes-man, join useless art contests and whatever other shit is going on and you get a lot of merit. Since the merit system does not actually incentivize quality posting itself, it is not currently doing anything other than making it slightly harder for people to rank up new accounts. Once accounts are ranked up through legitimate or illegitimate means (merit abuse), users can shitpost however they want.

Active moderation and reporting

There is absolutely zero pro-active moderation here, and both the deletion of posts and the banning of users is quite lenient -- and has a similar popularity aspect to it. Idiots that make completely useless posts that just mention some word from the thread title will be considered to have made a post that is substantial enough, even if it completely misses the topic.

Constructive correction

This is useless in most cases. You should assume that the majority of the users are bad actors, which based on the data and the signal to noise ratio they are. Therefore, it will only work on the minority that is actually willing to learn and improve themselves. Asking others to waste their time in order to hopefully correct the right users is going to be extremely ineffective.

Experienced users setting examples

By abusing DT, merit, and actively choosing to ignore high quality posts depending on who posted them? They are setting very good standards.  

I would be interested in hearing whether you believe that structural changes are necessary, or whether the current decentralized moderation model remains valid for the forum.

Many things need to change for this to become a good place again. The current model is centralized not decentralized by the way.

[Ambatman]

Not an extremist so I believe all post can't look high quality
But I think it would be nice if users don't make post or give response if it adds nothing new to the thread.

There are times I would just want something easy going and would think off topic board would help
And most times it just makes me dizzy with the type of posts there

whether the current decentralized moderation model remains valid for the forum.

Decentralized? At the end of the day final action boils down to a certain group of people.

[Zoomic]

.. if their is no monetary reward people will not be posting even when they don’t have what to contribute,

if there is no monetary reward, many people will not be posting at all...

Merit incentives

The incentives around merit here are completely broken, it has nothing to do about the quality of the post -- the only and primary metric through which one receives the msot merit is popularity. Make yourself popular, be a yes-man, join useless art contests and whatever other shit is going on and you get a lot of merit. Since the merit system does not actually incentivize quality posting itself, it is not currently doing anything other than making it slightly harder for people to rank up new accounts. Once accounts are ranked up through legitimate or illegitimate means (merit abuse), users can shitpost however they want.

I agree that popularity can influence merit distribution in some cases. However, I would hesitate to conclude that merit is primarily driven by popularity. There are numerous technical and development posts that receive recognition despite the author not being particularly popular. Also, one becomes popular only when they are known for producing quality continuously. So, we can say, quality post = popular.

No system is imperfect, but imperfection does not automatically render the merit system functionless. Even if merit does not perfectly measure quality, it still creates friction against effortless ranking through pure spam.

Active moderation and reporting

There is absolutely zero pro-active moderation here, and both the deletion of posts and the banning of users is quite lenient -- and has a similar popularity aspect to it. Idiots that make completely useless posts that just mention some word from the thread title will be considered to have made a post that is substantial enough, even if it completely misses the topic.

You are correct that moderation is largely reactive rather than proactive. But that design appears intentional. Theymos prioritizes minimal intervention unless rules are clearly violated.
Whether that model is optimal is debatable, but it is not necessarily equivalent to zero moderation.

I would be interested in hearing whether you believe that structural changes are necessary, or whether the current decentralized moderation model remains valid for the forum.

Many things need to change for this to become a good place again. The current model is centralized not decentralized by the way.

You raise an interesting point. The moderation model is decentralized in participation (anyone can report, merit, or form trust opinions), but centralized in enforcement authority. So perhaps it is more accurate to describe it as hybrid rather than purely decentralized.

[Mrbluntzy]

"Quality is subjective" That's what some reputable users said but it doesn't change the fact a lot of people are making extremely low quality post across different board. To maintain high quality post, moderators have to be very strict with the post they let sit on a thread and the ones they must delete. I have seen some topics created by some users asking why their post got deleted, if that frequency of deleting low quality post is maintained by the moderator, I feel that most of the low quality posters will improve because they will be scared  of having their posts being deleted, therefore they will improve by force. IMO, deleting law quality post will boost users zeal to improve quality.

[nutildah]

We can't guarantee high post quality... it will never happen... One thing we can do is ban accounts who insist on using AI to post on their behalf. That will at least make the forum a little bit more human.

OP's post, for example:

Sapling: 99.2% Fake
GPTZero: 100% AI
Quillbot: 43% of text is AI

I mean, the post itself is low-quality content. Did anybody actually read it from top to bottom, or did you take one look at it and get thoroughly bored after 2 sentences of empty, formulaic text?

Just stop with the AI already. Nobody wants to read it. Stop leaning on it like a crutch you are trying to pretend is invisible. We see it. This is Step #1.

[alegotardo]

I think we are at a stage where Bitcoin is so "mature" that technical discussions are almost nonexistent, or barely developed.

Few topics still mobilize the community, such as quantum computing, but then I ask: where are the devs? Why are they using Google discussion lists instead of using bitcointalk (yes, I know the reason, but the question is broader than that).

In short, what I mean is that this forum today serves more to speculate, exchange ideas and make money with advertising campaigns... technical topics are very scarce and are generally more focused on questions or discussions that will not change (or have little influence on) the course of Bitcoin.

[notocactus]

There have been increasing concerns about declining post quality across various boards (especially The Bitcoin Discussion Board). While the concern is understandable, I think it is important to step back and examine the structural nature of Bitcointalk as a forum.

I would be interested in hearing whether you believe that structural changes are necessary, or whether the current decentralized moderation model remains valid for the forum.

The forum flooded by shitposts which are abundant and overwhelming reporters and forum moderators to handle in the ICO scam waves - in 2017 and 2018 - that triggered massive spams in this forum.

1) New members and new topics

A quick overview. It seems that monthly statistics on new members and new topics tend to hit peaks each two-year period.
2) New posts

The forum admin theymos thought about it in months and even asked for ideas from community, eventually he launched the merit system and even had to adjust it a little bit months later.

• History of bitcointalk.org's rank system.

This merit system works for some years before it failed and I believe that I am not the only one who sees this failure of merit system in preventing shitposters ranking up in recent years.

How to resolve the new era of shitposters?
Stop them ranking up from farming through shitposters. When shitposters can not rank up easily, they must be adaptive and improve their post quality.

We can't guarantee high post quality... it will never happen... One thing we can do is ban accounts who insist on using AI to post on their behalf. That will at least make the forum a little bit more human.

OP's post, for example:

Just stop with the AI already. Nobody wants to read it. Stop leaning on it like a crutch you are trying to pretend is invisible. We see it. This is Step #1.

[nutildah]

I'm just discovering that OP uses AI to write a lot of their posts. AI posts are inherently lower quality than human-written posts because they frequently contain false information (hallucinations) and are often  mishmashes of overused phrases and expressions, rendering them without personality. So, in the effort to raise post quality on the forum, I suggest stopping the reliance on AI to post on one's behalf.

[notocactus]

I'm just discovering that OP uses AI to write a lot of their posts. AI posts are inherently lower quality than human-written posts because they frequently contain false information (hallucinations) and are often  mishmashes of overused phrases and expressions, rendering them without personality.

It seems you misunderstand me.

I knew your finding that makes me lost, blows my mind away. How a user who used AI for writing a post quality improvement proposal, it's  

So, in the effort to raise post quality on the forum, I suggest stopping the reliance on AI to post on one's behalf.

Stop them ranking up easily by shitposts, the quality of posts in the forum will be naturally improved. They're free to do plagiarism, use AI, whatever, but if they can not rank up, can not get paid by shitposts but somehow received merits to make their shitposts look good, they will reduce shitposting intensity.

I forgot to attach topics of theymos years ago in my above post, so let's view them now.
Ideas for improving post quality?
Two new no-signature boards
Rules for Serious Discussion and Ivory Tower.

Shit posters even appear more in Serious Discussion and Ivory Tower boards for purposes we can easily guess.

[Upgrade00]

The actual reality is most of the really bottom barrel users do not stay active on the forum. Newbie rank make up the highest number of registered users on the forum but a large majority of them are inactive.

When you go higher up the ranks there will still be a lot of spam but they have to put in some effort, learn a few things and contribute constructively to be able to get to a higher rank. Such users could still have incentive to post when not necessary due to weekly quotas but they have learnt some things about Bitcoin in their journey to get there, so it's not a total disaster to me.

Moderation could be stricter in certain sections which has a higher amount of spam than others.

[GeorgeJohn]

How to resolve the new era of shitposters?
Stop them ranking up from farming through shitposters. When shitposters can not rank up easily, they must be adaptive and improve their post quality.

If this policy or statement, can be noticeable by some of the merit source and some people who award a merit for a user due to local community relationships and familiarity, it will help the forum to reduce shitposting..... it's obvious that account farming and shitposters will be eradicated...

I have said this last year in one of the thread that were emphasizing on low posts and quality post... A forum user that have a single account, will never make a shitpost, but whereby it has a multiple accounts and all is in the campaign....

It will be posting to meet up a weekly quota...And once is posting to take advantages of the forum, he/her post qualities will definitely drops in meaningful...