Blanket ban on signature campaigns, what it'd yield? Let's discuss

[libert19]

The points have been raised hither and thither on random threads, but I'd like to bring same in one thread.

Pros:

— No multi-accounting since there will be no incentive to do so. But, people may still have separate ones for: mobiles, desktop, etc.

— Less spam, since again there will no incentive to do so. Less because I am pretty sure, some may still shitpost for entertainment purposes.

— Stable/genuine distribution of merits since accounts possibly won't be pushed to rank up in local boards.

Cons:

— Significant drop is traffic.

Off you go.

[_act_]

— Significant drop is traffic.

Yes, alts will reduce, although not only alts but also main accounts because I believe some people are on this forum for no two reasons than to earn money from signature campaigns. If no campaigns again, they will just leave the forum.

But do not be surprised if you see some reputable members that you are seeing in signature campaigns often also stop posting. Spam posters will reduce and also good posters will reduce.

[Catenaccio]

The points have been raised hither and thither on random threads, but I'd like to bring same in one thread.

Pros:

— No multi-accounting since there will be no incentive to do so. But, people may still have separate ones for: mobiles, desktop, etc.

— Less spam, since again there will no incentive to do so. Less because I am pretty sure, some may still shitpost for entertainment purposes.

— Stable/genuine distribution of merits since accounts possibly won't be pushed to rank up in local boards.

Cons:

— Significant drop is traffic.

Off you go.

There are pros and cons and theymos asked for community ideas to fight against spamming and improve post quality in the forum since years ago.

Ideas for improving post quality?
Signature advertisers: suggestions?

Spams will decline considerably if campaign managers don't hire spammers, and most importantly if spammers can not rank up their accounts. It's not about signature campaign at the end, but let's start with how to stop spammers ranking up easily.

[Lucius]

Spam has always existed and will not disappear on the forum, so I don't see that the problem is exclusively that sig campaigns exist, but that managers pay for the same spam. The criteria should definitely be higher, and quality should be chosen over quantity.

However, we are far from the forum banning signatures, unless some genius bans gambling advertising in the US, and considering that the forum is in every sense US based, 90% of all campaigns would disappear.

[Welsh]

I'm personally to the point where I'm OK with less traffic and higher quality discussions. I think most of the community are too the point where enough is enough, its quite tedious to read the same sort of hashed together response just because they want a payment. Seriously, its annoying. Some days it feels like the same type of responses going around in your head. I feel for those that might have OCD and get triggered by things being repeated, since there's a ton of that around here.

I get it, its a good way to earn money, but a lot of users who advertise couldn't care less about the service being advertised. I'll be honest, I haven't in the past, its just something that earned money while doing something I would be doing anyway, i.e posting; its sort of passive income, while not actually wanting to actively endorse the service bit like ads on a website. I bet there's a lot of non gamblers advertising gambling websites right now for example. I personally decided that I don't want to advertise something anymore unless I think its a good service. That's not saying that all the signature campaigns currently out there are all garbage.

I remember a time where there were a lot of personal projects within the signatures of users and I kind of miss that or maybe people literally putting in a project they liked. For example, years ago I had a slackware signature because at the time I was tinkering with it. Things like that I would prefer to see, and if it wasn't so heavily commercialized now we might start seeing it again.

If we really wanted to crack down and become real strict in terms of moderation, I think over 80% of signature campaign participates would have enough posts removed per week, that they wouldn't earn the minimum thresholds to get paid and stay in the campaign, which is saying a lot. Probably leading to more overall bans.

I do like that there's a sort of 'sub' economy within the forum, I think that's really cool and I think its contributed to the value of Bitcoin so it would be a shame. Signature campaigns have done a lot of good, I bet those who live in less developed countries have benefited greatly and I love that. Something that wouldn't traditionally be accessible to them.  



To be clear I don't blame anyone trying to make money without actively scamming etc. I just think the real community which has been defined by me on the fly right here; Those who are interested in Bitcoin / altcoins and would post here without any monetary gain. Would prefer a close knit community with a high signal to noise ratio rather than what we have right now.

Will we lose users? Yeah, will be lose high quality users, probably. Will we lose everything, no. We've been losing high quality users anyway, and some of that has been a direct result to the noise ratio generated by signature campaigns.

I'm also privileged. I live in a developed country. I have a job, I'm also a moderator here so earn a little bit on the side, so I'm definitely not in the same shoes as some users here earning a decent living and putting food on the table for their family. I love that users can do that, so I would be reluctant on a outright ban because it would affect so many people that genuinely benefit massively from it. But, would I support stricter moderation and potentially heavier moderation on users who are posting for quotas, yes. I think the time has come, to be more forceful with users who are clearly posting just for the quota and its hard because I know the incentive, and when times are tough you really push and become dedicated to earning that by pushing for more posts. I don't necessarily blame people, but if we look at it from several angles, and for the betterment of those who aren't in signature campaigns something needs to be done.

And, continuing along the lines of a massive benefit for a lot of users, if moderation increases or the strictness more users would likely not be able to meet the quotas, therefore users that are just posting to meet the quotas would likely dwindle.

I reported a user yesterday which was clearly just posting to meet the quota for example. The post at a quick glance might look like a constructive post since its several lines long, but it contained no point, no contribution and no substance. Those are the type of users I think should face heavier consequences. That post got deleted, but those are the users that temporary bans and even permanent bans should be handed out quicker I think.

Maybe, I would be willing to support removing signatures from all Bitcoin, Meta and Altcoins sections and only showing them in gambling, services sections etc. Maybe, if we really wanted to integrate, we could have two seperate signatures; one for commercial i.e signature campaigns, and one normal. The commercial only shows up within certain boards like gambling, services, service announcements, project development etc. While the normal sig shows up everywhere which would allow personal projects to be there etc. I can't personally see theymos doing that, as that would require some extensive changes to integrate with something that is third party and not really what Bitcointalk is about.

Its clear though, something does need to change. Ranging from just outright removal or restrictions. I think I've said this before . Broken record, but I think my opinion has basically been "Something needs to change" for a few years, I think its just been gradually getting more supportive to severe restrictions as time goes on and the problem continues to exist.

I'll leave you all with one final thought:

Significant drop is traffic.

Is that necessarily a bad thing if the loss is mostly low quality users? If not, could this potentially be seen as a pro instead?

[libert19]

^ Ayy, *new achievement unlocked* reply from Welsh. I like how considerate, rational you are, and understanding of one's privileges.

Significant drop is traffic.

Is that necessarily a bad thing if the loss is mostly low quality users? If not, could this potentially be seen as a pro instead?

I deffo see it as pro. Quality >> quantity anyday. By the way, what's this sorcery of char/word/line count?: https://talkimg.com/image/ULuqA1 — is it mod thing?

...Spam posters will reduce and also good posters will reduce.

Tbf, spam posters are far more than good posters, and new ones keep coming because obviously.

There are pros and cons and theymos asked for community ideas to fight against spamming and improve post quality in the forum since years ago.

Ideas for improving post quality?

Signature advertisers: suggestions?

Oh now post feels like a rather a refresher, I'll have fun reading those.

Spams will decline considerably if campaign managers don't hire spammers, and most importantly if spammers can not rank up their accounts. It's not about signature campaign at the end, but let's start with how to stop spammers ranking up easily.

It does feel like it's all about signature campaigns at the end.


By the way, couple more, not editing the op but rather posting here.

—  No/less AI.

— No more signature campaigns being used as scapegoat for everything that appears wrong with forum. Which I did too just above, but then again that's just what feels correct at the moment.

PS: I haven't proofread my content. Have a KitKat and give me a break.

[Welsh]

No more signature campaigns being used as scapegoat for everything that appears wrong with forum. Which I did too just above, but then again that's just what feels correct at the moment.

Yeah, signature campaigns probably do get branded all with the same stick. I like when I see signature campaigns which focus on quality and have no minimum post requirement. However, I think most of them can do better and put the forum first. If you want to advertise on the forum, you should be catering it to the forum. Bitcointalk has become somewhere we all talk about being of substantial contributions, and not a normal chit chat forum. So, I'd like them to tailor their requirements to that.

By the way, what's this sorcery of char/word/line count?: https://talkimg.com/image/ULuqA1 — is it mod thing?

I have a custom developed extension to aid moderation, one of the things I attempted to implement was a character counter, words etc for statistics on actions taken which I have a stats page which compares avg character count on actions taken. It was also one of the ways I detected duplicates posts, as a sort of "sanity" check as I was getting false positives. Lets just say its a rather rough implementation that is definitely on the todo list to fix. A unexpected interaction is TryNinjas userscript https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5566399 which grabs the post timestamps, which is where my extension injects that content. However, its not accurate at the time being, and was more of a temporary measure so it doesn't work since it gathers other things I also inject on posts, such as QoL things for moderation (not just post content). The quote also grabs the 🔬 button I have for basically searching my action log for any actions I've taken against that user (it auto filters my action log on that user). I'll probably edit the userscript to ignore these from now on, as its a lot less effort than altering my extension.

I gather various things on actions taken so that if someone asks why was this deleted there's a better chance that I might be able to tell them why. I call it my action logger. I'll edit that out of that quote to avoid confusion. Might need to fix that...on the long todo list of things.

Here's an example of what my extension logs, and I can take a look and post for users that might want a little more information why I took an action on their post.

Action: Delete Post  Date: 27/06/26, 10:26
    User: <redacted> (ID: 00000) ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=)
    Topic / Msg: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=<redacted>
    Comment: Old bump
    Post Content:

redacted

No/less AI.

Definitely a pro...I don't think any of us were prepared for how much AI would be a problem a few years ago. I'm SICK of posts in AI.

[Lucius]

@Welsh, what do you think about the proposal to remove the signature option for all but Hero/Legendary members at least temporarily? Not that all members of that rank are super posters, but my opinion is that most of those sig spammers are in the lower ranks.

I know that something like this has a less than 1% chance of happening, but I don't think we should go for a complete ban but look for a solution in another way.

[Welsh]

@Welsh, what do you think about the proposal to remove the signature option for all but Hero/Legendary members at least temporarily? Not that all members of that rank are super posters, but my opinion is that most of those sig spammers are in the lower ranks.

Honestly, kind of reluctant. I'd prefer broader restrictions rather than targeting lower ranked users. I think this forum can be daunting, intimidating and outright hostile to users who are newer already.

My example given earlier was a hero member for example. I personally think that there's a ton of heros and legendary users who are posting crap content for the sake of it. Maybe, I need to dedicate some time to reporting these users, collecting that data and then presenting it in a month or so publicly. Maybe, we could take a look at how many reported posts consisted of higher ranks vs lower ranks. Maybe then we'd have a better idea?

If we are to tackle this, I would prefer a permanent solution rather than a temporary. Obviously, if it proves to be detrimental to the forum or users then removing it later is fine, but implementing it with the intention of a permanent fix rather than slapping a plaster over the cracks.

But, also I'm just some old moany bastard that's been here for a while so I'm sure some of my views come from the accumulation of distain from years of being here and talking about 'how it was back in my day...' despite signature campaigns basically being around as I entered the forum. so I don't want that to sound like, "That's a terrible idea...you should listen to me" that's not it, I don't have all the answers. I'm just hoping collectively we can all throw shit at a wall with ideas, and I trust theymos will digest it all, sit on it for a while and ultimately implement something that will be the benefit of the forum. theymos gets a lot of stick, but I generally find whatever they do implement, seems to be well thought out even if it doesn't work as originally intended.

Slightly off topic, but I'd probably support a sort of weekly / monthly leaderboard for merit instead of a overall merit like we have now. Just because a user gained a lot of merit 2 years ago doesn't mean they are posting to the same standard.  A lot of users will put more effort in to gain their rank, and then just resort to mass shite once they're in a signature campaign. Especially with AI now its easier to disguise your initial effort, and sometimes get away with it.

I know that something like this has a less than 1% chance of happening, but I don't think we should go for a complete ban but look for a solution in another way.

I agree with this, I'd like to see us implement a multi step process of gradually restricting it, analyzing the results, and increase the restrictions / enforcement until we come up with a solution. If that results in outright banning it, I'm fine with that. But as I previously mentioned. I do like the idea of signature campaigns, and what they bring to the forum and people.

[Catenaccio]

Spams will decline considerably if campaign managers don't hire spammers, and most importantly if spammers can not rank up their accounts. It's not about signature campaign at the end, but let's start with how to stop spammers ranking up easily.

It does feel like it's all about signature campaigns at the end.

I meant that if spammers can not rank up, there will be less spammers, and there will be less spammers in signature campaigns. The first step to reduce spam is stop spammers to rank up, and after that, it's about signature campaigns and campaign managers.

Like if spammers with plagiarism and AI can be banned immediately after one, two or three posts like that, there will be less spammers but because it's not too strict on banning AI posters, there will be more spammers. They can even rank up with AI posts and it's a problem.

* I acknowledge that not nearly enough people are banned for low-quality posts. The fundamental issue is that we don't want to ban someone just for posting one or two stupid posts, since that's subjective and might just be due to the person having weird opinions or being a poor writer. So to evaluate a user properly, we really want to be reading a sampling of 20-40 of their posts. But doing this sort of evaluation (i.e. reading through hundreds of mediocre-to-bad posts) is really soul-sucking, so nobody wants to do it very much. I'm still thinking about ways to resolve this issue, possibly involving rejiggering how merit works.

Like Welsh said: rank up with AI posts, and it's not quickly to ban them.

Especially with AI now its easier to disguise your initial effort, and sometimes get away with it.

[Majestic-milf]

 Obviously, there'd be less traffic when there are no campaigns because there'd be no incentive to post but on the flip side, threads become more educative instead of repetitive and the responses will be more as a result of knowing what to input and not because they are trying to meet up a quota. I think this is the same thing Op mentioned in his opening body...still, in all honesty, should signature campaigns get the pause button, I would really miss it.

[libert19]

Spams will decline considerably if campaign managers don't hire spammers, and most importantly if spammers can not rank up their accounts. It's not about signature campaign at the end, but let's start with how to stop spammers ranking up easily.

It does feel like it's all about signature campaigns at the end.

I meant that if spammers can not rank up, there will be less spammers, and there will be less spammers in signature campaigns. The first step to reduce spam is stop spammers to rank up, and after that, it's about signature campaigns and campaign managers.

And I meant, there are spammers and they may plagiarise, use ai and whatever else cause there are signature campaigns to begin with, otherwise what incentives they would be having to do all this? (let me know if there is any cause I may be ignorant).

...still, in all honesty, should signature campaigns get the pause button, I would really miss it.

Hello there, I like your name, I always giggle when I see it. And as for pausing signatures, I'd miss 'em too...I mean I miss 'em even when nobody hires me. Nonetheless, I'd say try, 'pause' and see how it goes for the forum and go on from there.

[rat03gopoh]

Signature campaigns aren't the only way to earn incentives on this forum. Also consider the potential for backlink, ANN thread visibility campaigns, etc. (remember how 1xbet did this in the past?). If the pay was comparable, everyone would still farm alts. I don't think spam will ever disappear completely; it will likely be more concentrated on boards that are allowed to carry specific brands.

[Majestic-milf]

Hello there, I like your name, I always giggle when I see it. And as for pausing signatures, I'd miss 'em too...I mean I miss 'em even when nobody hires me. Nonetheless, I'd say try, 'pause' and see how it goes for the forum and go on from there.

Yeah, I feel if there's a sort of poll where there's more people in support of a pause, it could push Theymos to try it out but the truth is, there are still good posters who drop good content irrespective of signature campaigns or not.
Add this to the pros;
- Less posts bemoaning the drought of merit flow because there'd be no need to be in a hurry to rank up, eh?


Also, my name was a product of a dare. Too bad that the forum can't easily change names like that.  

[Catenaccio]

And I meant, there are spammers and they may plagiarise, use ai and whatever else cause there are signature campaigns to begin with, otherwise what incentives they would be having to do all this? (let me know if there is any cause I may be ignorant).

They are all parts of problems but they're like eggs and chickens.

Without signature campaigns, spammers will have less reasons to spam and rank up their accounts, but let's see if spammers can not rank up their accounts, they will not make many posts in signature campaigns.

If spammers can not rank up their accounts with spam posts, they will stop spamming or become less spamming.
If spammers can be banned quickly with their posts like plagiarism or AI, there will be less spammers.

[Welsh]

Yeah, I feel if there's a sort of poll

I'd like to see someone collect all past, current and future suggestions for tackling the signature campaign problem, and run a community poll on it. It might help theymos sort of get all the feedback from the community in one place and take inspiration on whatever he decides to do.

I'd do it, but I'm afraid it would seem like I'm a spokesperson for the forum because they see the staff tag  and people would expect something done if they did vote in a topic I created. That's not the case, theymos might not even consider anything in that topic. I guess there's also the fact that theymos might create a topic himself if he wants this sort of input.

Also, another problem with that is the poll quickly becomes outdated as new suggestions are put forward.

[TryNinja]

Honestly, I wish I could overthrown theymos, do a Bukele and start banning people all around. I feel like theymos/mods here are too lenient to spamming, like a judiciary system that allows criminals to keep commiting crimes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying mods are useless or that they do a bad job, or that it's their fault that they don't nuke everyone. I'm just saying that I would be a ruthless dictator.

Like, why allow the Bitcoin Discussion board to be a megaspam fest? If you ban a Legendary spammer, he won't just be able to create a new account. He is gone. Maybe he has 10 accounts, but once 5 of his accounts gets banned, he will think again before continuing to spam 30 weekly posts talking to the wind about the random subject of that thread.

But I understand mods can't just see an "okay-ish" post, which we all know is just for the signature campaign, and nuke that post. They need a "damning evidence" that the user is spamming.

[Majestic-milf]

I'd do it, but I'm afraid it would seem like I'm a spokesperson for the forum because they see the staff tag  and people would expect something done if they did vote in a topic I created. That's not the case, theymos might not even consider anything in that topic. I guess there's also the fact that theymos might create a topic himself if he wants this sort of input.

Also, another problem with that is the poll quickly becomes outdated as new suggestions are put forward.

True, the votes might be done with a lot of expectations in mind. I agree, Theymos hasn't seen the need to take action over the issue of spamming brought on because one is in a campaign else he would have acted on it quickly. See the way he moved in swiftly when the mixers issue came up. I know people will say it's a different case but it's something that should be attended to either way.
For now, it's just to stick with the old way of flushing spam; delete threads or lock it.