Decentralized solution to signature spam! Or maybe not ....

[stompix]

We all know it, we have been discussing this for ages,  signature spam bad, we need a solution, the solution is either too complicated or doesn't solve much
So, one more try at it:

The current problems:
-managers that don't care about spam as some of them are not even true users of this forum
-avalanche of quasi qualified posts that get counted and not reported /deleted just because  are not 100% spam, just 99.9% spam
-lack of reporting and lack of incentive from the moderation team, I really still can't process the last post from hilariousadnco about how staff is getting paid for what

To date theymos has agreed to
-decentralize the trust system
-create a system to somewhat prevent spammers from racking up, again quasi-decentralized as we still have merit sources

So, how about we combine what we have?
Each user gets a new list for a new feature, just as with the trust list but called quality posters or whatever
-you add a user you believe he is a good poster to it
-you add ~user if you think he is a shitposter

Based on the merits earned by the one adding you or ~ you, you get a post score, if the score turns negative your signature space is disabled!
To offer a lifeline for newbies or prevent one rogue actor from influencing this alone we could do (earned merit - post score) > 0
We can change the formula and replace merit with trust score,  whatever, details!

Now arguments, obviously biased ones:

Pro:
-completely decentralized
-incentives for genuine discussions as you need to make the others feel like they are talking to a real person not a 4 line xerox machine
-abuses are easily identified both ways as the lists will be public just like trust lists
-any coalition of shitposters voting for each other like merit farming can be easily identified and punished into oblivion
-reduces the merit farming, merit begging , merit whatsoever
-it lets the community clean itself
-no need for extra moderation
-we already have the trust system in place this is easy to implement as it will be just a cloned function
-we get rid of tags for being a spammer shitposters etc, and all the discussions if one should or should not tag someone for it
Important:
Unlike merit, which is permanent, this will stop shitposters that have weaseled their way to legendary status!

Against:
-the idea comes from stompix, stompix bad
-someone actually needs to write this in code
-shitposters will be angry
-I'm baking myself right now in the sun with the 4th beer opened so I can't think of any anymore!

[Revolution2025]

<<<<my fair opinion>>>>

stompix stop abusing the trust system by giving inaccurate trust feedbacks

you can build your own forum and implement all the rules you want then you can invite us to join. think about it hypocrite

[LoyceV]

So, how about we combine what we have?
Each user gets a new list for a new feature, just as with the trust list but called quality posters or whatever
-you add a user you believe he is a good poster to it
-you add ~user if you think he is a shitposter

Wouldn't it be better to bring back the glowing Ignore button? I don't want to have another "list" to maintain.

Based on the merits earned by the one adding you or ~ you, you get a post score, if the score turns negative your signature space is disabled!

A ban would be so much easier

[stompix]

Wouldn't it be better to bring back the glowing Ignore button? I don't want to have another "list" to maintain.

You already have an ignore list you always mention of having people on  
That ignore feature might get abused with someone creating 1000 accounts and ignoring one user, we would need to have a weight score on it to prevent abuse so it gets just as complicated.

Also, some people are not there because they are shitposters, they are there because people don't agree with them..
Not really a quality indicator!

Based on the merits earned by the one adding you or ~ you, you get a post score, if the score turns negative your signature space is disabled!

A ban would be so much easier

I'm not even dreaming of Theymos implementing or agreeing to something that radical, even this "solution" is not even close to what I want, it's what I think has a slim chance of maybe making it to reality!

[BlackBoss_]

To date theymos has agreed to
-decentralize the trust system
-create a system to somewhat prevent spammers from racking up, again quasi-decentralized as we still have merit sources

When merit system was abused by merit sources and local boards, shit posters in local boards, it's already broken and failed to prevent spammers to rank up. It's still quasi-decentralized but merits are no longer for good posts but for shit posters from spammers in local boards.

So, how about we combine what we have?
Each user gets a new list for a new feature, just as with the trust list but called quality posters or whatever
-you add a user you believe he is a good poster to it
-you add ~user if you think he is a shitposter

It's very complicated and can be abused too. Like how merit system was abused, trust system was abused.

The better way is demerit system that is a spam-counter-back system and why don't think about Demerit sources?
LoyceV's deMerit source application.

They ranked up by shitposts, demerit them. If they want to complain, they can make a thread in Reputation board, make a poll, then let's see how their appeal will be approved and get their merit back or something worse coming.

It's not hard for the community to agree with each other that shitposts are shitposts even they received merit.

[logfiles]

Nothing will ever be perfect. We shall create a new system on top of the other, but people will still not be satisfied and complain. To me, I think the forum is not really badly off as it was some years back especially before the introduction of the merit system. Even when the merit system was introduced, some people abused it but at least the spam and account farming was massively reduced.

Right now we have tools at our disposal. If you find a user who spams or makes pointless posts, report his posts and the mods will do the job. I have one user I kept reporting, and the mods kept deleting his shitposts. He seems to have almost given up if he has not yet been temp banned.

The managers can also use other tools to identify good poster and hire them like this one -

So I have my question regarding the decentralized solution
1. How do you cater for people who buy copper accounts and want to advertise their service?

[Alvin_talk]

This could become a tool for retaliatory feedback just as we see in the way some users utilise the trust system, except if it configured in such a way that the users who list you remain anonymous, something similar to reporting.

Personally, I think if reporting cannot stop sig spam then this method will not likely be the solution too. Just like with reporting, many users may tend to feel reluctant to list other users, thus defeating the aim we seek to achieve. If managers can just hire without requiring minimum weekly post quota, sig spam will reduce drastically in this forum IMO.

[Repeat06]

You are asking to launch the Trust System but why are you not encouraging anyone to report to the moderator? The people who are involved in fraud have many accounts and they are not just one person, they are a gang and many of them work together and work through many accounts. So whenever you launch the Trust System, they will give that Trust to each other.

I think it is better to increase the number of moderators a little and encourage each person so that everyone reports to the moderator if they see a bad or low-quality post.

[MarryWithBTC]

Nothing will ever be perfect. We shall create a new system on top of the other, but people will still not be satisfied and complain...

xxx
-we already have the trust system in place this is easy to implement as it will be just a cloned function
xxx

Even the trust system is not perfect. Cloning it to create another is simply creating a system on top of the other as said by logfiles.

[The Cryptovator]

The current problems:
-managers that don't care about spam as some of them are not even true users of this forum
-avalanche of quasi qualified posts that get counted and not reported /deleted just because  are not 100% spam, just 99.9% spam
-lack of reporting and lack of incentive from the moderation team, I really still can't process the last post from hilariousadnco about how staff is getting paid for what

It is the manager's responsibility to review the signature campaign post and determine its acceptance. The signature campaign is directly not related to the forum function anyway; it's the manager's responsibility to select quality users. Rather, you may raise concerns against the managers who have been accepting spammers, and then the community will look at the matter.

I am not agreeing with this idea. Nowadays spammers can't grow their accounts due to the merit system. How will spammers rank up unless they earn merits? Could you please clarify the need for another system to prevent spammers, particularly in relation to the signature campaigns? If you see a spam post, then probably you can report it to the moderator; that's a big help for the forum as well. We really don't need some other system and to maintain another list, or else we may need to maintain many more lists.

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

No matter how you try to change the system flaws are actually inevitable. Take a look at the merit system Theymos introduced it was a very fine idea to reduce spam but currently it's not as effective as it was a couple years ago. Personally the biggest fix you could suggest for spam reduction is actually strict moderation.

You can not fix the spam issue flawlessly no matter how structured your suggestion seems to be and it's always a matter of time before the loopholes eventually surface again and get taken advantage of.

[Ambatman]

So, how about we combine what we have?
Each user gets a new list for a new feature, just as with the trust list but called quality posters or whatever
-you add a user you believe he is a good poster to it
-you add ~user if you think he is a shitposter

I believe there are people already that use the trust list for similar feature.
If I'm not mistaken Vod shadow pulse works quite similar to the image you have described.
So maybe an extension first to see how it plays out
Before making it public.

But like every great idea humanity have ever implemented it would still be abused.
I expect politics as always.

any coalition of shitposters voting for each other like merit farming can be easily identified and punished into oblivion

Same thing was thought about the merit since its public
But we all know how effective this is (low).

[PrivacyG]

It would be great.  There is definitely a need for SOME kind of punishment for the Members who spread nonsense, AI et cetera on here.  And their motives are clear because no one can tell me someone in their right mind would write absolute nonsense or ask AI to reply on a public Forum!  Are you telling me they are asking AI for a way to respond to their family texts too?

But it will definitely be abused or exploited.  Like said above, Merits were there particularly to slow down things and it DID slow down things a LOT.  I can not even imagine what Bitcoin Talk would look right now if there were no Merits and it is good to see so many Members stuck at very low Merit count unable to level up.

And if the system will be abused and exploited it does not necessarily mean it should not be applied.  There is no such thing as a perfect system.  So we have to decide.  Keep the spam and have full Freedom or crack down on the spam and have people whining about Bitcoin Talk becoming censored!  I do not even know what I personally prefer to be honest with you.  There is always the 'Ignore' button at hand so each of us personalizes our own experience too.  I am 50 for, 50 against!

[stompix]

So I have my question regarding the decentralized solution
1. How do you cater for people who buy copper accounts and want to advertise their service?

Same as previously? Nothing will change for any user?

Personally, I think if reporting cannot stop sig spam then this method will not likely be the solution too. Just like with reporting, many users may tend to feel reluctant to list other users, thus defeating the aim we seek to achieve.

Reporting is a continuous job; this is a one-click solution from your part and you can still go on and report!

You are asking to launch the Trust System but why are you not encouraging anyone to report to the moderator? T

Because it's a full-time job, look at the amount of posts that could be reported first and this is why nobody is bothering anymore; one wo uses reporting won't make a dent!
Rather than reporting 30 posts a week from an user which would make another 30 once he saw those deleted you simply add him to the list and hope he gets denied a signature.

Nowadays spammers can't grow their accounts due to the merit system. How will spammers rank up unless they earn merits?

This is a pile of bs and you know it!

I believe there are people already that use the trust list for similar feature.
If I'm not mistaken Vod shadow pulse works quite similar to the image you have described.
So maybe an extension first to see how it plays out
Before making it public.

Exactly, we stop the trust system from being used for this; people use it right now as a last resort!

And if the system will be abused and exploited it does not necessarily mean it should not be applied.  There is no such thing as a perfect system.  So we have to decide.  Keep the spam and have full Freedom or crack down on the spam and have people whining about Bitcoin Talk becoming censored!  I do not even know what I personally prefer to be honest with you.

This does not censor free speech! It stops paid speech for garbage!
You are free to post whatever you want.
Look at BADeckerr for example.

-----------
Now for the guys saying you should report, yeah, right:



That guy there came back day after day to write nearly the same post, his post got deleted he came back posting another one with the same gibberish. How could you deal with this when they just have to paraphrase the last post and post it again and again and again? Multiply this by 200 and 30-40 posts a week?

[IjawMan]

Personally, I think if reporting cannot stop sig spam then this method will not likely be the solution too. Just like with reporting, many users may tend to feel reluctant to list other users, thus defeating the aim we seek to achieve.

That post reporting has not completely stop spam in forum does not make it ineffectively helpful in a way. About more formal is our everyday society, the reporting of crime has not completely stop crime from taking place but it has helped reduce the excessive of it getting unhandled.

For me It is the handling of it that has made that impression. If many more forum members can embrace it as a responsibility to report what post that is deemed a spam or shit and not take it to be stressing to be doing.

When a user get constantly reported by different members about their post quality and their posts getting nuke. it either the user will seatup and work on his post quality or the mods will result to nuking the account having shown not to be a sensible person. If more users can devout to reporting posts more often then it can really be more effective than what it is doing already.

[babo]

The trust system was designed for trading and understanding whether a person is trustworthy or not.
Using the trust system for this is an abuse

then I want to tell you that signature managers have their own tools and parameters to understand if a person is a spammer
- if the timing between posts is too short
- if he does post bursting
- if it never creates threads

This thread is useless, written by a person who doesn't know how signature management works.

[criptoevangelista]

It's practically impossible to manage all of this. There are thousands of people posting things at every moment. This is work that is somewhat filtered by the campaign managers, and many around here are strict about post quality, but there's a huge number of people to look after, and it is humanly impossible to permanently solve this problem. However, as time goes by, we as users start to see who is who, and we know who the good or bad forum users are... Also, in a way, the forum should just follow its natural flow. Turning it into a place with countless rules and infinite restrictions ends up stopping people from expressing their thoughts... Anyway, just my humble opinion. To me, it's good the way it is, and things should just flow naturally. The system here is never going to please everyone. Dealing with people is very complicated.

[Satofan44]

Pro:
-abuses are easily identified both ways as the lists will be public just like trust lists
-any coalition of shitposters voting for each other like merit farming can be easily identified and punished into oblivion
Important:
Unlike merit, which is permanent, this will stop shitposters that have weaseled their way to legendary status!

Who will be doing the identification and "punishing"? Do you mean to create a tiered system like the default trust system? If so, that is a mistake as the current system is mostly a corrupt failure full of various cliques and has countless scammers and spammers in them. By introducing a similar system, you will just create a similar consequence as a result of this new system. The solution is simpler: Swift and effective permanent banning of useless shit posters. Theymos could literally appoint any senior member that is strict with that and whom he likes, and this could be resolved within weeks. The answer is also simple: theymos does not want to do it.

The trust system was designed for trading and understanding whether a person is trustworthy or not.
Using the trust system for this is an abuse

Where does it say that the trust system will be used? Did you even read this thread before replying?

So, how about we combine what we have?
Each user gets a new list for a new feature, just as with the trust list but called quality posters or whatever

Next time, read the thread properly before dismissing attempts to fix the terrible state of this forum.

This thread is useless, written by a person who doesn't know how signature management works.

Fuck off, most of the managers are 3rd world pajeets that are sometimes charging as low as $10 per campaign. They are neither reading the posts, nor are they enforcing any kind of quality measures combined with enrolling some of their own alts and that of their friends.  Given that 99% of posts are useless, turd posts perhaps anyone who is defending "signature management" does not know that it does not work.

[babo]

Fuck off, most of the managers are 3rd world pajeets that are sometimes charging as low as $10 per campaign. They are neither reading the posts, nor are they enforcing any kind of quality measures combined with enrolling some of their own alts and that of their friends.  Given that 99% of posts are useless, turd posts perhaps anyone who is defending "signature management" does not know that it does not work.

calm down boy, there are managers like icopress, like yahoo, like hhampuz who know what they are doing
and I proposed some OSINT tools to them but they replied that they already have them
we talked about it in private obviously

so calm your tits, we don't need screamers here.. if you want to scream you can go to the fish market

[BlackHatCoiner]

I support the stompix solution with all my heart. It is already unbearable to read AI everywhere.

Keep the spam and have full Freedom or crack down on the spam and have people whining about Bitcoin Talk becoming censored!

Is it really censorship if someone walks into an event, start yelling and people just ask the guard to warn him? That's what this proposal is, as far as I understand. If you get a lot of spam list inclusions, and you keep writing nonsense, you're asking for it.