[BitList Analytics] Signature banned users and their data (before and after ban)

[nutildah]

I gave up reporting shitposts and duplicate threads on the gambling board because in the vast majority of cases, nothing gets done.

I understand the sentiment, but I would like to ask you to keep reporting, even if it feels pointless. It does help us.

It helps me too, quite a bit. Aside from lack of merits (which can be sloppy as a measurement), deleted posts is the most consistent indicator of a "low value poster." The more deleted posts a user accumulates, the worse it works in their favor.

It's only when the forum has new policy to deal with these spammers because they will stop spamming if they don't rank up, they will not have chance of participating in campaign, and naturally reduce their spam, even stop posting.

The real challenge is executing it in a way that is fair, or "fair to most."

[TokenTikas]

It's only when the forum has new policy to deal with these spammers because they will stop spamming if they don't rank up, they will not have chance of participating in campaign, and naturally reduce their spam, even stop posting.

Already i can see the new policy, I'm seeing the SigBan system itself because just pay a little attention to the matter. Those who are getting SigBan will stay under restriction for a fairly long time. While staying under restriction, only the real users will survive, besides that the other users are stopping posting or will stop.

Especially those who got SigBan while being in a signature campaign naturally will not post that much. Earlier they used to post desperately for money but now after not getting money for a long time, it may also happen that they will not try to improve the quality of their posts. However, the real users will definitely pass this restriction period and come towards the better side.
NB: Among the accounts that are under the SigBan restriction, those who can take their quality and quantity towards improvement during this long transitional period must definitely be considered good.

Ex: I can see that you have earned fifty-fifty merit, which looks pretty good. Next, you will earn sixty-sixty merit very soon.

[dkbit98]

Total users banned in the campaigns & active: 45

It is interesting to see breakdown of all banned users split into different campaigns and managers.
I was surprised to see that most banned users are coming from stake campaign, and manager needs to do better job with selecting campaign participants. 

[snipie]

Total users banned in the campaigns & active: 45

It is interesting to see breakdown of all banned users split into different campaigns and managers.
I was surprised to see that most banned users are coming from stake campaign, and manager needs to do better job with selecting campaign participants.  

Stake signature campaign used to have 4 or 5 independent (presumably) persons who judge your posts and give you a score. Below a threshold, you will get kicked from the signature. I don't know anymore if they still use it or not but to be honest, the score is a bit flawed there because cheating it isn't that hard. The longer your post, the more splitting quotes you have in the post, the higher your score is.

[virasog]

I gave up reporting shitposts and duplicate threads on the gambling board because in the vast majority of cases, nothing gets done.

I understand the sentiment, but I would like to ask you to keep reporting, even if it feels pointless. It does help us.

It helps me too, quite a bit. Aside from lack of merits (which can be sloppy as a measurement), deleted posts is the most consistent indicator of a "low value poster." The more deleted posts a user accumulates, the worse it works in their favor.

It's only when the forum has new policy to deal with these spammers because they will stop spamming if they don't rank up, they will not have chance of participating in campaign, and naturally reduce their spam, even stop posting.

The real challenge is executing it in a way that is fair, or "fair to most."

Talking about reporting, this guy hasn't been Sigban despite the lowest score and spamming in stake campaign  

LUCKMCFLY

Would writing long and meaningless posts save you? I don't think it should be the case but this user LUCKMCFLY is still surviving, maybe because he used to write half pages paragraphs before (starting from here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1153977;sa=showPosts;start=9300) and yet still saved maybe because of this even though his score isn't good too  

User ID: 1153977

Score: Needs Improvement (Lowest 10% of active posters)

I would ban this guy. Just because he hasn't been hit yet, doesn't mean he is saved.

Constantly making 10+ posts per day, 100% in the Gambling discussion board. All meaningless: https://bitlist.co/user/id/1153977?date_min=2026-06-30&date_max=2026-07-30

[TryNinja]

Small update

You can now sort the list of banned users:

- Newest bans
- Oldest bans
- Largest average posting increase
- Largest average posting decrease
- Most merits in 120 days before ban
- Least merits in 120 days before ban
- Most posts in 120 days before ban
- Least posts in 120 days before ban


Added multi-select filters:

- Only users with 1+ merit in 120 days before ban
- Only users with 1+ post in 120 days before ban
- When both filters are active, users must match both conditions

[nutildah]

Small updata

Looks good... One small correction still:



The date of the 1st ban was ~9:00 UTC 20 Jul 2026.

[TryNinja]

Looks good... One small correction still:



The date of the 1st ban was ~9:00 UTC 20 Jul 2026.

Forgot about that.

I'm fixing some of them manually, at least the first ones. The correct doomsday date (first ban) should show after cache clears in ~1 hour.

[joker_josue]

Small update

You can now sort the list of banned users:

- Newest bans
- Oldest bans
- Largest average posting increase
- Largest average posting decrease
- Most merits in 120 days before ban
- Least merits in 120 days before ban
- Most posts in 120 days before ban
- Least posts in 120 days before ban


Added multi-select filters:

- Only users with 1+ merit in 120 days before ban
- Only users with 1+ post in 120 days before ban
- When both filters are active, users must match both conditions

And why not add information on how many merits the user received AFTER the ban?
Knowing what he had received before is good, but it would be better to know what he received afterward, in order to make a comparison.

We know that awards received don't guarantee better quality, but it's always something that can be considered.

Just a suggestion.