Just remove signatures already. As in delete, disable, gone.

[hilariousandco]

Oh - btw - I will be announcing a P2P Forum soon that won't have signatures and will have an "ignore" system that actually works properly (rather than you seeing a topic updated by an ignored user and seeing "this poster is currently being ignored" posts). Having a "proper ignore system" will also mean there is no need for moderators (and there will be none).

Well I'm actually glad someone has put their money where their mouth is and actually took steps to create a decentralised forum. I've lost count of how many times people have said one should be made in the spirit of Bitcoin or that they were going to create their own and nothing ever happened. It's never as easy as they imagine though but good luck.

[1713303386]

1713303386

[1713303386]

1713303386

[doublemore]

Oh - btw - I will be announcing a P2P Forum soon that won't have signatures and will have an "ignore" system that actually works properly (rather than you seeing a topic updated by an ignored user and seeing "this poster is currently being ignored" posts). Having a "proper ignore system" will also mean there is no need for moderators (and there will be none).

Cool i will join, be good to have a few more options, the problem will be getting the forum going and remaining active. Bitcointalk has years of google ranking history.

[CIYAM]

Cool i will join, be good to have a few more options, the problem will be getting the forum going and remaining active. Bitcointalk has years of google ranking history.

Great - and for sure it won't be so easy to get noticed as the design is purposefully "search unfriendly" (i.e. search engines can't index the content even if the application server is hosted publicly) so about the only way people are going to find out about it will be "word of mouth".

[iCEBREAKER]

Seriously - no-one is visiting bitcointalk.org to read the posts anymore (that finished a long time ago).

I do!

I do as well.

But CIYAM doesn't literally mean what he said.

His counterfactual utterance is a performative which expresses his epic butthurt about people still visititing BCT to read the posts.

It's hilarious he would use his coding skills to design yet another forum (a task for which he is vastly overqualified) mainly for the sake of appeasing his deep but unsatiated need to completely ignore others.

Unfortunately it is obvious that no improvement is going to be made and that the new forum won't even be worth joining (I am not going to bother).

Personally I think it should just be left to the ad-sig posters to keep posting their rubbish posts to one another until finally the ad sponsors realise that no-one who has any funds to actually buy or invest in anything is left (then the entire forum will simply be abandoned as a forum whose entire purpose is "making money from everyone else in the forum" is actually rather boring for those who actually care about something other than money and for those that don't I would think it would be more entertaining to use casinos where you can just click one button to "play" rather than waste time "typing").

Oh - btw - I will be announcing a P2P Forum soon that won't have signatures and will have an "ignore" system that actually works properly (rather than you seeing a topic updated by an ignored user and seeing "this poster is currently being ignored" posts). Having a "proper ignore system" will also mean there is no need for moderators (and there will be none).

[CIYAM]

Interesting that you have suddenly become some sort of "qualified psychotherapist" (or are you not really qualified but just think you are?).

My interests are in getting rid of centralisation (that includes this forum) rather than whatever Freudian stuff you might think to be the reason.

Being "popular" is not of concern - if my P2P forum isn't used that actually won't bother me as my goal is simply to create the technology (maybe someone else will work out how to make it "popular" - as it will be open source they will be able to clone it to do so).

Also the "forum software" was built back in late 2012 (it has been used in http://ciyam.org/open since then) so it isn't anything "new" (it is simply going to be adapted to work over the CIYAM Blockchain system).

[iCEBREAKER]

Interesting that you have suddenly become some sort of "qualified psychotherapist" (or are you not really qualified but just think you are?).

My interests are in getting rid of centralisation (that includes this forum) rather than whatever Freudian stuff you might think might to be the reason.

Being "popular" is not of concern - if my P2P forum isn't used that actually won't bother me as my goal is simply to create the technology (maybe someone else will work out how to make it "popular" - as it will be open source they will be able to clone it to do so).

"Qualified psychotherapist" is an oxymoron, because psychotherapy is a pseudoscience for which there can be no qualifications.

My qualifications are in the fields of rhetoric, critical theory, and cognitive linguistics.  You are the only one here invoking Sigmund Fraud.

When you make an obviously untrue statement like

no-one is visiting bitcointalk.org to read the posts anymore

I am qualified to explain (by close reading) what you actually meant by such a bizarre assertion.

[CIYAM]

When you make an obviously untrue statement like

no-one is visiting bitcointalk.org to read the posts anymore

Why is that "obviously untrue"?

If you read most of the "ad-sig" replies to most posts they clearly show "a lack of any reading of the posts".

Perhaps I have "exaggerated" in saying "no-one" but I would not be wrong in saying that "the majority of posters" (which I think you'd have to agree *are ad-sig posters*).

So why not just correct my "no-one" to say "most people" rather than post stuff about being "butt-hurt" (my butt is feeling fine by the way - but thanks for your interest in it).

[hilariousandco]

When you make an obviously untrue statement like

no-one is visiting bitcointalk.org to read the posts anymore

Why is that "obviously untrue"?

If you read most of the "ad-sig" replies to most posts they clearly show "a lack of any reading of the posts".

Perhaps I have "exaggerated" in saying "no-one" but I would not be wrong in saying that "the majority of posters" (which I think you'd have to agree *are ad-sig posters*).

So why not just correct my "no-one" to say "most people" rather than post stuff about being "butt-hurt" (my butt is feeling fine by the way - but thanks for your interest in it).

It is obviously untrue and is an opinion made with much bias. You yourself are still here and you must be reading peoples' posts because you regularly reply to them and even get involved with intelligent discussions with people with sig ads as do many others. I honestly understand people like yours and dannyhamilton's frustrations because signatures certainly are a problem when they're left to run wild by people who care little about quality control and they often do devalue the content of posts, but I also believe there are ways to coexist and manage them properly and they should be tried first. I also think people are going to be very wrong if they they think banning signatures is going to make discussions here suddenly go back to how they likely were in the early days but time will only tell on that front.

I genuinely hope you do complete your forum and I would certainly check it out, but I'm not sure how well it will work but I'm very interested to see if it will and how it does. If it's far superior to this one then I'm sure it will catch on. Again, good luck with it.   

[CIYAM]

I genuinely hope you do complete your forum and I would certainly check it out, but I'm not sure how well it will work but I'm very interested to see if it will and how it does. If it's far superior to this one then I'm sure it will catch on. Again, good luck with it.   

Whether it will gain any popularity is actually of little concern to me as my interest is in simply creating the technology (so basically that will be up to others if they think the technology is something they want to use). Also whether something is "superior" is a very "subjective opinion" so for sure it won't be being promoted as that.

I agree that you are probably right that getting rid of ad-sigs won't bring this forum back to what it was like in 2011/2012. A lot of people that used to contribute a lot of interesting stuff have left between 2013 and 2014 (whether they left due to the poorer quality content is hard to say).

[hilariousandco]

I genuinely hope you do complete your forum and I would certainly check it out, but I'm not sure how well it will work but I'm very interested to see if it will and how it does. If it's far superior to this one then I'm sure it will catch on. Again, good luck with it.   

Whether it will gain any popularity is actually of little concern to me as my interest is in simply creating the technology (so basically that will be up to others if they think the technology is something they want to use). Also whether something is "superior" is a very "subjective opinion" so for sure it won't be being promoted as that.

I agree that you are probably right that getting rid of ad-sigs won't bring this forum back to what it was like in 2011/2012. A lot of people that used to contribute a lot of interesting stuff have left between 2013 and 2014 (whether they left due to the poorer quality content is hard to say).

It is subjective but if it is superior then those people who think so will naturally flock to it much like bitcoin and it will grow over time like this forum has, but it also may reach a time where it crosses some sort of rubicon and people may become disenfranchised with its popularity or the content of posts there. Forums with a lack of moderation can quickly get messy and maybe that's part of the problem here with the hands off approach from staff but I feel it works well in certain circumstances and is likely the best option to allow discussion, but that also means we allow scammers and trolls etc and sometimes people get offended by that (as you found out not so long ago but is that a job for the mods to censor? I would say no but there is always a limit to what is or isn't acceptable). Maybe with a decentralised forum with no mods or rules the users can moderate what they see themselves and just get into the habit of ignoring all scammers and trolls or shitposters themselves manually but this is a lot of work in itself but it could work. You choose what you want or don't want to see but you or nobody else can censor what others can see and I agree with that in theory. It's like self-modded threads here. People can censor who they like in it but people are free to not post in there or ignore those users or just create their own threads to respond. For those that are interested in bitcoin for the tech and the political ramifications of it and its decentralised nature I'm sure they will also love your forum for the same reasons (providing it does work, but another thing that kills forums is a lack of participation or discussion and that is hard to achieve and say what you want about this forum but there's plenty of discussion whether it's intelligent or half-assed nonsense). I think your idea would suit some people very well, but also not others, but as I said I'm very interested to see if and how it will work (some things do and some things don't when they're centralised or de) so keep me informed.

[tspacepilot]

The forum seems fine with the campaigns so lets start reporting people (I have started reporting every useless post I see lately).

I tried that - and my "report accuracy" rapidly went down from 90+% to 40+% (so the mods seemingly "approve of rubbish").

So I would *not* recommend anyone to do that (unless they want to see their "report accuracy" tank). You might want to check your "report accuracy" after doing that for a while.

^^^This.   You can click on the report button when someone is just writing a banal reword of what's written above them but for a mod who is trying to quickly weed through a lot of posts, it's really hard to tell at first glance that the person isn't doing so in good faith.  Mods want to err on the side of caution so they say, no let it stand, it looks somewhat reasonable.  But this leads to pages and pages of rewording the same answer in many cases---threads full of mindless repitition.  I'm just trying to echo here that I also tried reporting the useless echo posts which had sig-ads under them and I just saw my report accuracy go down the tubes.

[shogdite]

I disagree with the OP. Lots of good discussions going on everywhere. He just cant find them.

[jacee]

I don't think banning or removing signature will fix the problem. Those signature campaigners should just change the rules. Make it more relevant to this forum, I mean make it more hard for people to spam threads in here. Ban tgose who don't follow the rules. Not the campaign because they actually helps, those little bits of coins we get from their campaign.

[Xialla]

I disagree with the OP. Lots of good discussions going on everywhere. He just cant find them.

yes cool. and there are also useless guys posting irrelevant vague non-sense BS in order to higher their posts counts. you for example with this post.

length is enough to be counted, it is in section, which is valid for posts so why care so much right?

generally (even I'm part of signature campaign), I'll be really happy, if those campaigns would be disabled or at least only allowed with pay per period model instead of pay per post, like majority of them. pay per post model only leads to useless posts, asking for same again and again and some hidden trolling/aggressive (because if you troll, you can reply easily). but yes, it is not helping to maintain quality, which was quite common back in the days.

[koshgel]

I disagree with the OP. Lots of good discussions going on everywhere. He just cant find them.

Thank you for your most valuable input. 

I see way too many posts from people (especially bit-x people) that don't read any of the posts in the thread and post something indirectly related to OP's post to seem like they are engaging. Normally, they never return to topic.

I'm not saying disable signatures but more liberal use of bans wouldn't be bad idea either. That might discourage this type of "thread fluffing" spam.

[jeffthebaker]

I disagree with the OP. Lots of good discussions going on everywhere. He just cant find them.

Thank you for your most valuable input. 

I see way too many posts from people (especially bit-x people) that don't read any of the posts in the thread and post something indirectly related to OP's post to seem like they are engaging. Normally, they never return to topic.

I'm not saying disable signatures but more liberal use of bans wouldn't be bad idea either. That might discourage this type of "thread fluffing" spam.

Yes, the spam is annoying, but when you look at the bigger picture, signatures campaigns truly are good for the community. Now, call me biased because I personally am enrolled in a signature campaign, but the fact that there are programs out there that allow anyone to earn an honest amount of BTC just for participating in community discussion is great. Sure, it may lead to a bit of spam, but it's much easier to ignore the spam then ban the concept that is, in my opinion, one of the greatest goods in the community.

[koshgel]

I disagree with the OP. Lots of good discussions going on everywhere. He just cant find them.

Thank you for your most valuable input. 

I see way too many posts from people (especially bit-x people) that don't read any of the posts in the thread and post something indirectly related to OP's post to seem like they are engaging. Normally, they never return to topic.

I'm not saying disable signatures but more liberal use of bans wouldn't be bad idea either. That might discourage this type of "thread fluffing" spam.

Yes, the spam is annoying, but when you look at the bigger picture, signatures campaigns truly are good for the community. Now, call me biased because I personally am enrolled in a signature campaign, but the fact that there are programs out there that allow anyone to earn an honest amount of BTC just for participating in community discussion is great. Sure, it may lead to a bit of spam, but it's much easier to ignore the spam then ban the concept that is, in my opinion, one of the greatest goods in the community.

lol you took something you could say in one line and turned it into a paragraph by repeating yourself. *clap* enjoy your .001.

The reality is that signatures don't promote discussion. If you really want to talk about BTC, getting paid to talk about it won't make your comments more interesting or more pertinent to the discussion.

It's awesome to get money for sitting on your computer and posting on a forum but don't bullshit and say it enhances the community or is "one of the greatest goods in the community"  Come on

[Xialla]

I see way too many posts from people (especially bit-x people)

yes, bit-x and coinomat are 2 major campaigns, paying for useless plague here. I tried to report several times to their sig. managers, but they don't even reply..?!

they both accepting everybody, their signature managers are somehow overloaded and not so active at all (except posting, that they accepted new members) and because of automated checks by bots, they don't even care about quality of posts. (reason is simple: both quality and useless posts had same size and visibility, so why care so much, right..?)

"product" of this unlimited madness is user called Amph (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99297) and I encourage everybody to check, how often and what he is actually posting and how this board may ends up...

enjoy

[Amph]

I see way too many posts from people (especially bit-x people)

yes, bit-x and coinomat are 2 major campaigns, paying for useless plague here. I tried to report several times to their sig. managers, but they don't even reply..?!

they both accepting everybody, their signature managers are somehow overloaded and not so active at all (except posting, that they accepted new members) and because of automated checks by bots, they don't even care about quality of posts. (reason is simple: both quality and useless posts had same size and visibility, so why care so much, right..?)

"product" of this unlimited madness is user called Amph (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99297) and I encourage everybody to check, how often and what he is actually posting and how this board may ends up...

enjoy

oh yeah here we go again, tells me what bothers you about my post? it's the number of posts...., you know that numbers of posts != spam right?

what if someone can "spam" constructive post all day? here there is a big problem with the definition of "constructive post" apparently

it seems that everything which has not a technical knowledges is not a constructive post...we are lucky that mod do not agree

[Xialla]

you know that numbers of posts != spam right?
what if someone can "spam" constructive post all day?

uhh what, did you even read what are you posting here?

funny comparison:

ChartBuddy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=110685)  - Automated posting Bot  - created 2013-05-03 - posts: 16174

Amph (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99297) - the Useless user - created 2013-04-13 - posts: 15743

so yes, in last 2 years, you are only 400 posts behind the bot, which is generating exchange charts every hour...you had so much to say, don't you?

and now arguing with something like "mods don't give a shit, I'm doing fine" - no my dear, just admit it to yourself, that you are posting here only because you are getting paid for it by campaign without weekly cap..

..or you will keep posting ~40 posts per day, even if campaign will be disabled? I simply don't think so. and now, posts please another 2 lines bullshit, to get your .001 and quote this whole post to make it longer.