Pages:
Author

Topic: A more effective way to reduce signature spamming - page 3. (Read 2571 times)

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Sounds like a reasonble idea, a lot of the spam post are easy to spot, very short, not constructive at all towards the conversation, and they never read the whole thead, some i think would be lucky to even read the last post.

Signature campaigns can be a great way to earn a small bit of extra btc but it does bring out the scammers.
IMO campaigns should have sign up limits and also they should pick who they want more often and not just take anyone.
The last 2 campaigns i have been i was PM'd asking if i wanted to join, they were always better paying too.
Yes, that's what I said. There should be guidelines, restrictions and such. That's the best solution. Removing signatures, or banning campaigns is illogical. Why punish everyone because of spammers?
There needs to be either a: 1) Effective way of spotting and banning spammers (useless without an increase in activity required in the first ranks, and no newbie restrictions); 2) Force tougher policies on the campaign managers; if they don't follow them their campaign gets banned.

This could be easily implemented with reasonable requirements. The first time that I've joined a campaign was about 8 months after my discovery of the forum and 4-5 months after joining it (I think). I was unaware at that time, I was even banned, but even then there was less spam than today, even though off-topic was being bombarded by posts.

I am sure their post quality will greatly increase and they will "learn" a big lesson.
Maybe yes, maybe not. But i think that it's a great way to warn a user, especially if is active a lot: in this case, indipendently from his signature, a ban can seriusly harass communication in other forum business (for example private sales, escrowing, etc...)
Actually no they won't. Some spammers are really persistent, even beyond your imagination. They actually keep buying accounts to continue their spamming spree. Banning them doesn't help as they make a lot of accounts at once and make all of them advance over time.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1742
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
I am sure their post quality will greatly increase and they will "learn" a big lesson.

Maybe yes, maybe not. But i think that it's a great way to warn a user, especially if is active a lot: in this case, indipendently from his signature, a ban can seriusly harass communication in other forum business (for example private sales, escrowing, etc...)
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1010
https://www.bitcoin.com/
Sounds like a reasonble idea, a lot of the spam post are easy to spot, very short, not constructive at all towards the conversation, and they never read the whole thead, some i think would be lucky to even read the last post.

Signature campaigns can be a great way to earn a small bit of extra btc but it does bring out the scammers.
IMO campaigns should have sign up limits and also they should pick who they want more often and not just take anyone.
The last 2 campaigns i have been i was PM'd asking if i wanted to join, they were always better paying too.
legendary
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043
#Free market
Instead of banning the whole account, wouldn't be more effective to just remove the signature for a period of time? This will result in a denied payment from signature managers, and also should raise the posting quality, instead of creating more spamming sockpuppets from the banned users.

In case of repeated spamming i would continue to perma-ban as it already happens.



I agree with alexrossi and I also think it is more 'efficace' remove the possibility to put a signature (to all the spammer and who make insubstantial posts) instead to ban them from post and send PM here in the forum. I am secure their post quality will greatly increase and they will "learn" a big lesson.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Well the worst part of it all is that whoever joins the signature campaign wagon is put in the same bag as spammers. Sometimes, maybe accidentally, even good posters get banned due to them having a signature. It's quite obvious who's spamming who isn't. Spammers should be categorized, which currently they are not. Banning someone who writes 1 liners and who writes 4 paragraphs (even though it's a spammy post) should be different.
Anyhow I think that this is a decent idea although I seem to have a better one (at least in my mind). What about just putting restrictions or guidelines for the campaigns. There should be a minimum rank, maximum number of users, stricter policies and such. I mean, who really needs newbies posting for money?  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1742
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Instead of banning the whole account, wouldn't be more effective to just remove the signature for a period of time? This will result in a denied payment from signature managers, and also should raise the posting quality, instead of creating more spamming sockpuppets from the banned users.

In case of repeated spamming i would continue to perma-ban as it already happens.

Pages:
Jump to: