a way to stop signature spammers by punishing the campaign managers - page 2.

reyhiesa

sr. member

Activity: 292

Merit: 250

Quote from: saturn643 on November 08, 2015, 10:49:02 PM

Quote from: reyhiesa on November 08, 2015, 10:47:34 PM

What about using the trust system against them instead of banning them directly? If it starts reflecting too badly on the business, they may think twice about being complacent about spammers. Using anonymous accounts to manage the campaigns wouldn't really help them this way either, since the main accounts connected with the site would be tagged as well. And it's not as harsh as banning them, so maybe it wouldn't drive them away from the forum the same way.

I think it would be just as bad, even worse than banning them since a neg trusted account will appear to people as their business either scamming or just being really bad. I don't think most people even look at what the feedback is about, just that they have neg trust.

That could be the case, but a trust rating is easier to change than a ban. And it could come from someone from the community instead of the forum administration, forcing them to engage with people here. And I hope users who trust a business do it after looking at the trust ratings.

saturn643

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: reyhiesa on November 08, 2015, 10:47:34 PM

What about using the trust system against them instead of banning them directly? If it starts reflecting too badly on the business, they may think twice about being complacent about spammers. Using anonymous accounts to manage the campaigns wouldn't really help them this way either, since the main accounts connected with the site would be tagged as well. And it's not as harsh as banning them, so maybe it wouldn't drive them away from the forum the same way.

I think it would be just as bad, even worse than banning them since a neg trusted account will appear to people as their business either scamming or just being really bad. I don't think most people even look at what the feedback is about, just that they have neg trust.

reyhiesa

sr. member

Activity: 292

Merit: 250

What about using the trust system against them instead of banning them directly? If it starts reflecting too badly on the business, they may think twice about being complacent about spammers. Using anonymous accounts to manage the campaigns wouldn't really help them this way either, since the main accounts connected with the site would be tagged as well. And it's not as harsh as banning them, so maybe it wouldn't drive them away from the forum the same way.

bitcoin revo

legendary

Activity: 1168

Merit: 1049

Quote from: saturn643 on November 08, 2015, 08:56:14 PM

Even with bots, there is still a person behind them. Someone has to run it, even if a bot is doing all of the work. It would be up to that person to deal with the spammers in their campaigns.

Believe me; as much as I'd like to believe that, YoBit is absolutely terrible at that and no matter how much to complain to them, they won't budge. I think hilariousandco sent them a PM and they ignored it.

saturn643

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: botany on November 08, 2015, 08:44:50 PM

Quote from: saturn643 on November 08, 2015, 08:37:41 PM

Quote from: tarsua on November 08, 2015, 08:34:39 PM

I think this idea has been proposed and turned down already,

It has? Where?

It has been turned down here.

Quote from: BadBear on June 19, 2015, 07:46:01 AM

I don't think acting on campaign managers would work, they'll just stop posting here, or use anon accounts. While using anon accounts now would be a red flag for a sig campaign, it would eventually become normal and accepted, similar to how it's the norm to see a one post newbie selling a hero account.

That is interesting. While I could see sig campaign managers creating new accounts, I also don't think that many people who run signature campaigns want to see their accounts get banned. A lot of them are high ranking members, people who have posted decent post quality and are very active. Most of them have some amount of positive trust. I don't think that they would want to throw away their account to run a sig campagin. I have also seen that a lot of people running sig campaigns are the official account of that company here on Bitcointalk. I don't really think they would want to trash that account as well.

Besides, wouldn't those new anon accounts get banned for ban evasion?

Quote from: bitcoin revo on November 08, 2015, 08:45:19 PM

As for signature campaigns without a manager, he's talking about bots counting the posts. Bit-X, BitMixer, YoBit, and a couple others do it.

Even with bots, there is still a person behind them. Someone has to run it, even if a bot is doing all of the work. It would be up to that person to deal with the spammers in their campaigns.

bitcoin revo

legendary

Activity: 1168

Merit: 1049

It's kind of like how moderators don't delete potential scams. I doubt that they would take action against signature campaigns if they were too troublesome and caused some inconvenience. Most YoBit signature wearers have post qualities that are debatable, but good enough to dodge the ban hammer; and IMHO, YoBit is the campaign with the most spammers.

As for signature campaigns without a manager, he's talking about bots counting the posts. Bit-X, BitMixer, YoBit, and a couple others do it.

EDIT: Plus botany's reference.

botany

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1064

Quote from: saturn643 on November 08, 2015, 08:37:41 PM

Quote from: tarsua on November 08, 2015, 08:34:39 PM

I think this idea has been proposed and turned down already,

It has? Where?

It has been turned down here.

Quote from: BadBear on June 19, 2015, 07:46:01 AM

I don't think acting on campaign managers would work, they'll just stop posting here, or use anon accounts. While using anon accounts now would be a red flag for a sig campaign, it would eventually become normal and accepted, similar to how it's the norm to see a one post newbie selling a hero account.

saturn643

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: tarsua on November 08, 2015, 08:34:39 PM

I think this idea has been proposed and turned down already,

It has? Where?

Quote from: tarsua on November 08, 2015, 08:34:39 PM

what about campaigns without a real manager?
like my campaign

What do you mean? I can see that your campaign is run by a person, who in this case is the campaign manager. The campaign manager doesn't have to be an actual campaign manager like carra23, just the person(s) who count the posts, enroll new users, and pay the users.

bill gator

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1123

Your idea has potential, but I think that we can come down on the signature campaign owners too hard because then this discourages campaigns to be run at all, which is helpful towards the economy of our community.

I will say however that I do like the idea of punishing them by some degree.. I think that it would make the job of signature campaign managers a million times more difficult, but it would also make signature campaigns a little more competitive as they should be.

tarsua

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

I think this idea has been proposed and turned down already, what about campaigns without a real manager?
like my campaign

saturn643

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

I saw this over on forum.bitcoin.com in their discussion about methods of dealing with signature spammers, and I thought it would be a good idea to do over here.

Here's the idea. Instead of just punishing and banning the spammers, we should also punish and ban the people running the signature campaigns for not cracking down on and banning spammers from their campaigns. This gives them a good incentive to check the quality of their posters so that they can remove the spammers from their campaigns.

What do you guys think of this idea.

Topic: a way to stop signature spammers by punishing the campaign managers - page 2. (Read 1831 times)