Topic: As the spammers seem to of started to find meta... (Read 670 times)

I agree with that. I find it more effective and interesting to follow a user who has attracted you, rather than a topic that may seem interesting at first glance, but in the end it turns out to be a hangout for spammers. When I stumble upon a post that interested me, I begin to study the author and his range of interests. In general, users writing interesting and constructive posts, are not limited to one or two topics: they try to develop in different directions. Thus, I find for myself not only interesting discussions in principle, but also I get the opportunity to take part in a conversation with members of the forum who personally interested me. Thus, I have formed a circle of acquaintances I`m interested in communicating with regarding various topics. Perhaps in the future we`ll even become friends thanks to the bitcointalk forum. Search by an interesting user is more focused than thematic and gives much more useful results.

Spam is on all the boards, and this is why I decided to become multi-dimensional. I'm multi-board, multi-ethnic, gender neutral, and probably multi-polar as well.

I've decided that it doesn't matter where a comment is posted - it is the poster that matters. I thought at first that following posters rather than topics would mean that I would miss out on some discussions, but in fact the reverse seems to be true. If you find an interesting member, then the chances are that he will post in interesting threads that you may not have noticed.

Maybe the worse part is that this is actually work of maybe only few users with multiple account. It not just meta section but also large amount is in altcoin section as well. For Meta I can understand this should be place to ask something useful not to just copy paste multiple questions and answers. I Thing this can be good to consider cuz this is place where usually high ranking members give merit to low ranking members, but from what I was able to read here then this low ranking members disappear from this tread and never ask or post again here.

Im not so qualify for this but for me its better to read first and ask questions later maybe thing that I want to ask is already been asked and answered.

Removing signatures will stop signature spam, which is probably 99% of the spam here. I wouldn't be against removing signatures, but I don't think it's going to happen. If we were going to remove signatures though then I don't think we should do it for everyone as that's unfair to those who have actually contributed something here and it's the spammers who will leave as soon as that happens and will have then ruined it for everyone else. Remove signatures from everyone and require a ridiculous amount of earned merit before you can get one. That seems more fair. You could also let people purchase more donator ranks in addition which get you the benefits of signatures, but I would only be for that if they were sufficiently expensive, so either earn your merit or cough up for a signature. Or go away. Either way you can still post as normal so nobody is effected from that.


You simply need to clamp down on the people who are paying people to spam as that's the cause of the issue. If a user signs up here and spams then they get a ban. If these people who keep getting banned are on the same campaign then that campaign should get the ban. Once ICOs start getting banned from activities here they'll soon change their ways because this forum is too valuable to them. They get away with it at the moment because there's no repercussions for them doing a lousy job so they're not magically going to change because that's far too much work for them that they just don't need to do right now.

I personally have no issues with bounty posters if that is only where they post. I have given a few of them merit. If they only post reports in bounty threads then they don't harm the quality of the forum. (It is easy to ignore those threads)

It is the signature spammers and thread bumping bots  that I have issues with. The spam.

Plagiarists will get banned eventually anyway  - with or without merit.

I also want to believe that spammers can be “transformed” and higher rank members can accompany them on the true path. This is a very noble desire on your part. I respect you for this and am ready to support you in your endeavors. But no matter what the efforts, very many users just can`t be convinced, since they came to the forum for a completely different purpose. And they don`t need our help and mentoring, since we won`t provide them with the necessary instructions on how to spam more effectively and and won`t explain the requirements for writing absurd and stupid posts to them.

We have different goals and, accordingly, different paths. You can "lure" to the bright side only those who hesitate and doubt the correctness of their actions, but you won`t be able to influence those who don`t care about the rules and the general situation in the forum, who cares only to earn tokens, who only sees this "goal", and doesn`t pay attention to the "obstacles" from the conscious cohort of the bitcointalk site. That`s why I consider it necessary to introduce restrictions, which I mentioned above. Your idea has the full right to exist, I totally support it. But it should be implemented in parallel with the tightening of general rules so that our actions to eliminate spam are much more effective.

I agree with that, and some of your subsequent comments. However, there are two issues here. One is the reduction of spam, and this seems to be the main focus for everybody. Of course this needs to be controlled, but it may not be the major factor that will restrict the growth of the forum. I think the encouragement and development of new members is far more important, and I have noticed that a few of the spammers seem to have moved away from the darkside, and be joining the bright future for Bitcoin.

If we can start some decent discussions, and make them self-moderated to chuck out the spammers and low value posters, then perhaps we can breathe a bit of life into a couple of the heavily polluted boards.

I think the idea of developing other boards of this forum, especially Beginners & Help, deserves respect. Those forum participants who don`t stand on a selfish foundation, and are willing to invest their strength in the improvement of bitcointalk are commendable. But I very much doubt that the increase in the distribution of merit in the beginners sub will have a positive effect on reducing the amount of spam.

Yes, it’s likely that there will be fewer shitposters in Meta. But won`t be less in total. Merit hunters keep an eye on where the last ones are distributed more generously. At the moment, the field of their "activity" has become Meta board, since it`s here a greater number of those users who write constructive and qualified posts, and hence the main merit sources are focused. But as soon as the main part of the conscious members move to another board (no matter which) and pull the merit sources with them, shitposters will follow them and take new positions by storm.

In order to truly change the forum for the better, we need to think strategically, not tactically. Yes, future-oriented solutions take much longer to see the results, but in turn they`re more sustainable and long-term. I agree that it`s necessary to prohibit wearing signatures to those below the member rank. But besides this, it`s necessary to introduce restrictions for signature campaigns. They need to be moderated and controlled, it`s worth to close those ones which provoke spam, and with the help of ignorant participants, spread it. Not everyone understands that participation in signature campaigns is a privilege. Therefore, it`s necessary to attach it at the legislative level, by introducing more stringent rules.

The current merit system seems to have made a great improvement. The only thing I would change is to make awards of more than a certain number subject to mod confirmation, maybe 10 or 20 would be a suitable level. There are some good posts in Meta, and I think it should be possible to give the posters suitable merits.

As with any merit giving people should just take it on a case by case basis, but I don't think we should stop giving them out in certain sections, but you can certainly stop giving them for certain types of posts. People either complaining or just 'agreeing' that the merit system is good probably shouldn't get them. If people stopped meriting posts in here then I'd probably have 98% less merits, but things like boycotts only ever work if everyone (or a significant) percentage of people are involved. There'll always be one or two users (or scabs) that make it ineffective and it's impossible to get everyone on board.


This is why I think the merit requirement should be higher and put up to ten. People would probably actually be more liberal with their merit giving then and giving one out for an entertaining post should be ok, but when one merit is all somebody needs to be able to post it's dicey. One merit is far too easy to get and is too prone to abuse so I personally think we should keep the one merit to become a Junior but remove their signatures and you can only get one when you achieve ten merit and become a Member.

I try regularly to merit in other sections, although it is a harder task to perform, trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. Meta is easier to merit simply because there are many good posts in this section that deserve some merit.

One common misconception for many forum members is that Meta is an easy place to gain merits. It is not. Some do earn a fair share here, me included, but for those that roam the board in search for their first merit, this is not the best section to do so. The standard for awarding merit here is way above what is required on Beginners & Help for example.

I’m finishing-off an analysis inspired by some comments I’ve seen indicating that Meta is a place to search for your first Merit. What I’m seeing so far, is that the first merit has historically been earned (in larger absolute values) in Altcoin Ann, Altcoin Discussion, Bitcoin Discussion, Economics and Marketplace for example. Regardless of all, it down to content and not placement that matters most.

Because of the spam problem, it is a multi-faceted problem, so the solution to spam needs to be done from all factors.

Spam is mostly found in comments ([Econimics]), ([Bitcoin Discussion]) and ([Meta]) This is not surprising, because the free center-based ([Forum Bitcointalk]) also always receives dozens of spam comments every day. Much more - many times more than the original comment.

Therefore it is very necessary in this case:

<> (Filtering):
Examples of one way from technical-based tips. Filtering will not be a complete problem factor, it only helps alleviate spam. Although filtered, the total amount of spam that actually enters every day continues to increase.

<> (non - technical):
which is fundamental in handling spam, and can reduce spam, especially from new high-class players who are passed on to beginners.

I conclude Even though have done various ways / things, in handling spam, every day incessantly continues to be a trick that is widely practiced in this world without being realized, either on Meta or in Local.

Whenever I come to meta I always see people giving out merit like it's candy. So it's only normal that most people will flock here to try to attain some from people. Besides there is a lot of good and useful information in meta so those people deserve the merit they get in here.

Pugman's thought is correct but i guess that is the problem that TMAN is trying to emphasize. Since some of them knows that they can get merit here than the spam boards like BD.  They are starting to populate this section with new threads with different titles but has only one idea(eg: how to get merit)

In an ideal world I would agree with you that each post should be considered on its own as to whether it is worthy of meriting, but in this particular world a single merit is all that stands between those 1000 post newbies and the ability to spam for sig campaigns once again. Hence why one should have a care before smacking that merit button.

So why didn't you merit it? Just because he is into bounties doesn't make a bad poster. I don't know who you're talking about, but if it were a funny post, then there was some thought behind it, and a merit for that won't make the world upside down or flat for that matter, unless the post was plagiarized or something, then it is a different story. Cause merit is to be given for high quality posts and not post history. Not meriting people who participate bounty in bounties is like not giving citizenship rights to a black man or a muslim guy.

I think we are overdoing it. Its really not required, and also remember, this is merit that you're talking about- something that is literally created out of thin air and has no physical existence.

Realised how stupid an idea this was as I merited a few posters here that had to be merited

I thought of a merit boycott like this when Theymos made the most recent changes, but I didn't want to make a new thread in Meta about it and thought it might have been too drastic--not that any of the shitposters would have read it anyway to know that they wouldn't be able to earn merits by posting there, nor probably would that even stop them.

In any case, I think it is a good idea, and I think I've stopped giving merits to at least lower-ranked members making posts in Meta.  It's pretty obvious when some of them are fishing for merits, posting crappy analysis on things like plagiarism or stating obvious facts about how the forum works or whatever.

Things have calmed down considerably in the past week, so it's not as much of a concern to me.  Had things remained like they were when the 1 merit requirement went into effect, I'd be all over this.  Maybe the shitposters learned that their efforts were in vain.  It doesn't seem like their Meta posts were/are earning them any merits.

Yeah, I can't do it either.  But even with some of the lower-ranking memebers busting scams, I can still very easily vow not to give merits to Jr. Members and certainly not to newly-busted Newbie members in merit hell.  That's a no-brainer.

I can't do that, sorry. There are too many good posts here, lots of users doing a great job busting all sorts of mischief and also answering stupid questions.

On the bright side - as xtraelv already mentioned - this is more of a honeypot these days. Yes, shitposters step in here occasionally, but they get treated accordingly because people here know quite well how to look at one's post history.

I don’t think it is a good idea and it goes against the very purpose of the merit system: to merit posts based on their quality, not on where they are published.

I also think it won’t work. Because if it is for a while, the idiots will keep coming and won’t even realize people are not giving merits on meta temporarily. Spammers with their multi accounts are always going to try to game the system. If we stopped giving merits on meta and, for example, the Development and Technical Discussion board became the number 1 place to get merits we would have lots of shitposters posting there, and I think we don’t want to see that either.

I wouldn’t do anything, apart from:


So do I. It should be done without fearing the consequences. This will send the message that if you want to get paid to write on this forum you have to actually make an effort. People will try to cheat? Yes, as usual. Will they complain on meta? Yes. Will they shitpost on meta? Yes. But it is pretty clear to me that it is a good long-term measure. Some people will finally realize that it is easier to get 10 merit if you put some effort to be a good forum member than the effort you need to make to try to cheat the system.

The obvious merit farming has reduced after the first week of constant indirect merit begging posts on Meta since the 1 merit for Jr Member was introduced. It will slowly reduce more.

The spammers that are finding Meta generally are the ones that got banned for plagiarism.

Part of that is due to more people looking to give merit but checking posts for plagiarism.

It is easier to bust them when they come to us.

It's a calculation on the total amount of activity, isn't it? Well, it has been decreased because a huge amount of Jr member demoted into newbies and they couldn't wear signature. Because of that, there is no meaning of continue posting as they will get no bounty.
However, after the new implementation, the activity in meta, was increased decently. So, the same will happen. 10 merits requirement will reduce spamming in Altcoin discussion (No one care that, IMO) while it will increase spamming in meta significantly.

The 1 merit limit has reduced shitposting by 20-30% according to LoyceV's calculations here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46674375

Without any data we can't say for sure, but I think it's a fair assumption to say that a 10 merit limit would reduce spam by >50%. A week or two of spammers crying would be worth it for that. Then we might be able to hold a sensible discussion on BD again. Also, as per my other suggestion, a dedicated mod for the Meta board would go a long way to keeping things under control for those couple of weeks.

but

Remember the week in which new requirements were introduced by theymos, how many merit topics were created. How many users complaining that they can't wear their signatures can not therefore work, followed by dozens of unnecessary and repetitive topics and guides, all of which in a desperate attempt to get a single merit.

Now imagine that there is a new requirement of 10 merits to wear a signature, and multiply all this garbage x10 for an extended period of time. How does that sound? 

Question is...are we ready for what will inevitably become the biggest shitstorm in the history of bitcointalk...

Requiring 10 merits for wearing signature may reduce the shitpost/spamming from meta only if the spammers/shitposters are here for maintaining the required posts. Cause there will be a significant downfall in signature bounty hunters.

If theymos implement this system, shitpost will be increased, because-
The problem arised (spamming meta) because of hunting merits actually. It has been increased decently after the new requirements applied. So, requiring 10 merits will make people more hungry for hunting merit which will result more spamming.

Right now, I have nothing to suggest. The only thing we can do- Recognise merit beggars and stop engaging with those. Don't merit a person in meta who is showing concern or writing post for having merit. Although it will be tough for most of the sMerit sender.
I will update once I get any idea.

totally agree with this point - I nearly sent a merit to a bounty spammer earlier because he made a funny post.

I support this, and I've been suggesting it for several months.

I'm not in favor of restricting or removing posting rights for lower ranked members in Meta, or in any other board for that matter. I don't think it's fair to punish the handful of interested and non-shitposting newbies because of the actions of others. I am, however, in favor of removing signatures from everything below Member rank, requiring 10 merits (or perhaps more) to display a signature. This does not restrict anyone from getting involved in the forum, and means only the good newbies will ever rank up enough to join a campaign, thereby greatly reducing campaign spamming.

TMAN is right, however - the word is spreading that Meta is the place to go to earn merits. Just look at this thread from a few hours ago in Altcoin Discussion: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/can-i-earn-a-merit-on-altcoins-section-5046582



We need to be selective about handing out merits to beggars, whilst also reporting these threads for deletion.

I think the better solution is to study the merit distribution for each board?  If the merit distribution is almost equal in each board (we know the drill, Meta board is one of the highest merit distribution hence it really attracts people who want to rank up) then there is no need to be biased in one board over the other.  I said it before, I think there is a need to study the effect of merit system to the "migration of spammers" (going from one board to the more famous board where they can earn merit).

I have made post about that for disable signature below member rank all over forum. To be honest , removing signature will not resolve spam but it will reduce. Whatever you make rules there will be few rules breaker. Never mind how strong your rules. But remove signature no one will make unnecessary post.



Everyone have right to appeal his account. So newbie should be allow, should not force people to buy copper membership. However here could create sub-board. Like "Account related help " . Then we can restrict below member rank. But I am not encourage that, everyone have right to share his thought about forum.

Meta is supposed to be accessible to all ranks to ask about or discuss issues with the forum itself, so I am more in o_e_l_e_o's camp that adding one or more dedicated mods for this section is the best solution. After all, meta is one of the busiest sections on the forum and there really ought to be a few mods in every section, spread out among widely separate time zones.

That said, as long as you at least glance at the first page of an unfamiliar user's post history to check for "good projekt" shitposts and bounty reports before doling out a merit there shouldn't be much of a problem with ranking up undesirables.

Also, several of us have nailed quite a few newbies that strayed into meta for plagiarism; they came here to whine about getting demoted or just outright beg for merits and left with an eviction notice.

Finally, I wouldn't disable the display of signatures because it often provides useful context to a post. For example, some sig campaigns will hire anyone - privcy and eloncity come to mind - so if I see one of those sigs I am more inclined to check the user's post history for plagiarism, shitposting, etc.

People shouldn't stop giving merits in here but they should stop meriting merit beggars who come in here to either whine at merit or fake 'agree' that it's a great system in the hope that they get one (which a lot of time they have been even though you know they're probably crying with rage behind the keyboard but are just smart enough to know that complaining won't be as effective).


Disabling signatures in this sub board isn't going to stop them fishing for merits here. Most of them are Newbies who can't even have a signature until they get a merit and that's why they post here looking for them, but there are worse boards for sig spam. Why aren't you making the case that we remove signatures from Bitcoin Discussion since that's the sub board with the most spam and has been ruined the most? Removing signatures from there would surely resolve that?

Restrict accounts below Member rank from posting in Meta. Someone with a Copper Membership can post as well since there can be people getting banned or hacked who would want to open a thread in Meta to get their problems resolved.
Accounts that are banned mostly don't deserve any consideration since they are rule breakers, and users that get hacked should be able to pay $10 or so for a Copper Membership if they really think their account is precious for them. So I don't think it would be a lot to ask for people in both of these situations.

At risk of sounding like a stuck record, more strict moderation/dedicated board mod in Meta, rapidly moving/trashing any low-value, begging, whining, or repeated threads, and locking threads that have been answered.

I'd like to promote the beginners' board, political, serious discussion, and the Ivory Tower. I'd be happy to work with you to improve quality there by awarding merits. If you want to discuss it privately, then comment on Blab chat, I still visit that daily.

For me , it will better disable signature from meta(imo). So it will reduce spam post. But I don't think it will happen. Regarding handover merit, it's depends on merit source and high rank member's.  They should concentrent others board as you said. There is quality post but need spend time to find. Obviously few members are trying to change posting behaviour. We should also need to welcome new member's. After implement new merit system I am trying to spend merit few new quality poster instead of send merit to high ranks.

I guess more or less we all are guilty for this.



Lately I am avoiding meta for some reasons and this is one of it. It went worse after the 1 merit requirement introduced for Jr. Member.

May be it's time for us to find good posts on the Bitcoin Discussion board. Encourage the posters to post there (good posts of-course)

The situation with shit threads is only going to get worse. They are adapting and just posting worthless shit in here now, its a shame as meta will go downhill very quickly if we do not try to counteract it.
I am as guilty as anyone else and a large % of my merits get handed out here, But if we don't want meta to turn into a cesspit then I think we need to make a preemptive strike.

I would suggest that all the merit sources put a hold on giving merits in meta for a while, I know it will be hard as there is a ton of quality posts in here (mainly from Higher ranks). I personally think that a few of us should make the effort to be more active in the beginners sub if we tried it for a month or two and made the merit rain there for any non shitposters it should give us some breathing room in here.

anyone else have any thoughts or suggestions around this?