Topic: BAN ALL SIG CAMPAIGNS - page 4. (Read 5597 times)

I don't really notice anything negative coming from it that is disruptive, nor do I care if someone ignores me because I have one. On the other hand, I wouldn't care if they banned it either, but that would be difficult to enforce on a case by case basis.. it would mean that anyone who mentions any coin in their sig could technically be campaigning for it.

If you want annoying signatures, try the wrestling forum. Large animated gifs taking up megs of bandwidth that show women jiggling their butts and other assorted space hogging nonsense.  The sigs here are not intrusive, and if people post replies just for the sake of pumping their garbage, it's not something I notice enough to care about.

of course they are, but a fair amount of users are just spamming the boards, posting rubbish, and just copying articles from other places as they get paid per post, and they are a large part of the everyday user base. They make it harder for the people offering good advice, and discussions on coins and hardware because its filled with paid spam.

From the perspective of the owners of this forum, they would likely lose a lot more members than they would gain by doing this, and thus they would lose money. Therefore, I doubt this will happen. But I agree that it would make for a higher quality forum.

Avoid generalizing signature campaign members just because you hate them. A certain post can be judge subjectively depending on how a certain person sees it but still there were cases that a single post can be proven nonsensical at the first time you sees it. If you were going to blame someone, then blame those who unjustly and intentionally posting spammed comments or just trolling the community. I sometimes didn't reach my quota on posting and I am not paid sometimes but I don't mind it because I only post when I'm feel like to post but not I'm obligated to complete it.

It's just another form of advertising. I think moderation is what needs to be improved.

SMAS.

Well, if theymos don't see signature spam problem, why sig campaigns should be banned?
If bitcointalk would disable signature campaigns, I'm sure that forum would loose big part of traffic. It's obvious that theymos don't want it
If you don't want to see posts made by people who are wearing paid signatures, just use DannyHamilton ignore list.
Signature spam is serious problem and reading posts made by spammers is just waste of time. But still, there are many good guys with paid signatures, even some staff members wearing it.

That's pretty much sums up general internet in 2017.

I get 0.04 a week,if you call that a pathetic amount in bitcoins,you're too rich for this forum.
(Shouldn't your name be on the donator list already?)

You did your part,really that helped in the Fight Against The Spam Combat so much.

They don't undermine the forum's advertisements.
A lot of people come here for the signature campaigns. Traffic is what drives the forum's advertisements as well.

Stricter rules aren't needed when the manager of a certain campaign just selects non spammers. Non spammers have a natural posting behavior, they don't show any signs of ignorance when it comes to the rules of this forum, they don't chain quote others, they don't post with half broken English, they are correcting others where needed, they write with decent sentence formatting, etc. Seriously, a quick look into someone's recent post history is enough to see what kind of poster it is. And mostly when spammers get banned/kicked from a campaign, they confirm that they only post to get paid by suddenly stopping with posting completely, or they stop posting as frequent as they used to do.

Agreed that they should be banned. They encourage too many low quality posts. It also undermines the forum's very own advertisements.

Not really, no. You shouldn't be a signature campaign manager in the first place if you're not competent enough to combat spam. A simple solution, to at least avoid a fair amount of users would be to adopt the SMAS list:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/smas-signature-managers-against-spam-light-version-1545652

That will be Time Consuming and its not worth the effort to go through each and a single reply and try to make sense of the response. The current system is flawed. If there were only some kind of voting system for each reply just like reddit, Only replies with X amount of Upvotes will be considered to be eligible for the payment. Also instead of sorting the replies by "time", They should be sorted by their "upvotes". That's one way of only getting the job done.

I feel this is too drastic. One compromise would be for sig campaign managers to implement stricter rules when it comes to posting. Only constructive and sensical posts should be considered eligible for payment.

But I do see the problem with the increase in non-sensical posts. Quite annoying actually.

Oh come on drop all pretense already. Everyone is posting on this forum for their financial interests only. Users, mods, admins, the whole package. It doesn't matter if you have more green than the Brazil national flag. This forum is one gigantic artificial advertisement and nothing more.

While it may be hypocritical of me to say so, I believe that the fault is left on the higher management of this forum rather than the signature campaign themselves. theymos doesn't care about signature spammers polluting the forum, which as a result has it so that every other staff member cannot do anything about it without going against his word. I already know of at least one staff member that has adopted the "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude, mostly due to theymos' distance from the actual problems that are arising on the forums that he manages.

However, the forum is getting consistent ad revenue, so there is obviously nothing going wrong.

---

As for how to actually fix the problem, there is little that you can do about the lack of higher management. I know that several staff members have attempted to reach out to theymos about the issue or even try to battle the issues themselves. Sadly, these fixes either garner controversy or simply have limited effects.
There are a few ways that you could go about changing things from a user's perspective. You could try to maintain an ignore list like DannyHamilton or gadman2. However these could have limited use and require a fairly high amount of maintenance with updating. Another way that you could go about tackling this is by modifying the Signature adblock script to hide all posts that meet the criteria set by the program. If you are unsure how to do this, I could try to throw together an edit for you.

One final word however, while signature spam is a problem not all users wearing a paid signature are spammers. Users such as shorena and achow101 have given/give valuable input to the forum whilst wearing a paid signature. Regardless of what method you go about using, it could be worthwhile white listing some members from it to retain as much value as you can on the forum.

Well if you are so mad with sig campaigns then you can either report these people and them to your ignore list or do what DannyHamilton does.

He just chose to ignore every signature member lol.
Take a look:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/my-personal-ignore-list-973843

It has been discussed many times before already, and the result remains the same ~ signature campaigns will not be banned.

I can only agree with the high level of spam here. For a while it was reduced to a certain extent, but I must note that it has become worse in the last weeks.

It's likely a combination of sold accounts and newbies joining here due to the increased price. It's difficult to find a thread that is worth posting in, or a poster that is worth quoting.

ban all sig campaigns is not a good idea. ban spammer could be the best option.

I'm a hypocrite but I agree with you.  My attitude at the end of 2015 was "If you can't beat em, join em".  But English is my only language and I don't plop nonsensical scuntposts every 20 seconds.   

If this forum did away with campaigns,  I'd still post here.   It's a good idea.