Topic: Easier newbie integration (Read 1340 times)

Ok then you guys have convinced me, its is probably good as it is for now.

But I hope in the future we will see some improvements to reduce spam and to increase quality for newbies as well, a good balance.

Finally, a 'new member' that confirms it. The situations in which one would need to post under 6 minutes are rare, especially at the lower ranks. As far as any longer thread is concerned: If you are able to formulate a post in a very short amount of time, you are most likely just spamming for some reason (e.g. signature spam). However, I can image a situation in which the limitation might be problematic, e.g. one in which a newbie creates a thread and asks a question or two. However, this would imply that someone would both read and reply to the thread within 6 minutes as well (ergo the limitation 'comes down to less').

---

---

Update: Rewritten parts of post.

Well, i have a brand new registration, though have been reading some threads for about a year. As a newbie i can tell that reading throu this topic took about 5 mins and forming a readable post about 1 more minute. And this is definitely NOT the longest and most complicated topic on the forum. So i am quite comfortable with this posting limit, as i have more to read here than to post.

There are usually no valid reasons to post again under that time limit,unless you are both involved and reading multiple threads simultaneously. The people who tend to create a 'burst of posts' in threads that they are not involved with are usually spammers.

As soon as you rank up you will forget about it.

When I was a newbie posted and taken 5 min to post again I was extremely annoyed that I thought about leaving the forum and not return more

very annoying to have to wait 5 minutes to post, but I got used.

Today the newbie are registered because they want to disclose anything, so create an account for this purpose, but has old accounts

I believe that to do not have a negative reputation in their old accounts

You had a guide telling people to use 4 accounts with signature campaigns, even comparing it to a job.   I don't think it was right, it does not help forum at all.  You came to meta and got feedback.  Meta you get feedback on your idea with past posts considered.

Your idea with having a guide pushing 4 accounts each person... made it seem you are very pro spammer/crap posts.  I give you some points for taking it down though.   But It is very fair to bring up that you had that guide when pushing for what you are.  So criticism yes... but fair to bring up?  Yes.

Your ideas just will not happen due to spammers and the type of people that followed a guide like you had.  Waiting I think as new account due to all good it does.  If it lasted forever I would have agreed with you.  But it goes down the longer they stay and post on forum.   So it really does prevent spam and a lot of bad things.

And registration is already good with bad IP's.  Sure you can add capatcha but the bad IP's and evil points do far more and it's already in place.

It was just a criticism because you are telling everyone else what to do, which is a bit annoying sometimes.

---

My guides are just informative for education purposes. My goal is only to help bitcoin succeed, and for that we need the newbies participation rate to increase.

We can deal with spam in other ways too, but if we lose thousands of newbies because they get bored or lose interest because of the hardness to integrate then its a big loss. And sometimes its hard to quantify, we see how many people join bitcoin, but we dont see how many people we lose in bitcoin.

So i`m sure there are ways to optimize the costs and benefits of more newbies joining us, and make bitcoin more accesible for everyone.

Do I like it better .... yes.  That guide telling people to get 4 accounts was not good for anyone.   So I think you did right thing pulling it vs just locking. 

Not sure why the My lord part.  If you make a suggestion in meta be prepared for feedback.  When you want to lower new account post time and have written in past a guide on basically spam.... you feedback might not be what you want.  But as you can see most think it's more then fair to keep the current timer to stop spam, and sig spammers in low levels.

Most people spam here because they want to earn from sig campaigns. Earning is not bad in itself, it's just the low quality posts that newbies usually make at first that neccesitates the restriction. As they get used to the system and learn from others, they will make more quality posts and everybody will be happy. So for now, the six minutes restriction is serving a purpose.

Are you happy now my Lord?

When I was a newbie I was here to learn about Bitcoin. Actually I still consider myself a newbie. I had absolutely no problem waiting 6 minutes to post a thought. Actually, to tell you the truth I never even noticed that limitation. I read a lot and didn't post often.

I've been logged into this forum for 14 days, 5 1/2 hours and I have 280 posts. That's 1.22 hours (or 1h13m) per post. If you're really here as a newbie and not trying to make a quick buck for posting nonsense then you'll have a similar ratio. If you've been logged in 10 hours and you have 1000 posts you're clearly not here to learn anyways, so the topic of less time between posts for newbies becomes irrelevant.

If your truly not pushing it anymore unlock thread get rid of guide on front and put how you changed your mind and re-lock.   As of now you still have a guide up supporting multiple accounts (4 per person), and I believe pro spam in many ways.

As of now someone can search and it still shows your guide you were very supportive until last post.     You have to admit a person who made a guide like that is not the one we should be getting suggestions on loosening new accounts as not long ago you fully supported 4 per person.

I`m not pushing that anymore, its locked as you can see. I changed my mind about that.

However I still think newbies should integrate easier. I`m sure there are other ways to reduce spam, we should not be close minded about this.

1) Should be here and should not change.  There is just to much spam if you allow new accounts to post quickly. They already post as much as they can before getting spotted.  Asking to wait 6 minutes to make a constructive post at a brand new user is not much to ask.   It is great how it is also prevents someone from trying to farm 10 posts in a few minutes.  They have to at least wait a hour... which is good.   Good outweighs the bad by far.

I think this would help spam and account farmers, neither of which I really care for them to change rules to help.

2.  The registration page is MUCH more complex then you are thinking.  They have "bad IP's" and it charges to make on bad IP's based on amount of bad things.  But registration is fine the way it is.  Those trying to cheat it likely are having to use proxy's and I would guess could type in capatcha's.  Might be some automated on sign up... but I would guess more successful farmers are manual.



I find it kinda funny someone who pushes new people to get multiple accounts and join sig campaigns is suggesting this - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tutorial-earn-bitcoin-here-1424958  

He suggests for new people to have 4 accounts "7❱ Buy 3 more accounts, sign up those too, that will be around 80 posts/day which can be done in 7-8 hours like a dayjob. Work only 7 hours/day only and you can earn 0.84BTC/month (350$)! It can be a full time job if you are dedicated, but remember no spam or you get banned!" So suggesting a total of 4 accounts.

Standard user should not be pushed to 4 accounts but one and in time get lesser and lesser posting limitations.

IM spam doesn't work. You can't even message me without being close to my circles (if I had an account that is; but this is how it used to work for me) as these messages will never reach me.

Exactly what has this 'free market' done to prevent the spam so far? All that we have is a few (very few) members that occasionally report spammers that they find. Everything else, is up to the moderators.

Well both actually, because there is a restriction on PM's for newbies as well, however that I`d leave as it is (because that is clearly a spam vector).

However facebook posting is similar to forum posting in that sense.



Well its not me who has to provide it but the free market.

My theory would be that if more people join, and become engaged, they might spam, up to the point where there would be too many people enrolled in sig campaigns, and the sig campaign payout/post would be so low, that almost all sig campaigns would switch to fixed weekly payments.

Then the spam would drastically lower, and people would not be incentivized again to post like crazy, instead they would just wear the signature comfortably, and get paid every week for it.

At this point would spam really go away, because the incentive ceases. This way we keep both the sig campaigns and the newbie's interest in the forum.

I disagree. Unless if you mean posts on pages which are different since you were talking about IM.

You aren't providing solutions to this problem while you suggestions makes it easier (i.e. makes it worse). Until you provide adequate solutions I will have to strongly disagree with the suggestion.

Not directly, but there are 3rd party services that pay/post, so i bet there is tons of spam there too, with financial incentive.




No, because then people will come up with other ways to spam , like paying people for shilling and stuff like that.

It's pretty hard to imagine spammers stopping, on a financially oriented forum, where you have decentralized peer to peer payment systems.

Its almost like begging to get spammed. However there could be more efficient methods to stop spam, i can think of some good ideas.

Facebook does not have 'pay-per-each message' and that is what makes a huge difference here.

Sure, ban signature campaigns completely and soften the restrictions. That could work.

Well people nowadays have higher expectations for IM.

Imagine if facebook chat would have a 6min post timer. I dont think restricting the frequency of posts in a discussion board is productive for it.

If spam is the big concern then there should be other ways to filter that, but not by restricting people to post.