Topic: Ideas for improving post quality? - page 4. (Read 4811 times)

It will increase your work load and you will be required more staff in order to execute your plan. Lots of planning and manpower will be required to roll out your rules. I would suggest to make their rank to lower one if your team found anyone spamming.

If all of these solutions are 'stopgap' then what would you suggest, oh wise one?

Not being able to have a large flashy signature doesn't impair someone's freedom of speech.

Because the two systems are completely separate and irrelevant to each other. Forum moderaters and DT members are not the same, and therefore one has no need to follow the guidelines of the other. It's shocking that someone questioning principle and free speech cannot grasp this extremely simple concept.
By the rules, scamming is allowed on this forum. Do you suggest that we stop tagging scammers, just because the forum rules (which aren't even official) don't explicitly say it's wrong? If that's the case, why bother even having a trust system? Are you starting to understand how silly and misinformed your argument is yet?

People care not about principles and thorough solutions. They want stopgap solutions. This thread proves it. Theymos must simply decide about his political utopia and construct the forum accordingly. Hilariousetc opts for some kind of oligarchic system where the rich get it all and the poor get nothing. Is that Theymos's ideal? Fine. He apparently doesn't like full freedom of speech. Fine. It's his forum. But it is not built upon principles. Just an example: Theymos allows multiple accounts but at the same time he allows it that some trust moderators punish users with multiple accounts. That's not coherent policy. I know. Nobody cares about a principle post like this. They will just turn to their stopgap remedies again. Probably Theymos included. However I say that this forum needs a thorough reconstruction.

I agree with hilariousetc. Of all the ideas discussed in this thread, it really is the only thing that I can see making any difference. It would be great to know what theymos thoughts are and what if any objection he has to at least trialling it.

Theymos, are you against requiring payment for signatures as the only way to get them, or would you not be ok with offering them alongside being able to rank up naturally? Copper Membership seems to have been a small success and if you offered other memberships alongside current ranks similar to the perks of Full Members or Heroes etc I'm sure they would be even an bigger success. Let's be honest here, the vast majority of people only join this forum for signature campaigns and their only intention is to rank up in whatever capacity they can so why not give them the option just to skip the que rather than posting rubbish over x amount of time? People are either just going to lazily spam their way through ranks or just buy an account from a farmer or hacker so why not let them purchase it from the forum instead? That money could be put to good use and to finance other valuable projects that will benefit the greater community. It's win-win in my opinion and I don't see any negatives of it at all.


Why don't we at least trial something like a better donator rank than Copper Membership? I really don't see any issue with allowing users to purchase the equivalent rank from us under a different donator name. Either there could be one or two ranks that give you the same benefits as a Full Member and Hero member or we could offer some sort of premium rank that can only be achieved by buying it or maybe it can also be given out as a reward for great contributors. What I would suggest is it gives you some really great perks that you can't get in any other way. The biggest one I can think of is having the ability to have an image/jpg banner in your signature. I think campaigns would pay a premium for this one as it would be easier to create than a signature code. Maybe also give them a changeable custom title like Global mods have with a clickable url or something. That's one more thing that can add value to their account and would be worthwhile to advertisers. Buying this premium rank could also give you benefits like the ability to have an avatar and the possibility to change your name etc.

You can find it ethically wrong all you want but Newbies aren't a race of people that are being discriminated against. They're new users who haven't learned the rules yet and often don't play by them hence why there needs to be certain restrictions put on them until they get used to the forum because most of the abuse is committed by them. Everyone starts off as a newbie and the restrictions were much harsher when I signed up but they actually worked pretty well as some sort of quarantine so we didn't have newbies signing up here and spreading their shit questions all over the forum: "why is my activity stuck", "wat is sign camp", "how do I earn money online", "do you liek blueberries" all posted in Bitcoin Discussion.


Shadowbanning has been discussed before but it wouldn't really work as most people would figure it out pretty fast, especially those with alts as many of the new users who sign up here have multiples of.



Well this is the whole problem isn't it. Signature campaigns managers aren't punished and any old shitposter can join a campaign. These are the two things that need to change at a minimum. I've always said that if campaign managers only accepted quality users then campaigns would actually clean up the forum and not just pollute it but as long as we let anyone advertise here for free with no repercussions for the spam they cause then nothing will change.


Yeah, theymos isn't going to do this, but I agree some extra hoops to go through would be helpful. I think even simple things like requiring email verification would go a long way in curbing or stopping bots and account farmers.

Good stuff - that is what makes you part of the shit posters brigade: not reading anything besides OP, adding something that was already said and then leaving thread for good  

And yes 90-99% of shitposters are from the 3rd world.
I understand them for doing that but it still destroys the forums post quality - but i already wrote that before, you just didnt read. Lol



Ps: The oceans of content is filled with an army from asian, african, south american and middle eastern shit posters and bounty hunters  

Stop distinguishing poverty by assuming it only originates from "third world countries". That's like claiming everyone born in first world country is immune to such issues. If that were the case Trump wouldn't be in power. Most of us here have already seen or known many who are from "first world countries" and still shitpost the forum to scam people and or just to make some cash off their signature space.

A thriving shitposting economy is actually good for the forum as it increases overall activity and brings in new eyeballs. But yes, some moderation is definitely required.

---

How about this?

Create a Post quality feature. One that automatically takes into account :

• The number of characters that are in the post itself
• Frequency of replies
• Vote counts

And that brings me to the other feature request. A post/reply voting/liking/thanking method.

Sort of like a Like button. The more of those one post gets, the better are its odds of getting a high post quality rating.

The campaign managers can up their ante in signature campaigns where people with the highest quality post ratings, say between 7 - 10 are only eligible to participate - irrespective of their member rank.

---

If you take out the ranking game from signature campaigns, then people would be more interested in posting good stuff & get their post quality rating up, rather than shitposting and increasing their member activity to get to a higher rank.


PS: I am posting this, without reading the existing messages here, so do overlook any aspects of my message that may have already been discussed.

No kidding.  I've reported a few of that cockroach's posts, as they're all nonsense run-on sentences, poorly conceived and poorly written.

I'd say just try something.  Even if it turns out not to work, then at least there'll be evidence of something not working.  The way it's going, bitcointalk is totally useless for discourse.  I don't want to attend a Pakistani family reunion and join in their conversation--no offense to Pakis, but it's not my culture or language and this IS an english-language forum.  You really ought to know the language if you're going to be posting here.

Charge a fee for posting a topic in bounties.

And this topic about improving post quality soon will become full of low quality replies like this one :/
What's the point of this topic if any of ideas posted which was posted here will be used...

I think it's too hard to improve posts quality. No one thinks same thing like the other. Some comments you think they're low quality but with the others they're good quality. We can't force anyone think the same thing like us.
P.S: Sorry for my bad english

Posted this in an separate Thread but some said its sbetter to post my ideas here, so i will do that now.
Maybe there are some ideas you like

I feel there's no way out.
You ban signature, people will go for paid to advertise.
If you ban IP/account, there will be use of VPN, proxies and multiple ids. (We can't ban proxies and VPN because it's the right of a user)
If you let mods decide the quality of post, it will not be possible everytime and will further bring arguments.

I think a retweet  and/or favourite tool can cater for the concept of voting. The post that is retweeted/favorited  most gets awarded. I like the idea about "serious discussion". We can all learn from such a segment.

Maybe make a system similar to overwatch in CS:GO?
Few trusted members in the community will be selected as the jurors, when someone pressed "Report" Button on a post that he think is a low quality post the Jurors will get to review those said post and vote whether that said post is low quality or not.
If the majority says the post is low quality, the post will be deleted and the user will be warned via PM, 3 warns and he will get perma-banned.
This will encourage the community to fight spam personally, and should be efficient in combating low quality posts.

I also see that many newbies account are created solely for advertising purposes by sending mass PMs or spams in topics.
Maybe restrict Newbies account from posting links?
When Newbies are posting links it will show up as [redacted] on his post.

Although, I do agree to Theymos's idea to implement forum section that does not have signature, this should be implemented in forum section that has the most spammers in it *cough*Bitcoin Discussion *cough*

I did that once when I was a newbie, saying thanks to someone who approached me decently. A moderator removed my post...  

I think some comments on this very same thread show how bad the situation is. Here we have a thread opened by the owner of the site about improving post quality and even on it we have people writing crap.


That guy probably doesn’t bother coming back here to see the replies. I’ve sometimes made mistakes when commenting and when some other members have pointed them out, I’ve acknowledged them in latter posts or I have edited the post adding a note like: “Edited thanks to such and such.”

If that is happening on this thread you can imagine how the rest of the forum is. I’m glad I’m not too interested in alts, so I hardly ever visit the alts section, which seems to be the biggest source of spam.

Hilarious! I've seen them posting allright. It are often not the type of posts I as a newbie could or would learn from. Crookedness is not the goal of my personal development.  

The few decent and fair high ranking posters are of course exempted from the above.

It also helps to read more than just the topic title, so you'd know Legendary Administrator theymos isn't asking how he can improve his post quality.