1. To attain ranks above Member, you'd have to earn some number of merit points. Merit points would be awarded in a monthly vote on best posts of the previous month, with various measures (TBD) to prevent gaming of the vote. Winning merit points might also come with a BTC prize.
How many users move from Member to Full Member each month? If it's thousands, it'll be a lot of work to vote.
i'd wholeheartedly agree to the idea of having a 'disable signatures' idea for thread starters; it'd be a simple fix for people who want an actual discussion that would eliminate a lot of spammers. however, i feel these threads would be 'covered up' really quickly by threads that allow signatures, just from the fewer number of users that would post in those threads, and would just die out real quick.
Could topics which have the "no signature" feature enabled get a higher ranking on their respective board, to make up for getting less posts? Or, as an alternative: give these topics a color that stands out on the board.
The earning merit points part could work to some extent, but I disagree with the BTC part because that wouldn’t improve anything, rather you would be overpaying people who are already writing quality posts and getting paid a lot.
Instead of a price in BTC, it could be some forum related perk. Maybe a permanent "Voted user of the month December 2017" in your profile?
The no signatures part I don't really like as that doesn't seem fair to advertisers. They, in theory, pay for quality posts in serious discussions that are far more likely to be read.
Signature campaigns already exclude certain sections from payment, it's obvious they wouldn't pay for sections that don't display their signature.
I would say
fixing a minimum char limits in some of the sections of forum will lower down huge no.of spammy posts that altcoin discussion bumpers or spammers make like:
Wow
...Interesting project.
The spammer would just make a longer post that's equally useless and takes longer to read.
- make post quality trust (like normal trust).
I'd like a simple +/- to click on each post, but if this is anonymous, I'm afraid it will be abused from alt-accounts much more than the current trust system.
I think approval for signatures should be done case-by-case basis by a team of members dedicated to do so.I know this doesn't sound feasible but if you had around 500+ members who could review accounts and somehow automate the process,we will only see quality posters with signatures.
This is something the signature campaign manager should do. Instead of reviewing every user, how about only reviewing the campaign managers
before they can manage a campaign?
I doubt anybody can really manage more than 100 posters simultaneously, which means they shouldn't take on more than they can manage.
6) If you can't fight them - join them, create new child board in "other" section - "spam here and build rank" that would decrease spam in all forum sections
Use this as a honey pot: after 6 months, ban everybody who posted there.
There will be a few two factor alternatives on the new gathering so I get why he hasn't tried coding them for this one, yet in the event that the new discussion is still 1+ years away I figure it would be advantageous executing asap. Requiring email check would be another progression in restricting or backing off record cultivating as it's simply one more band to bounce through.Should be Checked the interset rate of every members.
Anyone notice anything wrong with this post?
Yes. And I would have reported it, but given that you've seen it already, I didn't.
Why didn't you delete it? He's banned already.
Here's another wall of random words from the same user. His post quality is exactly what this topic is about, and he doesn't even know it.