Topic: Ideas for improving post quality? - page 8. (Read 4883 times)

Yeah, classic one-line Indonesian shitposter on yet another shitcoin ICO ran by someone I've never even heard of and quite possibly a hacked/purchased account to boot: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bountyico-crowdwiz-first-decentralized-self-governed-investment-ecosytem-2205425.

If campaign managers actually did their job properly you sorts of posters would never be allowed on a campaign in the first place and the forum wouldn't be such a wall-to-wall shitshow and hence why punishments need to be handed out to badly run campaigns. I'm really not sure why we let them get away with this. Shitposters get banned but campaigns don't? It's waste of time banning the thousands of shitposters without tackling the problem at its source. 

Ironic given that you're a shitposter yourself.

in my opinion, by removing the signature campaign globally is less effective. Better is improving the rules for installing a signature campaign. The more difficult the requirements will affect the mindset for spaming.

Like I posted above; theymos needs to rethink about what type of forum he wants and what type of forum he has. When he gets that clear all decisions become dead easy, including the decisions about what to do with spamming and corrupt moderators. Because then he can apply principles.

This will solve the issue. For me, 90% of signature campaign came from ICO projects on which some of them aren't paying in the end.

Not 500+ but make it at least 300 members for sig camp. And managers must implement rules to their participants about posting only single update on bounty thread for their bounty works e.g social media works etc.

Ready with users leaving? Real users have been leaving left and right for years. Who gives a damn about some 3rd world shitposters leaving? They are an epidemic to this place and are killing it from the inside.

We are definitely ripe for banning such examples.

It is a great idea but I am a little concerned about this.
Who will be the voters in case if it gets implemented?
This is a brilliant idea. I guess it will be better to work on it.

No.This would be a horrible idea. Theymos should publicly disclose all of the accounts that Lauda has ever owned, including those he has sold in the past.

Lauda is by far the most corrupt person within the community, and has exactly no morals.

The fact that lauda frequently shills for "core" will likely protect him from the above. Although it could be especially damaging if someone other than theymos were able to disclose the alts of Lauda, including those that participated in shady activity.

quite agree with the idea, but are you ready with a decrease in traffic and moving users to other similar forums?

bitcointalk forums are at the peak of traffic due to ICO promotion, the year before it can be said that this forum is only visited by certain people only

From 2011 sirius said it wayyy back then. "Now that we have thousands of posts a day,We can't afford 50% of them being junk"

Why has this CLEAR rational decision changed?    Answer : GREED

We allow paid Sig Ad Bullshit to any creature that finds their way to the forum. As long as this BS continues the forum will continue to degrade and lose true Members.

It has become a cluster fuck of Spam.

Ban the Sig Ad. Campaigns....The forum will take a hit at first but then it will come back as Real users understand it's a Forum to find and discuss relevant information Regarding BTC

1+1 = 2680 bumped topics today.

1) Add more moderators to these boards  

---

2) Don't allow junior members/members/full members to wear payed signature
3) Don't allow ICO bounties to accept 500+ members
4) Ban account sales/ re-edit for third time   - don't ban account sales. Ban sold accounts.
5) Add moderators to every single local board
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
7) Ban all users who cheated signature campaigns

9) I can't post reason number 8 because 8 is cool
10) Thrash ALL identical topics - example can we use bitcoin without internet & no internet no bitcoin!!!  
I would also go with this:



And not only what I wrote in that message  

To be honest I would personally go only with 1).

IMHO

the signature char need to be limited for Member, Full Member, Sr, Member, Hero, Leg.

Even if shit posting is too much your eyes will not be irritated.

is a nice idea.

Every body is suggesting something to restrict people, let us beggars be, when people jump their wives and produce more jumpers or to be jumped people, what would their government do? they will let them to grow, study and work, and pay taxes, they will use that tax to hire more people to keep every body safe and to enforce the rules of law. we have the rules with not enough enforcers, so if a lowlife beggar like me is earning $500 per month without paying for maintenance, you'll get exhausted resources.
Forum needs more moderators, hire them with the money you would charge every member wearing a paid signature, make them buy activity coins/tokens (note, I'm not talking about the same activity tokens I made on Waves) hey beggar, you want to post with a signature? go to this page and pay with BTC Ð Ξ ɱ Ł equivalent of $1 per future post, then every low rank beggar would beg campaigns to pay more, because they are paying $1 tax per post, the manager would say: don't beg, we're paying $1.5 per post and if you don't like it, you can leave.

Beggars would never leave because they have no other place to go, they will wear the signature and start shitposting, just like they (we) are doing it now, but with a noticeable difference, a lot of moderators are active and they would ban any shitposter.

EDIT: look at this beggar, he has a rare version of Bitcoin which is better and faster, a self moderated thread, also a Hero member has posted a list of nodes, organized shitcoin creation cartels, banning them would also help to improve this community.

26 out of 44 posts in this topic, their writers are participating in signature campaign. The same goes for the majority of the topics.
Removing signature will make the new applications drop hugely, spammers will disappear (find another forums to spam), the active members will be reduced significantly, the same goes for ads view and so on.
The first suggestion is a radical one but the consequence is lethal.

Paying to wear signature? Maybe for new participants under full members.

Banning account sales, well it will do nothing, a new/oother forum will pop-up and we will see bitcointalk.org accounts being sold there.

The prize thing is good but will have nothing to do with spam. I am afraid that the same people will win it over and over. (maybe once per year for 1 account?)

Serious sections? Ok but a new one(s) definitely.

I think that is not right to give other the chance to just pay so that they will be able to use the account without worrying about the activity. It is unfair,  I always think that with this forum people will learn how to push themselves to comply with rules and learn to discipline themselves. Let the rules of the forum be as it is and let the members do their best to comply with it.  

something like this will not help us to be honest,
because we just need to pay something in order to enable our signature space.
what we are aiming for this time is to improve our post quality which mean we need something to prevent it.


i think it's not a bad idea overall but it need some correction,
it would be better for Newbies who want to rank up and do not need to put some prize behind it.
with this we can stop a newly reborn account and their shit post
something like this
i believe it's not only me who saw something like this

It is basically not so difficult.

1. Define 'spam'.
2. 'Hire' enough moderators to moderate every section.

For the rest:
- Merit points: Like trust, merit is a very subjective concept.  And already the trust system is abused by a subjective few who have been given trust power.
- Ban signatures (or paying for them, or let only a lucky few wear them): Signature bounties are not the only reason why visitors spam. They also spam to climb the ranking ladder with its advantages, sometimes airdrops require visitors to spam, and sometimes visitors are simply not very intelligent or knowledgeable, or is their English not very well developed. I also don't like the idea of giving signature power to an elite few members. See my previous point. You'll get an even more incensteous group of green happy few than now is the case. Then you might as well close the forum for everyone except the happy few. Problem solved.

More basically and principially however than the above I think that you (theymos) need to go into contemplation and think about the type of political system and constitution you want to have on this forum (anarchy, democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, police forum, constitutional forum, etc.) and then analyse what the present situation is. When that is clear questions as above become much easier to answer.

And yes, it's likely that the last remark would have cost me negative merit points if such power was installed already with a subjective happy few.

I would be ok to pay a monthly/yearly fee to have the signature space enable. Something like $150 per year maybe.
A lot of shitposts come from ICO/Altcoins It may an idea to warn the people behind and maybe ban their campaign or something around.

Very Logical.

While I'm okay with the idea, 'voting' part turns me off.If the votes would be carried out publicly,there are higher chances of alts/shill accounts voting each other or getting votes by paying others.


That would be kind of unfair to people who genuinely want to contribute to the topic but don't have a higher rank.Restricting signatures or members would have exceptions like a very good quality poster may have a signature and would definitely add good inputs to the topic.

Topic creators can still start self-moderated threads and impose those rules in the post.

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.

Not really, i've seen plenty of spammers simply spouting more nonsense just so they have 75-100 chars. They will just adapt and make their sentences a bit longer with even more nonsense.

I really doubt that that is going to solve anything.


Or simply remove the potential activity from Offtopic/Politics/Local Boards.