Topic: Ideas for topic ordering in altcoin announcements? (Read 18937 times)
@theymos any chance of this to be implemented anytime soon?
Many good suggestions have already been made.
Let me just weigh in, going through posts on the altcoin ANN board, there is no much merit distribution, so I do not think that should be considered when deciding which stays in top.
To reduce bumping posts should only be highlighted once it gets a unique comment. Otherwise it slips down the page.
Let me just weigh in, going through posts on the altcoin ANN board, there is no much merit distribution, so I do not think that should be considered when deciding which stays in top.
To reduce bumping posts should only be highlighted once it gets a unique comment. Otherwise it slips down the page.
Most yes, but not all. I don't think an auto-lock is the way to go, as you will end up killing some threads that will still have interesting discussion going on. Hopefully the proportion of interesting threads will increase with some of these new measure being put in place, and so the number of "false positives" that an automatic system would lock would increase. Better instead to just have a couple of dedicated mods for these boards who can increase spam removal, which will stop many threads reaching this point in the first place, and manually check and lock the ones which still become spamfests.
To be honest, I rarely get there something worthy. I remember recently LoyceV and Suchmoon have merited two different post which also not too interesting to me, but those were at least real discussion, not something by the sig spammers. Although I have never participated in altcoin discussion, I check some of the time when I get enough time. I am looking for investing couple of bucks in altcoins.If we think about moderating the board with more dedicated mods, in that case, we need at least 3 mods who will be only do this tasks. I doubt 3 can cover. You know you will not find your thread after 1 minute of posting, jk.
Most of the altcoins board threads are flooded with 20 pages or more with the same shit. I think an auto-lock after a certain page would probably work.
Most yes, but not all. I don't think an auto-lock is the way to go, as you will end up killing some threads that will still have interesting discussion going on. Hopefully the proportion of interesting threads will increase with some of these new measure being put in place, and so the number of "false positives" that an automatic system would lock would increase. Better instead to just have a couple of dedicated mods for these boards who can increase spam removal, which will stop many threads reaching this point in the first place, and manually check and lock the ones which still become spamfests.
I agreed to the idea for ordering the topic as suggested ,but there will be repercussions of it that the topics of the most influential members who are having certainly a good intellect and knowledge will dominate the whole forum and the space for understanding and experiencing for the lower grade members will be shrunk and the attachment to the forum and new membership may jeoparadise.
1. Disable posting on altcoin announcements below Jr. member rank. Keep only read mode for newbie rank.
It would never be a solution. Can you imagine someone needs to be a member just to post in altcoin discussion will look how much shady? Newbie will just leave the forum while theymos is planning to attract newbie (people who care about decentralization and crypto) here through youtube promotion.Most of the altcoins board threads are flooded with 20 pages or more with the same shit. I think an auto-lock after a certain page would probably work.
a minimum of Sr. Member and up must be eligible as they are the most experience here in the forum, not all but mostly.
There are a lot of Legendary with a lot of shits. And there are a lot of newbies who are more experienced than those so called Legendaries.it's almost over a year now i request you please remove your negative now i am senior here i understand how things works here though i reported constantly scammers on bitcointalk when i found.hoe you understand Thanks
Hello, I think you should read this thread- What makes a post a HQ post. What makes a post a LQ post. ? merit - lets see?? 
I like the idea of putting some fees to those poster that will make an ANN with rules to be followed.
let them manage their own thread so that they are oblige to maintain the spammers or else they will be locked for a specific amount of time or even pay for a penalty.
Voting Up and Down a thread would be great too but a minimum of Sr. Member and up must be eligible as they are the most experience here in the forum, not all but mostly. It needs to be transparent so people can see who up or down voted.
let them manage their own thread so that they are oblige to maintain the spammers or else they will be locked for a specific amount of time or even pay for a penalty.
Voting Up and Down a thread would be great too but a minimum of Sr. Member and up must be eligible as they are the most experience here in the forum, not all but mostly. It needs to be transparent so people can see who up or down voted.
Adding UP/DOWN button for each post and then sorting posts with that filter would be great idea
That's far too easy to abuse and manipulate. It would quickly result in a market for entire armies of newbie alts and bots to upvote your thread and downvote your competitors' threads for a price.
Adding UP/DOWN button for each post and then sorting posts with that filter would be great idea, however I think less people will use this option and possibly we will see some good posts filtered out. Merit is implemented for some months, not short period... I think currently that, your second vertion is good idea. People like you, gmaxwell, achow101 and very helpful users have much merits, it will be great to see their posts because there is very high chance it won't contain spam.
In my opinion, the idea of theymos is perfect. The current trust rating of a user should also be taken in consideration. The only problem is a posting warnings in ANN threads. My solution is to use verified alt accounts for posting warnings.
To verify an alt account, a DT member who earned a lot of merits needs to create a new account named as, for example, "Username_warner" and to leave him a positive feedback, for example, "This is my alt account for posting warnings". If a scam is exposed, the DT member red tags the bounty manager and uses own verified alt account (Newbie or Jr. Member) to post a warning. In this case, the ANN thread will not be significantly bumped.
The idea of theymos is easy enough to implement. There is no need to modify the source code of the forum interface.
To verify an alt account, a DT member who earned a lot of merits needs to create a new account named as, for example, "Username_warner" and to leave him a positive feedback, for example, "This is my alt account for posting warnings". If a scam is exposed, the DT member red tags the bounty manager and uses own verified alt account (Newbie or Jr. Member) to post a warning. In this case, the ANN thread will not be significantly bumped.
The idea of theymos is easy enough to implement. There is no need to modify the source code of the forum interface.
I disagree completely with the proposal of trust effecting anything forum related. Trust should only be tied to trading and then it should be down to the person interested in doing business with them who ultimately decides whether its worth the risk or not. We should not be looking to put restrictions on those who have bad ratings. Just look at the amount of complaints the trust system has its a broken system which never turned out the way it was suppose too. Instead its been neglected and abused by the so called "DeafultTrust". There are several knee jerk feedback left on several accounts and some very highly trusted members have been involved in sending reactionary feedback.
In my opinion, the idea of theymos is perfect. The current trust rating of a user should also be taken in consideration. The only problem is a posting warnings in ANN threads. My solution is to use verified alt accounts for posting warnings.
To verify an alt account, a DT member who earned a lot of merits needs to create a new account named as, for example, "Username_warner" and to leave him a positive feedback, for example, "This is my alt account for posting warnings". If a scam is exposed, the DT member red tags the bounty manager and uses own verified alt account (Newbie or Jr. Member) to post a warning. In this case, the ANN thread will not be significantly bumped.
The idea of theymos is easy enough to implement. There is no need to modify the source code of the forum interface.
To verify an alt account, a DT member who earned a lot of merits needs to create a new account named as, for example, "Username_warner" and to leave him a positive feedback, for example, "This is my alt account for posting warnings". If a scam is exposed, the DT member red tags the bounty manager and uses own verified alt account (Newbie or Jr. Member) to post a warning. In this case, the ANN thread will not be significantly bumped.
The idea of theymos is easy enough to implement. There is no need to modify the source code of the forum interface.
You can enter "anti bump rating" for each account. When an account is seen in the shitposting and in bumping the topics, it receives a mark, an analogy of the red trust and in the future posts of such accounts do not buimp topics, permanently or temporarily.
Someone will have to place that mark on account and once account(usually newbie) get it they will move to new account. ~
400(500,600...) characters + 10(20,30...) earned merits + OP is allowed to do daily bump. 
You can enter "anti bump rating" for each account. When an account is seen in the shitposting and in bumping the topics, it receives a mark, an analogy of the red trust,
and in the future posts of such accounts do not buimp topics, permanently or temporarily.
Also it would be possible to introduce a system in which pamp topics are possible only from accounts that have a positive bump rating or a certain amount of merit.
and in the future posts of such accounts do not buimp topics, permanently or temporarily.
Also it would be possible to introduce a system in which pamp topics are possible only from accounts that have a positive bump rating or a certain amount of merit.
There's a strong incentive to spam replies to topics in altcoin announcements and a few other sections because there's a lot of activity and competition for eyeballs there. This spam should just be deleted, but I'd also like to remove the incentive by changing the default ordering of topics in those sections from "last post" to something new. (You'll still be able to click/bookmark something to get the old ordering.)
What are your ideas for new ordering methods? My current idea is:
1. For each topic, get a list of the distinct users who posted there in the last 24 hours.
2. Give the topic a score equal to the sum of each such user's total earned merit.
3. Sort by topic score descending, and secondarily by the usual last post time.
With that, you still have topics with recent conversation listed first, but it requires more resources to manipulate, at least, and newbies have no influence. Maybe it'd give certain users overwhelming influence, though.
I want to think about it quite a bit more, so I probably won't do it soon.
What are your ideas for new ordering methods? My current idea is:
1. For each topic, get a list of the distinct users who posted there in the last 24 hours.
2. Give the topic a score equal to the sum of each such user's total earned merit.
3. Sort by topic score descending, and secondarily by the usual last post time.
With that, you still have topics with recent conversation listed first, but it requires more resources to manipulate, at least, and newbies have no influence. Maybe it'd give certain users overwhelming influence, though.
I want to think about it quite a bit more, so I probably won't do it soon.
Great idea. Just do not limit it to several sections. Many of the sections already have the problem of clogging of the first pages of messages of bots. A recent example - it looks like 1 page of the section Beginners in Russian local board:
Bots write one-line posts to increase activity from 6 accounts registered May 26, 2018 in the time range of 30 minutes:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/tuomillitlisgibdi-2156337
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/exsucuieratgul-2156362
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/irinimdigsabo-2156369
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/trepincelfavedi-2156377
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/suppguiriaagcludri-2156393
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/crudcentesracelcau-2156399
Just a note, whatever solution is chosen, it have to applied also for the biggest Local Ann sections.
We only see the problem here, but there are big local communities which are affected from the paid bumping too.
The fact that we don't see it, doesn't mean that it not exist.
We only see the problem here, but there are big local communities which are affected from the paid bumping too.
The fact that we don't see it, doesn't mean that it not exist.
Many of the ideas proposed are just to reduce the number of bumps a topic may have in a given period of time. This will create an almost static order of topics of little use. The ideal would be to have an algorithm that privileges the ranking of topics where some discussion is taking place.
Imagine that a project is suffering a 51% attack. It is important that ANN and the top topics where developers discuss the project are among the first topics in the section. At least I think that way.
I believe that the ideal would be to create a score. Organize the topics in a ranking, but without limiting the period. A certain topic could remain for a few days among the first. Where each comment of a user would receive a certain weight according to the past of this user. That is, the ranking and amount of merits that a user has would determine the weight of that comment. This would be in addition to the number of positive reports of spam and the number of views.
Maybe use the Wilson score interval. Where positive and negative would be the profiles that comment on the topic
Imagine that a project is suffering a 51% attack. It is important that ANN and the top topics where developers discuss the project are among the first topics in the section. At least I think that way.
I believe that the ideal would be to create a score. Organize the topics in a ranking, but without limiting the period. A certain topic could remain for a few days among the first. Where each comment of a user would receive a certain weight according to the past of this user. That is, the ranking and amount of merits that a user has would determine the weight of that comment. This would be in addition to the number of positive reports of spam and the number of views.
Maybe use the Wilson score interval. Where positive and negative would be the profiles that comment on the topic
Quote
Score = Lower bound of Wilson score confidence interval for a Bernoulli parameter
Say what: We need to balance the proportion of positive ratings with the uncertainty of a small number of observations. Fortunately, the math for this was worked out in 1927 by Edwin B. Wilson. What we want to ask is: Given the ratings I have, there is a 95% chance that the “real” fraction of positive ratings is at least what? Wilson gives the answer. Considering only positive and negative ratings (i.e. not a 5-star scale), the lower bound on the proportion of positive ratings is given by:
Say what: We need to balance the proportion of positive ratings with the uncertainty of a small number of observations. Fortunately, the math for this was worked out in 1927 by Edwin B. Wilson. What we want to ask is: Given the ratings I have, there is a 95% chance that the “real” fraction of positive ratings is at least what? Wilson gives the answer. Considering only positive and negative ratings (i.e. not a 5-star scale), the lower bound on the proportion of positive ratings is given by:
Since majority of my good reports came from Altcoin Ann and they are from ICO topics, why don't you just restrict posters from creating an ICO topic? Only established altcoins/tokens should have their own announcement thread in that section.
Just completely remove ICO topics and I do believe there will be less spam, less bot talking to each other, and there will be less report too.
Just completely remove ICO topics and I do believe there will be less spam, less bot talking to each other, and there will be less report too.
What if last post can only bump a thread once every X hours?
For example, if someone writes "Good Project" every 10 minutes, it doesn't matter . The topic will only go to top every 12 hours.
This brings me to an even easier suggestion: get rid of bumping on those boards entirely, and show threads that were bumped in the last 24 hours in a random order. For example, if someone writes "Good Project" every 10 minutes, it doesn't matter . The topic will only go to top every 12 hours.
I have idea.
Whoever writes less than 300 characters can't bump thread. Quotes are excluded from this.
Meaning: more time to write post == less posts == less spam. If that doesn't work (and I think it should), increase minimum character limit to 400. Or 500. This rule should be applied to every rank including thread starter. Show them who is boss here
Whoever writes less than 300 characters can't bump thread. Quotes are excluded from this.
Meaning: more time to write post == less posts == less spam. If that doesn't work (and I think it should), increase minimum character limit to 400. Or 500. This rule should be applied to every rank including thread starter. Show them who is boss here
I think this project is such a wonderful idea because till now I haven't seen a project that addresses the issues raised by this project as such I would love to see this project succeed with such amazing project an amazing team, so I will make sure I will follow this project and I will advise anyone to invest in this project. Great project and congratulations on the team for this great project!!!!!
^
401 characters
And a real pain in the ass to both read it and maybe search for plagiarism.
I would prefer two liners, at least with those you read them in a blink.
We already see trash like this, especially when people try force something out to look constructive. That's why we have the classic two liner junk posts that people make en mass. I've even seen people telling others to make sure they write two sentences so it's not spam like that's some magic number). It's just enough to look like they've made an effort but when you read it they're not actually saying anything of substance and have just stretched what is essentially a few word post out to two sentences. We even saw in the past people cheating character requirements on signature campaigns by adding invisible junk to the end of their posts in order to dupe the bot that was checking they were making 100 character posts or whatever.
Why don't you make it so the thread can only be bumped to the top once per day max? That seems like fair compromise and would certainly defeat the purpose of the paid bumping whilst still allowing active threads to be bumped.
Then you can attack a competitor's topic by bumping it in the middle of the night, etc.I'm currently still leaning toward some per-topic metric based on merit, though probably not exactly what I originally stated. Limiting who can bump would be easier to implement, but the roughness/immediacy of it makes it more easy-to-manipulate IMO.
How about you run a test with 1 or 2 hours bumping time and let it run for a week or so?
It renders an attack almost useless and I don't think it will to much damage if it's somehow exploited for this short time.
And then the stats will tell how effective is or how effective a longer bumping interval would be.
I have idea.
Whoever writes less than 300 characters can't bump thread. Quotes are excluded from this.
Meaning: more time to write post == less posts == less spam. If that doesn't work (and I think it should), increase minimum character limit to 400. Or 500. This rule should be applied to every rank including thread starter. Show them who is boss here
Whoever writes less than 300 characters can't bump thread. Quotes are excluded from this.
Meaning: more time to write post == less posts == less spam. If that doesn't work (and I think it should), increase minimum character limit to 400. Or 500. This rule should be applied to every rank including thread starter. Show them who is boss here
I think this project is such a wonderful idea because till now I haven't seen a project that addresses the issues raised by this project as such I would love to see this project succeed with such amazing project an amazing team, so I will make sure I will follow this project and I will advise anyone to invest in this project. Great project and congratulations on the team for this great project!!!!!
^
401 characters
And a real pain in the ass to both read it and maybe search for plagiarism.
I would prefer two liners, at least with those you read them in a blink.
Jump to: