Topic: Ideas for topic ordering in altcoin announcements? - page 2. (Read 18948 times)

Maybe make it so only the OP can do it then so he could choose the time it is bumped. At least they have to log in and post once a day for it to be effective (or use a bump button if that's ever implemented (which would be a good feature for the Marketplace as well and save people and staff having to remove the bumps which is always very tedious)). I think this would be a minor issue though as the middle of the night is going to be different all over the world. I think making it so only the op can bump the thread once a day would actually make the system work because they can't pass it off to someone else and they have to be active if they want the thread active.

Then you can attack a competitor's topic by bumping it in the middle of the night, etc.

Another idea : Only Jr.Member (of course copper members too) and above can open an ANN thread. +
From Member rank and above can bump the thread.
+ restrict newbies with less then 10 posts to post in ANN section at all.

All these Brand New with a single "GOOD PROJECT" post will be gone.

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.


This wouldn't work either. The bumpers would then just start writing posts that contain 300 characters. They'd probably be more of an eyesore than the generic good project ones etc.

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.

Edit: Maybe you can add some merit requirement for this bump to occur.

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 

Everything else will be easily abused.

---

I think you should block yourself from using this forum.

I won't do pay-to-bump or similar because it removes any sense of fairness or community participation, and basically just makes a page of most-money-wins paid advertisements. (Paying a fixed fee to create a topic there is possible, though not high on my list, since that'd at least be fair.)

---

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.

Underhand tactics in business who would of thought? Yeah, this could be abused by opening several threads, but maybe there could be restrictions to who can open threads in that section. Any of the higher ranked members caught doing this could be temp banned, and maybe permanently if they continue to do so. Its spam after all. I hate restrictions usually, but most of the solutions without any sort of restrictions will be abused, and unfortunately we haven't got enough manpower to actually recognize every single one. If someone is opening several threads, and bumping it then its definitely clear what their intentions are though.

We have to weigh up the options of imposing restrictions, and allowing spam. A restriction such as certain rank+ only able to open threads to prevent users not caring about registering hundreds of newbie accounts, and being hard to identify who is behind it. Maybe, copper membership. Yeah, its putting something behind a paywall which I'm also usually against, but there has got to be compromises somewhere for the betterment of the forum, because quite frankly in its current state the altcoin section is very hard to view.

0.01 BTC per bump and no free bumps. Aside from buying theymos another yacht this also has the benefit of sheer simplicity. No matter who creates how many threads etc - anyone can bump it for a fee.


There are some other issues with this. E.g. the OP going on a vacation or just disappearing outright would mean the thread can't be bumped anymore.


It's already happening, what with all the bot farms etc. Making it "official" would reduce spam bumps, which is one of the goals here.

Although I would still prefer a merit-based approach.

Any paid option will just mean money is leading the forum.  Instead of restricting newbie account from posting ANN thread we can just remove the bump that is currently caused by newbie and Jr.Member.

A bump button , powered by Merit is good idea but that also need to be restricted for number of thread the user will be able to bump in a day (like max. 2 or 3 in a calendar day) because I suspect somebody start buying Merit and start providing bump facility to the ANN threads so even with Merit , you cannot bump all the threads on your wish.

Edit:  Once we have taken out the bump power of newbies and Jr. member , then punishing the spam will also become easier, because you are now risking a temp bans on a higher ranked account if you caught spamming.

The only downside to this is that you can almost guarantee that if the Announcement board becomes "pay to post a new topic", they will just start spamming their new topics in every other board instead. Obviously these threads will get trashed, but since we have so few moderators, the threads will likely be up for several hours and be spammed to high heaven before they are.

I like the idea of the owner having a "bump" button, and therefore completely eliminating paid bumping by any means. As an add on to this, I would suggest that each user can only bump a maximum of 1/3/5/whatever-number-you-like thread(s) they own per 24 hours, to stop the creation and bumping of mass dummy threads. Might be worth having a caveat that the owner has to at least be a member or have at least 10 earned merit or something similar to stop newbies from creating mass threads.

Add a fee to post Ann thread. Restrct Newbie accounts from posting Ann thread.

Make a paid bumping button, + free bump for every earned merit.

Make a newbie ANN jail, and the only way get out of it is earning enough Merit.

We can create a formula to use for bumping threads with a cooldown with some rules.

1 - If OP posting bump cooldown every x hours can be 1-24-x, your call
2 - If total posts of user < 20 don't bump
3 - If total posts of user >= 20 & merit earned/activity=0 don't bump
4 - If total posts of user >= 20 & merit earned/activity>0 bump with a cooldown= activity/(1+merit earned)/ Trust (based on DT rating), result in minutes
5 - If a normal poster is posting bump the thread with a cooldown = Activity/(1+merit earned)/ Trust (based on DT rating), result in minutes
6 - If the normal poster is posting on the same thread, increase the cooldown of bumping x 2 every time

This can work, I can't find How to abuse it in a long-term, merit will run out.

This will count, activity, merit earned (not airdropped) and trust.

Good posters and trusted people will have a short cooldown for bumping the thread, shitposter will almost never bump the thread.

I posted this in a somewhat entertaining way I suppose because I think the irony of making them, who suck the money out of BTC and destroy the public image of crypto as a whole, PAY for some positive PR of Bitcoin would be sweet justice.

If the problem we are discussing is spam then yes this would solve that problem because they are using spam to get to the top. If they could get to the top without spam then they wouldn't need spam anymore and as a matter of fact I think they would start to make efforts to keep spam out of their own threads because spam in their threads makes them look like shit scams and hurts their image.
Anyone that is serious about "investing" or serious about the technicalities and merits of the coins code is going to be turned off having to wade through spam.

We know that they are willing to spend money right. Instead of that money going to bad actors (spammers) that money could go toward the advancement of Bitcoin.

If it solved the paid bumping issue once and for all then their would be less manpower needed to clean stuff up. They can self-mod their own threads and keep them clean if they want to look professional. Spam in their threads looks very unprofessional to me.

I also like this idea where say only member and above accounts bump threads. Sure they would build high ranked bumping services but they would eventually run out of easily available high ranked accounts in the same way we expect them to run out of airdropped smerits. It will not be easy fr them to farm up a bunch more member accounts with the merit system in place as it is now.

Their are a lot of good ideas in this thread relating merits to bumping but it is tricky.
If it comes to a system where you have to "spend" merit to bump threads I guess I won't be bumping anything until I'm over 1000 and have some to spare, like in another 1.5-2 years...

Absolutely correct. I do not think that Bitcointalk should get itself into endorsing ANY altcoin or project other than the one and only true Bitcoin.


One last thing is all of these "tokens" that don't even have their own blockchain. They are not pioneering the advancment of cryptocurrency technology but rather just sucking what they can out of it just using "crypto" as a marketing ploy and an easy convenient way of sucking in money.
I'm not sure they should even be under "Alternate cryptocurrencies" but why are their so many of them still under "Announcements (Altcoins)"? Not enough manpower to move their threads to "Tokens (Altcoins)"?
Myself I wouldn't even move them but delete them with a little note to the OP "Try again in the right section".

I wonder if those "ICO managers" or whatever they're called (the ones who create ANN threads on behalf of various shitcoins) could abuse this.

E.g. wait for your competitor to bump their thread and then bump 50 of your threads immediately, knowing that the competitor can't do anything about it for the next 24h.

Come to think of it, just create 500 dummy ICOs and bump anyone you don't like off the front page. Much harder to do that when there is a more tangible cost, like a merit.

This seems like the best solution til now. Most of the "good project" posts will disappear and there will be no need for further control as there is no mote room for abuse.

What about bumping the thread only when OP posts a reply and his reply should receive at least one merit (the next reply should be merited by another user to bump the thread again).
This way we ensure OP is active and interacts with other users.

It is impossible to detect 100% of scams. Bitconnect traded for months and fooled thousands of people. EOS is a scam yet peaked at number 4 in marketcap and had the most successful ICO ever. It still has a daily volume of $800 million. The obvious scams are easy to pick out. The elaborate scams which will fool the most people are the ones that are the most difficult to detect.

By having a group that screens every project, you inadvertently present the idea that any project that makes it past the group and is posted on the forum is legit, when in fact, it could be one of the biggest and most elaborate scams yet. For the same reason that the forum doesn't moderate scams, I don't think it would be a good idea to try to moderate which ICOs can be posted. I can already picture hundreds of threads in Meta saying "I invested in a project approved by this forum and I got scammed - I want my money back".

Alternatively, we give the owner of the thread a bump button which they can do at any point allowing them to bump their threads strategically or when they are online. Don't allow posts to bump threads anymore. Only allow the button to appear every 24 hours. 

The only person I know of that was doing free design analysis of these complex new designs (ones that had strong technical whitepapers) and publishing his findings was anonymint. I was often bookmarking his posts and reading regularly because although I could not fully understand what he was saying in all cases I then used to compare what other devs would say in reply to him. By matching up whether they agreed, were still debating or disagreed one could get an idea themselves and make a best guess on if it was a good idea to get involved or wait and watch. Most of what he said about designs and future issues were very accurate from what I could tell.