Topic: Illiterate sig spammers - page 5. (Read 9480 times)

Any changes, regardless of what they affect, usually leave some people unhappy. We should not be concerned by this.

Indeed. Unless enforced on a "global" level by senior staff members (global moderators and admins), it is surely going to be inconsistent to a certain agree. However, it is impossible to make it 100% consistent (a certain degree of inconsistency should be acceptable). However, keep in mind that it should be acceptable for section moderators to enforce it within their sub-board (similar to what gruez did with off-topic).

(IMO) Those threads are, per definition, garbage.

Correct. Using something in the lines of "I would leave" or "some would leave" is an invalid argument.

Bitcoin Discussion has pretty much degraded to being a waste of time (at least for the majority of the thread). Also, a huge amount of spammers attempt to give advise which usually is partially correct or just nonsense. This is also quite annoying.

There isn't going to be any solution to anything that would leave everyone 100% happy but I don't really care about the hurt pockets of sig spammers complaining they've got less places to easily spam in.


But what's the magic number? Threads like how can I earn ten dollars in bitcoin? don't need to go on for long if they're allowed at all and not just trashed on sight but there's other threads that can go on infinitely but at the same time we don't need people just repeating the same stuff but where's the cut off point? Not always easy to judge and enforce consistently. Lauda might have a different opinion on what thread is trash to me etc and if he is removing threads only started by newbies it can lead to inconsistency and people complaining.


I don't think threads like what would you do with 1-2-5-10-100 bitcoins need to be here or at the least should be moved to off topic. Maybe after one big clean up people will get the idea. It kinda worked with off topic with the crappy 'daily' threads but people keep insisting to make them. This will be no different.


It might be annoying to sig spammers and if shitposters leave because of it then good. Mission accomplished. I would bet my money they along with you wont leave though. They'll just have to work a bit harder to earn money here which is what will cause people to get defensive or panic but allowing users to easily spam such shit threads is the problem in the first place. They can't be allowed to shit the place up and ruin it for everyone else.


This is something I've suggested. I know a big peeve of DannyHamilton is people giving bad advice/help so maybe we could disable sigs in the main Bitcoin Discussion and Technical Help subs. Campaigns would then likely not pay for those boards and the content would be significantly improved because nobody is posting just to get paid. On the other hand, if posts in there still contribute to postcount account farmers wont be effected but maybe they would find easier boards to spam which keeps the crap out of the most important boards.


If we disable signatures in too many boards though it would just defeat the purpose of sig campaigns in the first place and campaigns will dwindle both in number and pay. I guess that could be good or bad depending on your stance but shitposters from poor countries will still spam for dust so it wont kill the issue. Signature campaigns only exist because they're a great way to advertise as your ad is shown everywhere but if we're going to restrict them from pretty much the entire forum and the only place sigs are shown is in a few crappy subs like Off topic and Politics then we may as well just get rid of them altogether so a balance needs to be found.

I can't say I find them annoying, simply because there is no way to distinguish them from regular users enrolled in Signature Campaigns (unless they of course come out and say it). I simply think that it isn't very good for the forum in the long run to have users who only come here with a monetary incentive, similar to why 'buying friends' doesn't work.

I don't understand. Unless someone is running a business and a signature campaign, I don't see how advertising for a website is comparable to starting a business.

Me neither, which is why I didn't say we should. All I said was that I don't think users who come here only for signature campaign earnings are viable for the forum in the long run; as soon as any sort of monetary incentive disappears, so does a large portion of people who 'love BitcoinTalk'.
In addition, going back to my first point, there would be no way to separate those who come here only to earn money from signature advertising and people who use it as a reward for something they would already do. I would not support banning these people as it could not be done effectively - either all users wearing signature campaigns would be banned or no one would. I have no problem with anyone that comes to this forum providing they follow the rules.

I agree that people who come here solely to post for signature campaigns are generally annoying. You could however argue that these people have come here to start a business.

I also find the people who work in the little kiosks at the mall to be very annoying, however I do not propose banning those kiosks from malls. I don't think we should ban people from coming here for the sole purpose of earning signature campaign money, as long as they do not break the other rules, including not making low quality/low content posts. What one person thinks is a good business idea, someone else may find very annoying.

You support the man and not the people,we understand you well.

Agreed, I mentioned this rule being implemented more harshly in another point.

My apologies, I meant people that come here and post solely for signature campaign earnings. I have nothing against those who come to start/run their own business.

I understand that those types of threads should probably be locked as the only reasonable reply to these threads is insubstantial content, see here.


I am not sure about this. There are many people that come here to earn money who have contributed both to the economy and the community. Many people that come here to earn money do not necessarily only participate in signature campaigns, as some people come here to start/run some kind of business.

I don't believe that there is a solution that would leave every party completely happy in a situation like this one.
Personally, I think a number of pages/similar responses should be set before a thread is locked. There is little point allowing people to brainlessly repeat the same thing over and over for the hope that someone may say something with any sort of thought behind it. If a situation happened similar to the one above, where the thread was locked and someone had a new suggestion, then there would be nothing stopping said user from using PM or any other method to contact the OP and propose said suggestion.

When half the threads here are shit, I don't see that as much of a compromise.

Agreed. I think that something similar to this could be enforced more strictly and across all sections. While this may be my opinion, I couldn't care less what ilovebitcoin89 would do if he was given 10BTC; I doubt many others do either.

Why? So some other user with some shitty signature campaign can tell the OP 'if you do programming you can earn bitcoin through that'? Do you really think it's necessary to have 40 pages of people (for the most part) saying the exact same things?

My proposal isn't to lock any thread that I don't like, my proposal is to lock any thread which is saturated with people saying the same things over and over again. Look at the first page of 'Beginners and Help' or 'Bitcoin Discussion'. Do you seriously think that topics such as 'Post which Bitcoin Wallet you use' or 'How to earn x BTC in x amount of time' really add anything new to the forum, or even the discussion its self, after 1 or 2 pages? They are completely useless to everyone, other than those shit-posting to try and 'earn' some BTC.

Threads to which the same concept can be applied to. Simply because the spammers have moved to a different section of the forum does not mean that rules cannot be enforced to them.

As I have said previously, I don't believe that any user who only comes here only to earn money from signature campaigns is of much value to the forum in the long run. The fact that something like removing paid signatures would cause such a terrible effect on the forum is a perfect example of that.

As opposed to what? A forum of scammers, account farmers, traders and spammers? Is this an argument or a fact?
Not to mention that account farming would also subsequently decrease, as no spammers would be buying accounts specifically to spam. That would leave only scammers and traders - one that is inevitable in any forum dealing with transactions and one that is beneficial to both the forum and the economy.
In addition, stating that all discussion would stop because people wouldn't be paid for it is stupid. Some people do post here simply because they enjoy posting here, not needing any sort of monetary incentive to do so.

Because hilariousandco is a moderator!
Signature campaigns are sometimes good, I don't spam from mine and nor do many members.
The concentration of scammers and traders would increase and make less diverse conversation.

There is currently a staff discussion on what can be done about this issue.

the main reason for account farmers are sig campaigns.

scammers are everywhere it is not exclusive to this forum.

well traders are as much part of bitcoin as tech nerds are.


overall i have to say i dont bother much about sig campaigns per se - it is just the stupid shit people are spamming to get their counts up for the campaign.
just somehow get the campaign managers in line if needed with hard punishment like a temporary ban of the sig campaign and stuff.


/edit

Ps:
@hilariousacando

why is the one half of your last bitcoin green instead of purple?

1. It's better to attempt to merge those two threads instead? Also, locking all threads liberally would be really aggravating and I feel it may lead for some users - including myself - to leave if done too liberally. It may also move spammers to other threads and spam them.
2. Removal of signature campaigns will also force users to leave. Then there'd be a forum of scammers, account farmers and traders.

After a quick check the answer is no.

I'd safely say that the majority has a very limited knowledge regarding Bitcoin or none at all (although they know how to use a wallet and generate addresses). This is quite unfortunate to see on a forum dedicated to Bitcoin.

This is far from what we have in reality. We could set up regulations that require better quality control though.

Removing signatures altogether is something we're also discussing. Personally, I'm at the point where I think that's going to be the only solution to stop all the bullshit and hassle that comes along with having them but we're trying to find a workaround too that suits everyone. We know removing signature campaigns is going to have a drastic impact on the traffic here and to do so or enforce fully we would probably have to just remove signatures and avatars altogether for everyone otherwise people would likely still try get around it. I've long said signature campaigns could help improve the post quality of the forum but that would only happpen if every campaign only accepted quality posters and didn't just pay anyone and everyone regardless of post quality and ways to force campaigns to do that is being discussed also.


I agree that certain threads should be locked when a person has got a solid answer to a specific question and we're discussing whether those sorts of threads you mentioned should just be trashed straight away or not but there's some threads where people may get a lot of responses but others can still offer their suggestions but repeating the same thing for pages and pages is unnecessary. It's hard to find a balance really without just locking or trashing half the threads here but I guess maybe mods may just have to make executive decisions on this sort of stuff otherwise the forum isn't going to get any cleaner. Some sort of quality control of what sort of threads is and isn't allowed needs to be established though but if spam threads do get locked or trashed people will get the idea pretty quickly.


PMSL. The irony of this. I'm assuming you're getting confused with illegitimate? Not sure whether you're joking or not  .

Ha ha. There is no quick fix for that one.
As long as signature campaigns are present, you will find people trying to make a quick buck by spamming.

Maybe signature campaign managers has to check before accepting sig participants to minimize their numbers.

Anyway, Just wanted to let you guys know i do my best when responding to threads, i'm not illiterate my parents are married. I can post proof.

Yet neither literacy nor understanding Bitcoin appear to be requirements for joining a signature campaign, which is the problem in the first place.

Minimum wages relate to wages paid for unskilled labour.
When somebody is literate enough to access the internet and understand bitcoin, he can make a lot more than minimum wage.

The solution to this on another forum I'm a part of was to be a lot more liberal with locking threads. For example, once a question was answered or a request was fulfilled the thread was locked to prevent further spamming. This would prevent threads like this and this (which is essentially the exact same topic anyway) from gaining any sort of ground with spam.

You moderate the users, or you remove the paid signatures. While this is a lot easier said than done, I'm hoping that something eventually gets theymos' approval and it can begin to take effect; there's only so much users can do without authority.

Anyway, as for the ones that are relevant (with minimum wages starting at 0.01 usd/hr) there are 69 (if I've counted correctly) countries that have minimum wages of <$1 usd hourly. The map helps to really show the difference between the higher wages vs the lower ones, but you always need to consider cost of living to truly understand.