Topic: Just remove signatures already. As in delete, disable, gone. - page 22. (Read 44870 times)

I always remove the signatures, much more readable.

Not anymore. They are now an example of newbies getting their post-count up in order to qualify. Apparently that sig has not been updated in a while either.

Edit: based on their post history, English may not be their native language either.

Completely agree.

The other perspective is that you have to ask yourself who is clicking signature links?

I used to have a CEX signature link and it amazed me how many times people clicked it. Did those clicks convert into sales and commission for me? - not often.

There's many motivations for getting involved with this bitcoin forum and signatures are just one way of getting eyeballs on whatever the member appends as their sig. It used to annoy me seeing all that gambling drivel in people's signatures, but if it earns them a few coins, good luck to them. I very rarely click a signature link but the ones I do click from time to time include new product launches and some bitcoin services.

It seems too draconian just to ban all signatures but would I care? - no.

lol a modicum of weight. Were you tipping your fedora while posting that?

Also, my signature is not paid.

You're free to browse any forum. Distributing your modicums as you see fit. You'll have a hard time finding one without shitposts and whiners complaining about said shitposts.

Ironically, the only way to make Bitcoin beside gambling with your hard earned FIAT money (something that the 99% of average Joes, aka what we need to get into Bitcoin, is NOT going to do) is through these signature campaings. This guy Stunna, used to pay about 0.4 a month. The 99% of people out there is never going to be able to buy near that monthly when most people are wageslaves going from bill to bill. This offers a way to make BTC without taking a big risk. Again, risking the equivalent of 0.4 a month by most families is a big gamble that they are not going to take just in hopes that in a decade or two, Bitcoin makes them rich, because no one of them cares to go through the hassle of buying Bitcoin, only to spend it in some tacos or some menial comodity that can be bough with fiat anyway, get this through your skulls. So basically, we need ways make BTC that doesn't involve being a full time job. The signature campaing is one. Stunna contributed to distribute Bitcoin wealth among poor people like few out there. About 500 BTC were paid through the course of the PrimeDice campaing. We need more stuff like this. Shitty faucets are worthless. Selling your services for BTC is cool, unless it requires too much time to the point it becomes worthless, since you could be making more flipping Burgers in McDonalds. Simply put, offering your services for BTC right now, unless you are a full blown NEET, it's pointless and too much of a risk when you could be making more money in a regular job.

This is why the price is tanking. Tell me why the average Joe is going to care about obtaining Bitcoin when he has to take a huge gamble by buying. Tell me what he is going to do with said purchase besides holding and speculating? Do you think he is going to buy anything with it? Why should he? Whats the point. The 99% legitimatelly or not, is going to start thinking they want them just to keep the early-time whales enjoying their bast BTC wealth.

If something is hard to obtain and is not going to change your life for the better, you are not going to give a fuck about it. This reflects on the price. If you keep shrinking ways to obtain BTC besides risking your FIAT, Bitcoin will just be an asset where wealthy people store their FIAT in hopes it doesnt crash, just like Gold. It will never be an actual currency.

I'm ok with this:


It's so rare and so well positioned that it has a good impact and I usually stop to notice what it is. It's also more expensive. Meanwhile I am tired of repeated spam signature whores that make me NOT want to find out what they are promoting.

Anyone else?

When the signature space is purchased, the ad is automatically applied to every post the user has made. In my case, a signature purchaser would be purchasing the instant signature space of 3136 not-so-sucky posts, many of which are first-page Google search results for a topic. It would be slightly more than tedious to try to update all those posts for a periodic ad; any campaign paying just for inclusion in new posts would only be paying for association with spam. Posts with little content but a big ad are obvious spam to moderators.

---

Read the Bitcoin White Paper - in HTML Download Bitcoin Core now and get started with the reference client

Nicely put - I wholeheartedly agree with you and would much rather lose my sig (along with everyone else) than to have to keep on wading through such low quality content (basically I have been finding this forum less and less interesting ever since these sig ad campaigns began).

OP back after watching this. The reaction is generally:

1. Old hands: yes, turn off the signature.
2. Paid sig poster: no (with strawman arguments that users can block signatures, etc)

I didn't consider another way these campaigns cause spam: Future sig ad wannabe posters. When only higher activity users are allowed the more colorful signature features that campaigns will pay more for, and the campaigns pay more for the higher status and number of posts, people will create many sock puppets and post junk just to keep activity growing at the maximum rate. The signature restrictions based on activity that cleaned up the look of the forum actually create more spam.

I saw a most egregious user (now banned) that logged in just every two weeks and posted 14 completely useless posts as fast as allowed; likely there are many other socky accounts doing the same.

A good proportion of signature campaign participants will do whatever it takes for profit. Like the Chinese gold miners that ruin Warcraft, there is no concern for the quality of the forum; they couldn't care less about filling the site with useless junk posts littered with ads if that's what it takes to maximize the BTC coming into their wallet.

I view it even presumptuous and narcissistic that you can co-opt the forum signature for your own advertising purposes, competing against the forum's own paid ads. Just looking at the ugly signature ads is annoying enough. That you will hire shills to junk up the forum for satoshi dust is reprehensible. Buy some Google ad words.

Signature ads are not a zero-sum game. One person can make hundreds of others have to go to their ignore lists, turn off signatures or block the html code, and still have to wade through useless "me-to" posts that are at best a sentence of what was already said, if not outright trolling to get views. The new Bitcoin user comes here for learning and advice and gets a wall of unblocked scam spam.

Campaigns will still continue if a statement is not clearly made that they are now completely useless and will never be seen. I am more resolute that signatures should be turned off in the forum software to end this nonsense and hopefully restore normalcy and goodness.

This isn't an advertising billboard, it's a discussion forum, and if posters want income they should do some actual work for it. I see reams of vapid single-line responses, which are only tangentially or superficially related to the topic title, and presumably only exist because of the ad sig beneath. It shouldn't be necessary for every member to have to block low-quality posters by hand; instead, the incentive for spamming low-quality posts should be removed.

Nobody needs a signature, but the forum can benefit tangibly from their absence.

If complaining about lack of content is whining, what does that make complaining about complaining?

Perhaps your words would carry a modicum of weight if you didnt have a paid for ad in your own sig.

Removing signatures is not an overreaction, the only alternative I see is ignoring this forum and moving to reddit or wherever.

I had suggested sometimes back about rescaling the signature priviledges. For instance halving activity, or increasing tier, or increasing signature quality limitations. It will discourage spamming as providers will be reluctant to pay the same amount for smaller signatures and the intent to post meaningless posts will be less.

The activity introduction cut out a lot of spam immediately, but it also encouraged at least 1 post a day. I would suggest decreasing the formula from 14 posts/ 2 weeks to 7 or less per two weeks, and a necessity to post every week to make sure some just don't sign up and leave the account to mature. Maybe make it 1 post a week and you can only gain 52 activity points a year.

Removing signatures is totally viable. In practical terms, it's remarkably simple.

Removing one of the major sources of noise in this forum isn't an overreaction at all; I'd argue it's necessary. Yes, a much smaller subset of the user base will still spam for post count prestige, but with the financial incentive removed the reduction in mindless shitposting would be significant.

Signatures should be removed.

It's the only viable solution. Removing signatures is an overreaction. There will always be spam posts from newbies trying to gain activity or promote something.

If you care so much, report each post you find as spam and mods will deal with it. When you complain about lack of content, you just seem whiny.

Newbies don't get paid for signatures, AFAIK.

That's one of the causes of pointless posts, as well as the high volume of posts asking about precisely how activity works (they want to know when they roll over to the next category so they can start advertising).

If you want to argue about counterexample, wait until after yraskk reaches "senior member" status.

While I agree that there is a problem with the signatures, people will still make pointless posts to get their activity points on the site so they appear more legitimate. Really, I believe that whatever system is put into place, it will be open to new types of abuses. This is a high traffic website and there are many people wanting to be seen.

Why?

He is not part of a signature program. He has no signature at all.

He is like a counterexample for those who say the spam issue is due to signature programs

Man, read the thread. Both concerns have been addressed already. Damn, the second one is answered FOUR FUCKING POSTS above yours. Posts like yours are the very reason this thread exists.

if you don't want to see any signatures you could do that in your profile, Deleting them as a whole is a big move IMO, Also if you see someone posting for the sake of getting there signature payment "in your opinion at least" you can just add them to your ignore list.