Topic: Just remove signatures already. As in delete, disable, gone. - page 9. (Read 44829 times)

I disagree with the OP. Lots of good discussions going on everywhere. He just cant find them.

^^^This.   You can click on the report button when someone is just writing a banal reword of what's written above them but for a mod who is trying to quickly weed through a lot of posts, it's really hard to tell at first glance that the person isn't doing so in good faith.  Mods want to err on the side of caution so they say, no let it stand, it looks somewhat reasonable.  But this leads to pages and pages of rewording the same answer in many cases---threads full of mindless repitition.  I'm just trying to echo here that I also tried reporting the useless echo posts which had sig-ads under them and I just saw my report accuracy go down the tubes.

It is subjective but if it is superior then those people who think so will naturally flock to it much like bitcoin and it will grow over time like this forum has, but it also may reach a time where it crosses some sort of rubicon and people may become disenfranchised with its popularity or the content of posts there. Forums with a lack of moderation can quickly get messy and maybe that's part of the problem here with the hands off approach from staff but I feel it works well in certain circumstances and is likely the best option to allow discussion, but that also means we allow scammers and trolls etc and sometimes people get offended by that (as you found out not so long ago but is that a job for the mods to censor? I would say no but there is always a limit to what is or isn't acceptable). Maybe with a decentralised forum with no mods or rules the users can moderate what they see themselves and just get into the habit of ignoring all scammers and trolls or shitposters themselves manually but this is a lot of work in itself but it could work. You choose what you want or don't want to see but you or nobody else can censor what others can see and I agree with that in theory. It's like self-modded threads here. People can censor who they like in it but people are free to not post in there or ignore those users or just create their own threads to respond. For those that are interested in bitcoin for the tech and the political ramifications of it and its decentralised nature I'm sure they will also love your forum for the same reasons (providing it does work, but another thing that kills forums is a lack of participation or discussion and that is hard to achieve and say what you want about this forum but there's plenty of discussion whether it's intelligent or half-assed nonsense). I think your idea would suit some people very well, but also not others, but as I said I'm very interested to see if and how it will work (some things do and some things don't when they're centralised or de) so keep me informed.

Whether it will gain any popularity is actually of little concern to me as my interest is in simply creating the technology (so basically that will be up to others if they think the technology is something they want to use). Also whether something is "superior" is a very "subjective opinion" so for sure it won't be being promoted as that.

I agree that you are probably right that getting rid of ad-sigs won't bring this forum back to what it was like in 2011/2012. A lot of people that used to contribute a lot of interesting stuff have left between 2013 and 2014 (whether they left due to the poorer quality content is hard to say).

It is obviously untrue and is an opinion made with much bias. You yourself are still here and you must be reading peoples' posts because you regularly reply to them and even get involved with intelligent discussions with people with sig ads as do many others. I honestly understand people like yours and dannyhamilton's frustrations because signatures certainly are a problem when they're left to run wild by people who care little about quality control and they often do devalue the content of posts, but I also believe there are ways to coexist and manage them properly and they should be tried first. I also think people are going to be very wrong if they they think banning signatures is going to make discussions here suddenly go back to how they likely were in the early days but time will only tell on that front.

I genuinely hope you do complete your forum and I would certainly check it out, but I'm not sure how well it will work but I'm very interested to see if it will and how it does. If it's far superior to this one then I'm sure it will catch on. Again, good luck with it.   

Why is that "obviously untrue"?

If you read most of the "ad-sig" replies to most posts they clearly show "a lack of any reading of the posts".

Perhaps I have "exaggerated" in saying "no-one" but I would not be wrong in saying that "the majority of posters" (which I think you'd have to agree *are ad-sig posters*).

So why not just correct my "no-one" to say "most people" rather than post stuff about being "butt-hurt" (my butt is feeling fine by the way - but thanks for your interest in it).

"Qualified psychotherapist" is an oxymoron, because psychotherapy is a pseudoscience for which there can be no qualifications.

My qualifications are in the fields of rhetoric, critical theory, and cognitive linguistics.  You are the only one here invoking Sigmund Fraud.

When you make an obviously untrue statement like


I am qualified to explain (by close reading) what you actually meant by such a bizarre assertion.

Interesting that you have suddenly become some sort of "qualified psychotherapist" (or are you not really qualified but just think you are?).

My interests are in getting rid of centralisation (that includes this forum) rather than whatever Freudian stuff you might think to be the reason.

Being "popular" is not of concern - if my P2P forum isn't used that actually won't bother me as my goal is simply to create the technology (maybe someone else will work out how to make it "popular" - as it will be open source they will be able to clone it to do so).

Also the "forum software" was built back in late 2012 (it has been used in http://ciyam.org/open since then) so it isn't anything "new" (it is simply going to be adapted to work over the CIYAM Blockchain system).

I do as well.

But CIYAM doesn't literally mean what he said.

His counterfactual utterance is a performative which expresses his epic butthurt about people still visititing BCT to read the posts.

It's hilarious he would use his coding skills to design yet another forum (a task for which he is vastly overqualified) mainly for the sake of appeasing his deep but unsatiated need to completely ignore others.

Great - and for sure it won't be so easy to get noticed as the design is purposefully "search unfriendly" (i.e. search engines can't index the content even if the application server is hosted publicly) so about the only way people are going to find out about it will be "word of mouth".

Cool i will join, be good to have a few more options, the problem will be getting the forum going and remaining active. Bitcointalk has years of google ranking history.

Well I'm actually glad someone has put their money where their mouth is and actually took steps to create a decentralised forum. I've lost count of how many times people have said one should be made in the spirit of Bitcoin or that they were going to create their own and nothing ever happened. It's never as easy as they imagine though but good luck.

Visits by who - other ad-sig posters that add more rubbish?

Seriously - no-one is visiting bitcointalk.org to read the posts anymore (that finished a long time ago).

Dices, scams and ponzis make up most of the advertising /spam

I don't care if they all fail, I hope they do actually now u think about it..


LOL

This is what the mods dont get, once it is "on-topic" it isnt spam which is garbage

I browsed the forum from a new machine, and as such wasn't logged in. Normally I have sigs turned off. Wow, I forgot how awful the sigs are. There is no use to having them on. They are a disaster.

Without the sig campaign this forum would not have so much visits.

When people "kick the tires" in sales threads with no intentions to buy
When it obvious they just read part of the topic and not the thread and post useless words that do not help the thread
I really do not have a specific thing I look for...spam is obvious most of them time.

what kind of post do you deem useless? I've tried to report posts that have very similar content to the previous replies of a thread, posts that was made only to point out a spelling mistakes, etc. but most of them never get deleted.

The mods probably don't have the time and/or interest to really look into reports of some posts.

If it were purely spam, they have no problem zapping the posts.. I see posts to a certain website for A2 sales removed pretty quickly, for example.

But some of these posts are pretty difficult to gauge, more of a pattern of type of posts that you can either intuit or quite clearly link to signature campaigns (e.g. as per that graph I posted).  So 'we' see them as rubbish, while a mod might read the post and think "well maybe it doesn't exactly add anything fundamental to the discussion, but it's not pure spam, it appears to be on topic, and who are we to say this person's post isn't meant as a genuine piece?  err on the side of caution -> leave in place"

Instead of reporting to mods, there should be more 'report to campaign manager', and let them deal with it.  If the manager then decides to ignore it - e.g. because their sig's visibility on the forum trounces ideals - report the manager to the mods.  Wouldn't accomplish a whole lot except drive campaign management off-site, though