Proposition:
To be banned from signatures (no matter what sig) for some time, open topic of shame and add users who are deliberately spamming.
Punish them:
( like sentenced 30,60,90 days) and if he continue using sig. during sentence - ban
First time caught 30 days forbidding using signatures.
Second time 60 days and simple warning about possible ban.
Third time 90 days and warning before banning
After this no much talks, multiple crimes permban
What do you think?
This will be cure for many and end of road for some..
Topic: My proposal to reduce signature campaign spamming - page 3. (Read 5112 times)
If you want to lower spam you must talk with campaign managers.
They must decrease number of posts per day or per week. I think best number is around 5 posts per day maximum.
This is best solution.
You also have lot of spam and without signatures am i right?
Not correct at all, Spammer with sig. ad > Spammer without sig. ad , I think we can agree about this or no ?They must decrease number of posts per day or per week. I think best number is around 5 posts per day maximum.
This is best solution.
You also have lot of spam and without signatures am i right?
Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign. +1
I think you are a 'Member' 
, so why have you voted for || Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign. +1 || ?But problem with spam will be regulated only with reduction of number allowed posts.
So all is at management of S.C. and forum staffs.
But i hope this witch hunt will stop.
I don't like to be member and at the same time second-class citizen.
My opinion is always wrong as i am lower ranked member.
If you want to lower spam you must talk with campaign managers.
They must decrease number of posts per day or per week. I think best number is around 5 posts per day maximum.
This is best solution.
You also have lot of spam and without signatures am i right?
They must decrease number of posts per day or per week. I think best number is around 5 posts per day maximum.
This is best solution.
You also have lot of spam and without signatures am i right?
Not correct at all, Spammer with sig. ad > Spammer without sig. ad , I think we can agree about this or no ?
Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign. +1
I think you are a 'Member'
, so why have you voted for || Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign. +1 || ?
If you want to lower spam you must talk with campaign managers.
They must decrease number of posts per day or per week. I think best number is around 5 posts per day maximum.
This is best solution.
You also have lot of spam and without signatures am i right?
Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign. +1
They must decrease number of posts per day or per week. I think best number is around 5 posts per day maximum.
This is best solution.
You also have lot of spam and without signatures am i right?
Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign. +1
I agree with guidelines but don't agree with the number of characters in a post. We have already demonstrated on a small example why a short post can be constructive. I'd say introduce maximum number of posts/users per campaign and minimum rank required to join a campaign. This should somewhat reduce the spam.
FTFY BTW, now that I think of it, even my own argument that many people would leave bitcointalk if short posts or signatures aren't allowed, seems stupid, seeing how well Quora is doing. Not much logical thinkers in bitcoin community I guess
There are so many problems with signature campaigns it's unbelievable. We can't ban sigs either because legit users need money. This forum is in such a quagmire.
That's a bad reason. How about they actually get a job? Isn't just banning the spammers a better solution?
How is it a solution? The staff has been banning spammers for years. Do you see any improvement? It is an endless fight if we only resort to banning.We can also make up a set of general guidelines for signature campaigns like discouraging rules like having minimum x amounts of characters in a post, and encouraging incentives that encourage better quality posts. Encourage fixed rate campaigns over pay per post.
I agree with guidelines but don't agree with the number of characters in a post. We have already demonstrated on a small example why a short post can be constructive. I'd say introduce maximum number of posts/users per campaign and minimum rank required to join a campaign. This should somewhat reduce the spam. 
So far after reading the replies in this thread, I have come to realize that there is not a lot more we can do to fix the spammer problem. Take away sig campaigns? Heroes go hungry and decent posts who post for the benefit would probably go down. Blackhatworld imposes a bunch of rules and regulations suck as no links, signatures or offensive language being used (our equivalent being newbies asking for loans). I do like the 75 char minimum. Sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few with a signature campaign and not post nonsense.
I do like the payment and the contribution I am making to this forum.
My 75% char minimum by Yobit is quite good and satisfying to know you get 0.001BTC for posting 5 posts on the forum.
Pay monthly/weekly are not very good though (ou still have to post a certain amount and some will probably end up posting 100 nonsensical messages at the end of the month in order to get payments of more than 0.04BTC for established members!
Isn't just banning the spammers a better solution?
We can also make up a set of general guidelines for signature campaigns like discouraging rules like having minimum x amounts of characters in a post, and encouraging incentives that encourage better quality posts. Encourage fixed rate campaigns over pay per post.
Members of the community should not over stress the earnings component of a post. (Many respectable members of the community does not wear a paid signature.) No posts should be made simply because the person is participating in the campaign but because he wants to post, share his/her views, join the discussion.
We can also make up a set of general guidelines for signature campaigns like discouraging rules like having minimum x amounts of characters in a post, and encouraging incentives that encourage better quality posts. Encourage fixed rate campaigns over pay per post.
Members of the community should not over stress the earnings component of a post. (Many respectable members of the community does not wear a paid signature.) No posts should be made simply because the person is participating in the campaign but because he wants to post, share his/her views, join the discussion.
So far after reading the replies in this thread, I have come to realize that there is not a lot more we can do to fix the spammer problem. Take away sig campaigns? Heroes go hungry and decent posts who post for the benefit would probably go down. Blackhatworld imposes a bunch of rules and regulations suck as no links, signatures or offensive language being used (our equivalent being newbies asking for loans). I do like the 75 char minimum. Sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few with a signature campaign and not post nonsense.
I do like the payment and the contribution I am making to this forum.
My 75% char minimum by Yobit is quite good and satisfying to know you get 0.001BTC for posting 5 posts on the forum.
Pay monthly/weekly are not very good though (ou still have to post a certain amount and some will probably end up posting 100 nonsensical messages at the end of the month in order to get payments of more than 0.04BTC for established members!
Actually they aren't too good for the rep. of Bitcoin.
Edit/Delete your post already cause I got to know about bitcoin because of Gambling and of course nothing other than that can have such amount of influence,bitcoin must become a religion otherwise.we're letting through
Time for a revolt against him ?issue will go away.
The issue will never go away cause who is going to judge ? if the community is going to, then there will be people saying Oh Fuck that is spam even if the post contains 50,000 words and is written in the most perfect English in the history of mankind while being on-topic.The personal interest and experiences might change the opinion/decision of the guy judging.If a handful of people are doing that then there is no guarantee that it wont be bias and ignoring that there will be conflicts among them too.
If theymos gets mad and starts banning the Siggers then maybe but that's a different story.
signature campaigns should only allow Senior Member & above to represent them.
Rank Racism ? Do you know master-P was trading/dealing/farming/Trust abusing with Level 2 accounts since years,do you know what that means ? how many Level 1's are bought or are alt's ? Hence, the Logic is flawed. 
Most signature campaign managers kick crappy posters out of their signature campaigns. If the people posting very poorly with low quality have no campaigns to join then this issue will go away.
Surely it's the signature campaign managers responsibility to the forum to police their posters?
Also most of the really low quality posters are Full Member & below so maybe signature campaigns should only allow Senior Member & above to represent them.
Surely it's the signature campaign managers responsibility to the forum to police their posters?
Also most of the really low quality posters are Full Member & below so maybe signature campaigns should only allow Senior Member & above to represent them.
It is not.
Yes It Is.It's just that you need to keep on work, for it to remain fixed.Well you could ban all gambling site promotions. 
That would only reduce the amount of posts that were concentrated in a single section. What about all the other ones? 
Well you could ban all gambling site promotions.
Actually they aren't too good for the rep. of Bitcoin.
Actually they aren't too good for the rep. of Bitcoin.
It is not.
Yes It Is.It's just that you need to keep on work, for it to remain fixed.You can't be serious?
It's is already fixed.
It is not.True,I would say you are definitely one of the top 3 poster's on forum.Keep up the good work.
You can't be serious?What's preventing people from doing this already?
Nothing is preventing it now nor would it be prevented in that case. I'm saying that it would not work as it can be abused.Take away sig campaigns? Heroes go hungry and decent posts who post for the benefit would probably go down.
Anyone who posts because of the "benefit" is posting for the wrong reasons. I've been in favor of a ban for quite some time now.I do like the 75 char minimum.
I've already explained why that is a bad idea and so did Shorena. fix the spammer problem.
It's is already fixed.Sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few with a signature campaign and not post nonsense.
True,I would say you are definitely one of the top 3 poster's on forum.Keep up the good work.
So far after reading the replies in this thread, I have come to realize that there is not a lot more we can do to fix the spammer problem. Take away sig campaigns? Heroes go hungry and decent posts who post for the benefit would probably go down. Blackhatworld imposes a bunch of rules and regulations suck as no links, signatures or offensive language being used (our equivalent being newbies asking for loans). I do like the 75 char minimum. Sometimes it feels like I'm one of the few with a signature campaign and not post nonsense.
I'll say this one more time, and the reason behind someone's post is going to be obvious if they choose to ignore it. It is highly improbable that theymos is going to add another reputation system/replace the current one. One of the primary reasons for this is that people keep talking about better systems but are unable to propose one that is actually better (@all DT replacement proposals).
The quality of a post does not depend on the length of it. For example "I like your project" is the same quality as "I like your project, I really like it, please keep up the good work admin". So the length doesn't really matter... And a restriction on length wouldn't necessarily help to cut spam.
Which is basically what I've been arguing about in the thread.I do not think that a system of up-votes or karma or anything along the lines would work.
This is horrible idea and would be flawed because people are flawed. The only way that it could maybe work if we implemented something very strict such as the way that Stack Overflow does.
Wait... what do you think if someone befort use the reputation system must first pay a little fee (each reputation/thanks)? In this way we will avoid the various sock-puppets because it will be very expensive for their.
As a lot of you are aware, there is a ton of spam on this forum consisting of one-liner posts and/or nonsense topics being posted all for the sole purpose of boosting profits for the mentioned poster. To make matters worse, people are coding bots with poor-to-moderate AI making automated replies or posting new topics. To curve this problem, I suggest the board's staff implement the following:
Having both a trust and a reputation/thanks system will give us a better picture as to who is spamming campaigns and who isn't. A rep system will allow the staff to get a quick glance who is contributing to the forum and who isn't. Other forums, such as BHW have done this and the spammy/meaningless replies/posts are minimized. These are my suggestions. Comments?
- Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members
- Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign.
- Automatically ban users with too much negative rep
- Ban campaigns that are poorly managed
Having both a trust and a reputation/thanks system will give us a better picture as to who is spamming campaigns and who isn't. A rep system will allow the staff to get a quick glance who is contributing to the forum and who isn't. Other forums, such as BHW have done this and the spammy/meaningless replies/posts are minimized. These are my suggestions. Comments?
+1 Dude you rock!
A reputation/thanks system can be abused by the same people who are juggling multiple sock-puppets to milk the current system.
After allowing a "free market" for so long, how can you ever do anything else?
Jump to: