Topic: My proposal to reduce signature campaign spamming - page 4. (Read 5112 times)
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.
[Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members
No.
The idea of a rep system still I don't think is a bad idea. If a spammer with negetive rep tries to join a campaign, they would be denied the privilege of joining the campaign. I do like the idea of campaign managers doing their jobs and delisting users who spam. The staff would be able to quickly identify the spammers. In addition. most ofther forums have a thanks/like button. Everyone can determine the credibility of the poster.
Here we go again, arguing abut how to stop the spam. And I will tel you this: you can't stop spam completely - not if you reached certain number of users and forum is very popular.
Even if you ban every signature campaign, spam posts are here to stay.
The only valid solution I found in this thread is: Allowing only Full member to join Signature Campaign.
Even if you ban every signature campaign, spam posts are here to stay.
The only valid solution I found in this thread is: Allowing only Full member to join Signature Campaign.
Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members
ON the first place who can give the reputation and who cant ? I can find a user spamming with a legendary rank under his name and on the other hand a classic poster who is still a Member,What relation does an account rank has with post quality ?Disregarding the possibility of abuse from sock puppet/alternate accounts the new system will again result in variety of group's supporting each other and fighting over it, just like ...........
Now,do you seriously think thermos has no other work ? IMO he simply ignores the thread if it's subject is related to spam.Be honest and say would it take more than 3 years of prolonging ? There are much bigger/important things to care of for those who have the cards.
Ban campaigns that are poorly managed
Why ? because the owner doesn't has 12+ hours a day to waste them on creating a spreadsheet full of useless data and spying on users for 3 cents ? They don't hire a guy for that because many people don't like dealing such silly drama and the mentality to establish dominion over other users,thus a bot helps & I don't think there should be any problem with that unless thermos is getting annoyed and wants them to come up with some alternatives.
-snip-
Never said that length is similar to quality, that would be stupid of me!
But that a short answer can always be transformed into a longer one and you'll always have a better one.
Never said that length is similar to quality, that would be stupid of me!
But that a short answer can always be transformed into a longer one and you'll always have a better one.
Better in what sense if not in quality?
My answer is misleading you find?
Yes, there is no scrypt in bitcoin.
I'll learn something and the user asking the original question will have more elements. It's a win-win for me 
And key presses are expensive in time. I'm pretty sure lots of sig spammer posting only 20 characters answers or even less do it only because they want to maximize profit. I find it a good way to counter them is to put a base characters limit.
And key presses are expensive in time. I'm pretty sure lots of sig spammer posting only 20 characters answers or even less do it only because they want to maximize profit. I find it a good way to counter them is to put a base characters limit.
I disagree.
I dont think you are correct.
I think your assumption is false and your conclusions are faulty.
None of these version costs me significant time to write. The thing that takes time is thinking about the answer and understanding your post. Neither is something you can enforce with requesting any number of symbols.
But you're right in the fact that contrary to captchas it does change the message. I just have the feeling it can't really change it in a bad way and can't think of a situation where it would be. Maybe I also lack imagination 
If you cant see how a long chain words that say nothing is bad, I cant help you.
I don't want to waste too much time on the same thing. TL;Dr; length limits are a very bad workaround that really don't have an effect and can be easily cheated. The length of a post is not directly related to its quality. A very short post can be much more useful than a very long one. This is not happening, let's move on.
allow only full or senior member and above to join signature campaign and allowing only fixed rate campaign will reduce scam a lot.
I think that it would be really effective if the limit was Sr. Member and above; there are already a lot of full members, albeit decreasing the spam for the newbies and jr. members would be good too. Yes you can create 10 account but can you make them all senior ? NO
if someone makes new account it will take them time to get senior rank where they will allowed to join signature campaign
No, but it is fairly easy to 'level-up' 10 accounts to the rank of a full member. Additionally they could just go and buy them all and start spamming. if someone makes new account it will take them time to get senior rank where they will allowed to join signature campaign
Quote from: Newbie
Is Bitcoin really a decentralized currency? How many coins can there be?
I believe this answer is more detailed and would probably help more (maybe my explanations are not the best, I'm not an expert ^^).
The main idea is if you create the necessity of the 75 characters, it will reduce spam (cause spamming sig campaign would become more expensive in time) and people would get used to answering in a more detailed way. Which can't be a bad thing in my opinion.
So you gave him a misleading and wrong answer that might result in more confusion in the future. Bitcoin is not Litecoin and some of the other things you wrote are at the very least misleading if not plain wrong. Its a great example that length does not equal quality.
Imposing a character is the same thing as putting a captcha before the faucets.
No, it changes the message, a captcha does not.
It doesn't make it impossible to farm it, but it makes it more costly to farm it in an industrial way.
Key presses are not expensive, valuable, constructive content is. Its expensive because it requires experience and or thought. Pressing buttons in itself does not. All you do is force button pressing.
And let's face the truth if you take all the messages of less than 75 characters I'm pretty sure 90% of them will be spamming answers. (Though I never did any stats of that it's just an impression :3 )
Maybe, the majority of short answers are already lazy spam and worthless junk, but I dont think a higher number of symbols will change it. If anything it will change the noise to signal ratio to the worse.
Never said that length is similar to quality, that would be stupid of me!
But that a short answer can always be transformed into a longer one and you'll always have a better one. My answer is misleading you find? Maybe it's because I don't understand well the differences between cryptocurrencies or because I lack technical knowledge I don't know, but what's interesting it's that if my answer is more detailed, such incoherences will appear so other users will have the occasion to correct me.
I'll learn something and the user asking the original question will have more elements. It's a win-win for me
And key presses are expensive in time. I'm pretty sure lots of sig spammer posting only 20 characters answers or even less do it only because they want to maximize profit. I find it a good way to counter them is to put a base characters limit.
But you're right in the fact that contrary to captchas it does change the message. I just have the feeling it can't really change it in a bad way and can't think of a situation where it would be. Maybe I also lack imagination
Quote from: Newbie
Is Bitcoin really a decentralized currency? How many coins can there be?
I believe this answer is more detailed and would probably help more (maybe my explanations are not the best, I'm not an expert ^^).
The main idea is if you create the necessity of the 75 characters, it will reduce spam (cause spamming sig campaign would become more expensive in time) and people would get used to answering in a more detailed way. Which can't be a bad thing in my opinion.
So you gave him a misleading and wrong answer that might result in more confusion in the future. Bitcoin is not Litecoin and some of the other things you wrote are at the very least misleading if not plain wrong. Its a great example that length does not equal quality.
Imposing a character is the same thing as putting a captcha before the faucets.
No, it changes the message, a captcha does not.
It doesn't make it impossible to farm it, but it makes it more costly to farm it in an industrial way.
Key presses are not expensive, valuable, constructive content is. Its expensive because it requires experience and or thought. Pressing buttons in itself does not. All you do is force button pressing.
And let's face the truth if you take all the messages of less than 75 characters I'm pretty sure 90% of them will be spamming answers. (Though I never did any stats of that it's just an impression :3 )
Maybe, the majority of short answers are already lazy spam and worthless junk, but I dont think a higher number of symbols will change it. If anything it will change the noise to signal ratio to the worse.
Quote from: Newbie
Is Bitcoin really a decentralized currency? How many coins can there be?
I believe this answer is more detailed and would probably help more (maybe my explanations are not the best, I'm not an expert ^^).
The main idea is if you create the necessity of the 75 characters, it will reduce spam (cause spamming sig campaign would become more expensive in time) and people would get used to answering in a more detailed way. Which can't be a bad thing in my opinion.
Imposing a character is the same thing as putting a captcha before the faucets. It doesn't make it impossible to farm it, but it makes it more costly to farm it in an industrial way. And let's face the truth if you take all the messages of less than 75 characters I'm pretty sure 90% of them will be spamming answers. (Though I never did any stats of that it's just an impression :3 )
- Disallow eveyone under "Full or Senior Member" from joining a campaign.
- Disallow Pay Per Post signature campaigns.
someone explain to me why fixed rate sig campaign will decrease spam.
as I see it: pay per post with limit = can choose to post only when you want to. fixed rate with quota = have to force yourself to make XX number of posts if you want to get paid.
am I wrong?
pay per post campaign you joined pay you for upto 640 posts per month
now see the difference yourself
fixed max 100 posts per month
your campaign max 640 posts per month
which one is more spammy?
IMO both are equally spammy because not all participants of pay per post campaigns makes 20+ posts a day.
and there's nothing stopping the fixed rate campaigns from increasing their quota for the super active users.
the solution for this is to limit the maximum number of counted post for all kinds of sig campaigns. there.
edited
- Disallow eveyone under "Full or Senior Member" from joining a campaign.
- Disallow Pay Per Post signature campaigns.
someone explain to me why fixed rate sig campaign will decrease spam.
as I see it: pay per post with limit = can choose to post only when you want to. fixed rate with quota = have to force yourself to make XX number of posts if you want to get paid.
am I wrong?
pay per post campaign you joined pay you for upto 640 posts per month
now see the difference yourself
fixed max 100 posts per month
your campaign max 640 posts per month
which one is more spammy?
- Disallow eveyone under "Full or Senior Member" from joining a campaign.
- Disallow Pay Per Post signature campaigns.
someone explain to me why fixed rate sig campaign will decrease spam.
as I see it: pay per post with limit = can choose to post only when you want to. fixed rate with quota = have to force yourself to make XX number of posts if you want to get paid.
am I wrong?
I think only fixed rate campaigns should allowed, pay per post campaigns makes more spam on forum.Everyone in rush to make posts because they get paid more when they post more but fixed campaigns will reduce spam on forum and users will make posts only that is good.
So what prevents me from creating 10 accounts and using each of them to make 20 posts per week instead of 200 posts with 1 account? Nothing. Let's move on; this idea won't work. This especially has no effect on the quality.allow only full or senior member and above to join signature campaign and allowing only fixed rate campaign will reduce scam a lot.
You said
what prevents me from creating 10 accounts and using each of them to make 20 posts per week instead of 200 posts with 1 account? Nothing. Let's move on; this idea won't work.
Yes you can create 10 account but can you make them all senior ? NOif someone makes new account it will take them time to get senior rank where they will allowed to join signature campaign
these 2 things can control spam on forum
- Disallow eveyone under "Full or Senior Member" from joining a campaign.
- Disallow Pay Per Post signature campaigns.
i only agree on the second point, is the best one to reduce the spam, but do it under senior member, and you will see a real spam decrease
Nowadays it is a profitable trend to farm accounts and sell them or join them into a signature campaign.
That is where the majority of the shit posting come from and that is why I agree with Amph.
If you make signature campaigns only available for at least Sr Members, then 50% of the spam will be gone.
If you make signature campaigns only available for at least Hero Members, then 75% of the spam will be gone.
Quote from: Newbie
Is Bitcoin really a decentralized currency? How many coins can there be?
I believe this answer is more detailed and would probably help more (maybe my explanations are not the best, I'm not an expert ^^).
The main idea is if you create the necessity of the 75 characters, it will reduce spam (cause spamming sig campaign would become more expensive in time) and people would get used to answering in a more detailed way. Which can't be a bad thing in my opinion.
I find it good to have a minimum amount of character and/or sentences!
After all, if your answer is too short, that means you add nothing to the thread. So that you shouldn't post at all.
Your post is false and longer than the usual cut-off limit, albeit adds nothing valuable to the thread. Let's follow your logic with an example:After all, if your answer is too short, that means you add nothing to the thread. So that you shouldn't post at all.
Quote from: Newbie
Is Bitcoin really a decentralized currency? How many coins can there be?
Quote from: Expert
Yes it is; a maximum of ~21 million coins.
According to you, this post adds nothing to the thread. 
The length of a post has nothing to do with its quality. A post containing a few words can be much more valuable and accurate than one containing a hundred words. Stop supporting this illogical and harmful idea.
Well my answer added my support to this idea and launched a debate between you and me from which might emerge additionnal content and reflexion. So it was not that useless ^^
Your example is a good one indeed! You see here the Expert answered quickly to the newbie. And I'm willing to bet that this answer is not enough! But with the minimal of 75 characters maybe he would have taken the time to answer:
Quote
Yes it is. The principle is that only the person having control of the wallet can decide to send coins and to which adress. And the payment process is noted and confirmed by the miners, who can be anyone in the world running the Bitcoin scrypt. So the only way to centralize btc (so to control it) would be to control the majority of miners.
The number of coins is limited by the definition of bitcoin itself, it's aroung 21 million coins.
The number of coins is limited by the definition of bitcoin itself, it's aroung 21 million coins.
I believe this answer is more detailed and would probably help more (maybe my explanations are not the best, I'm not an expert ^^).
The main idea is if you create the necessity of the 75 characters, it will reduce spam (cause spamming sig campaign would become more expensive in time) and people would get used to answering in a more detailed way. Which can't be a bad thing in my opinion.
I find it good to have a minimum amount of character and/or sentences!
After all, if your answer is too short, that means you add nothing to the thread. So that you shouldn't post at all.
Your post is false and longer than the usual cut-off limit, albeit adds nothing valuable to the thread. Let's follow your logic with an example:After all, if your answer is too short, that means you add nothing to the thread. So that you shouldn't post at all.
Quote from: Newbie
Is Bitcoin really a decentralized currency? How many coins can there be?
Quote from: Expert
Yes it is; a maximum of ~21 million coins.
According to you, this post adds nothing to the thread. The length of a post has nothing to do with its quality. A post containing a few words can be much more valuable and accurate than one containing a hundred words. Stop supporting this illogical and harmful idea.
I have some ideas.
First, signature campaign managers are "supposed" to be the ones who ban people from campaigns.
Second, signature campaigns should pay people based on the quality of their posts (not on number of posts).
Third, payments shouldn't be made for signature campaigns if they adopt one of the following strategies:
• Posts must be more than 75 characters.
• Posts must be more than 3 sentences
They should add another one for pots being on topic with the OP.
Finally, users should NOT be paid based on rank, but on loyalty to the campaign.
Example: a user should have their payment increase by, say, 5% per payment.
Or, there could be fixed payment systems (that paymore than payment per post, that are more efficient)
First, signature campaign managers are "supposed" to be the ones who ban people from campaigns.
Second, signature campaigns should pay people based on the quality of their posts (not on number of posts).
Third, payments shouldn't be made for signature campaigns if they adopt one of the following strategies:
• Posts must be more than 75 characters.
• Posts must be more than 3 sentences
They should add another one for pots being on topic with the OP.
Finally, users should NOT be paid based on rank, but on loyalty to the campaign.
Example: a user should have their payment increase by, say, 5% per payment.
Or, there could be fixed payment systems (that paymore than payment per post, that are more efficient)
I find it good to have a minimum amount of character and/or sentences!
After all, if your answer is too short, that means you add nothing to the thread. So that you shouldn't post at all.
That will limit spam, not only for sig campaign but for everything!
I like this idea a lot. But not the 3 sentences part cause sometimes you make just one super ultra fucking long sentence xD
i only agree on the second point, is the best one to reduce the spam, but do it under senior member, and you will see a real spam decrease
- 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
Good point. That's why I kept no slot for full members in my campaign.
In fact, implementing a parameter like "karma", similar to that available in Reddit would be great for demarcating quality posters. I hope it gets implemented on the new forum software.
But the fact that a trust system is here, would be useless if there's an auto ban for negative rep members. This is what I contradict from the above suggestions.
Jump to: