My proposal to reduce signature campaign spamming - page 5.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: moko666 on February 05, 2016, 10:56:34 AM

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.

Quote from: botany on February 05, 2016, 10:29:47 AM

Nope. I guess this would actually work a bit.
You only decrease the number of people who can wear signatures, and thereby reduce the number of potential spammers.

I'm not sure why the minimum requirement isn't at least Senior Member.

moko666

hero member

Activity: 635

Merit: 500

BlasterKVs the king of xbox modding

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.

botany

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1064

Quote from: Decoded on February 04, 2016, 06:10:46 PM

If you make Full members the accounts that are the lowest but can still get signatures, they'll be alot more expensive than they already are. This price could in turn encourage the trade of accounts for signature campaigns, giving us MORE potential spammers.

Nope. I guess this would actually work a bit.
You only decrease the number of people who can wear signatures, and thereby reduce the number of potential spammers.

Wargika

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

Quote from: sase007 on February 04, 2016, 06:16:13 PM

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)

The kind of signatures you can have depends on the rank of the member. For higher ranks, they will have colour and bigger space.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: sase007 on February 04, 2016, 06:16:13 PM

• Posts must be more than 75 characters.
• Posts must be more than 3 sentences

No.

Quote from: tommorisonwebdesign on February 04, 2016, 04:56:22 PM

[Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members

No.

Quote from: tommorisonwebdesign on February 04, 2016, 04:56:22 PM

Disallow eveyone under "Full Member" from joining a campaign.

Yes.

Quote from: tommorisonwebdesign on February 04, 2016, 04:56:22 PM

Automatically ban users with too much negative rep

No.

Quote from: tommorisonwebdesign on February 04, 2016, 04:56:22 PM

Ban campaigns that are poorly managed

Yes.

Quote from: Decoded on February 04, 2016, 06:10:46 PM

If you make Full members the accounts that are the lowest but can still get signatures, they'll be alot more expensive than they already are. This price could in turn encourage the trade of accounts for signature campaigns, giving us MORE potential spammers.

That's just too paranoid; I don't think that this is going to happen. Some views are weird to me:"We're not doing anything -> let's complain about doing nothing"; "We could do something -> let's complain that it will do more harm"; ergo let's do nothing? We can't know until we try something out.

bitcoin revo

legendary

Activity: 1168

Merit: 1049

Quote from: sase007 on February 04, 2016, 06:16:13 PM

• Posts must be more than 75 characters.
• Posts must be more than 3 sentences

There are plenty of posts that are more high quality than those with 100 characters/10+ sentences. Oftentimes you'll see shitposters try and cover themselves up by rambling on over... and over... and over...

Quote from: sase007 on February 04, 2016, 06:16:13 PM

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.

So a mediocre poster barely passing on through each period could be paid more than someone actually caring about what they're posting? Plus, it's discouraging campaigns to continue on for a while because those like Bit-X would be paying some people 200%+ the normal payment.

sase007

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

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)

Decoded

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1030

give me your cryptos

If you make Full members the accounts that are the lowest but can still get signatures, they'll be alot more expensive than they already are. This price could in turn encourage the trade of accounts for signature campaigns, giving us MORE potential spammers.

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3528

Merit: 7005

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: --Encrypted-- on February 04, 2016, 05:07:07 PM

1. susceptible to abuse.
2. might work.
3. that will make scams/scammers indirectly moderated. I don't see the need for this as we can always add campaign that accept negative trusted users to [4].
4. might work.

I like the thanks button & rep feature though. just as long as it is not used for deciding who's constructive and who's not.

And I would suggest that this needs to change. Scammers don't need to be in signature campaigns--if they've done the community wrong, they should be sanctioned for it, within limits. And I think whatever limits there are should be defined by staff.

simon66

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

"Implement a reputation/thanks system (different than trust) with rewards for high ranking members"

I think it would be good if all posts had up/down arrows on them you could click similar to reddit that users could use to vote on good and bad posts.

If you like the post and think it is quality then click up, if you feel that post is spamming click down. Next to where trust is displayed you could also display a post quality count that adds all the +1's and -1's for your score.

Then the sig campaigns would have the option to base there pay rate on the quality of the posts as apposed to just the quantity and rank.

--Encrypted--

copper member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1007

hee-ho.

1. susceptible to abuse.
2. might work.
3. that will make scams/scammers indirectly moderated. I don't see the need for this as we can always add campaign that accept negative trusted users to [4].
4. might work.

I like the thanks button & rep feature though. just as long as it is not used for deciding who's constructive and who's not.

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

Quote from: tommorisonwebdesign on February 04, 2016, 04:56:22 PM

...

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

...

Have to much negative point doesn't necessarily mean that you are a spammer or post low quality posts, right ? A good example is : Quickseller. I agree with your other suggestions, waiting to see more...

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3528

Merit: 7005

Top Crypto Casino

You have a great suggestion about restricting sig campaigns, and I think the details of your suggestion are also very good. I try very hard to contribute something when I post, and it has always driven me nuts when people get paid to shitpost. And if you're creative and talented enough to make a bot with AI to automatically post, just think how much you could add to the forum! But no, people are 1) Lazy, and 2) Greedy.

So I strenuously agree with this. I wouldn't even change a word of how you suggested this.

tommorisonwebdesign

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 251

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:

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?

Topic: My proposal to reduce signature campaign spamming - page 5. (Read 5112 times)