I've suggested it before. It's one way for sure to stop all the messy bot spam.
Theymos states that he does not has intention to bring Newbie Jail back. If there are things to do, it is to destroy the whole signature campaign industry, that theymos really does not want to do.
3. The users post isn't displayed publicly
Who will check those posts stay in queue?
4. The post enters a queue which can be accepted or rejected
This wouldn't be bringing back newbie jail. They can post. They just need to be whitelisted before it goes 'live' and most will be none the wiser to it.
That would be unfair to newbies who needed the answer immediately. By the time the question has been approved for posting, there is a chance that answers will no longer become relevant to the OP. I have seen this case happen in a lot of facebook groups.
How immediately do you think people need something answering? What makes you think they would even get an answer? I don't think it would take long to verify at all and more mods could be added to meet demand.
Nice idea. Impossible to implement in reality. There's too many to handle.
It's not impossible to implement. Many forums have this sort of thing. I signed up to one yesterday which had it. I don't know how long it took to verify me as I got no notification just an alert that my account needed to be verified, but the irony is my account was instantly permabanned automatically when I made my first post as being suspected of being a bot. Had someone actually verified my post that probably wouldn't have happened.
Newbie jail was a reality when I joined. I think it should absolutely definitely make a comeback. It's automated, easy to understand and erases most problems. Lots of other forums have a similar system, but if it's not the owner's will then it won't happen.
This is more impossible as theymos said he won't be bringing it back. There are much better ways than newbie jail to curb spam and I think this suggestion is one of them.
According to Alex_Sr's thread here (
Statistics of user registrations on Bitcointalk 2017-2019), we are currently looking at around 20,000 new accounts per month, but we were over ten times as high during the height of the bull run.
It is impossible to know how many of those accounts would have had their first post deleted under this new system. There is no way we would ban these accounts for making one poor post, and so it is impossible to quantify how many would go on to make a second, third, fourth, tenth, twentieth, etc. post which would also need to be reviewed under such a system before they were "whitelisted". There is obviously also accounts which are created and do not post.
Accounts wouldn't be banned for making a poor post but just the obvious bots. The people who sign up here just to post a ref link or something similar can also be dealt with without having to be reported. People making their first post in the wrong section (which is very common) can also be directed to the right one. The stats you would need are how many new users sign up and make at least one post. Many accounts just lurk or are bots that never make it to making a first post for whatever reason. Also, how many new accounts are nuked straight away that have to be reported and acted on by both users and staff anyway? Sure, it is more work for staff but reviewing the accounts would be a priority and at least it stops bots from being a nuisance.
Personally, I see this looks a poor solution; admins/mods would get thousands of posts to verify, on top of their already existing workload.
That's the reason why such a feature won't ever be implemented. I've seen forums that do exactly what OP is suggesting, but they have far fewer members to deal with. I forget the figure, but bitcointalk has multiple millions of registered users with thousands of new ones registering every month. There's no way in hell mods would be able to approve posts.
In the past four months staff have been handling between 18-20k reports a month. White-listing a users first post probably wouldn't be a big deal. You could even do a trial run. Ie, the system is put in place but nothing actually changes on the user front and we see how long and how much time it would take to handle them and if a backlog quickly built up. As I already said, more staff could be added to meet demand as well. You could even have one or two staff who's sole job was to handle them. I'm not saying it's perfect and there are pros and cons to any spam measure, but at least this pretty much stops the bots nearly 100% from being an eyesore and infecting the forum.
Your idea completely destroys what a forum should be. Can you just imagine how could you practice free speech in a forum when all of your posts will be subject for approval? You simply can't! all your replies will be subject to the moderators reviewing it and it would really depend on whether or not its “relevant” for them. We don't really need to adjust to spammers and plagiarizers and affect everyone in the forum, they are the ones who need to adjust for us that's why we have a report button and bans in placed for them.
This isn't what is being suggested. A users first post only needs to be approved just to ensure they're not a spambot. Accounts wouldn't be banned or effected just for posting something a mod didn't like and staff could already remove it if they wanted but if they did they wouldn't be a mod for long.