Proactive fighting with spammers. Doing it the right way - page 3.

Wendigo

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 1036

You all could continue bickering about this and that till the end of time. The only solution is to disable the signatures throughout the forum for everyone. Problem solved. Now we all can go back to enjoying life and spend less time in here talking about trivial matters.

And by the way I have seen people talking to their alts in the same thread quoting their own posts and speaking as if they were 2 different persons. There are some real nut jobs on this forum and before the whole thing goes to shit something radical must be done. I haven't seen anything like this on other forums. I guess the incentive to gain more coins is pushing people in the abnormal behavior. Greed is bad okay?

Bitcointalk has become like a version of Westworld where we are surrounded by fakes everywhere Grin

My 2 cents.

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: utkarshm on October 21, 2016, 03:03:40 PM

The first step towards removing spammers from this forum should be to stop the accounts buying and selling.

I see this suggestion a lot. How would you propose going about doing it? Who is account farming and who is just an occasional and crappy poster?

If account sales were banned on here, they'd simply move to another website and carry on there.

As a thought experiment perhaps all sigs should be shut down for a week or a month just to see how it impacts the forum overall. If enough people realise that prospect is permanent if the tsunami of crap continues, maybe they'd start to shape up.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: utkarshm on October 21, 2016, 03:03:40 PM

The first step towards removing spammers from this forum should be to stop the accounts buying and selling.Because newbies buying a Sr.Member account would surely spam because they dont have that knowledge and experience and secondly they are buying account only to earn through signature campaigns,meaning just to spam to increase post count.
So account farming should be strictly prohibited first of all,so that would stop users by creating alt accounts just to sell them in future and stop newbies to spam with Sr.member or hero member accounts.

Spammers gonna spam no matter what. I read somewhere about a gang of pickpockets who established their "headquarters" right under the gallows where their flock had been hanged, so that they could strip the mob of their money on the spot, so to speak...

The more things are forbidden, the more popular they become

utkarshm

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

The first step towards removing spammers from this forum should be to stop the accounts buying and selling.Because newbies buying a Sr.Member account would surely spam because they dont have that knowledge and experience and secondly they are buying account only to earn through signature campaigns,meaning just to spam to increase post count.
So account farming should be strictly prohibited first of all,so that would stop users by creating alt accounts just to sell them in future and stop newbies to spam with Sr.member or hero member accounts.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 21, 2016, 01:13:49 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 01:08:35 PM

As pointed out earlier, mods could allow signatures without being directly asked for that, as part of their usual post checking routine. If they don't do that, then who is to blame for the rampant expansion of spam across the forum?

So indirectly it comes down to mods who are suppose to make sure they only allow signatures to users they think are posting constructively?

Yes, since it was unequivocally stated by some staff member here that the users who are shit posting should be banned, at first temporarily, then permanently. Given that the absolute majority of such posters are posting for money (i.e. they are paid for their signatures) and thus wouldn't post at all if not allowed to wear a signature, enabling signatures only for constructive posters will efficiently solve the issue of spamming on the forum. Whether the mods would be too strict on allowing signatures is another question...

If this is what you are getting at, of course

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 21, 2016, 01:13:49 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

I suspect the price of such accounts would be prohibitively expensive for the total majority of spammers

With 0% possibility of getting approved by the mods.

I didn't quite understand what you meant to say. Buying an unapproved account makes no sense at all if you are going to wear a signature

Joel_Jantsen

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1317

Get your game girl

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 01:08:35 PM

As pointed out earlier, mods could allow signatures without being directly asked for that, as part of their usual post checking routine. If they don't do that, then who is to blame for the rampant expansion of spam across the forum?

So indirectly it comes down to mods who are suppose to make sure they only allow signatures to users they think are posting constructively ? I disagree,better leave to the campaign managers since managers are only paid to make sure they weed out spammers from the quality posters.For the answer,not mods but the (undeserving) campaign managers are to be blamed for the copious amount of spam.

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

I suspect the price of such accounts would be prohibitively expensive for the total majority of spammers

With 0% possibility of getting approved by the mods.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 21, 2016, 12:40:44 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

Well, I slept on this (even twice), and I have a new suggestion regarding spam issues and how to efficiently resolve them.

Well, I'm happy you didn't say ban all the signature campaigns

I never said anything to that tune. You are obviously confusing me with someone else, since I made it perfectly clear right from the start that I'm against banning services (which pretty fast comes down to banning signature campaigns), irrespective of whether the members of their signature campaigns are spamming or not

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 21, 2016, 12:40:44 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

What I come up with essentially boils down to disabling signatures for all new users (disabling them retrospectively for all users doesn't feel quite right), and if a user wants to join a signature campaign or just wear some signature, he would ask a mod to enable it for him

What about people who don't wear a paid signature ? Wouldn't it be biased for them ? They don't intend to post on the forum actively but if they have a service here,they might just advertize the same

All new users will be in the same conditions. If you spam, you can't wear a signature, as simple as it gets. Whether it is paid or not is irrelevant

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 21, 2016, 12:40:44 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

The mod would then look at the applicant's post history and decide for himself whether this particular user is worth posting with a signature or not...

What if the mods get 500 requests on daily basis to be reviewed ? Puts a lot of work load mate.Not like they are even paid that much to do it

As pointed out earlier, mods could allow signatures without being directly asked for that, as part of their usual post checking routine. If they don't do that and just check reports, then who is to blame for the rampant expansion of spam across the forum after all?

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 21, 2016, 12:40:44 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

In this way, even new users would be prompted to post sense if they aim to enroll in a signature campaign later

New Business : Buy A signature ready farmed account,excellent post quality,100% mods approval chances

I suspect that the price of such accounts will be prohibitively expensive for the total majority of spammers. Besides, I don't think that anyone is actually buying accounts with the singular purpose of spamming even now. For the simple reason that the risk of getting a perma ban doesn't make it a profitable investment overall...

But you are entitled to disagree, of course

Joel_Jantsen

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1317

Get your game girl

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

Well, I slept on this (even twice), and I have a new suggestion regarding spam issues and how to efficiently resolve them.

Well, I'm happy you didn't say ban all the signature campaigns.

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

What I come up with essentially boils down to disabling signatures for all new users (disabling them retrospectively for all users doesn't feel quite right), and if a user wants to join a signature campaign or just wear some signature, he would ask a mod to enable it for him

What about people who don't wear a paid signature ? Wouldn't it be biased for them ? They don't intend to post on the forum actively but if they have a service here,they might just advertize the same.

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

The mod would then look at the applicant's post history and decide for himself whether this particular user is worth posting with a signature or not...

What if the mods get 500 requests on daily basis to be reviewed ? Puts a lot of work load mate.Not like they are even paid that much to do it.

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

In this way, even new users would be prompted to post sense if they aim to enroll in a signature campaign later

New Business : Buy A signature ready farmed account,excellent post quality,100% mods approval chances.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

The process of banning on this forum is properly defined (e.g. who can, can't). Your idea isn't defined, ergo the argument is invalid. You should work on defining a proposal, not avoiding criticism with red herring.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Lauda on October 21, 2016, 09:21:02 AM

@Suggestion above: This is an interesting and unusual idea (I have not seen it before). The initial workload would indeed be high, and there would be a backlog. However, this would go down with time and there certainly are enough moderators to do this. The problematic that I do see:
1) How exactly do we decide? (e.g. approval by 1 or multiple mods per user)
2) Subjective decision making (e.g. some other mods are likely going to be softer than me. How do we reach consensus?)
3) "My signature is disabled but user X with bad or equal post quality has a signature?!?" threads.

These are the first few things that come to mind.

All these three points can be equally asked about the process of how users get banned right now. So, when banning a user:

1) How exactly do we decide? (e.g. approval by 1 or multiple mods per user)
2) Subjective decision making (e.g. some other mods are likely going to be softer than me. How do we reach consensus?)
3) Threads starting with "I was banned for shit posting while the user X with worse or equal post quality wasn't"

I guess you can essentially apply the same rules for allowing (or not allowing) signatures as for banning users. I think the gory details as well as differences in and of the process should not be very significant. Obviously, the forum authorities can easily work out the specific rules regarding this case without my or anyone else's help...

Ultimately, if nothing helps you can still apply rule #23

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

@Suggestion above: This is an interesting and unusual idea (I have not seen it before). The initial workload would indeed be high, and there would be a backlog. However, this would go down with time and there certainly are enough moderators to do this. The problematic that I do see:
1) How exactly do we decide? (e.g. approval by 1 or multiple mods per user)
2) Subjective decision making (e.g. some other mods are likely going to be softer than me. How do we reach consensus?)
3) "My signature is disabled but user X with bad or equal post quality has a signature?!?" threads.

These are the first few things that come to mind.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: actmyname on October 21, 2016, 08:55:43 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

Well, I slept on this (even two times), and I have a new suggestion regarding spam issues and how to efficiently resolve them. What I come up with essentially boils to disabling signatures for all new users (disabling them retrospectively for all users doesn't feel quite right), and if a user wants to join a signature campaign or just wear some signature, he would ask a mod to enable it for him. The mod would then look at the applicant's post history and decide for himself whether this particular user is worth posting with a signature or not...

In this way, even new users would be prompted to post sense if they aim to enroll in a signature campaign later

Doesn't this add a ton of extra workload for mods, given that they would have to deal with report posts along with these? It's practically asking them to do a campaign manager's job.

Let's be unbiased here. Reading shit posts and giving out temporary bans only to read pretty much the same crap all over again after the ban is lifted wouldn't be a lot easier. In fact, these two seemingly separate jobs can be done simultaneously, i.e. if the user posts sense he could be allowed to add a signature without asking for a permission. On the other hand, the right to assess the quality of users posts as well as allow them to add signatures if they qualify could be granted to, for example, a default trust user group...

Indeed, this doesn't in the least exempt the campaign managers from doing their job

actmyname

copper member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 2510

Spear the bees

Quote from: deisik on October 21, 2016, 06:15:52 AM

Well, I slept on this (even two times), and I have a new suggestion regarding spam issues and how to efficiently resolve them. What I come up with essentially boils to disabling signatures for all new users (disabling them retrospectively for all users doesn't feel quite right), and if a user wants to join a signature campaign or just wear some signature, he would ask a mod to enable it for him. The mod would then look at the applicant's post history and decide for himself whether this particular user is worth posting with a signature or not...

In this way, even new users would be prompted to post sense if they aim to enroll in a signature campaign later

Doesn't this add a ton of extra workload for mods, given that they would have to deal with report posts along with these? It's practically asking them to do a campaign manager's job.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Well, I slept on this (even twice), and I have a new suggestion regarding spam issues and how to efficiently resolve them. What I come up with essentially boils down to disabling signatures for all new users (disabling them retrospectively for all users doesn't feel quite right), and if a user wants to join a signature campaign or just wear some signature, he would ask a mod to enable it for him. The mod would then look at the applicant's post history and decide for himself whether this particular user is worth posting with a signature or not...

In this way, even new users would be prompted to post sense if they aim to enroll in a signature campaign later

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BITMIXER.IO on October 21, 2016, 05:05:29 AM

I'm sorry for the late answer, just returned from vacations.
We are definitely going to clean up our signature campaign very soon. May be hilariousandco help us in this work.

I think the problem should be resolved at the level of forum's admins, not sig campaign managers. They could ban users who spam on the forum.
Because our banned spammer may register on other sig campaign and continue fill forum with spam, then try another campaign, etc. But if he was banned on the forum, he can't.

There is already tough competition for slots in any decent signature campaign on the forum. If you clean up yours, the shit posters won't be able to join anywhere else here, at least, in such amounts. You are trying to lay your own fault (and that of other negligent campaign managers) at the moderators' door. As I have already said it, banning users exclusively for shit posting would be an exercise in both futility and hilarity since they would just register again and then "continue fill forum with spam". In any case, kicking a few campaign managers to do what they should seems to be the most efficient way to get rid of spam...

Barring total and indiscriminate signature removal, of course

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: BITMIXER.IO on October 21, 2016, 05:05:29 AM

I'm sorry for the late answer, just returned from vacations.
We are definitely going to clean up our signature campaign very soon. May be hilariousandco help us in this work.

I think the problem should be resolved at the level of forum's admins, not sig campaign managers. They could ban users who spam on the forum.
Because our banned spammer may register on other sig campaign and continue fill forum with spam, then try another campaign, etc. But if he was banned on the forum, he can't.

You're looking at this from a limited perspective though (local). If you globally observe a environment where everyone is working together we have:
1) Services that don't hire bad managers/properly manage their own campaigns -> Spammers can't get in.
2) Managers that properly hire their campaign/hold to a high standard -> Spammers can't get in.
3) Staff that bans/tags the ones (users, managers, campaigns) that don't participate.

Tl;dr: With everything working together it becomes much more efficient.

BITMIXER.IO

sr. member

Activity: 261

Merit: 265

I'm sorry for the late answer, just returned from vacations.
We are definitely going to clean up our signature campaign very soon. May be hilariousandco help us in this work.

I think the problem should be resolved at the level of forum's admins, not sig campaign managers. They could ban users who spam on the forum.
Because our banned spammer may register on other sig campaign and continue fill forum with spam, then try another campaign, etc. But if he was banned on the forum, he can't.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: deisik on October 20, 2016, 01:26:48 PM

It is not that simple. There were, and most likely still are, huge signature campaigns that recruit hundreds of users while there may be not so many good posters, thus the campaign managers which are chosen to run these campaigns might not have any other option left but to accept almost anyone who knows how to sign up for a campaign and not make a dozen mistakes therewith...

If there are not enough quality posters, the campaign should not hire that many people. Simple as that. If they want more posters, campaigns could compete with other campaigns on the price they offer.

Quote from: DannyHamilton on October 20, 2016, 02:37:14 PM

I think he's talking about me.

I've seen your posts

And would like to give you a "thumbs up" on your posts if I could. Instead of just Activity, based on just the number of post spread over the years, it would be really nice to have a +1 or -1 option to like/dislike posts as a quality-indicator for the user. But I think the army of Alts will quickly mess that up too.

Quote from: deisik on October 20, 2016, 01:52:07 PM

A good poster can't make more than, say, 15 posts daily on a regular basis, and daily might really be a hefty overstretch. Sometimes you don't feel like posting at all. Shit posters simply don't have such issues altogether

It's a day job to them. I've done the math, it can produce a very nice income in a lot of countries. In my experience it's mainly Asians (Indonesia/Philippines), which explains the bad English. And the more people discover this, the worse it gets. Until the market/forum is saturated with spam and the price per post goes down. Or until the moment the ban hammer hits them hard.

Quote from: actmyname on October 20, 2016, 04:03:38 PM

Spamming should not be condoned - it should be as simple as that. If any person could kindly tell me why spammers help the bitcointalk ecosystem (apart from pointless traffic for ad revenue) in any way at all, then I will certainly change my ways and turn into a hardcore one-line spammer myself. After all, I can easily pump out hundreds of useless posts to grind out those cents!

It seems it has become more or less accepted to post this way. And because people post like this, others see it's accepted and do the same.

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 21, 2016, 12:12:01 AM

Guess who just randomly decided to respond to my pm? Bitmixer. What a coincidence! I'm sure someone with about ten accounts on their campaign mailed them in a panic or something.

So just the idea of bans is already paying off!
Any idea what the timeline on the stricter rules for spammers is?

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 3990

Merit: 2717

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

I've told them what needs to be done and the consequences of not doing anything about it so it's just up to them now.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: DannyHamilton on October 20, 2016, 02:37:14 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 20, 2016, 01:52:07 PM

Who is that DannyHamilton, by the way?

I think he's talking about me

Nice to meet you!

Quote from: DannyHamilton on October 20, 2016, 02:37:14 PM

I'm just a computer programmer from Illinois (USA) with an interest in the bitcoin protocol. I do what I can to help others learn and understand.

But this is evidently not what you are famous for here. I have a bad memory for names, so your name didn't tell me anything, I'm sorry. Until I saw your signature. I had bookmarked your Ignore thread long ago, and when I see somebody starting to proclaim themselves as being among the top posters across the forum, I consult with it and more often than not find them in your Ignore list. Not that I would particularly care, but it still gives me some comfort and peace of mind, lol

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 21, 2016, 12:12:01 AM

Guess who just randomly decided to respond to my pm? Bitmixer. What a coincidence! I'm sure someone with about ten accounts on their campaign mailed them in a panic or something.

I hope you came to an agreement with them in regard to stricter moderation of Bitmixer's signature campaign members?

Topic: Proactive fighting with spammers. Doing it the right way - page 3. (Read 7125 times)