Proactive fighting with spammers. Doing it the right way - page 7.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BitHodler on October 19, 2016, 06:29:20 AM

Good point where I have nothing to add beside giving a thumbs up to SFR10 for how he/she is managing the BIT.AC campaign.

A lot people that are trying to enroll there are being denied which makes SFR10 not a good guy in their eyes, but this is the best way to run a campaign

It is easy to be a "bad" guy when the campaign you are going to manage has only a very limited number of slots available. As of now, SFR10 has to choose just 20 posters, so he can allow himself to be picky about whom to accept and whom to reject. But what would he do if the number of slots was in the hundreds? Would he be as choosy as he is right now?

Anyways, SFR10 himself said that the BIT.AC signature campaign would be his last campaign that he would manage (due to his tight job schedule)

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 3990

Merit: 2713

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Wendigo on October 19, 2016, 07:23:09 AM

Easiest way is to disable all signatures for all users and that will repel 99% of the signature spammers. No incentive = no hollow forced posts containing 100 of characters saying basically nothing.

Well, that's the only way to solve the problem for sure and I'm not against it. If these new guidelines don't work then I can't see any other option really. Campaigns that do little to nothing to monitor/curb spam after a warning will be having their signatures barred from the forum by an admin so we're halfway there to that. Hopefully campaigns will just start only accepting quality posters but for those that don't they wont be allowed to advertise here in such a way any longer.

Quote from: Wendigo on October 19, 2016, 07:23:09 AM

How much traffic would the forum stand to lose if there was no more incentive for posting? 50% or more?

And that's the dilemma here. I'm sure it would be much more than 50% but 50% of people who are only here because of campaigns wont be missed, but even 'great' posters may eventually dwindle and leave as getting some money for being here is still a massive plus and will inevitably be what keeps some of them as active as they are.

Wendigo

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 1036

Easiest way is to disable all signatures for all users and that will repel 99% of the signature spammers. No incentive = no hollow forced posts containing 100 of characters saying basically nothing. Actually I am kinda curious how the forum would look like if no signatures were allowed. I have stopped reading threads past the head post because I know what is waiting for me underneath. How much traffic would the forum stand to lose if there was no more incentive for posting? 50% or more?

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 3990

Merit: 2713

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: deisik on October 19, 2016, 05:28:32 AM

In my opinion, a threat of, say, a monthly ban will make most if not all of the campaign managers more careful and less promiscuous in the selection of new participants for the signature campaigns they happen to manage. Obviously, the unofficial forum rules should be amended with a special section concerning campaign managers and their responsibilities...

A thread is going to stickied very soon with rules/guidelines for both managers and signature campaigners and punishments for people who run the campaigns very poorly.

poptok1

hero member

Activity: 1638

Merit: 756

Bobby Fischer was right

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/smas-signature-managers-against-spam-light-version-1545652
It was already introduced as concept in this thread.
I'm not entirely sure what is the status of this action but one thing is certain,
it is a good idea... One thing only bothers me, unofficial group (signature managers) holding
power... soulless creature with more influence than it can handle, may end in disaster.
(I know, I'm paranoid)

BitHodler

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1179

Good point where I have nothing to add beside giving a thumbs up to SFR10 for how he/she is managing the BIT.AC campaign.

A lot people that are trying to enroll there are being denied which makes SFR10 not a good guy in their eyes, but this is the best way to run a campaign.

That's how you avoid spam on a massive scale, and encourage people to up their quality to a decent level.

SaltySpitoon

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 2156

Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?

I will mention that the Staff is also having this discussion right now. The general consensus is that something needs to be done. The means of doing that is what is being discussed.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

It is beyond doubt that the quality of posts has massively gone down during the last few years primarily due to the influx of shit posters and the insane amount of spam they produce. It is no secret either that most (if not all) users heavily spamming here are spamming because they are being paid by the signature campaigns they are enrolled in. As I see it, banning individual spammers won't help much since the advertisers these users are posting for seem not to be so much interested in the quality of posts as in the amount of exposure their ads get. So banning one spammy user may actually lead to his slot being taken by an even more spammy individual. Instead of banning individual shit posters, I suggest punishing the managers of signature campaigns these posters are enrolled in. In my opinion, a threat of, say, a monthly ban will make most if not all of the campaign managers more careful and less promiscuous in the selection of new participants for the signature campaigns they happen to manage. Obviously, the unofficial forum rules should be amended with a special section concerning campaign managers and their responsibilities...

I would like to hear your opinion as well as constructive criticism if there is any

Topic: Proactive fighting with spammers. Doing it the right way - page 7. (Read 7112 times)