Pages:
Author

Topic: Proposal: Disallow Ads in Signatures - page 3. (Read 19045 times)

legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
nahtnam.com
April 20, 2014, 02:33:04 PM
I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.

Why not only allow Full Members + to have a signature in the first place?
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1118
April 20, 2014, 02:30:27 PM
I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.

The amount isn't the point nor the topic of this thread, it's the spam that it creates.
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
nahtnam.com
April 20, 2014, 02:29:18 PM
I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.

BTW I get more around $100-200.
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1118
April 20, 2014, 09:59:21 AM
I stopped putting ads in my signature when I realized it makes me look similar to those who just spam for money. Many people would complain that they can't spam for their $50/month that they get from signature ads, but in the long run it'd be much better for bitcointalk.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 101
April 18, 2014, 06:26:53 PM
1.someone else paying people to post on your forum, would you stop him? Cheesy
2.generating more content,ranking better on google, more users, more ads clicked, more revenue for the forum
3.If I was the owner I would make Donators have the largest signature of all..
that way people would donate just to get a bigger signature and therefore get more money per post
the forum would acquire large quantities of bitcoin so it can keep operating and perhaps even reward some of it's hard working people Smiley

I don't think the positive aspects of this are a lot better then the negative sides..
Yeah but in the end the changes are based on one guy getting annoyed by posts he can chose to ignore and decides to ask to ban what he doesn't like.

yes, but if he thinks trough it with his own head and how this actually is good not only for bitcointalk but for bitcoin too

the more data a website has the better it will rank and more people will accidently stumble upon bitcointalk and become sucked in the crypto world Cheesy

this is what we actually want, larger demand

besides, circulating some bitcoins around is also good for our coins Smiley
Ah yeah. Well this thread is getting old and those arguments have already circled around a few times in the thread, but didn't get much of response. In the end they wanted to stop spammers. After this period however I can't say that I've noticed a significant change. However if they have - good for them. Smiley
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 101
April 18, 2014, 06:23:36 PM
1.someone else paying people to post on your forum, would you stop him? Cheesy
2.generating more content,ranking better on google, more users, more ads clicked, more revenue for the forum
3.If I was the owner I would make Donators have the largest signature of all..
that way people would donate just to get a bigger signature and therefore get more money per post
the forum would acquire large quantities of bitcoin so it can keep operating and perhaps even reward some of it's hard working people Smiley

I don't think the positive aspects of this are a lot better then the negative sides..
Yeah but in the end the changes are based on one guy getting annoyed by posts he can chose to ignore and decides to ask to ban what he doesn't like.

yes, but if he thinks trough it with his own head and how this actually is good not only for bitcointalk but for bitcoin too

the more data a website has the better it will rank and more people will accidently stumble upon bitcointalk and become sucked in the crypto world Cheesy

this is what we actually want, larger demand

besides, circulating some bitcoins around is also good for our coins Smiley
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 101
April 18, 2014, 06:20:28 PM
1.someone else paying people to post on your forum, would you stop him? Cheesy
2.generating more content,ranking better on google, more users, more ads clicked, more revenue for the forum
3.If I was the owner I would make Donators have the largest signature of all..
that way people would donate just to get a bigger signature and therefore get more money per post
the forum would acquire large quantities of bitcoin so it can keep operating and perhaps even reward some of it's hard working people Smiley

I don't think the positive aspects of this are a lot better then the negative sides..
Yeah but in the end the changes are based on one guy getting annoyed by posts he can chose to ignore and decides to ask to ban what he doesn't like.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 101
April 18, 2014, 06:19:14 PM
1.someone else paying people to post on your forum, would you stop him? Cheesy
2.generating more content,ranking better on google, more users, more ads clicked, more revenue for the forum
3.If I was the owner I would make Donators have the largest signature of all..
that way people would donate just to get a bigger signature and therefore get more money per post
the forum would acquire large quantities of bitcoin so it can keep operating and perhaps even reward some of it's hard working people Smiley

I think the positive aspects of this are a lot better then the negative sides..
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
April 18, 2014, 01:22:28 PM
Which, frankly, is the best option.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 101
April 16, 2014, 06:30:13 PM
FYI, this thread is hilarious when you ignore everyone with paid advertising in their sigs.

Lol imagines the thread is like 5 - 10 posts tops ha-ha

But then you miss B!Z joke lol
And why would that matter? Do you think, in a scenario were there were no signature advertisements at all, that -none- of the people who chose to comment who currently has one of those, would've commented?

Depends how interested they are in the topic really signatures aside although sigs are a part of the forum design even if they are unpaid ones.
Yup, and not to forget there's an option to ignore ALL user's signatures. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1090
Learning the troll avoidance button :)
April 06, 2014, 11:46:17 PM
FYI, this thread is hilarious when you ignore everyone with paid advertising in their sigs.

Lol imagines the thread is like 5 - 10 posts tops ha-ha

But then you miss B!Z joke lol
And why would that matter? Do you think, in a scenario were there were no signature advertisements at all, that -none- of the people who chose to comment who currently has one of those, would've commented?

Depends how interested they are in the topic really signatures aside although sigs are a part of the forum design even if they are unpaid ones.
sr. member
Activity: 265
Merit: 250
Honni Soit Qui Mal i Pense
April 06, 2014, 12:39:47 PM
FYI, this thread is hilarious when you ignore everyone with paid advertising in their sigs.

I was thinking that very same thing, quite some time ago. Please look no further than this sentence in this post. Do not read the first sentence either.
I'm convinced that eventually the market will fix itself. The ad operators will only demand people with activity, presence AND quality comments. Thats why ive asked before about a thumbs up/down comment voting system or something like that. I know, we can end being a circus of numbers, pops, balls, stars and oh my but...
At the end it will get better. Lets see. The forum will evolve, i hope.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 101
April 06, 2014, 06:01:55 AM
FYI, this thread is hilarious when you ignore everyone with paid advertising in their sigs.

Lol imagines the thread is like 5 - 10 posts tops ha-ha

But then you miss B!Z joke lol
And why would that matter? Do you think, in a scenario were there were no signature advertisements at all, that -none- of the people who chose to comment who currently has one of those, would've commented?
newbie
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
April 04, 2014, 05:54:44 PM
At least they are not removing the formatting if you already had it enabled prior to the new rules taking effect.  You just have to earn your spot back.  Could have been worse.
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
April 04, 2014, 04:58:54 PM
FYI, this thread is hilarious when you ignore everyone with paid advertising in their sigs.

I was thinking that very same thing, quite some time ago. Please look no further than this sentence in this post. Do not read the first sentence either.
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1090
Learning the troll avoidance button :)
April 03, 2014, 11:02:30 PM
FYI, this thread is hilarious when you ignore everyone with paid advertising in their sigs.

Lol imagines the thread is like 5 - 10 posts tops ha-ha

But then you miss B!Z joke lol
kjj
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1026
April 03, 2014, 06:03:52 PM
FYI, this thread is hilarious when you ignore everyone with paid advertising in their sigs.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
April 03, 2014, 12:51:10 PM
If people are willing to provide a service in exchange for btc that can only help spread adoption as a valid currency. It's one of the few legitimate ways people can earn anything in the new digital economy so it's valid from the standpoint of adding fundamental value to btc etc.

The ability to earn btc via providing a service of some kind is more beneficial to the chances of adoption in the long term than only being able to acquire btc through speculation at a crooked exchange so the high minded thinking expressed by some kind of falls flat if you really consider the big picture.

The signature campaigns add valid small scale economic activity to a market that is buoyed mainly by speculation.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
April 03, 2014, 07:40:43 AM
I don't get paid by post you piece of shit
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 101
March 23, 2014, 05:55:39 PM
Wow this thread has gotten pretty long, I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with sig advertisement but what is wrong is the moronic terms that the people who pay for these advertisements do, it's like with these referral links and marketing schemes, the people behind them are perfectly happy getting attention no matter how negative it is even if that means hiring other users to spam the shit out of forums. What the moderators should do if they want to get rid of these guys is force them to pay on an hourly/daily/monthly basis, they wouldn't be able to pay people based on per post, I guarantee you it will make more than half of them just give up and leave because they're just doing this as a cheap way to get attention.

Marketing people don't care about what others think of them, they just want to get as many views/sales/signups as possible, even if it means annoying the fuck out of people, so the best way to get rid of them is make it too expensive and unprofitable for them to sign up users to their programs, the only reason so many of them are doing this is because people are selling their signatures for such a low cost, you could also do some kind of blacklist against the people who are advertising based on Pay Per Click/Pay Per Post/Pay Per Signup and put a whitelist for those who choose not to.
I am sure many have thought of this before. The only issue with it is the fact that this wouldn't be able to be enforced adequately.
I doubt we're gonna see much more changes than this. Seems to be working for everyone, the owners, the users, the moderators.
Spammers still exist, still get reported and still have their posts deleted. Advertising campaigns still exists, some lower rates than others.
Pages:
Jump to: