Pages:
Author

Topic: [Proposal] Tackling the spam - page 2. (Read 476 times)

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
August 22, 2021, 04:58:38 AM
#22
I would suggest only enable signature if the user receive X merit within last Y days (for example X is 8 and Y is 120). The hardest part is determining X/Y value, but admin only need to do it once.
The signature isn't meant to be used exclusively for advertising. It's a personal space the user chooses to shows under their posts. I'm not entirely in disagreement with this addition, though. It's making the forum less free, but I like it. X/Y may not be enough; to prevent someone from buying merits, you could introduce the Z variable, which is the total users who merited the specific user within the Y.

There will then be more demand for merits which will lead to more posts, but they can't be all merited, so there'll be less participants. It could work.

As long as the campaign manager doesn't risk a ban, many of them don't care.
This is what it has to be fixed. There has to be a risk otherwise they'll continuously incentivize users to spam.

I am not so sure that would be a good idea, to differentiate sig spammers by amount of merit earned, as in some boards it's much harder to get merit, which would lead to people writing even more in boards that are not natural to them just to get some merit.
But, they won't, because the merit sources, who BTW are the most responsible for the merit distribution, will discourage their continuity.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 5937
August 22, 2021, 04:25:02 AM
#21
We already have a method to fight spam. It is the merit system. I do not understand why managers do not use it more effectively.
For example, if a user posts 50 times per week without earning a single merit, they are very likely signature spammers.
I am not so sure that would be a good idea, to differentiate sig spammers by amount of merit earned, as in some boards it's much harder to get merit, which would lead to people writing even more in boards that are not natural to them just to get some merit. Its the same reason why gambling boards is a mess; a lot of sig campaigns have a requirement to write there so participants are forced to write there even they know squat about stuff they are writing about.

It should be simple really; if managers control their participants more there would be less spam. But since there are more open spots in sig campaigns than there are quality members, this is what we have. Whether they want it or not, they have to hire spammers  in order to fill up the campaign as i doubt some manager would say to potential client "sorry, with the amount you wanna offer, I can only get you shitposters".
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
August 22, 2021, 04:20:47 AM
#20
We already have a method to fight spam. It is the merit system. I do not understand why managers do not use it more effectively.
From a campaign manager's perspective, fighting spam is often not worth the time. Running a tight campaign without spam is much more work than only counting the posts at the end of the week, while it also means less posts are made so they earn less. As long as the campaign manager doesn't risk a ban, many of them don't care.
The campaigns itself don't care either, as long as they can pay with made-up tokens. I've suggested before to only allow campaigns that pay in Bitcoin so they really have to pay for it, but that didn't happen.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
August 22, 2021, 04:13:47 AM
#19
How to.

--snip--

Those 4 "How to" require active intervention by admin, moderator and manager. I doubt any of them are willing to review the company or approve the user manually. I would suggest only enable signature if the user receive X merit within last Y days (for example X is 8 and Y is 120). The hardest part is determining X/Y value, but admin only need to do it once.
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1359
August 22, 2021, 03:49:18 AM
#18
We already have a method to fight spam. It is the merit system. I do not understand why managers do not use it more effectively.
For example, if a user posts 50 times per week without earning a single merit, they are very likely signature spammers.

Additionally, "posts deleted" should be visible in a member's profile. This is the most accurate metric we can use to determine if a member is spamming.
For example, according to the bpip.org website, there are some members who have a posts made/posts deleted ratio of 5/1 and still participate in signature campaigns. This indicates that the campaign manager is not doing his job properly.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
August 22, 2021, 03:23:35 AM
#17
Yes, once I read about the current situation of the Bitcoin discussion, I searched for that rule and realized it isn't enforced.

The rules have been in place for almost 5 years, but unfortunately they're not enforced. Enforcing them would basically mean Mods have to do the campaign manager's job, and that's a lot of work.
Obviously, they can't do all the work; that's why I made this proposal. Also:
That goes directly against the forum's mission to be as free as possible. Theymos' post under this quote is worth reading too.
I get that this forum is meant to remain as free as possible, but if we don't deal with this problem, forum's freedom will essentially continue being abused.
hero member
Activity: 2128
Merit: 532
FREE passive income eBook @ tinyurl.com/PIA10
August 21, 2021, 12:19:47 PM
#16

Well, if that's the case then shouldn't it automatically be locked or the mods should've locked it already if the issues addressed already since most incoming replies would just be a tangle of the OP and I feel like we need more of this engagement thing with users creating this threads.

The OPs has to either lock them, which is a miracle if they happen or we could simply report them to the mods and they'll get locked soon enough.

If it encourages discussions between users, that's fine in my books. In the gambling section, most of the posts are in response to other quotes.
member
Activity: 868
Merit: 63
August 21, 2021, 12:09:37 PM
#15
~
About the OP thing, most of the time the first few replies would already address the concern/ issue. It's just that those posters downright tend to ignore anything else because they don't want/ plan to engage with other users:
Well, if that's the case then shouldn't it automatically be locked or the mods should've locked it already if the issues addressed already since most incoming replies would just be a tangle of the OP and I feel like we need more of this engagement thing with users creating this threads.
hero member
Activity: 2128
Merit: 532
FREE passive income eBook @ tinyurl.com/PIA10
August 21, 2021, 11:39:56 AM
#14

I don't have any qualms with quota, it makes you work hard for what you have. I feel like those people that burst post because of having other jobs is an excuse, I mean it's not like posting in the forum is time consuming, pretty sure that people will find a way to complete their quota. Also, isn't that the point of posting in the threads? To answer the OP if it's your first post in that thread?

Sometimes when the job tends to be too time-consuming, you tend to overlook/ take things for granted. It happened to me before so I could relate to that.

About the OP thing, most of the time the first few replies would already address the concern/ issue. It's just that those posters downright tend to ignore anything else because they don't want/ plan to engage with other users:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/that-feeling-having-your-first-merit-on-bitcointalk-5337846

I see we’re still congratulating a banned account on this thread (OPs) …

If anybody is interested in seeing the first merited post of any (non-airdropped) merited account, I’ve updated a file which I published some months ago on another thread. Data is now as of 13/08/2021:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_I7WfxSnzOe7wvjE9dJ-aqH59PnfsMnKSVzycYljrx0/edit?usp=sharing

Anecdotally, there are 113 accounts that were awarded 50 Merits on their first received merit TX. Going some of them is not for the faint of heart …

legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
August 21, 2021, 11:39:10 AM
#13
The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.
Have you seen this topic? Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)
The rules have been in place for almost 5 years, but unfortunately they're not enforced. Enforcing them would basically mean Mods have to do the campaign manager's job, and that's a lot of work.

Quote
It must be forbidden to advertise a product without informing this forum first.
That goes directly against the forum's mission to be as free as possible. Theymos' post under this quote is worth reading too.
member
Activity: 868
Merit: 63
August 21, 2021, 11:32:47 AM
#12
~
Then there are those that might not have time to post consistently over the week which could be due to an IRL job, and when they realize they're falling short of the minimum threshold, they burst post.
I don't have any qualms with quota, it makes you work hard for what you have. I feel like those people that burst post because of having other jobs is an excuse, I mean it's not like posting in the forum is time consuming, pretty sure that people will find a way to complete their quota. Also, isn't that the point of posting in the threads? To answer the OP if it's your first post in that thread?
hero member
Activity: 2128
Merit: 532
FREE passive income eBook @ tinyurl.com/PIA10
August 21, 2021, 11:23:48 AM
#11
For the wearers of signatures, how will it be considered a spam, I always try to chase the maximum posts per week and I don't burst post. Will I be affected by this because I feel like it attacks those campaigns that pays per post?

Because of the quota, they try to reach them by posting whatever that comes to their mind, often ignoring other posters and solely focusing on the OP's content.

Then there are those that might not have time to post consistently over the week which could be due to an IRL job, and when they realize they're falling short of the minimum threshold, they burst post.

Non joiners or even joiners themselves might find it hard to shake off the impression that sig campaign bearers tend to shitpost, but what to do, to each his own. Still, there are some legit posters out of the many.
member
Activity: 868
Merit: 63
August 21, 2021, 10:57:00 AM
#10
For the wearers of signatures, how will it be considered a spam, I always try to chase the maximum posts per week and I don't burst post. Will I be affected by this because I feel like it attacks those campaigns that pays per post?
sr. member
Activity: 334
Merit: 275
August 21, 2021, 10:53:03 AM
#9
The admins do not punish the campaign/bounty managers atm they only punish the sig spammers that are a part of the campaign. If they started punishing the campaign/bounty managers that is when they will change to become more constructive.
You're contradicting yourself. That's the very reason I made this proposal.
I do not think I am contradicting myself I understand the reason you proposed what you have but I think it is better to serve out bans to campaign / bounty managers instead of the forum choosing who is allowed to manage campaigns. This way it is fair to everyone creates competition between campaign/bounty managers and deals with the problem of spammers. I agree with your proposal that something has to be done but I am suggesting a alternative way which I think is more fair and achieves the same result.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
August 21, 2021, 10:48:05 AM
#8
The admins do not punish the campaign/bounty managers atm they only punish the sig spammers that are a part of the campaign. If they started punishing the campaign/bounty managers that is when they will change to become more constructive.
You're contradicting yourself. That's the very reason I made this proposal.

You are right, but we can do the forum good as we are reporting it, do not be tired of reporting spam.
You should not be tired of reporting spam, if the system you're working isn't structured to have spam. I thought that using the idiom “paper over the cracks” was sufficient to understand that while you may report frequently, there'll always be spammers this way.



I don't want to be rude, but please don't derail this thread with the Reddit comparison. It's off-topic.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 4795
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
August 21, 2021, 10:38:33 AM
#7
If we are too lenient then members will leave the forum any way and will go to places like Reddit.
I am not implying leniency, in fact, the moderators are not lenient towards spammers, they even ban spammers if they have no good work already on this forum before, and the ones that deserved not to be banned can be temporarily banned. So, nothing like leniency when it comes to spamming on this forum. Also just know that many posts on Reddit is not as quality as many posts on this Bitcoin boards of this forum, they can just go to Reddit for pump and dump information or less quality posts. This forum in term of Bitcoin discussion is far better than any other forum.

We are already fighting a losing battle because Reddit is a more popular platform and the format of it is more popular among young people.
This should not be about spamming, Reddit was even created in 2005 before Bitcointalk that was created in 2009, Reddit is not only focusing on cryptocurrencies but many other discussion are on Reddit. We can also still discuss about this forum having alternative attractive, mobile friendly sites and mobile apps. Although, I will most likely stick to this present site.

If we continue allowing spammers to spam what ever they want then we will lose the experienced members because they will be sick of it.
With what I still noticed about this forum, this is not possible, also, this forum does not condone spamming. This has been repeated countless numbers of times that spam posts should be reported. Or have you reported any that was not deleted?

The other topic showed that most people are ignoring or sick of the spam in Bitcoin Discussion.
You are right, but we can do the forum good as we are reporting it, do not be tired of reporting spam.

I think we need to concentrate on making the forum the best place for good discussions instead of worrying about losing members.
You have to consider the two, but if the members are spammers, they have to be banned.

Members will come to a quality forum because Reddit is low quality if we can beat them on quality then people will continue to come here.
No forum is still quality like Bitcointalk when it comes to Bitcoin discussions.
sr. member
Activity: 334
Merit: 275
August 21, 2021, 10:23:07 AM
#6
If this forum is getting too strict, the users of this forum will reduce, I am not encouraging spamming but neither should I encourage too stringent rules that might possibly harm the forum. I did not comment on that last thread just because I know good posters can decide to ignore some boards and/or some users. It is true that some users only want to spam, but the Bitcoin boards is not bad to the extent these stringent rules have to be enforced. We still maintain high quality Bitcoin boards (I do not know of altcoin boards), it will not be good to turn this forum into what only stale users will only be able to visit without encouraging news users. If you see any spam post, you can report it, I always report some spam posts and removing such posts by moderators is very fast, if the moderators are excellently responding to posts that are reported, I think we should just not go further about this. Also, some good posters ignore some boards, if they do not see it useful for them. This forum is working good with the active report button.
If we are too lenient then members will leave the forum any way and will go to places like Reddit. We are already fighting a losing battle because Reddit is a more popular platform and the format of it is more popular among young people. If we continue allowing spammers to spam what ever they want then we will lose the experienced members because they will be sick of it. The other topic showed that most people are ignoring or sick of the spam in Bitcoin Discussion. I think we need to concentrate on making the forum the best place for good discussions instead of worrying about losing members. Members will come to a quality forum because Reddit is low quality if we can beat them on quality then people will continue to come here.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 4795
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
August 21, 2021, 10:10:34 AM
#5
The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.
If this forum is getting too strict, the users of this forum will reduce, I am not encouraging spamming but neither should I encourage too stringent rules that might possibly harm the forum. I did not comment on that last thread just because I know good posters can decide to ignore some boards and/or some users. It is true that some users only want to spam, but the Bitcoin boards is not bad to the extent these stringent rules have to be enforced. We still maintain high quality Bitcoin boards (I do not know of altcoin boards), it will not be good to turn this forum into what only stale users will only be able to visit without encouraging news users. If you see any spam post, you can report it, I always report some spam posts and removing such posts by moderators is very fast, if the moderators are excellently responding to posts that are reported, I think we should just not go further about this. Also, some good posters ignore some boards, if they do not see it useful for them. This forum is working good with the active report button.
sr. member
Activity: 334
Merit: 275
August 21, 2021, 10:09:18 AM
#4
I firmly disagree; they'd take their job even more seriously if the spam was tackled with this professional way. The less the managers, the greater the earnings of the current ones. The less the signature campaigns, the more they can ask from their clients, because they're offering a better service.
Competition is what creates motivation not the lack of competition if you only have a couple of managers and it was hard to replace them they would become more complacent than now. The admins do not punish the campaign/bounty managers atm they only punish the sig spammers that are a part of the campaign. If they started punishing the campaign/bounty managers that is when they will change to become more constructive.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
August 21, 2021, 10:01:12 AM
#3
I do not think it is a good idea to bring centralization into approving campaign managers.
Here's the abuse of that word again! It is hunting me wherever I go. The managers are already into the admins' fate; they can't do whatever they want. Every community has to work hierarchically, otherwise it's a mess.

This is the only way you get the campaign managers to take their job seriously.
I firmly disagree; they'd take their job even more seriously if the spam was tackled with this professional way. The less the managers, the greater the earnings of the current ones. The less the signature campaigns, the more they can ask from their clients, because they're offering a better service.
Pages:
Jump to: