Topic: [Proposal] Tackling the spam - page 3. (Read 461 times)
I do not think it is a good idea to bring centralization into approving campaign managers. I think we should just ban campaign managers that are not checking the quality of the members in their campaign and if they are found to be contributing to the degradation of the forum repeatedly they should be permanently banned. This is the only way you get the campaign managers to take their job seriously. I have heard that campaign managers are paid 100s of dollars a week and some of them are checking anything and are just submitting the payments. I think we could trial this idea in the bounty board because that is where most of the bounty managers that do not care about the forum are running their services.
This thread should be read mainly from those who maintain and are responsible for this forum such as the admins & mods.
Prologue.
I was just reading this topic about the degradation of the Bitcoin discussion board and I felt kinda disappointed that the main subforum of bitcointalk is so ruined. Briefly, there's incentive on spamming this neglected and undervalued board and it's clearly due to signature campaigns. Signature campaigns and bounties are the reason for this uncontrollable spam, but not the cause.
All that account marketplace and this unbelievably disadvantaging hurry to fulfill the requirements for getting paid at the end of each week originate by the irresponsibility of those who hire. Thus, the source of the problem isn't the spammers nor the existence of those campaigns; it's the falsely way some folks choose to incentivize the users.
To understand this better.
If I came to you and told you that I'll pay you $50 each week, for creating many nonsensical-shitty posts at the same thread for spreading my product all over the first five pages, it's not (only) your fault for bringing all these meaningless discussions, but the guy's who incentivize you.
We may stop those specific users from discussing (so cunningly between their possible alts), such as by reporting frequently, but after all, we just paper over the cracks; the manager will sooner or later find others (or the same) greedy users who'll do the job. The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.
How to.
To achieve this, the wearing of a signature has to be handled more strictly. It must be forbidden to advertise a product without informing this forum first. This will cover the campaigns that are ran outside the forum and the managers who act irresponsibly without facing the consequences. This way, there can't be a campaign that will result into spamming without any punishment; the forum can comprehend the manager who's responsible for a campaign at any time.
A user can't wear a signature that contains a product and submit posts simultaneously (which is what led us to spamming) unless they have been approved by a manager to do so.
If the participant is found to be abusing the campaign by spamming, the manager has to remove him within a reasonable time limit such as a week, otherwise they're both culprits of filling the forum with illicit content.
Users can't just become managers if their application isn't approved by the forum. The users have to pass some sort of managing exams for being allowed to act likewise.
More rules can be introduced to this forum polity if they appear to be needed.
Prologue.
I was just reading this topic about the degradation of the Bitcoin discussion board and I felt kinda disappointed that the main subforum of bitcointalk is so ruined. Briefly, there's incentive on spamming this neglected and undervalued board and it's clearly due to signature campaigns. Signature campaigns and bounties are the reason for this uncontrollable spam, but not the cause.
All that account marketplace and this unbelievably disadvantaging hurry to fulfill the requirements for getting paid at the end of each week originate by the irresponsibility of those who hire. Thus, the source of the problem isn't the spammers nor the existence of those campaigns; it's the falsely way some folks choose to incentivize the users.
To understand this better.
If I came to you and told you that I'll pay you $50 each week, for creating many nonsensical-shitty posts at the same thread for spreading my product all over the first five pages, it's not (only) your fault for bringing all these meaningless discussions, but the guy's who incentivize you.
We may stop those specific users from discussing (so cunningly between their possible alts), such as by reporting frequently, but after all, we just paper over the cracks; the manager will sooner or later find others (or the same) greedy users who'll do the job. The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.
How to.
To achieve this, the wearing of a signature has to be handled more strictly. It must be forbidden to advertise a product without informing this forum first. This will cover the campaigns that are ran outside the forum and the managers who act irresponsibly without facing the consequences. This way, there can't be a campaign that will result into spamming without any punishment; the forum can comprehend the manager who's responsible for a campaign at any time.
A user can't wear a signature that contains a product and submit posts simultaneously (which is what led us to spamming) unless they have been approved by a manager to do so.
If the participant is found to be abusing the campaign by spamming, the manager has to remove him within a reasonable time limit such as a week, otherwise they're both culprits of filling the forum with illicit content.
Users can't just become managers if their application isn't approved by the forum. The users have to pass some sort of managing exams for being allowed to act likewise.
More rules can be introduced to this forum polity if they appear to be needed.
Jump to: