Topic: Since 2018, what did you contribute to prevent signature ads removed globally? (Read 1411 times)

bump

Yeah  a signature ad in and of itself is not bad or good.

It is a tool like a hammer.

Hammers can be used to do good things.

Hammers can be used to do bad things.

Signatures ads here on BTC  can be scam links or good product links

Signature ads here on BTC  can push  people into spamming like mofos.

Or people  just write  what they would write good quality posts.

No one wants a post like this

"BTC to the moooooon baby!!"

With a signature link to a btc doubler.

He did not read my topic title, and my OP. Honestly with you, I don't think  my topic title is too difficult to understand, and my OP is clearly explain the topic title.
We have been luckily to see the success of merit system and the signature has still been allowed to display so far. Moreover, I see the reduce of spamming. Patrol pages are still crowded but there are effects to reduce spamming, IMO. Nowadays, threads on some boards won't be bumped by spamming (as a result of the bump score).

You really didn't got the idea of the thread. Did you read the OP, or you just assumed that based on the subject the OP is against the signatures?
Let me tl;dr to you

Theymos said that if the shitposting continues in a high rate as before the merit system, he will probably remove the signatures totally. So the OP is asking what did you do to stop shitposting and keep the signatures.

You have created this thread to discuss and appreciate the ban of Signatures forum wide but then why are you wearing the signatures yourself ?

Isn't contradictory ?

If you know that years ago (before January of 2014), the forum allowed altcoin giveaways, but after that, it did not allow such giveaways through altcoins; you will seriously think and imagine that someday the head admin might disable all signatures in the forum. So be careful with any post you make, in the aspect of context and quality.
Giveaway threads are not allowed

You can hide all signatures, by using that userscript: Signature Adblock Script [0.5.0]
For avatars, I think you can make request to communit developers, here: [BRAINSTORM] Any requests for custom extensions/user scripts for BitcoinTalk?
For more userscripts, you can find here: List of Bitcointalk.org Userscripts/ Add-ons

nothing. because the only thing that could help is removing all paid sigs.
you would be surprised to see who does not write anything anymore.

edit. and avatars. i cant hide them 

There certainly is a positive and negative element to signature campaigns, it's been a few months since I have been part of one and it really hasn't changed much for me personally except I have less coin for collectibles. I think a short-term experiment could really aid us to have the data necessary to draw better conclusions about signature campaigns as a whole.

I'm embarrassed to share my report stats, they're not the most accurate I've only reported 300 posts, but in my defense most of my "bad reports" are judgement calls in the Digital Goods sections about illegal/fraudulent goods being sold. I can't wait until I can access report-stats, how/when is that available to me? 500 Reports IIRC?

I can't say I have done too terribly much to prevent spam and prevent signature ads from being removed globally. I will say that I was the first to do the whole "sMerit Review", which definitely helped shape a couple dozen members that I see as much better contributors these days: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/smerit-post-review-2819141

Then, there was the "Signatureless Challenge", which I was a big sponsor and advocate for. That got newbies excited about more than just "bounties" and allowed them to focus on actually contributing in more benevolent manner: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/joes-signatureless-challenge-win-25-4-merits-every-week-paused-3784164 , I'd really like to get that signatureless campaign/challenge back up and running; any takers on getting that going again?

A lot of the time the most good someone can do is within themselves; I'm not trying to sound like a fortune cookie, but if every individual made changes to be a better poster, contribute to the community, follow the rules and only represent companies they would be proud to wear publicly then we would have quite an impressive corner of the internet. I used to post rather low-quality posts a few years ago, but I've improved and attempted to assist others in improving.

I know I'm jumping in the thread late, but let me have my fun and reminisce. Ever since YoBit actually got temporarily banned from advertising, and over a dozen of their participants got banned as well I have seen an intense tightening of signature campaign rules, participants and managers.

It's the people outside sig campaigns who come out with the most rubbish and nothing other than reporting them will deal with it unless there's some automated way of disposing of a post with several hundred Facebook and Twitter links.

Sig campaigns are gradually being tamed and are becoming more discerning. The threat of their removal is probably what's brought the grottiest into line. Dunno how you apply that to the content of posts. Then again the distant prospect of entering one is possibly what keeps shitposting hopes up.

I'm tired so I don't know if this actually sounds as good as I think it does. How about max number of posts per week that can show a sig.
You can post as much as you want but only the 1st "X" number of posts actually show a signature.

400 posts this week. Fine, only the 1st 20 have a sig, the rest are blank.

-Dave

Hmm. I hadn't considered that.

I would say the crappiest posters are outside sig campaigns and squirting their diarrhoea all over the alt sections with miles of links to Twitter or posting 'real' shitposts elsewhere in the hope of getting enough rank to get into a campaign.

I presume the forum operators aren't interested in experiments. They'd rather keep things humming while attempting to ease the junk to the margins. Perhaps a short sharp shock would achieve more but I can see why they wouldn't be into the idea.

I asked for this myself.  And I have end my free endorsement of simplemining.net in my signature.

Along with my free endorsement of the Avalon a1041 under my avatar. I think a one month vacation could do us all some good.

This would only stop one kind of spam.  But shit posts with blind links to whatever would go on maybe increase.

I would love to see the data.  Ie 10000 posts a day saying here is a link to ?

Turns into  25000 posts a day saying here is a link to ?

It could be that paid signatures really have a hidden good. Ie prevent bs links to really bad shit.

We will never know unless we test this by a temporary signature ban to get the new stats.

Depends on person. Some might have made this forum a home, so they will stay here with their fellow beings while some may leave who were here for money benefit  — good posters with paid signatures.

There are more merits from normal users. Merits do not only come from merit sources.
If 21k merits used by merit sources each month, forum will have 10.5k smerits to use each month. In reality, those figures of available smerits are higher due to cumulative figures over time.

If the rolling merit requirements lead to more merit spellings, it is good. Because it will help forum becoming cleaner. What we witnessed with Junior Member derank last year is a good example. People instantly reacted by sending merits to deranked Junior members, than they all caught.  But it is not main reason to think of rolling merit requirements, because I think main reasons are to force people doing more constructive posts, especially high-ranked users, who will also see their risks of deranks if they keep posting garbage.
People who makes good posts will not have any issues with rolling merit requirements, IMO.

The question is does the 21,045 sMerits being generated by merit sources enough to satisfy all the members from dropping their ranks? Now I don't the exact number of active members here in the forum but 21k won't cut it even if it send half of the sMerits sent to them it still not enough to guarantee all the members can receive sMerits. The merit system is designed to make post better not create a turmoil in the community in which makes members desperate on ranking up with the "Rolling Merit" idea you have you will only create merit selling more profitable for people who are actually doing it, as what have been discussed before they are doing their business elsewhere and they'll have a huge demand for their merits once this will be introduce.

Really i would like to see how many are here only for discussions without any money related benefit. I am saying this because signatures are worn by not only spammers but also the very good posters are wearing signatures too.

It is obvious that spammers will go away (when they find no money) but those good posters with paid signatures will stay or leave ?

Your suggestion is demerit, right?
But I think demerit 15 points for each 5 good reports (mean 5 bad posts) is very very strict. It should be reversed as 5 merits per 15 bad posts that reported by forum users, and handled with agreements from staffs. With the reversion of suggested demerit, I still think it is strictly.
It will cause massive complaints, so in my opinion it is good if the period of permanent bans expand longer, because it will not demerit, derank, just put bad posters in longer temp-banned jails.

This can create a FOMO. There may be accounts using purely for knowledge purpose and not for signature. There are member or even hero member accounts with no signature.

Instead, Why can't there be a relation between the number of posts or comments getting deleted by any account and its rank rollback. This will make them alert that they need not post any waste comment that can cause their account a threat.

I had read that there are lots and lots of comments getting deleted on daily basis irrespective of the rank the account is in.

Only problem with my idea is that something like this was supposed to be implemented in time when admin is introduce merit system, but it maybe still have good effect because all good members will probably keep they ranks since most of such members earn 100+ so far. But many members ranked before merit would be deranked, and they will probably never earn 100 merits.

Personally, I think something like this will not be done, it is maybe too complicated and no matter how much sense it makes, it would not be fair to punish someone who was doing something by the old rules. Merits have certainly made a very good move in creating a better quality ranking system, and some new measures are likely to be introduced in the future.