[SMAS] Signature Managers against Spam (light version) - page 22.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Lauda on November 27, 2016, 03:31:10 PM

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

Okay, I apologize if my line of questioning seems intrusive, but if each manager has the ability to reduce spam in their campaigns on an individual bases, what is the intent of the organization?

Just read the thread. It is a joint effort to fight spam via a general blacklist.

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets?

We can not gain such an *ability*. I have no idea what you're talking about; I'm no magician.

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

And, what mechanism might their be put into place that would mitigate collusive marketing practices?

What collusive marketing practices?

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

And, three members who share levels of default trust do have a collusive power to implement their will via "mob rules" because their voices are more esteemed by default and the "band wagoning" nature of the trust rating system.

Yahoo is not in DT, and most of the trust ratings left by Lutpin and me are not on the same members (at this time).

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

What is the function of this organization: is it to reduce spam by eliminating "rogue" campaigns, or to eliminate "rogue" campaigns by disenfranchising competitive services?

1) How exactly does one "eliminate a rogue campaign" by having a general blacklist? 2) I do not even know what that means. I feel like you're implicitly trying paint the image of malicious intent behind SMAS.

Warning: Cjmoles is just posting because it's his time of month. You won't win any arguments with him, although it's sometimes entertaining to see how far he'll go to back up his irrational nonsense. As soon as he meets his posting quota for his signature campaign you won't hear from him for a couple weeks. And he probably won't be that annoying until the 25 or 26th of next month when he realizes he has to make X number of posts to get his sig campaign payment.

Does SMAS have an official name for users like him?

(ps I promise not to respond to him in this thread, don't mean to derail)

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

Okay, I apologize if my line of questioning seems intrusive, but if each manager has the ability to reduce spam in their campaigns on an individual bases, what is the intent of the organization?

Just read the thread. It is a joint effort to fight spam via a general blacklist.

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets?

We can not gain such an *ability*. I have no idea what you're talking about; I'm no magician.

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

And, what mechanism might their be put into place that would mitigate collusive marketing practices?

What collusive marketing practices?

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

And, three members who share levels of default trust do have a collusive power to implement their will via "mob rules" because their voices are more esteemed by default and the "band wagoning" nature of the trust rating system.

Yahoo is not in DT, and most of the trust ratings left by Lutpin and me are not on the same members (at this time).

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 03:21:10 PM

What is the function of this organization: is it to reduce spam by eliminating "rogue" campaigns, or to eliminate "rogue" campaigns by disenfranchising competitive services?

1) How exactly does one "eliminate a rogue campaign" by having a general blacklist? 2) I do not even know what that means. I feel like you're implicitly trying paint the image of malicious intent behind SMAS.

cjmoles

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1017

Quote from: Lauda on November 27, 2016, 02:21:16 PM

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 02:14:51 PM

Okay....I understand the necessity to have a process to reduce spam by eliminating those who abuse the signature campaigns but isn't that the responsibility of each individual campaign manager?

Yes, however that has been shown to not work because:
1) Advertisers hire random fools to manage their campaigns just because they are cheap.
2) There are managers that do not care (at all).
3) Some services manage their own campaign.

The other alternatives are: Neg. rating both managers and service and/or banning them (per new signature campaign guidelines).

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 02:14:51 PM

What is the goal of such a network? Will it end up being a method by which a single group of advertisers, with common interests and investments, have the ability to eliminate their competition via labeling other advertisers as "rogue" members and working together to label other advertisers' campaign members as spammers and coloring their competition's reputation with red for not falling in line?

To fight back spam as widely as possible. The involved managers usually handle most of their business on their own (e.g. I do not tell Lutpin what to do). What you are describing is a scenario where the members of SMAS are actively colluding to gain an advantage over the other campaigns, which is not the case.

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 02:14:51 PM

Mob rules? I understand the necessity to eliminate spam; I don't understand the intent of building a centralized authority to accomplish that goal....it seems like a slippery slope.

3 people are neither a *mob* nor a *centralized authority*. I'd say that SMAS has been pretty effective so far. If the number of campaigns managed by the participating managers rises, then it will become even more effective.

Okay, I apologize if my line of questioning seems intrusive, but if each manager has the ability to reduce spam in their campaigns on an individual bases, what is the intent of the organization? Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets? And, what mechanism might their be put into place that would mitigate collusive marketing practices? And, three members who share levels of default trust do have a collusive power to implement their will via "mob rules" because their voices are more esteemed by default and the "band wagoning" nature of the trust rating system. It goes back to my original concern; What is the function of this organization: is it to reduce spam by eliminating "rogue" campaigns, or to eliminate "rogue" campaigns by disenfranchising competitive services?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 02:14:51 PM

Okay....I understand the necessity to have a process to reduce spam by eliminating those who abuse the signature campaigns but isn't that the responsibility of each individual campaign manager?

Yes, however that has been shown to not work because:
1) Advertisers hire random fools to manage their campaigns just because they are cheap.
2) There are managers that do not care (at all).
3) Some services manage their own campaigns.

The other alternatives are: Neg. rating both managers and service and/or banning them (per new signature campaign guidelines).

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 02:14:51 PM

What is the goal of such a network? Will it end up being a method by which a single group of advertisers, with common interests and investments, have the ability to eliminate their competition via labeling other advertisers as "rogue" members and working together to label other advertisers' campaign members as spammers and coloring their competition's reputation with red for not falling in line?

To fight back spam as widely as possible. The involved managers usually handle most of their business on their own (e.g. I do not tell Lutpin what to do). What you are describing is a scenario where the members of SMAS are actively colluding to gain an advantage over the other campaigns, which is not the case.

Quote from: cjmoles on November 27, 2016, 02:14:51 PM

Mob rules? I understand the necessity to eliminate spam; I don't understand the intent of building a centralized authority to accomplish that goal....it seems like a slippery slope.

3 people are neither a *mob* nor a *centralized authority*. I'd say that SMAS has been pretty effective so far. If the number of campaigns managed by the participating managers rises, then it will become even more effective.

cjmoles

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1017

Okay....I understand the necessity to have a process to reduce spam by eliminating those who abuse the signature campaigns but isn't that the responsibility of each individual campaign manager? I don't understand the intent of building a collusion network of managers to centralize all campaigns under a single rule....What is the goal of such a network? Will it end up being a method by which a single group of advertisers, with common interests and investments, have the ability to eliminate their competition via labeling other advertisers as "rogue" members then working together to label other advertisers' campaign members as spammers and coloring their competition's reputation with red for not falling in line? What is the ultimate intent of this organization? Mob rules? I understand the necessity to eliminate spam; I don't understand the intent of building a centralized authority to accomplish that goal....it seems like a slippery slope.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: jamalaezaz on November 23, 2016, 02:47:23 AM

"Account Activity Farming" ?? now what is this? something different than account farming? another self made reason and accusation of lauda to blacklist peoples?

I never heard about that before honestly.

Nonsense. Do not appeal to the extremes. I can technically ban you and put you on my blacklist for any particular reason (not that I would do this). Anyone who is on that blacklist is there for a very good reason.

yahoo62278

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 4603

Contact @yahoo62278 on telegram for marketing

Quote from: bL4nkcode on November 23, 2016, 03:09:38 AM

Quote from: ImHash on November 20, 2016, 02:52:06 PM

Cool story bro! I don't see any links pointing to the said imaginary complaints, I'm not even on any of these lists.

You ask me where? see your trust rating so you will know, those complaints about spamming everywhere in this forum.

Quote from: ImHash on November 20, 2016, 02:52:06 PM

I even plan to delete my feedback for yahoo and apologize to him and then apply to one of his campaigns when I'll rank up to Sr,member status

Plan then when? thus you don't delete your feedback to yahoo and I don't really think that yahoo will delete those negative feedback ge gave to you, because you're blacklisted from yahoo. I feel sorry for you dude Roll Eyes

Everyone screws up and im not gonna say i will never remove my feedback on someone. I may change it to a neutral if i feel a user has made changes. Depends on the feedback honestly.

bL4nkcode

copper member

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1305

Limited in number. Limitless in potential.

Quote from: ImHash on November 20, 2016, 02:52:06 PM

Cool story bro! I don't see any links pointing to the said imaginary complaints, I'm not even on any of these lists.

You ask me where? see your trust rating so you will know, those complaints about spamming everywhere in this forum.

Quote from: ImHash on November 20, 2016, 02:52:06 PM

I even plan to delete my feedback for yahoo and apologize to him and then apply to one of his campaigns when I'll rank up to Sr,member status

Plan then when? thus you don't delete your feedback to yahoo and I don't really think that yahoo will delete those negative feedback ge gave to you, because you're blacklisted from yahoo. I feel sorry for you dude Roll Eyes

jamalaezaz

copper member

Activity: 1876

Merit: 533

Quote from: CasioK on November 23, 2016, 02:19:17 AM

Applying for review from Lauda's black list.
Actually I got removed from bitmixer in 2nd round of bans with reason of "account activity farming". I was active enough for last 3 to 4 weeks. Is it enough to get removed from SAMS's black list?

"Account Activity Farming" ?? now what is this? something different than account farming? another self made reason and accusation of lauda to blacklist peoples?

I never heard about that before honestly.

CasioK

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Applying for review from Lauda's black list.
Actually I got removed from bitmixer in 2nd round of bans with reason of "account activity farming". I was active enough for last 3 to 4 weeks. Is it enough to get removed from SAMS's black list?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: buwaytress on November 21, 2016, 12:05:31 AM

If I could offer a suggestion: all campaigns supporting SMAS could also adopt a common standard or statement which would be added to all its campaign rules.

That will not/can not work. The campaign rules are usually set by the services themselves (at least in my case) with tweaks/adjustments from the manager. Having a standard banlist for all our campaigns is very effective on its own.

Quote from: buwaytress on November 21, 2016, 12:05:31 AM

Examples would be a requirement for each applicant to read and agree to a minimum standard for post activity, or even a simple guide for beginners to better understand what makes quality posts. It might mean just 2 links added to each smas campaign.

I guess someone could write up some sort of 'guide' for improving your posting quality. However, I am more inclined to say that it would be a waste of time. If you truly are interested in improving and contributing to the forum (rather than posting to get paid) you are going to do your own research and use your own brain to figure out how to do this.

That said, there should be an updated today with new additions and some removals. There are over 300 people banned from Bitmixer, however my blacklists only include people that I have personally reviewed and banned.

BlockEye

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1097

Bounty Mngr & Article Writer https://goo.gl/p4Agsh

Quote from: buwaytress on November 21, 2016, 12:05:31 AM

Hello SMAS. Great effort, it makes me wonder why the initial attempt was unsuccessful.

I am a new user on bct, as you can tell, and I have just joined my 2nd sigcampaign managed by yahoo. The first was successful but will have to wait some weeks to receive remuneration.

If I could offer a suggestion: all campaigns supporting SMAS could also adopt a common standard or statement which would be added to all its campaign rules.

Examples would be a requirement for each applicant to read and agree to a minimum standard for post activity, or even a simple guide for beginners to better understand what makes quality posts. It might mean just 2 links added to each smas campaign.

This would help beginners (even like myself) understand how they can contribute to improving the quality of bct content. I didn't know, for example, that my earliest activities as a newbie on bct would be harmful to some of my applications as they were in micro earning and gambling sections.

Again, great effort and the community thanks you.

If you are reading carefully the campaign rule you currently joined, You will not even bother to suggest your opinion here, As you can see on this SMAS thread, The users listed here are those who didn't follow the campaign rules of their respective signature campaign. It will be redundant if they post the SMAS rules on the signature campaign because this actually the rule they are using. SMAS is just the compilation of spammers on signature campaign. Don't make life complicated.

buwaytress

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 3724

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Hello SMAS. Great effort, it makes me wonder why the initial attempt was unsuccessful.

I am a new user on bct, as you can tell, and I have just joined my 2nd sigcampaign managed by yahoo. The first was successful but will have to wait some weeks to receive remuneration.

If I could offer a suggestion: all campaigns supporting SMAS could also adopt a common standard or statement which would be added to all its campaign rules.

Examples would be a requirement for each applicant to read and agree to a minimum standard for post activity, or even a simple guide for beginners to better understand what makes quality posts. It might mean just 2 links added to each smas campaign.

This would help beginners (even like myself) understand how they can contribute to improving the quality of bct content. I didn't know, for example, that my earliest activities as a newbie on bct would be harmful to some of my applications as they were in micro earning and gambling sections.

Again, great effort and the community thanks you.

numanoid

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1148

Quote from: ImHash on November 20, 2016, 02:52:06 PM

~snip~
Cool story bro! I don't see any links pointing to the said imaginary complaints, I'm not even on any of these lists.

I'll help you to remember what you did back then (when you were still joined in ICONOMI campaign)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16317540
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16320954
The best answer -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16323641

Quote

I even plan to delete my feedback for yahoo and apologize to him and then apply to one of his campaigns when I'll rank up to Sr,member status.

Are you doing this because yahoo62278 manage a lot of signature campaigns currently, and you can't join them because you're on Yahoo62278 blacklist? No offense, but i highly doubt he'll forgive you and remove his feedback in your account.
Read here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16323179

ImHash

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

Quote from: bL4nkcode on November 17, 2016, 11:11:13 PM

How about this guy https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/imhash-851646
I see there's so many complaints about this user for the issue of spamming and also in trolling, including yahoo from the last campaign he managed, the iconomi.

Cool story bro! I don't see any links pointing to the said imaginary complaints, I'm not even on any of these lists.
I even plan to delete my feedback for yahoo and apologize to him and then apply to one of his campaigns when I'll rank up to Sr,member status.
I'm having a hard time to remember ever talking or interacting with you, where is this coming from?

Lutpin

copper member

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1874

Goodbye, Z.

Quote from: Gunthar on November 18, 2016, 06:41:11 PM

eh...tried to educate one of your guys Lutpin....
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16919417

You're right, he's wearing one of my signatures. I can see he applied last week. I can also see I didn't enroll him, neither will I, in any case.
He's got close to a page full of loan requests...

Gunthar

hero member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 614

Liable for what i say, not for what you understand

eh...tried to educate one of your guys Lutpin....

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16919417

Lutpin

copper member

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1874

Goodbye, Z.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on November 18, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

I have a feeling we have quite a few fans in the Haters Club.

I've never been widely popular. Wasn't my goal either.

Quote from: Avirunes on November 18, 2016, 06:31:05 AM

Well he is just a kid still imature at age of 20 just got banned after I reported his copy/paste posts. Don't know he was also following Lutpin and yahoo though

You should try these insults: "teenager", "piece of nothing", "assole in this forum".
They worked wonders with me.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on November 18, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

I will no longer give reasons as to why youre being denied folks. You are either on blacklist already, shit poster, spammer, an obvious alt account, or whatever. Point is oure denied and you need to deal with it and improve your accounts.

I never understood why people feel like I need to give them a reason for being denied, or further, I need to back my decision up with "proof".
The management of my campaigns is up to me, and hence it's my decision to enroll who I pick and to deny who I don't. If you don't like that, don't apply.
99% of the times I give a reason ends with them trying to argue and build a case for them, only very little guys actually want my opinion and then try to improve.

yahoo62278

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 4603

Contact @yahoo62278 on telegram for marketing

I have a feeling we have quite a few fans in the Haters Club. Since revisiting this SMAS idea ive gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 pms a week over a user being on blacklist or being denied in a campaign.

I will no longer give reasons as to why youre being denied folks. You are either on blacklist already, shit poster, spammer, an obvious alt account, or whatever. Point is oure denied and you need to deal with it and improve your accounts.

Something i will point out to you people. If you apply to a campaign and have say 56 activity(can be any number) and 56 posts(again can be any number long as both are same) odds are youre a bought account or an alt account and youll be auto denied

Avirunes

legendary

Activity: 3094

Merit: 1472

Quote from: Lauda on November 18, 2016, 06:21:57 AM

Looks like the three of you have gotten a fanclub:

My update will be a bit late this time, definitely after-payment.

Yeah

. My first fan BOOYAH!! Grin

Well he is just a kid still imature at age of 20 just got banned after I reported his copy/paste posts. Don't know he was also following Lutpin and yahoo though Grin

Topic: [SMAS] Signature Managers against Spam (light version) - page 22. (Read 100724 times)