Topic: Solutions for the spam problem? - page 2. (Read 1787 times)

Length within reason should not be a factor but I think it would be safe to say for starters that any post that is 1 word only is definitely spam. The case you described isn't really something that can ever be covered by any set rules and that's where you would need people to be able to make judgement calls.

But if you could get to the stage where you had something that said along the lines of 'the following can and will be considered as spam, however this does not mean that anything that passes these guidelines can also not be considered as spam'. It's at least a starting point for the community to have some clarity as to what is expected or what can be punished.

They only cared about red because it prevents them from joining campaigns. All the spammers only post here for the pay they do not care about the forum just the coins they earn... I bet there are a few people who own hundreds and hundreds of accounts and profit very well.

No.
red trust does not mean the end of life, but you can not enter Signature Campaign which is the main goal of creating this accounts.
80% of this account stop/reduce posting after getting red trust. What does this mean?

actmyname and The Pharmacist start giving more wise feedback last days.

We can not equate them with scammers, but that is the only weapon until now.

Length should not really be a factor imo. Sometimes a simple 3-5 word response is all that is needed. The issue here is that you can not just make a set rule of what is spam and what is not...everything is subjective. Say someone asks a question and they get 20 answers from 20 people that all basically say the same thing. Obviously people are replying for the posts even if they are all worded well...

To my understanding the trust system is in place to prevent people from being scammed when making trades. If it is then used to mark spammers also then we are effectively sentencing them to be unable to trade or to trade at a disadvantage because their post quality isn't up to scratch. Some may argue that is fair and they should lose their rights to trade in the forum if they do not respect it by not spamming. Personally I don't think it's really something that is fair, at least without proper forewarning that it can be the case.

One thing that is quite clear from the discussion is that proper guidelines need to be in place under any future system as to what constitutes spam. I'm of the belief that it won't be possible to make decisions on spam entirely objective so would suggest something along the lines of guidelines for what definitely constitutes spam and then anything else is down to the judgement of the trusted few.

Simple first guidelines could be things such as:
any post that is under x characters/words
any post that is incoherent or even in the wrong language


I can't think of much more immediately right now but I'm sure if everyone puts their brain power together a short list of things that are 100% spam or close enough can be agreed upon. This list can then work as a starting point, it can be written up for new members to read so that they are aware of it and then it can be used as a basis to at least remove a level of the spam. The more complex spam is going to need dedicated people and the right people to ensure it's tackled effectively and fairly.
                                  

I am not an admin and can not add any such tools (that was why I tried fighting it via the Default Trust system). It looks like Theymos had a possible solution up his sleeve anyways with the merit system. I really hope merits help fix the issues moving forward.

Fair enough, if that's true then those ratings are valid.

Leaving negative trust to spammers is not approved by theymos.

Agreed. That's a big problem. That's why I think making "another complex system" is a better solution.
But my point is that we need to think of new ideas. I had 2, maybe they're not the solution, but we do need to do something.

Agreed again. We can but we should not.

That's just a leftover software artifact from the failing design of the system. It's a system of trust. Take a look at the negative ratings I gave the bcash folk spewing "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin". Are they scammers? Well Those ratings (or type of ratings) were approved by theymos.

Oh, yes.

Re latter part: How do you do that? What happens in 2 our of 30 reject the agreement? How to prevent new managers popping up that don't accept the agreement? How do you enforce this agreement? While the suggestion may seem simple, it is most certainly not.


I wouldn't put 'can't' there. We most certainly can, but apparently we shouldn't (better put, unfortunately we shouldn't).

Sure, the description is important, and so is the reference. It's to explain why you think the user is a scammer or very untrustworthy.

Negative means:
Strongly disagreed. We do need a solution, developing another system is an option. Another way would be to reach an agreement with signature managers. We can't just give up, can we?
And because we can't/shouldn't leave negative trust to spammers then we need new ideas.

---

It doesn't matter whom it's useful to, as long as it's well thought, well written, with valid arguments: constructive. Even if you disagree or you already knew the posted information.

It does say something about the quality of your posts when the very best one is:
How long did it take to research and write it?

Only theymos can make changes to the forum

Sorry I don't usual to rate my own post, beside that a post could be useful for newbie but shit for legendary. But I can tell you one advice that I had made in this link https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24227168. My advice was worth $1000 because I got 780 R for 5 days.

You, I mean for Blazed because I think he is one of the most powerfull people here.

Disagreed. Just while it might not be the best solution to label both scammers and spammers under the same color, that's what the description of the rating is for. Given the situation, it was decent.

Here we go, another bad idea. Instead of tackling the problem at its roots, let's develop another complex system.

See, the good thing about it is that what you think doesn't matter. You can never completely objectively asses yourself, not that you have any assessment skills to begin with. Your posts are useless and do not deserve any Merit points.

Can you link to 3 posts of yours that deserve merit+? Seriously. I can only find posts that make no good to the forum. But I don't think you deserve negative trust, you're not a scammer.

Who you?
I hope those tools will be available soon to stop low-quality posters.

The damage has been made and I am one of them.  Am I really spammer? I don't think so, every people has different estimation about post rating.

Back to the topic, why don't you give a tool for them (spamming fighters) to rate all the post here instead of giving red trust?  

Looks like I was wrong to allow the negatives, but I do think it would have worked. We can only hope the new merit system will help with it.

I doubt it too, at least in short term. We must find other ways to do that.
I hope theymos will write about my idea.

It's clear the staff isn't enough to fight spam and a bigger group must be allowed to do that.

Yeah, it is his forum so I will make sure the red for shit posting stops. I was not sure if it would work, but at least it got something else implemented for us. I remain doubtful that anything will fix the spam here until we hold campaign managers accountable for their users.

Honestly I think you were.


Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

A level system in spammers Merit is better in my honest opinion. If someone wants to correct themselves or someone who doesn't have any idea about the spam systems on this forum should get at least one chance to learn and change.

If someone continues to spam even after one "negative spammer merit" then those should not be allowed to join any campaigns.

Your two was  correct!Maybe we should separate for color for the tracing up of making an offenses.This is really hot issue now specially when they add another rule for the security of this forum which is the qualified post we made and give as a merit.This is truly why bitcointalk.org was really interesting because of how they stricted the rules to make the people descipline and continue our journey with this business.

I've always thought about it but I couldn't express it here, it is because of the second thought I had about the misunderstanding with others, mainly DT members.
But thank you for pointing out this to Blazed. I hope Theymos & Blazed will do something about it soon enough. If a solution comes up then recent quarrel may come to an end.


Husires's idea is not bad, but it will not reflect the level of spammer someone might be.
In my opinion, Lutpin's idea will be more effective. The same functionality of trust rating system, but with post score name.

It is for sure that we need a different system for spammers, instead of the trust rating system. I believe trust rating should only be used when there is a financial transaction.