Topic: Solutions for the spam problem? - page 3. (Read 1787 times)

Sorry Blazed I don't agree giving neg tagging for shit poster. Trust feedback was built for saving from scammer or possible scammer.

Just outsourcing someone to giving everyone neg tag, it's really bad idea. Neg tagging for multiple account user understandable what Lauda was doing but tagging for posting small posts not a good idea at all. We will never know are they biased or not when giving negative rating because they will just giving neg tag and post shit poster. Sometime small half line post is more accurate than posting full para. Are they reading full content before giving neg tagging or they check profile and check oh that user have all half to 2 line post so he is shit poster.

99% times I also like to post even half line or say 1-2 lines max because for my work as a trader since last 4 years not require big post and I don't like to post big because I know if I can answer easily to the point in half line than why post in full big para.


This is superb idea, I will love to work with improve list of SMAS list.

When I run campaign for btc signature campaign, I always very strict to choosing participant because there is so much option  but when it comes to only bounty tokens I am lenient but I made some strict rule like posting in 1-2 days won't earn stake so user must post minimum 3 days in a week to earn stake so I won't give multi account user to easy escape and they can't earn easily bounty tokens. But problem not all manager follow strict rules and because of that when ICO developer see there is low number of participants in their signature campaign because of strict rule and other campaign have very big number of users so they complained so much. And as a bounty manager I have to show them why they have huge number of signature participants and why we don't and they try to force me to easy rule for their signature campaign too.

Negative trust only does so much. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just like playing the devil's advocate on these issues.

See: Betcoin.ag (campaign and site)

People stuck with that signature campaign well after it was revealed to be a scam site with plenty of other shady activity.

If you want to have something like this work, you need to have a crystal clear, unambiguous set of guidelines for what should and should not be flagged across the board (those running sig campaigns or not). The people assigned to it need to be capable of removing their emotions from the job and apply the rules completely objectively. From the looks of it, this is not the case right now.

Having said that, these sorts of things rarely work out mostly because human beings have a hard time being objective and not inserting their own personal opinions into something like this. Especially as some relish the "power" they hold over others and start to abuse it.

Instead, the whole thing should be pushed back to those that are paying the "shit posters". They're the ones that should be policing the posts and not paying shit posters. Then your crew could review the posters of various campaigns and if they find the campaign is not policing the posts adequately, they lose their sig campaign privileges for some period of time. Just a thought off the top of my head.

I love that you have seen my point. I had fears that my voice wouldn't be heard because I am not carrying a Legendary/Hero Badge or because I am tagged as "shitposter from 3rd World". But that is the use of this Open Forum to express what you want to say (excluding the spam of course) no matter what your rank is and not forgetting the rule of good "Netiquette".

Enforcing SMAS as mandatory is something I've read a few times already in this and the other thread.
I've made an update post to that (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28858331).
Would like to hear theymos' opinion on the matter, though.

I have some idea to prevent spam:
Implement SMAS to all campaign managers and must be managed by the moderators if an user listed to SMAS moderators can disable the signature of that user preventing the user from joining signature campaigns only problem is can moderators disable signature remotely? I think this more humane than giving negative feedback

Edit: Although giving users a negative feedback helps a lot against spamming and shitposting, the problem is, the feedbacks is harsh and also, the user given a negative trust by the DT user posts in reputation section pleading to remove their negative feedback or attacking the DT who gave him/her a negative feedback making more spam in reputation and Meta sections

My own idea as a suggestion. Don't mind if not helpful.

Scammers are always everywhere they cause a lot of trouble to investors, maybe tagging them with red flag is not effective as it is but banning there I.P. address can or maybe helpful to evict them in this forum. ( If it is proven that an accused person is a real scammer with reference). This is just only a suggestion.

Spammers are crying out loud in the "reputation section", some wants clarification why they are tagged, some wants to argue without watching their words and does not give respect to superiors. Some have points to consider, but I trust DT MEMBERS with their decision. This is a community not a market where we can just speak freely. So tagging is an effective way but giving time to evaluate is a good way to assess.
Everybody deserves a second chance, then if they do it again, banning account is good enough to neutralize spammers.


P.S. THIS IS JUST ONLY A SUGGESTION.
(Please do correct me if I have said unnecessary words.)

It starts with name calling and then it gradually develops into a whole racial thing and makes the environment here a duller place. Yes, it IS the internet and that makes my point all the more important. Internet's not just for the western world, rich people, white people or the aristocrats, no need to belittle entire nations and paint everyone with the same crayon. IMO, it becomes all the more necessary that one should be wary of what they speak on an international forum. Bitcointalk is the forefront of Bitcoin and everything crypto.

And yes, I agree with you completely, low quality posts and spam does need to be curbed in one way or another. However, anything in this regard should not be taken lightly, the whole signature farming thing is it's own economy and employs people. I know some that do it full time even.
More so it generates traffic, brings in fresh blood to this community, which is why the advertisers pay in the first place. There just needs to be a quality check by the campaign managers.

Well, there is no reason he can't be a little more polite with negative coments I suppose. These days everyone is so sensitive...I mean it is the internet and you should expect the occasional name calling. So far there have been a couple solid suggestions to help fix the spam stuff so my additions seem to be helping! I am sure we as a community will find a fair way to fix this spam issue. I need to read up on this merit system... I hope it helps also.

I was just reading this other post here and he too seemed to have expressed his concerns of hiring this gang of good ol boys to fight spam.
IMO, pharmacists CAN recognize a shit post but he is incredibly biased, comes off as a rude, bigotted and a racist person. If it were me I would not be giving so much power to someone who can't have some form of self-control in these issues.
But, then again, like I said. He's not stupid, his red tags do usually hit the right spot with spammers.

There needs to be an automated way, something, that I have suggested in that post theymos made. Something that automatically deals with the issue. For instance this Merit system that has just been implemented, this can be used to hire people that have higher merit vs those that have lower merit. This is like the thumbs up / like button. The more likes you get, the better.

I've noticed that the Off-Topic section has dozens and dozens of simplistic posts that makes me wonder if they are from one entity. Since they follow a sort of unnatural pattern that doesn't seem realistic, even for religious people. And that you don't see in the other sections.

They would say something basic that a hardcore religious person might say, "With god everything is possible, so long as you believe," followed by more simplistic comments from some one else that goes something like, "Yes, that's why we must respect our parents." "Losing your virginity before marriage is not good because we are honoring god and our future beloved one."

The thing is that normally in other places around the internet you would at least see people debating such things, but it just really seems as though this is one person having a conversation with themselves, with all those accounts following the pattern of the one fake persona.

These comments really look off and simplistic, and easy to detect. Perhaps it can be solved by deletion.

But at the same time how can a mod be sure, in a superficial sense it's difficult to delete a comment that goes "Yes, that's why we must respect our parents." Even if it seems like the person is just saying BS, following an MO. Such comments put one on the spot, because superficially they can be protested as a legit comment.

Absolutely, I'm not giving 3 suggestions but 1. I consider the 3rd part extremely important too.

By:

• Managing the list. People can be removed from the list if they wrongfully tag people as spammers
• By requiring more than one person to tag a person to remove signature privileges. I'd say 2 tags are enough
• By allowing others to untag users, then the sum (tags - untags) would have to be 2 or more

I like the idea of the balance of 2 (or other number) trusted members marking your posts as spam, then the SMAS would kick in and remove the sig block automatically. The balance coming in where if 2 (or other number) trusted members mark your posts as good and then you would go to neutral and your sig block comes active again. The separate spam marker would help with this and it's a "fair" way to mark spammers.  

Actually it worked to me. I noticed that my latest posts have been somehow useless, now I am paying more attention to what I am writing. But it would have been if the user get warned before receiving the red trust.
Although I still do not consider my red trust label to be fair.

I do like Ecuamobi's proposal.

The same way it is (in theory) prevented right now?
Theymos managing DT and thus selecting DT1, DT1 managing and selecting DT2.

It's not about the system deciding something is spam or not.
It's about the system deciding whether or not a person gets to wear a signature based on their "spam score" "post reputation" (whatever it might be called).
Eg can you wear a signature if 2 (trusted) people marked you as spammer? No, probably. What if 2 people marked you as spammer and 2 marked your posts as good.
Cases like this.

A test section and at best a tiny band-aid. This can't be the full, permanent solution.

How can we prevent system misuse?(keep hiding some signature).
Remember we do not have a clear definition of spam.

---

generally, I agree with you. this is the best solution because signatures are the main reason for the spammers.
I do not know if theymos will agree with you because he already make  Serious discussion section

I'm a big fan of this, especially regarding the third part of the suggestion. I think that part is near crucial though. Without this, we will just reach a similar issue that we are having currently where people are getting all riled up and not much is actually changing.

---

What about the spam problems outside of Bitcoin Discussion?

I'm unsure quite what you mean about it being laborious. Laborious for who? The people that volunteer to do it?

---

It could perhaps be an interesting idea to have a special list of users that use this system, and only this system (unrelated to DT). I know for a fact that I wouldn't trust certain DT members to judge post quality, where as I would with others that aren't necessarily on the network (perhaps rightfully so).

---

I'm not sure I'd go for Orange, as that is already in use by the Trust system. I don't have a good alternative though, and may be overthinking it.

---

This has been said multiple times, and theymos has said publicly that this won't happen. Therefore, we as a community should try to find a way around.

DT members can do a better job if they start to select a group of users they think that are good poster by leaving them a neutral trust.

Leaving a neg trust to a user will not change anything, this user will spamm the forum because he does not have nothing to lost.

what is the result after one week ?
-more than 500 Users with neg trust.
-Brynt on the facebook page for filipino  sold 713 bitcointalk account  during the last 4 days , he become milionaire in his country and earn more than $46 000 in 4 days.
why noone cant see the solution its to remove the sign campaign on this forum?

Only a DT would be able to tag a spammer, right? Otherwise, everybody will tag everybody and I smell the "he tagged me with his alt accounts to get a slot in the campaign XYZ!!!"

So a "spammer" tag would be introduced and that spammer tag would then remove a signature if X amount of spammer tags have been added by DT members?  I need to think this through but it sounds interesting.

One note: the number of 'spammer' tags should maybe be calculated on a percentage to accommodate the DT list growing or reducing.

Would there then need to be a way to counter spammer tags if others think it is an inappropriate rating?