Topic: Suggestion to improve post quality on Bitcointalk (Read 2778 times)
Just change the rules about signatures so that links to sites are only permitted if the domain is owned by the poster.
Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
I dont think a high max number of post is a problem in general. I see the main problem with campaign managers that just dont care if they pay for spam or not. As you say carra23 does a very good job and so did(does?) ndnhc, I think marcotheminer improved on this as well as I rarely see bit-x participants spamming which was a big problem in the past.
Exactly, campaigns that have a lot of participants that spam or post useless stuff should be closed by admins somehow, maybe banning the campaign manager for not doing his job, also most campaigns accept people without even looking at their post quality or quantity plus some of them allow newbies aswell which makes it easier for people to create new accounts if they are banned.
I dont think we should rely to heavily on staff either. There are many voices that say signature campaigns should be forbidden in general and if spam gets too bad because of them, staff might change their stance.
I hope they first consider the impact of that decision on the site traffic statistics and also banning campaigns that encourage spamming. A mayor attraction for advertisers
here are the traffic this forum generates and I guess a lot of that has to do with the signature campaigns and the activity that adds to the traffic. A lot of people will stop
using the forum or move to another forum where signature campaigns are allowed. I still say a reward system will keep people here and encourage them to post more
constructively. {This can be funded by the forum or a advertiser or a group of concerned members}
Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
I dont think a high max number of post is a problem in general. I see the main problem with campaign managers that just dont care if they pay for spam or not. As you say carra23 does a very good job and so did(does?) ndnhc, I think marcotheminer improved on this as well as I rarely see bit-x participants spamming which was a big problem in the past.
Exactly, campaigns that have a lot of participants that spam or post useless stuff should be closed by admins somehow, maybe banning the campaign manager for not doing his job, also most campaigns accept people without even looking at their post quality or quantity plus some of them allow newbies aswell which makes it easier for people to create new accounts if they are banned.
I dont think we should rely to heavily on staff either. There are many voices that say signature campaigns should be forbidden in general and if spam gets too bad because of them, staff might change their stance.
For what it's worth, I'm ok with kprawn's spacing. It's easier on the eyes than a tombstone-like wall of text. This isn't YouTube where we're limited to a certain number of characters.
Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
I dont think a high max number of post is a problem in general. I see the main problem with campaign managers that just dont care if they pay for spam or not. As you say carra23 does a very good job and so did(does?) ndnhc, I think marcotheminer improved on this as well as I rarely see bit-x participants spamming which was a big problem in the past.
Exactly, campaigns that have a lot of participants that spam or post useless stuff should be closed by admins somehow, maybe banning the campaign manager for not doing his job, also most campaigns accept people without even looking at their post quality or quantity plus some of them allow newbies aswell which makes it easier for people to create new accounts if they are banned.
Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
I dont think a high max number of post is a problem in general. I see the main problem with campaign managers that just dont care if they pay for spam or not. As you say carra23 does a very good job and so did(does?) ndnhc, I think marcotheminer improved on this as well as I rarely see bit-x participants spamming which was a big problem in the past.
Signature campaigns have a place on the forum, if they are properly managed. The maximum post count allowed could be reduced to reduce spamming....Some of these
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
campaigns have a way too high maximum post count. I have too say Carra manage the signature campaigns very well, by paying more for quality posting. If you are one of
the signature spammers, you will receive the lowest rate for your posts. The other campaign managers could also include such a system in their campaigns too improve their
campaigns and also the general quality of the posts.
I think that the BTCTalk community administrators need to establish rules for signature campaigns. Managers have to check the quality of each post and remove every one line spammer from the campaign list. Automated post counting scripts could no longer be used since a script or bot could not check the quality of posts. If a campaign manager does not remove spammers from their campaigns, the forum admins should ban the campaign manager and effectively end the campaign. I too am getting sick of the spammers and lazy managers only in it for the money and not discussion about earning/improving the bitcoin network.
You can always PM the manager of the sig campaign that has user missbehaving/spamming etc.. Just include post/s that you find unworthy as reference and i'm sure action will be made.
Also, there's that report to moderator thingy on the right of posts, if the post is in violation of forum rules. A lot of people lost their spamming account due to this.
Yeah, but there are the signature campaigns like YoBit that basically promote signature spammers; the majority of the posters enrolled in their signature campaign are very LQ posters, and since their payments are counted by a bot, you can't report them to a campaign manager.
I say that we should get rid of bot-counted signature campaigns altogether.
I think that the BTCTalk community administrators need to establish rules for signature campaigns. Managers have to check the quality of each post and remove every one line spammer from the campaign list. Automated post counting scripts could no longer be used since a script or bot could not check the quality of posts. If a campaign manager does not remove spammers from their campaigns, the forum admins should ban the campaign manager and effectively end the campaign. I too am getting sick of the spammers and lazy managers only in it for the money and not discussion about earning/improving the bitcoin network.
You can always PM the manager of the sig campaign that has user missbehaving/spamming etc.. Just include post/s that you find unworthy as reference and i'm sure action will be made.
Also, there's that report to moderator thingy on the right of posts, if the post is in violation of forum rules. A lot of people lost their spamming account due to this.
I think that the BTCTalk community administrators need to establish rules for signature campaigns. Managers have to check the quality of each post and remove every one line spammer from the campaign list. Automated post counting scripts could no longer be used since a script or bot could not check the quality of posts. If a campaign manager does not remove spammers from their campaigns, the forum admins should ban the campaign manager and effectively end the campaign. I too am getting sick of the spammers and lazy managers only in it for the money and not discussion about earning/improving the bitcoin network.
Put a stop to board account sales.
I have so many signature campaign morons on my ignore list that sometimes I feel like it's just Vod and me here on bitcointalk. And he can grate on the one nerve I have left that isn't fried and I'm very tired of that licking my boob thing.
There is way too much crapola posting here.
There is way too much crapola posting here.
The use of the ignore function can help in this case....
that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.
There're people who has enemies on the forum. Those enemies can abuse this system with shill accounts.
The use of the ignore function can help in this case....
that just got me an idea: maybe ignore count should be public so sig-campaigns can block users with too many ignores.
It's just my typing style, everyone has something that makes them unique, that is just the way I choose to do it. My apology if it's annoying to you.
I write like this on many other platforms too... It's just easier to read than the wall of text we are confronted with, when we paragraphs everything together in the
normal way. I should think the personal attacks on me should not be necessary, it just deflects from the subject at hand. The primary goal should be to reach a solution that
would fit the majority of the users here. #1 = Less Spam / #2 More constructive posting / #3 Rewarding people who create high quality content for the forum.
Let's just concentrate on that for now please, and leave the personal attacks for another time. I really want to contribute to a good experience for everyone.
I write like this on many other platforms too... It's just easier to read than the wall of text we are confronted with, when we paragraphs everything together in the
normal way. I should think the personal attacks on me should not be necessary, it just deflects from the subject at hand. The primary goal should be to reach a solution that
would fit the majority of the users here. #1 = Less Spam / #2 More constructive posting / #3 Rewarding people who create high quality content for the forum.
Let's just concentrate on that for now please, and leave the personal attacks for another time. I really want to contribute to a good experience for everyone.
Every post you write is spaced out, why ? So that your campaign manager would qualify it as a constructive post or what ?
I understand the importance of spacing when you need something to be pointed out,or divided into two "sections or topics" but what ure doing is very anoying at the least.
As far as your suggestion goes, it's not a good one. It would only divide spam to sig. campaign spam and your "reward" idea spam imho.
I understand the importance of spacing when you need something to be pointed out,or divided into two "sections or topics" but what ure doing is very anoying at the least.
As far as your suggestion goes, it's not a good one. It would only divide spam to sig. campaign spam and your "reward" idea spam imho.
It's probably just something about his device that he used to post; it's not necessarily him trying to make it a constructive post.
lol what do you mean by that ? Is he typing on a malfunctioning machine typewriter or what ?! I really don't know what to think about it now.
Yeah, it is his 'writing system'. @ajareselde check his first posts on this forum I'm sure he is doing it 'unintentionally'.
Whatever it is; it's still quite anoying, atleast to me. First post on that account, yes.
Every post you write is spaced out, why ? So that your campaign manager would qualify it as a constructive post or what ?
I understand the importance of spacing when you need something to be pointed out,or divided into two "sections or topics" but what ure doing is very anoying at the least.
As far as your suggestion goes, it's not a good one. It would only divide spam to sig. campaign spam and your "reward" idea spam imho.
I understand the importance of spacing when you need something to be pointed out,or divided into two "sections or topics" but what ure doing is very anoying at the least.
As far as your suggestion goes, it's not a good one. It would only divide spam to sig. campaign spam and your "reward" idea spam imho.
It's probably just something about his device that he used to post; it's not necessarily him trying to make it a constructive post.
I disagree with this idea; most people would just stay with their campaign anyways because there would be too much competition.
Yeah, it is his 'writing system'. @ajareselde check his first posts on this forum I'm sure he is doing it 'unintentionally'.
Every post you write is spaced out, why ? So that your campaign manager would qualify it as a constructive post or what ?
I understand the importance of spacing when you need something to be pointed out,or divided into two "sections or topics" but what ure doing is very anoying at the least.
As far as your suggestion goes, it's not a good one. It would only divide spam to sig. campaign spam and your "reward" idea spam imho.
I understand the importance of spacing when you need something to be pointed out,or divided into two "sections or topics" but what ure doing is very anoying at the least.
As far as your suggestion goes, it's not a good one. It would only divide spam to sig. campaign spam and your "reward" idea spam imho.
It's probably just something about his device that he used to post; it's not necessarily him trying to make it a constructive post.
I disagree with this idea; most people would just stay with their campaign anyways because there would be too much competition.
Thanks a lot to the people making positive and constructive suggestions to this thread. My intention was to open this up for debate and to test the water regarding a reward
system for good posting. There are many posters on this forum, who participate in signature campaigns, who really post good quality posts and I feel they need to compete in
a contest to get them rewarded for their good participation. When other people see this, they might improve their post quality to also receive these rewards. I am a moderator
on another forum, and I know quality poster draw in the crowds, because they bring value to a forum. The high quality posters need to be rewarded for their effort.
I spend hours on web sites and forums to research anything to do with Bitcoin and listen to podcasts and watch video's on the subject to further my knowledge and to
contribute positively to the Bitcoin community and this forum. I also think high quality posters need some kind of reward, to retain the high standards of their posting.
My gratitude goes out to those people here... Please keep it up. Let's hope some of the early forum members see my vision and decide to support it. We could test it for one
month, to see if it would help in any way possible.
system for good posting. There are many posters on this forum, who participate in signature campaigns, who really post good quality posts and I feel they need to compete in
a contest to get them rewarded for their good participation. When other people see this, they might improve their post quality to also receive these rewards. I am a moderator
on another forum, and I know quality poster draw in the crowds, because they bring value to a forum. The high quality posters need to be rewarded for their effort.
I spend hours on web sites and forums to research anything to do with Bitcoin and listen to podcasts and watch video's on the subject to further my knowledge and to
contribute positively to the Bitcoin community and this forum. I also think high quality posters need some kind of reward, to retain the high standards of their posting.
My gratitude goes out to those people here... Please keep it up. Let's hope some of the early forum members see my vision and decide to support it. We could test it for one
month, to see if it would help in any way possible.
Every post you write is spaced out, why ? So that your campaign manager would qualify it as a constructive post or what ?
I understand the importance of spacing when you need something to be pointed out,or divided into two "sections or topics" but what ure doing is very anoying at the least.
As far as your suggestion goes, it's not a good one. It would only divide spam to sig. campaign spam and your "reward" idea spam imho.
Thanks a lot to the people making positive and constructive suggestions to this thread. My intention was to open this up for debate and to test the water regarding a reward
system for good posting. There are many posters on this forum, who participate in signature campaigns, who really post good quality posts and I feel they need to compete in
a contest to get them rewarded for their good participation. When other people see this, they might improve their post quality to also receive these rewards. I am a moderator
on another forum, and I know quality poster draw in the crowds, because they bring value to a forum. The high quality posters need to be rewarded for their effort.
I spend hours on web sites and forums to research anything to do with Bitcoin and listen to podcasts and watch video's on the subject to further my knowledge and to
contribute positively to the Bitcoin community and this forum. I also think high quality posters need some kind of reward, to retain the high standards of their posting.
My gratitude goes out to those people here... Please keep it up. Let's hope some of the early forum members see my vision and decide to support it. We could test it for one
month, to see if it would help in any way possible.
system for good posting. There are many posters on this forum, who participate in signature campaigns, who really post good quality posts and I feel they need to compete in
a contest to get them rewarded for their good participation. When other people see this, they might improve their post quality to also receive these rewards. I am a moderator
on another forum, and I know quality poster draw in the crowds, because they bring value to a forum. The high quality posters need to be rewarded for their effort.
I spend hours on web sites and forums to research anything to do with Bitcoin and listen to podcasts and watch video's on the subject to further my knowledge and to
contribute positively to the Bitcoin community and this forum. I also think high quality posters need some kind of reward, to retain the high standards of their posting.
My gratitude goes out to those people here... Please keep it up. Let's hope some of the early forum members see my vision and decide to support it. We could test it for one
month, to see if it would help in any way possible.
Jump to: