Topic: Suggestion to improve post quality on Bitcointalk - page 2. (Read 2778 times)
The sig spammers are here to stay so it is pointless to care. Yes I have a sig, but get a flat rate before you say "you got a sig stfu". The issue is paid per post causes the spammers. I think the wall of text spammers are worse than the 1 -3 word spammers. The forum does not mind sig posters even when they admit publicly they only post for pay. I think the more posts the forum gets the better it is for them (more ad revenue). Just ignore people and signatures if they bother you...forum not going to change it. I gave up caring about spam once I realized it will not change.
Check post manually? It will be really an hard work for the various sig. campaign maintainers 
.
So? That's their job, is it not? .It was a sarcastic post
. The work of a mod is to moderate the users posts (through the reports that they receive and/or surfing the forum itself and 'moderate')Are you saying that moderators should be checking each member individually to identify spammers?
Obviously : no, they should not check each member.
The monthly best poster prize wouldn't cause people to leave their signature campaign. The pool of money isn't going to be huge and it isn't going to give everyone BTC. Members would rather go for stable and guaranteed signature campaign than non guaranteed ones. The ignore list isn't going to work very well either, taking a look at dannyhamilton's ignore list, I admit that it does reduce the amount of spammers that can be seen, it also potentially blocks out good posters. The main reason for signature spam is largely due to the automated signature campaign. They are nowhere as accurate as human checking. Perhaps the forum can implement an regulation for signature campaign operators to check the post manually.
Check post manually? It will be really an hard work for the various sig. campaign maintainers
.Yeah, it is.
Are you saying that moderators should be checking each member individually to identify spammers?
Certainly not!
Check post manually? It will be really an hard work for the various sig. campaign maintainers .
So? That's their job, is it not? Are you saying that moderators should be checking each member individually to identify spammers? Anyone that lets their participants spam, or post posts of very low quality should be punished accordingly along with the user(s)..Update: I had not realized that you were being sarcastic. Anyhow, banning participants obviously has not shown to have a big impact. People tend to come back with new accounts or multiple accounts and join the same campaign (or different one).
The monthly best poster prize wouldn't cause people to leave their signature campaign. The pool of money isn't going to be huge and it isn't going to give everyone BTC. Members would rather go for stable and guaranteed signature campaign than non guaranteed ones. The ignore list isn't going to work very well either, taking a look at dannyhamilton's ignore list, I admit that it does reduce the amount of spammers that can be seen, it also potentially blocks out good posters. The main reason for signature spam is largely due to the automated signature campaign. They are nowhere as accurate as human checking. Perhaps the forum can implement an regulation for signature campaign operators to check the post manually.
Check post manually? It will be really an hard work for the various sig. campaign maintainers
.
The monthly best poster prize wouldn't cause people to leave their signature campaign. The pool of money isn't going to be huge and it isn't going to give everyone BTC. Members would rather go for stable and guaranteed signature campaign than non guaranteed ones. The ignore list isn't going to work very well either, taking a look at dannyhamilton's ignore list, I admit that it does reduce the amount of spammers that can be seen, it also potentially blocks out good posters. The main reason for signature spam is largely due to the automated signature campaign. They are nowhere as accurate as human checking. Perhaps the forum can implement an regulation for signature campaign operators to check the post manually.
Why do you think one line/one word replies are not constructive? Maybe a newbie is askin a yes or no question, and I'm answering "yes" or "no", Only 2 or 3 letters. How can you say that's not constructive?
Or do you need a Wall Of Text to answer a simple question? Most of one line replies are more constructive than WOTs.
When sig spammers think that "long sentences are more constructive" they're starting to post shits. A simple question doesn't need a WOT. It needs a proper answer, nothing more.
IMO anyone who is part of a a signature campaign and asks a question that has been answered a lot of times, is using it to bump their post count (read next sentence). In other words, any question that requires a simple use of the search function or a search engine (where usually the first result contains the answer) is most likely the result of wanting to bump up one's post count (for signature spammers). Besides if you have any questions, how about asking someone directly, who is willing to help out, via PM (e.g. me, shorena, etc.)? If you really need to make that post, then find a thread about it and post in it. The worst part about is the repetitive opening of threads discussing the same subject.Or do you need a Wall Of Text to answer a simple question? Most of one line replies are more constructive than WOTs.
When sig spammers think that "long sentences are more constructive" they're starting to post shits. A simple question doesn't need a WOT. It needs a proper answer, nothing more.
Sorry to interact people but this could be real, ignore button can be abused most especially by people with nothing to do.
This is not a solution that would improve the post quality either. Basically you're trying to make people ignore the bad posters. Anyone new will see those posts though. 
Why do you think one line/one word replies are not constructive? Maybe a newbie is askin a yes or no question, and I'm answering "yes" or "no", Only 2 or 3 letters. How can you say that's not constructive?
Or do you need a Wall Of Text to answer a simple question? Most of one line replies are more constructive than WOTs.
When sig spammers think that "long sentences are more constructive" they're starting to post shits. A simple question doesn't need a WOT. It needs a proper answer, nothing more.
Or do you need a Wall Of Text to answer a simple question? Most of one line replies are more constructive than WOTs.
When sig spammers think that "long sentences are more constructive" they're starting to post shits. A simple question doesn't need a WOT. It needs a proper answer, nothing more.
I don't remember this function, I would like to ask you: when was it removed? *The period/date.
Maybe sometime in 2012? Here people were still talking about it https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-color-is-my-ignore-button-109833
Thanks and I am still thinking that function could be re-added. The newbie (sock puppets/alt) users who ignore someone else will not be a problem, why? Read here:
If you're not seeing the color on your ignore link and an approximate count for established users who ignore you than you aren't using the default theme.
If you use the default theme and you don't see a count or any color it's because only newbs ignore you, or nobody ignores you.
If you use the default theme and you don't see a count or any color it's because only newbs ignore you, or nobody ignores you.
well i like more the constructive post of knowleage from older activity users but some above 100 activity are all good the newbies or juniors or members like me its the ones who post with significative need of improvance for the better information into the comunity and theres also philosophers
I think it is a bit harsh to put the blame of reduced post quality purely on signature campaigns.. There are enough people that do not max out their weekly/monthly limits at all. Of course a lot of shit is being posted by them, but also by others.
I'm thinking about newbie accounts saying bitcoin is doomed.
Newbie accounts saying bitcoin is going to skyrocket.
This alt will beat this alt.
The list is endless.
Part of the reduced post quality, in my opinion, also can be explained by the increased number of persons involved in bitcoin. At first you had the real enthusiasts and tech savvy people who really understood the basics of bitcoin. Now the majority is just normal users who are posting here. Ofcourse the quality will be less.
I'm thinking about newbie accounts saying bitcoin is doomed.
Newbie accounts saying bitcoin is going to skyrocket.
This alt will beat this alt.
The list is endless.
Part of the reduced post quality, in my opinion, also can be explained by the increased number of persons involved in bitcoin. At first you had the real enthusiasts and tech savvy people who really understood the basics of bitcoin. Now the majority is just normal users who are posting here. Ofcourse the quality will be less.
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.
That only works if people use the ignore list as intended! I don't know if I'm unique in this regard, but I misuse the ignore list - there are plenty of good posters on mine, simply because currently they're mostly talking about things that don't directly affect me (for example, the blocksize debate - I follow the debate periodically, and use my ignore list to screen out people who regularly or mostly discuss the debate. That's no reflection on the posters I'm ignoring, simply something I do to make it easier to focus on other things. And, obviously, I remove people from my ignore list almost as frequently as I add people).
This won't be much successful as majority would think that "they don't have any chance winning the bounty so why don't just earn small via signature campaign only?"
There must be something like a Blacklist like someone stated over here earlier. Or all signature campaign managers can keep small bpounty for those who catch the spammers and inform them about the spammers.
This will reduce spams to some nice extent.
There must be something like a Blacklist like someone stated over here earlier. Or all signature campaign managers can keep small bpounty for those who catch the spammers and inform them about the spammers.
This will reduce spams to some nice extent.
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.
That only works if people use the ignore list as intended! I don't know if I'm unique in this regard, but I misuse the ignore list - there are plenty of good posters on mine, simply because currently they're mostly talking about things that don't directly affect me (for example, the blocksize debate - I follow the debate periodically, and use my ignore list to screen out people who regularly or mostly discuss the debate. That's no reflection on the posters I'm ignoring, simply something I do to make it easier to focus on other things. And, obviously, I remove people from my ignore list almost as frequently as I add people).
I don't remember this function, I would like to ask you: when was it removed? *The period/date.
Maybe sometime in 2012? Here people were still talking about it https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-color-is-my-ignore-button-109833
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.
that is easy to counter: ignore count could ignores from brandnew/ or newbie accounts.
and if someone really buys lots of higherrank accounts, well... if he is willing to spent that much time or money to ruin you he'll find a way.
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.
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.
Good idea, let's see what theymos or BadBear will say.
That .... and I think we should also bring back the orange ignore button. If you remember this feature, as more and more people ignored the poster, the ignore button became a deeper orange. It was very easy to see who the shit posters were.
I believe it was removed because of the amount of CPU resources required to compute it. However I believe that it can be properly re-implemented without taking up massive amount of computing resources.
I believe it was removed because of the amount of CPU resources required to compute it. However I believe that it can be properly re-implemented without taking up massive amount of computing resources.
I don't remember this function, I would like to ask you: when was it removed? *The period/date.
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.
That .... and I think we should also bring back the orange ignore button. If you remember this feature, as more and more people ignored the poster, the ignore button became a deeper orange. It was very easy to see who the shit posters were.
I believe it was removed because of the amount of CPU resources required to compute it. However I believe that it can be properly re-implemented without taking up massive amount of computing resources.
yes, that feature was nice!
maybe in the new form... (lol)
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.
That .... and I think we should also bring back the orange ignore button. If you remember this feature, as more and more people ignored the poster, the ignore button became a deeper orange. It was very easy to see who the shit posters were.
I believe it was removed because of the amount of CPU resources required to compute it. However I believe that it can be properly re-implemented without taking up massive amount of computing resources.
To stay on topic, I think the OP's idea is approaching the problem from the wrong direction. We don't need more good posts - we need less garbage posts. Every now and then I see a good thread but very soon it gets moved to the second page by garbage threads and dies off.
Jump to: