Why do we need to lock them, can't we have a long discussion on certain issue? Also, locking a thread would stop generating more spam but there are a lot of spam posts already in the same thread.
I agree that most of the threads in altcoin discussion are full of spam but that doesn't necessarily mean there's no good discussion at all. Instead of reporting for locking a thread, why not that 10 members report the spam posts to moderator? Wouldn't that clean the thread and make it read worthy? In fact, the goal of deleting spam post is to make the thread more read worthy. I remember once I had reported all the spam posts of one thread and after moderators handled the reports, the thread was like a GOLD. All the posts were high quality, on topic. So, basically that would be beneficial to the community. Simply locking a thread would never be beneficial.
Topic: Suggestion to reduce MegaSpam threads . - page 2. (Read 431 times)
Some users participate in a thread with 10 pages but they avoid to read and reply to the shit posts. You can for example notice users still having a real/decent discussion with each other, they just can stop other users to posts.
I don't know if others agree with me that signature campaigns bounty managers are somehow responsible of this issue, as they accept counting posts in any thread. Recently, the bm of the signature i am part of required just 2-3 posts in mega threads to be accepted in weekly post count of 25 posts. I think it's a wise move for both, the signature to be visible (as no one usually read posts in mega spam threads), and the forum as well .Even in a thread with 3-4 pages you will read users saying a lof of shits (note: expressing a different opinion than other is something else, by 'shits' I mean real shit à la "great project sir"), reapeating what has already been said, give wrong informations, add generic sentences to make their posts longer (<= so pathetic)
If the persons are still rewarded for their stupid posts, of course they won't stop. For sure the BM should be more severe but I can already hear the "I can't check X participants" "I can't read all the contexts of the discussions they posted in"
Quote
Recently, the bm of the signature i am part of required just 2-3 posts in mega threads
Did you wanted to say "the BM of the signature i am part of accepted just 2-3 posts in mega threads?Because requiring is weird
OP isn't suggesting an auto-lock feature, just that mods would take a look at it.
By automated, I meant a system where a certain number of reports from a certain rank would be a threshold to get the attention of the mods which the OP was suggesting, and as one report could do the job I felt this would be unnecessary.I don't know if others agree with me that signature campaigns bounty managers are somehow responsible of this issue, as they accept counting posts in any thread.
I agree with this, especially with bounty projects. Most of the current signature campaign managers do well to handle spam by carefully selecting the people to wear their signatures as well as reducing the minimum post requirement. This would lead to less spam as users are not forced to post more then they would naturally do. 
Some users participate in a thread with 10 pages but they avoid to read and reply to the shit posts. You can for example notice users still having a real/decent discussion with each other, they just can stop other users to posts.
I don't know if others agree with me that signature campaigns bounty managers are somehow responsible of this issue, as they accept counting posts in any thread. Recently, the bm of the signature I am part of required just 2-3 posts in mega threads to be accepted in weekly post count of 25 posts. I think it's a wise move for both, the signature to be visible (as no one usually read posts in mega spam threads), and the forum as well .I agree with you, signature managers have the biggest responsibility to reduce spam. Yes, posting in mega threads is pure spam and nothing more, and it is a complete waste of money for campaign owners.
It seems, signature campaigns with payments in Bitcoin, they have slightly better control and most spam comes from bounty program and where are payments in token or low-level altcoin
I don't know if I suggested this before or not but I think the best way to avoid spam threads is having some kind of automation when it comes to locking a thread. Like when the first 2 or 3 pages the OP of the thread hasn't replied to his own topic then the thread will automatically be locked. This just means that the OP itself isn't interested in his own topic and he just posted it for no educational reason. This way we can easily avoid having megathreads with the same generic answers from people.
Some users participate in a thread with 10 pages but they avoid to read and reply to the shit posts. You can for example notice users still having a real/decent discussion with each other, they just can stop other users to posts.
I don't know if others agree with me that signature campaigns bounty managers are somehow responsible of this issue, as they accept counting posts in any thread. Recently, the bm of the signature i am part of required just 2-3 posts in mega threads to be accepted in weekly post count of 25 posts. I think it's a wise move for both, the signature to be visible (as no one usually read posts in mega spam threads), and the forum as well .
Some users participate in a thread with 10 pages but they avoid to read and reply to the shit posts. You can for example notice users still having a real/decent discussion with each other, they just can't stop other users to posts. When you have a good ignore list also, you don't see the noise...
Of course in most cases, after 40 pages, there is often nothing to add...
And moderators don't have to check every thread to see if it deserves to be locked. It's up to us, users, to report the topic explaining why it should be locked. I did several times and it works
Of course in most cases, after 40 pages, there is often nothing to add...
And moderators don't have to check every thread to see if it deserves to be locked. It's up to us, users, to report the topic explaining why it should be locked. I did several times and it works
Creating an algorithm with a number of reports and rank threshold for that is unnecessary, imo. It could also be exploited
OP isn't suggesting an auto-lock feature, just that mods would take a look at it.It is, however, an unnecessary suggestion. If you find a spam megathread, then just report the first post in the thread, state that it is a spam megathread, state that there is no ongoing discussion and its just being used by bounty spammers, suggest that you would like to see it locked, and the mods usually take action fairly swiftly. Here are a few examples of spammy threads in Bitcoin Discussion I reported just the other day, which were all locked within 24 hours: One, two, three.
Ideally, thread starters ought to be responsible for locking the ones they've started after they've gotten the answer they needed or if they feel the discussion has outlived its usefulness--and I've noticed that a lot of senior members actually do this.
Some do, but even among senior members there are an awful lot who don't lock their threads once they have run their course. Perhaps it should be impossible to remove your own threads from your watchlist - that way if they keep getting bumped with spam it will serve as a reminder to lock them. Also, OP, if you come across a thread that's obviously become just a mega spam thread, report it to the moderators and let them handle it. Even if they don't take any action, at least you've done your part.
I can understand your point here. However, i have another point of view here; when i report a post with mention that it's a spam post, mods usually delete it. But how to report the full thread? maybe you mean report op main topic by saying it's a spam thread that need to be locked, so would you tell me how many threads had been locked by mods after being reported? I think a logic explanation is missed because a lock action is almost required to prevent accumulation of shit replies. Even those old threads created in 2010 and 2011 are still opened, they must be locked imo and if someone want to add a note to, easy to create a ne thread and just add the link to that thread.
Not all threads that exceed 10 pages are Megaspam thread, some of them are still useful to have an update rather than making another thread that similar to the locked thread. As of now "Report to Moderator" is the best solution for this.
I have already mentioned in my suggestion that there should be some exceptions like the wall observer thread and threads in "investigations" board. 
This is a good proposal but alternatively to this and the best way is to report those spammers who continuously post unsubstantial posts or directly report the main page to the MOds requesting to lock the specific spam thread.
Actually there's a thread that compiled Megaspam threads requesting to lock those topics but I think the user realized that it is good if you will report manually to the Mods.
Not all threads that exceed 10 pages are Megaspam thread, some of them are still useful to have an update rather than making another thread that similar to the locked thread. As of now "Report to Moderator" is the best solution for this.
Actually there's a thread that compiled Megaspam threads requesting to lock those topics but I think the user realized that it is good if you will report manually to the Mods.
Not all threads that exceed 10 pages are Megaspam thread, some of them are still useful to have an update rather than making another thread that similar to the locked thread. As of now "Report to Moderator" is the best solution for this.
This isn't a horrible suggestion, but I doubt it's going to be implemented.
Mods do lock threads as far as I know, just not a lot of them and not based on how many pages they've accumulated. And there are a lot of threads with many, many pages that are still useful (like the WO thread). If there was some kind of reporting system in place whereby a thread could be locked by a consensus of votes, you better believe there would be abuse happening.
Ideally, thread starters ought to be responsible for locking the ones they've started after they've gotten the answer they needed or if they feel the discussion has outlived its usefulness--and I've noticed that a lot of senior members actually do this. Unfortunately it's the shitposters (as usual) that are the ones causing the problem, because they start a thread and don't even usually bother to post in it again once it's created. Their alt accounts post in it, but not usually the OP (lol).
Also, OP, if you come across a thread that's obviously become just a mega spam thread, report it to the moderators and let them handle it. Even if they don't take any action, at least you've done your part.
Mods do lock threads as far as I know, just not a lot of them and not based on how many pages they've accumulated. And there are a lot of threads with many, many pages that are still useful (like the WO thread). If there was some kind of reporting system in place whereby a thread could be locked by a consensus of votes, you better believe there would be abuse happening.
Ideally, thread starters ought to be responsible for locking the ones they've started after they've gotten the answer they needed or if they feel the discussion has outlived its usefulness--and I've noticed that a lot of senior members actually do this. Unfortunately it's the shitposters (as usual) that are the ones causing the problem, because they start a thread and don't even usually bother to post in it again once it's created. Their alt accounts post in it, but not usually the OP (lol).
Also, OP, if you come across a thread that's obviously become just a mega spam thread, report it to the moderators and let them handle it. Even if they don't take any action, at least you've done your part.
If you feel a thread has become superfluous you can report it to the mods and if they agree they'll have it locked. Creating an algorithm with a number of reports and rank threshold for that is unnecessary, imo. It could also be exploited
Hi Folks
How many threads exceeded 10 pages after they have already served their purposes in the first 2 pages? Thousands i guess.
I don't know if mods have the ability to lock threads. But when i think that they can, i can't find reasons why they don't just lock those thousands of useless threads !
I have a suggestion that I'd like to see implemented if this is technically possible : If at least 10 full members+ report a specific thread with a specific code (it can be an option available only for those ranks), then mods should revise the thread and lock it and a message automatically sent to the creator of that thread informing him that it was deleted (like the "deleted post" message).
This option can also be limited to some boards, like excluding the "Bounties" section where users report weekly works and the project announcements board.
If this suggestion, or any other solution, be implemented, i think it will surely serve to limit spam in many boards like "Bitcoin Discussion" and "Altcoin Discussion" who are a useful great boards but full of shit replies in some great topics.
I don't know if this was suggested before. I want to know your opinions or guide me where a similar option had been discussed before .
Cheers
How many threads exceeded 10 pages after they have already served their purposes in the first 2 pages? Thousands i guess.
I don't know if mods have the ability to lock threads. But when i think that they can, i can't find reasons why they don't just lock those thousands of useless threads !
I have a suggestion that I'd like to see implemented if this is technically possible : If at least 10 full members+ report a specific thread with a specific code (it can be an option available only for those ranks), then mods should revise the thread and lock it and a message automatically sent to the creator of that thread informing him that it was deleted (like the "deleted post" message).
This option can also be limited to some boards, like excluding the "Bounties" section where users report weekly works and the project announcements board.
If this suggestion, or any other solution, be implemented, i think it will surely serve to limit spam in many boards like "Bitcoin Discussion" and "Altcoin Discussion" who are a useful great boards but full of shit replies in some great topics.
I don't know if this was suggested before. I want to know your opinions or guide me where a similar option had been discussed before .
Cheers
Jump to: