Pages:
Author

Topic: Suggestion to reduce signature campaign spam posts (Read 622 times)

legendary
Activity: 3374
Merit: 1824
Talking about the signature campaigns, I think it really up to the dev and the manager who is managing it. They are spending money to get exposure for their business or product whatever it is and they should have the full right to chose what they want keeping the forum interest in mind.

We really can not force them to do certain things that may lose their interest to advertise in here too. It always has to have a balance and I think we are not doing bad in it so far.
Why can't they be forced to do that? There are countless forum rules. Another rule could be that signature campaigns may not require a minimum number of posts.
I only remember the Yobit campaign some time ago where they intervened, because the conditions of the campaign led to massive spamming.
I don't agree with you. I think minimum number of posts requirement is needed.
Assume that there is no minimum posts requirement. What if there are many users who make only 1-2 posts per week while the campaign needs more active participants?
Be sure managers will likely remove such participants as they have the right remove anyone. So it's better to more clear rule.
I think the better solution is to have a limitation on maximum number posts. (the maximum number of posts that are payed cannot be more than X.)


Well, in theory it's good solution but practically we are very different.
Some users usually only write in a few topics and can't write many quality posts but others have more free time and knowledge so they can write much more quality and informative posts in the forum.
Sometimes we have very interesting discussions that last for days and in which the same users can have many posts.
Not all users are the same, nor are their posts.
In signature campaigns, the biggest responsibility lies with the managers and their selection criteria for campaign participants.
Someone can spam even with 10 posts and someone else can write up to 100 quality posts without any spam, in my opinion.
Limitation on maximum number posts will not help much, I'm afraid.
The best way to stop spam still remains post reporting function.

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 5213
Talking about the signature campaigns, I think it really up to the dev and the manager who is managing it. They are spending money to get exposure for their business or product whatever it is and they should have the full right to chose what they want keeping the forum interest in mind.

We really can not force them to do certain things that may lose their interest to advertise in here too. It always has to have a balance and I think we are not doing bad in it so far.
Why can't they be forced to do that? There are countless forum rules. Another rule could be that signature campaigns may not require a minimum number of posts.
I only remember the Yobit campaign some time ago where they intervened, because the conditions of the campaign led to massive spamming.
I don't agree with you. I think minimum number of posts requirement is needed.
Assume that there is no minimum posts requirement. What if there are many users who make only 1-2 posts per week while the campaign needs more active participants?
Be sure managers will likely remove such participants as they have the right remove anyone. So it's better to more clear rule.
I think the better solution is to have a limitation on maximum number posts. (the maximum number of posts that are payed cannot be more than X.)
hero member
Activity: 2254
Merit: 537
My passive income eBook @ tinyurl.com/PIA10

15 to 20 posts per week really isn't a hell of a lot, and that leaves you plenty of time to think about what you're writing.  Unfortunately I think the issue is that a lot of campaign participants (and bounty hunters) have multiple alts, each also participating in campaigns and this spreads their posting time kind of thin--so they don't put much effort into their posts.

True, it's pretty reasonable but most campaigns have max limits up to like 5 times of the weekly minimum. For instance, my campaign caps at 60 posts (15 min and the rest are counted as bonuses) but like hell I'm gonna spam shit just to fulfill the quota.

But then, advertisers want the maximum exposure for every penny spent so it boils down to the posters. Then it goes back to the square one whereby the minority participates in discussions while the rest just do you-know-what.

One workaround is to add those people to the Ignore list. If the CMs want to check for dupes, there's got to be a better way besides asking mods or staffs to check.
member
Activity: 148
Merit: 93
When you find a meaningless post or spam that is off topic then report it to the moderator. This is as simple as it is.
Very often you only recognize unnecessary and meaningless posts if you know the thread history. Moderators don't have the time to read the thread history but look at the post in isolation. That's why it often doesn't make sense to report it.

Talking about the signature campaigns, I think it really up to the dev and the manager who is managing it. They are spending money to get exposure for their business or product whatever it is and they should have the full right to chose what they want keeping the forum interest in mind.

We really can not force them to do certain things that may lose their interest to advertise in here too. It always has to have a balance and I think we are not doing bad in it so far.
Why can't they be forced to do that? There are countless forum rules. Another rule could be that signature campaigns may not require a minimum number of posts.
I only remember the Yobit campaign some time ago where they intervened, because the conditions of the campaign led to massive spamming.

15 to 20 posts per week really isn't a hell of a lot, and that leaves you plenty of time to think about what you're writing.  Unfortunately I think the issue is that a lot of campaign participants (and bounty hunters) have multiple alts, each also participating in campaigns and this spreads their posting time kind of thin--so they don't put much effort into their posts.
Sure, as I wrote, there are members (like you  Wink ) which write a lot of quality posts a week. But these are in the minority. Such users would also write so many posts if they were not in a campaign, just out of interest for discussion. Most users who are in a signature campaigns, however, would write little to hardly without being rewarded for it. And here is the point at which I think that the bad quality of most posts begins and one could intervene as a forum operator.

This would be difficult or impossible to enforce on the forum. It would take collective effort from the moderators and also regular members to supervise every project run on the forum, especially as some are run on external platforms and linked to BT, if this efforts were channelled to making and marking reports, I believe it would have a much better effect on the forum.
No, it doesn't have to be checked and released individually, but you can simply report it and a moderator will decide whether to write to the Campaign Manager or simply (temporarily) close the thread until the conditions are adjusted to the rules.
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
How was this off-topic?
-snip-
Just because some of you are moderators doesn't mean you're not also spammers.

Cowards.
I'd argue that yours deserves to be on the thread, though it's a meta observation linked to the original content. Smiley
However, as I've posted above... rules are enforced at a moderator's discretion.

Also. Welsh has no jurisdiction over Meta. A Global Moderator must have deleted it.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Hire Bitcointalk Camp. Manager @ r7promotions.com
~snip~

Thinking out of the box if ever signatures are banned, how can you still show the signatures in your every post. Here is one idea in my mind.
After every post , display a screen shot of your signature image.


I see you have a long way to go buddy :-D


~snip~
That is not going to happen.
I am always out of sMerits :-P
Owe you.
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
Thinking out of the box if ever signatures are banned, how can you still show the signatures in your every post. Here is one idea in my mind.
After every post , display a screen shot of your signature image.

That is not going to happen.

22. Advertising (this includes mining pools, gambling services, exchanges, shops, etc.) in others threads' is no longer allowed, including, but not limited to, in altcoin announcement threads. [8]

23. When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.[e]

24. Advertisements (including signatures within the post area) in posts aren't allowed unless the post is in a thread you started and is really substantial and useful.[9][e]
hero member
Activity: 2464
Merit: 877
I wonder how many of these posts would have been written if the poster wasnt part of a campaign of sorts.
If theymos decided to try out my experiment of a one-month signature ban, we would find out.
This will be really interesting to see. I hope he does this for some undeclared amount of time instead of saying a certain date to end.

Thinking out of the box if ever signatures are banned, how can you still show the signatures in your every post. Here is one idea in my mind.
After every post , display a screen shot of your signature image.




legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1253
So anyway, I applied as a merit source :)
Despite recent efforts to reduce signature campaign spam, it is still ubiquitous.
Like what?

Quote
How often do I read any meaningless posts in any dead threads or other completely irrelevant posts in poor quality by users wearing a advertisement in the signature.
Use the report to moderator button. It has a good use if you use it regularly. You even get a score to boast off in this forum. Wink

Quote
In my opinion, this is also due to the fact that the minimum number of posts for signature campaigns is far too high and the participants are virtually "forced" to write useless posts. Normal active users write between 3-4 posts a week, if at all. However, many signature campaigns require at least 15 or 20 posts.
Again you are putting in your personal opinion. Report he post if you feel it is irrelevant. But at times threads are created to be converted to cesspool of spam by another poster. So its not really a fault of the manager here unless they start removing participants for this.

Quote
Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?
This forum administration does not deal with campaign managers, as of now.

If some members are forcing themselves to post, then they wont receive much merit for them, leaving out some exceptions. That does control the spamming habits of some users.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 3061
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?

Doing this is pointless if nothing changes at the manager level as the abusers will just jump though the required hoops to abuse the campaign at any cost. If a campaign pops up here and they have little to no management or quality control then it will be abused regardless of how many posts they can or can't make. If you limit it to x amount of posts then they will just create or buy multiple accounts to maximise earnings as many are already doing on certain campaigns. Decent posters can make 10-20 posts a day, but they're not the problem; it's the shitposters on shitcampaigns that shouldn't even be allowed to operate here that are causing the damage and the ones that can't run a campaign to an acceptable standard should be dealt with in other ways.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1018
Not your keys, not your coins!
I agree with members who, as one of the anti-spam measures point to "Report to moderator button", but one should not neglect also the available option called "self-moderated thread" which gives anyone who opens the thread the opportunity to be their own moderator.
Relates to self-moderation, I think users who have not yet thoroughly know about it should read the announcement of this feature from theymos, years ago: Self-moderated topics
In most sections, you now have the option of marking topics self-moderated when creating them. In self-moderated topics, the OP can delete replies. The option for enabling this is under "additional options". Topics cannot be converted to self-moderated topics after creation.

There are no rules to self-moderation. In self-moderated threads, replies belong to the OP. In other threads, replies belong to the respondents individually. Think carefully about whether you want to reply to a self-moderated topic, as your post may not be given due respect.

Tell me if there are any bugs. If this ends up not working out well, I might remove it.
Self-moderated topics? Can you say what boards this applies too? This is going to be bad if it is on certain boards, cause some people can edit threads to benefit them, I really hope it is just the off-topic board.

The excluded sections are Meta (except for this topic), Scam Accusations, Important Announcements, and Auctions. Tagged scammers can't use this feature. You don't have to participate in self-moderated topics if you're worried about manipulation by the OP.
legendary
Activity: 3234
Merit: 5637
Blackjack.fun-Free Raffle-Join&Win $50🎲
I agree with members who, as one of the anti-spam measures point to "Report to moderator button", but one should not neglect also the available option called "self-moderated thread" which gives anyone who opens the thread the opportunity to be their own moderator.

Personally, I try to make an impact in this way, and I notice that most of the users who have the intention to post some spam avoid posting in such threads. Of course, there are always exceptions, those who don't understand what spam is, or why someone is open self-moderated thread.

There is no universal solution to reduce spam posts (except total ban), but if everyone takes some of the responsibility, I think spam can be reduced to an acceptable extent.
hero member
Activity: 2254
Merit: 537
My passive income eBook @ tinyurl.com/PIA10
Unless we see more campaign managers that take a stance against such posting, we've to either ignore or just scroll past them.

After all, those things don't break any forum rules.
legendary
Activity: 3262
Merit: 1376
Slava Ukraini!
Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?
I don't think it's good idea If such low minimal number of posts would be introduced, advertising through signature campaigns would be not effective. But as you say, max number of posts would be optional. So, most of sig campaign participants still would posts as much as possible to maximize their earnings. So, such change in rules wouldn't have any effect.
And I think number of posts isn't an issue, especially when almost all Bitcoin paying campaigns are managed properly. I can talk from my experience. My campaign requires to make 25 posts, but usually I make 30-35 posts week, because I just don't think about my campaign quota when posting. Even when I was without campaign, I was making similar number of posts.
hero member
Activity: 1806
Merit: 672
It's not the number of posts required to reach payment the problem but it's the quality of participants have in each campaign is. If you look at most participants part of a sig campaign they their post lacks quality since they aren't really interested in the topic, they are just posting because it seems to them that they can reply to it as easily as possible they only read the title and go ahead and post something without even reading the previous posts made. All they see is the requirement and they don't see the forum as itself being interesting for them to relate too. That's why a more realistic approach is to have a much strict campaign managers monitoring quality so that even senseless shitposters and spam posters won't be a part of any campaign therefore reducing senseless posts running around in the forum.
legendary
Activity: 2254
Merit: 2406
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?
This would be difficult or impossible to enforce on the forum. It would take collective effort from the moderators and also regular members to supervise every project run on the forum, especially as some are run on external platforms and linked to BT, if this efforts were channelled to making and marking reports, I believe it would have a much better effect on the forum.
Theymos has once discussed signature bans, but so far he has explored so many other measures to reduce spam with varying degrees of success.
Reporter badges is one measure I would love to see implemented.
copper member
Activity: 2338
Merit: 4543
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Wouldn't it therefore be a useful measure to prohibit signature campaigns to require a minimum number of posts per week or month? Or at least a minimum number of 1 to 3 posts per week or not more than 10 a month?

I think you would have a hard time convincing the Anarcho-Capitalist that own's this place to put any such restrictions on campaigns.  However, that's not so say that he won't step in if things get out of control.  The Yobit ban earlier this is year was a prime example.  And, the way the Yobit campaign has been running since it's return it's a prime example of how the community will step up and address spam.

Like others have said, report spammers to the mods if appropriate, or the campaign manager if he's a subtle spammer.


I don't understand how anybody makes money advertising here.

Many thousand sets of eyeballs per day.  Wink
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Hire Bitcointalk Camp. Manager @ r7promotions.com
I wonder how many of these posts would have been written if the poster wasnt part of a campaign of sorts.
If theymos decided to try out my experiment of a one-month signature ban, we would find out.
This will be really interesting to see. I hope he does this for some undeclared amount of time instead of saying a certain date to end.

~ some butt hurt truth ~
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
I wonder how many of these posts would have been written if the poster wasnt part of a campaign of sorts.
If theymos decided to try out my experiment of a one-month signature ban, we would find out.

This forum is largely campaigners just talking to themselves. I don't understand how anybody makes money advertising here.
It must, since long-running campaigns would not bother continuing when they are shown to be unprofitable.

Its almost like they feel the need to run a charity to absolve themselves of their sins. especially Chip mixer.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 4341
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
This forum is largely campaigners just talking to themselves. I don't understand how anybody makes money advertising here. Its almost like they feel the need to run a charity to absolve themselves of their sins. especially Chip mixer.

There's more to advertising on the forum than just individuals discussing within the forum. I'm not a participant of chipmixer but I have referred the mixer to individuals (from my country) not even users of the forum, to use their service to mixed their bitcoin on multiple occasions. Same scenario can be said about crypto related sportbooks, I have previously referred cryptocurrency enthusiast that were interested in gambling with cryptocurrency to the sportbooks advertise here and I know same thing can be said by other users.

The forum is a host to individual from different geographical region, project with millions raise and probably would be interested in mixing this coins to stay  more anonymous (via wallet), which mixer do you think they'll patronize? In my opinion, the reputation gotten from adverting on the forum is very vital, you think chipmixer would had been actively spending millions advertising on the forum for over 2years if the forum wasn't profiting them?, I don't think so.
Pages:
Jump to: