Topic: The Discourse Paradox (Read 1107 times)

Maybe I do, a test would be nice. Maybe in just a few sections to see what happens.

I see your argument, though I think you over-estimate the effects. Posts like that would still be possible, there would just be a limit on them and eventually the level of discourse would be forced to be raised. That's not necessarily a bad thing, the back-and-forths would become more substantial and less like bickering.

Reporting them is definitely a good way, but it's a bit cumbersome with quite often there being a fine line and just so much.

I think it would also kill threads like e.g. this -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/time-to-stand-up-to-the-xt-shills-here-1240437
Not one I would consider very high in terms of discourse, but its also not spam. Its a back and forth between a few people and a very low percentage have a paid signature. Yes, it would be possible to match the parameters to allow just that amount of words, symbols or any other metric units in the example thread.

I dont think it will help though as the underlying premiss is false. The number of symbols has nothing to do with the constructiveness or helpfullness of a post. Hindering those that have no idea or interest in learning the restrictions is the worst thing that can be done to fight spam. Spammers will know exactly how many symbols they need to post, they will adapt quickly. Those that do not care about it because they dont try to circumvent it, will not. They will run into the problem regardless. This is why we no longer have the newbie jail, because it was not a problem for spammers, but for everyone else. I think the same would happen if your suggestion would be implemented.

I still think the best way to fight low quality posts is to report them. Not the single post, but the user. It only takes a few minutes to read the last 20-40 posts to find a shitposter. From what I see, they are handled, it just takes a while. Which is normal if you consider that a ban should not be handed out lightly and BadBear mainly does the job alone.

Thats not ok unless there is something important you have to say, you can report those posts if you see them.

Im not sure what the solution can be but campaigns like yobit have to be banned, they have no control over their participants, they let them post whatever and wherever they want. Just ban them, it's not that hard.

Yes, it's a good specimen account to look at....
1) bought
2) sig campaign
2) regular posts, averaging 100 per week
3) default post size ~100 words.
4) superficial content, but actually says very little
4) has the feel of something which has been put thru a translator twice

And the acid test....would he post as often, or at all, if he wasn't getting paid?

Not to mention posts made in threads where there has been no activity for months.
Sadly, that seems to be okay.

Make an image count for x words, or remove the limit for having an image in there, or ChartBuddy could adjust his post slightly to get around with it. It's actually worth bringing up here that of course you can get around this by just posting the minimum, but here it brings it from an arbitrary and loosely-defined minimum to a solid minimum where it's especially obvious if someone is spamming. So not only will it reduce it by raising the limit, it will also make it easier to catch those just posting bad discourse.

There's already a lot of account buying, signatures are rank-based. I also never mentioned making it rank-based, I want it equally applied.

shorena: This post also acts as a reply to you

Your solution is based on the assumption that spammers will not adept. I dont think you can assume that, as such it would be a restriction to those with legit short posts, but not help staff. It would probably be more work for staff, because spam now has more volume. More information to process and evaluate requires more time, esp. if you want to do it as good as it is done now. For a while it would help, but in the end, it would make things worse. The length of a post has nothing to do with its constructiveness. Shoehorning a mertic on to someting as abstract as constructiveness of a post is not going to work IMHO. I dont think there is a perfectly solution, well besides ...



https://xkcd.com/810/

True, but this is IMHO something the campaign has to enforce, not the forum. I'm starting to feel hilarious's idea to ban YoBit and secondstrade was not that bad at all.
Some limitations this rule will have if it comes in effect: ChartBuddy wouldn't be able to post, some of the people with their own signatures who discuss on Wall observer thread and Memespeculation with only pictures will be having trouble, and if you start making it rank based, there will be an huge influx in buying of accounts.

Actually his posts are usually on-topic IMHO, even though his English is pretty poor.

Yes. I'm aware there are ways around this. I would appreciate hearing any perfect solutions as it's quite tough to come up with them. If people truly make incomprehensible, long posts, I'm sure they will be banned. This just serves to reduce the amount of people who spam for signature ads in the first place.

There's always the Ignore button

A forum is a forum. It will always have good and bad quality posts. There's nothing you can do about it...  Putting a cooldown on posts is a bad idea. Putting any kind of limit on posting isn't good. For newbies, there's a cooldown and for newbies I think it's ok, and before we also had newbie jail.

For older, more active members a posting limit of any kind isn't quite cool.

Example of such posts: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/n2004al-262578 None of his posts are single liner but most are incomprehensible anyway. And BTW this recommendation can easily be overcome by members posting only in Bimba word game and such threads.
Edit:
Thats where buying accounts come into the picture

Edit 2: Shouldn't this belong in "New forum software"?

So quality equals quantity now? I can easily put up some filler sentences if it helps your perception of my post as contributing to the discussion.

Indeed, the parameters would have to be carefully decided upon. Personally I think it should be used at all ranks, but that's just me as I think that the low level of discourse can come from any rank especially with account sales.


They could start bundling their posts together, though I don't think it would affect them as badly as you think (unless they really have to reply to more than x people per z hours and they are extremely fast at doing so). And no, the length of the post does not always equate to the quality, but a post that is longer in length usually forms more of a valid argument than one made just to cramp posts in. And of course, low length posts would still be fine, the idea is that if you did make x amount of less than y words for a little bit. You could still actually post.

Quote from: subSTRATA on November 06, 2015, 05:24:03 PM

i like this idea a lot better; disallowing users to make posts that are below a certain word count, i feel, would be a tad too limiting on their ability to type out their thoughts on whatever discussion may be taking place. instead, i feel that adjusting the time required between posts (360 seconds for newbies by default, decreases as activity is accrued) based on the word counts of a user's recent post  history (not counting words included within quote brackets) might be an effective tool against spam. that value, if it were editable to an extent by moderators, could also effectively serve as a warning against people who are getting close to a ban as well.

I think your idea is good as well, that could definitely be used to stop posts with low levels of discourse.

There would also need to be some exceptions to ensure moderators who move posts and leave a "moved" post don't get punished.

i like this idea a lot better; disallowing users to make posts that are below a certain word count, i feel, would be a tad too limiting on their ability to type out their thoughts on whatever discussion may be taking place. instead, i feel that adjusting the time required between posts (360 seconds for newbies by default, decreases as activity is accrued) based on the word counts of a user's recent post  history (not counting words included within quote brackets) might be an effective tool against spam. that value, if it were editable to an extent by moderators, could also effectively serve as a warning against people who are getting close to a ban as well.

I like this idea, though I can think of a problem or two with it. While it's unlikely to happen, if the balance is incorrect it could begin to affect service owners who's posts aren't always long or high quality. These users don't tend to wear paid signatures, though could end up getting punished for it.
Also, then there's the argument of 'does the length of post equate to the quality?'. A user could create posts which are low in length and helpful, though they would still be 'punished'* for making such posts by the system.
*I put punished in quotes due to it not really being a punishment, more of a restriction. However, some users could see it as such and therefore stop doing said helpful posts.

Certainly something must be done about such posts however, it's obvious they are simply posting for the money and have no intention to help the conversation in any way.

I concur. What signature campaign participants tend to do is rewrite content in order for their replies not to be classified as spam. I've seen an increase in this in various threads around the forum, where it is easy to make a somewhat 'valid' post. This does create unnecessary clutter and I do agree that something needs to be done in order to at least partially cut down on the number of these posts. Your suggestion is rather quite interesting. I do not think that anyone has ever suggested something like that (at least from what I recall). It could be only applied to people with signatures (all ranks) and lower rank members (in order to make farming harder).

---

---

Although one would have to be very careful with the parameters. This could easily hurt people who are trying to have legit conversations with someone.

Bitcointalk suffers from what I call the "discourse paradox". In a more opaque way of stating this, it means that a high level of discourse always leads to a low level of discourse as the low-quality posts flood in as a response to the popularity, making proper discourse much rarer. As usual, it's the usual culprit.

This is not a "ban signature ads" thread. I have a signature ad myself. Signature ads are not inherently wrong. The wrong part about it is that there are a large amount of people who post posts that are made to just barely be classed as valid posts for their signature campaign. This requirement for "valid posts" means that discourse is created, but it rarely is high-quality discourse as these posts are just squeezed in and then stopped. Of course not all posts can be high-quality, I alternate between mediocre posts of 20-30 words and large posts of 50-100 or even more words. The problem is when all of those posts are in the 20-30 range or possibly even less (20-30 itself usually isn't that bad, but most of the time it's more like 15-20).

The solution? That's the problem, isn't it? The staff team can't do much as it's too widespread a problem to really be easily moderated, and all the blanket solutions would involve drastic changes such as removing signatures entirely.

Personally, I think that if you make x amount of
edit: words