Topic: Who's to blame for the spam? Careless bounty managers/spammy users? Both? (Read 158 times)
July 13, 2018, 11:08:21 AM
Everyone is responsible including the forum staff. They know that the problem exists but they have got to strike a a balance between limitations and forum growth. Most of the bounty managers are already doing good jobs like they blacklist users for spam.
July 13, 2018, 10:57:53 AM
Certain managers allow for a lot of spamming to take place under their threads. In my view, it's in their interest to allow for the facilitation of such spam because it simply gives their threads more visibility. I know thatthis keeps being abused as we speak by many campaigns.
Even though they have means to track tasks for the bounty automatically they prompt users to post under their threads with fake "verification" messages that only include a username. My question here is the following: Who's to blame? Is it the manager or the users?
Points on the manager:
- Benefits from responses, good or bad quality -> more visibility to the thread
- Has means to track work with forms or even automation
- Misleads users to believe that they need to post in his thread in order for them to join the campaign and get rewards, even though the supposed "proofs" involve accounts that have no connection with bitcointalk like Telegram, twitter, FB...
Perhaps the only acceptable reason to asks for proofs on bitcointalk would be use involving bitcointalk accounts like signature/avatar campaigns. Everything else is unnecessary. But the state of requesting such posts allows for many faux 'join' messages to be posted for the purposes of spam-bumping. Potentially even utilizing automated posts with bots or whatnot. This is easy to miss between hundreds of such posts.
I know that 'Joined' type posts are prohibited as well as unececerry posts as per the rules bellow:
Users posting "joined" type posts when not required or allowed will be BANNED
Incentivizing posting via low effort tasks (likes, follows, etc.) is NOT allowed
But I don't see those being enforced as it should.
Currently, join type messages on campaigns that encourage this type of spam (f.e. this one) are being deleted but this is really the hard way to approach this.
I believe that mods should FIRST trash campaign threads that are seen to encourage 'joined' type messages as a stark warning and only then go after accounts that post them. So basically go after the cause before the effects...
Even though they have means to track tasks for the bounty automatically they prompt users to post under their threads with fake "verification" messages that only include a username. My question here is the following: Who's to blame? Is it the manager or the users?
Points on the manager:
- Benefits from responses, good or bad quality -> more visibility to the thread
- Has means to track work with forms or even automation
- Misleads users to believe that they need to post in his thread in order for them to join the campaign and get rewards, even though the supposed "proofs" involve accounts that have no connection with bitcointalk like Telegram, twitter, FB...
Perhaps the only acceptable reason to asks for proofs on bitcointalk would be use involving bitcointalk accounts like signature/avatar campaigns. Everything else is unnecessary. But the state of requesting such posts allows for many faux 'join' messages to be posted for the purposes of spam-bumping. Potentially even utilizing automated posts with bots or whatnot. This is easy to miss between hundreds of such posts.
I know that 'Joined' type posts are prohibited as well as unececerry posts as per the rules bellow:
Users posting "joined" type posts when not required or allowed will be BANNED
Incentivizing posting via low effort tasks (likes, follows, etc.) is NOT allowed
But I don't see those being enforced as it should.
Currently, join type messages on campaigns that encourage this type of spam (f.e. this one) are being deleted but this is really the hard way to approach this.
I believe that mods should FIRST trash campaign threads that are seen to encourage 'joined' type messages as a stark warning and only then go after accounts that post them. So basically go after the cause before the effects...
Jump to: