You are right that user can op not to have the signatures displayed but that still would not stop the members posting spam just to receive a signature payment, those users don't care if anyone can see their sig or not they are just in it for the money.users can uncheck sig displays in their profile. problem solved. 4. do nothing. that is how freedom works.
Senior members and higher over at bitcointalk are getting paid handsomely. Every week around $20 to have a top paying ad in your signature. They are paying 0.001 per post and many people make 100 posts per week. Be careful about adding signatures here, it leads to a lot of low quality posts.I have no idea what the going rate for selling a signature is, but let's say spammers are willing to pay $.50 per month, $6 per year.
This is correct, some campaigns do pay quite well for high rank members.Senior members and higher over at bitcointalk are getting paid handsomely. Every week around $20 to have a top paying ad in your signature. They are paying 0.001 per post and many people make 100 posts per week. Be careful about adding signatures here, it leads to a lot of low quality posts.I have no idea what the going rate for selling a signature is, but let's say spammers are willing to pay $.50 per month, $6 per year.
I admit I participate in these campaigns at bitcointalk since they do pay so well, but it seems to bring more damage than good.
The benefit to the forum if paid signature campaigns were allowed would be that we would get more members but the downside to that would be heaps of spam, to me the downside far outweighs the up side.Setting aside the practicalities of banning paid sigs - if it could be prevented, what benefit to the forum at large would there be in people selling out their signatures?
Good answer!The answer is easy :
1. Allow Signature campaigns with limitations. Signature campaign managers are only allowed to host a campaign if post are limited. (Say 30 posts per week)
2. Some areas are out of bounds for signature campaign members. (Developer area etc.. etc..)
3. Signature spammers be moderated (Temp banning / post deletion ...etc)
That will help a lot. There are many people just waiting to sign up here, if signature campaigns are allowed. They will soon learn that it will not be profitable to join just to earn a signature income. ( If rules and limitations are implemented )
There could be a moderator assigned, just to weed out the signature spammers and to deal with that.Good answer!The answer is easy :
1. Allow Signature campaigns with limitations. Signature campaign managers are only allowed to host a campaign if post are limited. (Say 30 posts per week)
2. Some areas are out of bounds for signature campaign members. (Developer area etc.. etc..)
3. Signature spammers be moderated (Temp banning / post deletion ...etc)
That will help a lot. There are many people just waiting to sign up here, if signature campaigns are allowed. They will soon learn that it will not be profitable to join just to earn a signature income. ( If rules and limitations are implemented )
1 & 2 are what would be required at the least if they are allowed, these are good!
But if there is many people waiting to join up here once the campaigns are allowed won't most just leave once they know they can't just spam for bitcoin?
If campaigns are added then it will take at least 1 full time mod just to keep on top of it.
I already spend about a couple of hours a day moderating this forum but to add moderating signature campigns as well that would add a massive amount of extra workload.
The question i guess i really want answered is do we need members just signing up so they can earn bitcoin by posting?
They can already earn btc on other forums, i say let them earn there and talk serious here.
Anyway the final dission will not be mine, it must be made by many people agreeing, all staff need to disscus this serioulsy in the near future but everybody is just so busy right now.
Let the poll run for a month or 2 more would be best.
I don't know if this forum is "desperate for users" as you put it, we don't have a lot yet but it's still early days, maybe your right though.I think it's worth considering that we're a new forum, desperate for users.
Allowing sig campaigns at least as freely as BCT would drag a serious chunk of users here. Most of them are, unfortunately, gonna spam threads for their payments, but we can handle that the same way we do in bct ... filters, watch lists, just looking at the last post etc. And after some time start clamping down on it if it becomes difficult.
Think of it as a loss-leader.
ok. I can't speak about the infrastructure preparedness.I don't know if this forum is "desperate for users" as you put it, we don't have a lot yet but it's still early days, maybe your right though.I think it's worth considering that we're a new forum, desperate for users.
Allowing sig campaigns at least as freely as BCT would drag a serious chunk of users here. Most of them are, unfortunately, gonna spam threads for their payments, but we can handle that the same way we do in bct ... filters, watch lists, just looking at the last post etc. And after some time start clamping down on it if it becomes difficult.
Think of it as a loss-leader.
Allowing the campaigns would bring with it a serious chunk of users from manly from Bct but i dont see that this forum has the inferstucture in place just yet to handle the associated problems that will arise.
I am not against sig campaigns, I could do with the extra bitcoin myself but I just don't think we're ready yet.
Does a forum even make btc from the campaigns?
We could hold the campaign mangers responsible but what if they let there members do wrong, just spam for days before they are warned and banned along with the users, it would be a great mess to clean up.It is a tricky issue ideally you want people to participate and have an incentive to earn their first Bitcoin while learning about Bitcoin, but not spam it to bits, especially before they have a registered Bitcoin exchange account.
The best idea I can think of would be to have the signature campaign managers be held responsible if a certain majority of their users are found to violate the rules, sort of related but something I would like to see in signature campaigns again is users carrying their own personal signatures alongside any advertising they promote for someone else without needing to fill their whole sig with that product or service.
My vote will go with 1 & 4. Creating a sub-forum will be an excellent and an handy idea. Also, people who don't want to see the paid signatures can simply turn off the signatures.I see a few options here, in no particular order.
1. Make a specific sub-forum for people to hash out their signature deals. (Under the Market Place area)
2. Ban all signatures across the forum
3. The forum charges a fee to have a signature that is slightly higher than what the signature spammers are willing to pay. That way, anyone who wants to have a signature for their profile can, but we wont have a bunch of people selling their signature space and cluttering things up.
4. Do nothing.
Any thoughts on which of these are best?
My initial thought is that doing both #1 and #3 would make the most sense.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests