Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 9,466 results by mprep
@mprep I ask you please not to merge posts into the TalkImg topic, especially posts that are related to statistics.
This is breaking my idea of organizing the topic, as well as I cannot depend on what other users do, to post data about the project.
It is often said that every rule has an exception. In this case, I am not asking for an exception, but for common sense.
I'm already postponing releasing the April statistics, because no one else has posted in the topic and I don't want to keep thinking that "tomorrow" they'll merge all the posts that I want to be separate.
I ask for common sense please.
PM theymos and ask him for an exception to not having your old consecutive bump-like posts merged and if he PMs me about making an exception for your thread, I will stop merging said posts. Until then, I personally don't think your thread warrants an exception, at least when compared to similar threads.This is breaking my idea of organizing the topic, as well as I cannot depend on what other users do, to post data about the project.
It is often said that every rule has an exception. In this case, I am not asking for an exception, but for common sense.
I'm already postponing releasing the April statistics, because no one else has posted in the topic and I don't want to keep thinking that "tomorrow" they'll merge all the posts that I want to be separate.
I ask for common sense please.
⭐ Merited by vapourminer (1)
the posts themselves are repetitive and short as well as none of those posts are currently relevant in regards to notifying users of new payments (as a bump-like post).
How would you suggest a user to handle this?- If I post a new post in a topic, even though the last post was mine, I do that because I want to bump it. If I edit the post, the new content may be overlooked.
- If I edit it and also bump the topic by posting "bump" in a new post, that feels ridiculous.
- If I copy the post into a new post, add new information to that new post, and delete the old post, it feels like I'm cheating my signature campaign (if I'm in one) by "re-using" last week's post content again for this week.
If you're not the topic's OP or designated by the topic's OP as the user who bumps their topic and the last post made in the thread was yours, you have to edit in any new content into said post or wait till someone else posts. Posting consecutive posts if you're not OP (or designated by OP) is a more serious rule violation and repeated (recent) violations will result in a ban.
i have over 48000 posts. edit 49000
So far I think 15 were merged so that makes
47985.
now if i have a signature which I do
my count ie lowered from years ago.
say I need 40 posts for max payment.
I make 50
thus 48000 + 50 =48,050 and I get paid for my 40 the max for the week.
with the merges
it is 48000+50-15 =48,035
I get paid for 35
even though these deletions well merges are from years ago.
I think I lost about 40 or 50 usd worth of btc due to the merging.
plus my manager had to ask me for post recounts multiple times.
Also many time the double posts are due to lots of photos for builds which do not work well as a big post.
So the work cost me money and it certainly makes more work for campaign managers.
Lost profits from signature campaigns and more work for signature campaign managers aren't valid justifications for rule violations, especially considering that quite a few of your merged posts were either violating rule 32 (consecutive posts as non OP, often within the same day; e.g. [1] [2] [3]) or rule 13 (bumping your thread more than once every 24 hours; e.g. [1] [2]).So far I think 15 were merged so that makes
47985.
now if i have a signature which I do
my count ie lowered from years ago.
say I need 40 posts for max payment.
I make 50
thus 48000 + 50 =48,050 and I get paid for my 40 the max for the week.
with the merges
it is 48000+50-15 =48,035
I get paid for 35
even though these deletions well merges are from years ago.
I think I lost about 40 or 50 usd worth of btc due to the merging.
plus my manager had to ask me for post recounts multiple times.
Also many time the double posts are due to lots of photos for builds which do not work well as a big post.
So the work cost me money and it certainly makes more work for campaign managers.
It doesn't look good- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=*.msg64912096#msg64912096
I have 5 weekly payments update on a single post.
Putting away cleanliness requirements (as enforced by rules 21 and 32), each of those updates specify which week they're for, the links to transactions specify when the payments were made exactly and none of those posts are currently relevant in regards to notifying users of new payments (as a bump-like post).I have 5 weekly payments update on a single post.
In the future, I'll generally refrain from merging old (as per what would be considered old when reporting a post) posts.
After what time is a post considered "old" in this context?I do report unnecessary consecutive posts that violate rule 32 when it's obvious the user didn't know or care about this rule or maybe simply was too lazy (or too dumb?) to reply to multiple other users' posts with appropriate quotes in just one reply.
I'm not sure where exactly I draw the line and leave "old" consecutive posts as not worthy to report. The reporting function warns when the reported post is too old. I didn't pay attention how old it has to be to trigger the warning.
It's also likely that mobile phone posters tend to less refine their posts or not bother to gather different quotes from multiple users into a single reply post. Unnecessary large quotes (basically unedited full quotes) and sometimes therefore excessive quote pyramids are another annoyance for which mobile phone users might be more likely to blame. I don't know, it just sucks how careless some people bloat threads. Something's clearly wrong when quote-to-own-writing ratio exceeds 5:1 or more (as some rule of thumb). Unfortunately reporting such bad habits is less likely to gain traction and action by moderators.
I understand it's more blurry and considerably harder to properly moderate such things, because simply deleting such offenses isn't likely the best and only solution.
@mprep: What's the point of doing this, though? I can't think of any non-contrived upside to merging old posts, but I can think of a few genuine downsides: Destroying timelines, breaking links to specific message IDs, sometimes hiding/losing "Merited by" markers, sometimes hiding/losing "Last edit" markers, adding new divergences between the forum and its various third-party archives, generating notification noise, and just generally irritating the affected posters (and it's not like Bitcointalk has a flourishing user base, so, why annoy good members for no real upside?). I mean, how much sense does it make to bypass the reporting mechanism and produce these old-post amalgamations on your own? Especially when, as you've said, they likely would have been marked "bad" if they had been reported organically rather than found by your bot.
As for there being months between posts, that's not relevant for rule 32 and especially rule 21.
But those rules aren't meant to be set in stone:Almost all rules are subject to mod discretion.
So: do you think merging those old posts makes the forum better?My bot doesn't delete anything - it gives me a list of links and I manually go through and decide which posts should be merged.
Okay glad to hear that your Bot only gives you a List of that kind of stuff that you looking for ! The contents of your consecutive posts (some of which were made within 24 hours of each other) got merged into the first post in a row and then the aforementioned consecutive posts were deleted
Helping the Forum and give a warning to other Users for and about Malware Links and Fake Anns and using every post as an new refference Link ,for that report even when there was made back in the days a few consecutive posts is a reason for deleting it ?
Every refference Link from that post are now broken and dont work , i know Rules are Rules , but to be honest is this needed with all that old posts ?
hilariousandco told me in 2018 for not report old posts and threads , Threads aren't deleted either just because the op requests them so best just to leave them dead where they are. !
But thanks for the explanation at all.
Thank you everyone for your feedback.
@mprep can you config your bot please or make sure that he ore you dosnt delete important posts anymore !
Today i got 3 deleted posts from my Report Malware and Suspicious Links Thread where all 3 was and are for the records with Fake Github Links and the Accounts that have written it.
And this posts was all different with Users that have made an Fake Ann or posted Suspicious Links and where they got banned for.
Would be nice to see that some kind of important things get not deleted so that the Hackers cant use the same Links again. Thanks.
My bot doesn't delete anything - it gives me a list of links and I manually go through and decide which posts should be merged. The contents of your consecutive posts (some of which were made within 24 hours of each other) got merged into the first post in a row and then the aforementioned consecutive posts were deleted - as such no content was lost. If you want to know which post was first in a row, check the deletion PMs for links to that post (they're in the moderator's note at the top of the deleted consecutive posts).Today i got 3 deleted posts from my Report Malware and Suspicious Links Thread where all 3 was and are for the records with Fake Github Links and the Accounts that have written it.
And this posts was all different with Users that have made an Fake Ann or posted Suspicious Links and where they got banned for.
Would be nice to see that some kind of important things get not deleted so that the Hackers cant use the same Links again. Thanks.
⭐ Merited by dkbit98 (1)
Allow me to quote my suggestion from last year:
That'd probably require backend development work (changing how posts are grouped into pages) on theymos's end and I don't have access over that.How about automatically merging them? Like this:
-image snip-
The post is untouched, but the black parts aren't shown anymore. Now that I type it, I realize this is probably much more work to do. And even more work if the second post is on a new page.
This should also work fine with "Reserved" posts, and since posts aren't really merged, the post size limit shouldn't be a problem either. If the new post doesn't count as a bump, rule #32 becomes obsolete
-image snip-
The post is untouched, but the black parts aren't shown anymore. Now that I type it, I realize this is probably much more work to do. And even more work if the second post is on a new page.
This should also work fine with "Reserved" posts, and since posts aren't really merged, the post size limit shouldn't be a problem either. If the new post doesn't count as a bump, rule #32 becomes obsolete
@mprep
How about if the merge script at least could preserve the post date and time in what it merges when it finds consecutive posts that may not have been consecutive posts initially due to deletion of posts in between.
In my opinion it's beneficial to preserve the post's date and time when they get merged for whatever reasons but especially with your script. Reporting violations of rules 21 or 32 is another thing, but I'd like them to preserve the timeline for mergers ideally too.
While it'd be great to also preserve the date of the original post, I don't really see a good way to add it to the post in a way that's both elegant and doesn't editorialize too much. Aside from separating posts by lines, adding a mod note and perhaps fixing broken quotes, I (and it seems most mods) generally prefer to keep the content as untouched as possible.How about if the merge script at least could preserve the post date and time in what it merges when it finds consecutive posts that may not have been consecutive posts initially due to deletion of posts in between.
In my opinion it's beneficial to preserve the post's date and time when they get merged for whatever reasons but especially with your script. Reporting violations of rules 21 or 32 is another thing, but I'd like them to preserve the timeline for mergers ideally too.
Find the merged post, hover your mouse above the post date, and it shows who last edited it.
Yeah, I know that, but there must be someone who reported those posts.I don't think that merging should happen in all cases, especially when time difference between two posts is months or more.
I just got 7 posts from back in 2023 deleted. It looks like someone is reporting a lot of old posts.
@mprep: why merge those? What happened to this?
It looks like there is a bot doing this work. @mprep: why merge those? What happened to this?
I have an automated bot that detects potentially mergeable posts and I've recently started going through its backlog and merging posts that violate rules 21 and / or 32.
I don't like how this bot is working right now.Some of my posts are not that important to be restored, but I see no reason to merge a post where I replied to other member with my older posts.
I just got 7 posts from back in 2023 deleted. It looks like someone is reporting a lot of old posts.
@mprep: why merge those? What happened to this?
AFAIK that's for reports and those weren't reported. I have an automated bot that detects potentially mergeable posts and I've recently started going through its backlog and merging posts that violate rules 21 and / or 32.@mprep: why merge those? What happened to this?
Quote
Old post: We generally do not moderate posts this old for on-topicness, substantiveness, multi-posting, and other "cleanliness" issues.
I thought the unwritten exception was when the last post was more than 24 hours ago. You can't seriously expect me to edit a single last post in a topic weeks or even months in a row, that means users following the topic won't see it in their Watchlist.
I personally prefer new posts instead of editing the last post, so I know where to keep reading. There's no forum feature to keep track of edited updates.
There is no such exception, though consecutive posts by OP are simply considered bumps and thus limited to once per 24 hours. Once that post is no longer relevant as a bump (e.g. someone else posted something, a new bump was posted), rules 21 (old bumps should be deleted) and 32 (no consecutives except bumps and OP's reserved posts) kick in.I personally prefer new posts instead of editing the last post, so I know where to keep reading. There's no forum feature to keep track of edited updates.
Ah, that explains why I saw that recently for the first time.
Got me confused as well.
Got me confused as well.
It must have been one of mprep's automated scripts mass-merging posts.
⭐ Merited by vapourminer (1)
IIRC I was the one who merged the posts (currently going through a large backlog).
As will be logical, an OP of a service topic cannot wait for someone to make a post before he can make posts about service updates. I can't help but respond to a post because I think I'll make a post hours later. I can't help but give information about the service, just because no one else has written a post since the last one.
If there are 24h+ gaps between posts, it's fine to post them consecutively as they become bumps. However, once those bumps are no longer new, they will be merged together - no action required on your part.Furthermore, it is not appropriate to edit posts, because a lot of the information is relevant and serves to inform other users. Some of them receive notifications and it is useful to make new posts, with relevant topics.
And you're free to do so once every 24 hours. Once more posts have been made, the old posts serve little to no purpose notification-wise.The most unpleasant thing, which led me to open this topic, was the fact that one of the deleted posts (merged with another) was the statistics post, which will impact the link in the official topic. (This link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5450546.msg63126527#msg63126527 - regarding statistics [Oct'23].) Link that is not only in the official OP, but can also be in some translation topics.
In addition to having to change the link in the OP, these statistics will be mixed in with other posts that have nothing to do with the subject, nor with the organization of the topic.
As consecutive posts and bumps generally should not be considered stable (as in they might be merged with previous posts), my suggestion would be to have a single dedicated posts where you collect historical statistics with the bumps / update-type posts serving as merely updates with new stats to those actively keeping track of the thread.In addition to having to change the link in the OP, these statistics will be mixed in with other posts that have nothing to do with the subject, nor with the organization of the topic.
Therefore, I suggest special care when dealing with topics (ANN) related to services. Because a change may require additional extra work without any need. An OP cannot depend on third party posts to make new posts, and be afraid that later these posts will all be together, when in this case it makes no sense at all. Of course, the idea of this post is just to draw attention to the topic or make it move up the page (which was not the case), it makes sense to bring all these posts together.
While I'm generally not against the concept of exceptions to the consecutive post rule for topics where it especially makes sense, IMO the seemingly small inconvenience of simply editing in the stats or whatever info you want to regularly post at the first of several consecutive posts (that is if the stats you wanted to post would become a consecutive post instead of already being sandwiched by other users' posts) warrants an exception.Re: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ
⭐ Merited by jamyr (3)
This part deserves a conclusion too :
as according to Theymos just recently that he find the live demo to be (as majority of consolidated reactions to the demo) underwhelming and will not pursue it anymore.
Thanks for the heads up, moved the FAQ question to legacy questions. I'll probably remove it after a while (once it's no longer relevant) just like with the previous legacy question.Quote
Q: So when is the new forum software coming?
A: Well, according to theymos, some time after February 2015.
A: Well, according to theymos, some time after February 2015.
as according to Theymos just recently that he find the live demo to be (as majority of consolidated reactions to the demo) underwhelming and will not pursue it anymore.
Re: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ
Typo:
Fixed, thanks.Services (child board of Goods) - Services provided/demanded on-forum for Bitcoin. If you are providing/demanding services on another site (e.g. have a hosting site), it doesn't belong here.
This should be "child board of Marketplace".Re: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ
Added 2 more new rules:
34. Promoting or linking to mixer services is prohibited.[11]
35. Promoting or linking to DDoS services is prohibited.[12]
35. Promoting or linking to DDoS services is prohibited.[12]
Can you add DDoS services to the list of things that aren't allowed?
Added and added you to the credits as well, thanks for the heads up.(None of the topics you linked had ever received any reports, which is why the matter of DDoS services was never really considered.)
This is a tricky one: I had seen the topics promoting DDoS services (in a signature campaign), but didn't expect reporting them was going to change anything because it wasn't mentioned in the forum rules.rel="ugc" attributes on links posted by Newbies (so essentially anyone without any merit points) are already being added since around January, 2021:
Not sure what they're trying to do. In case it is some SEO-motivated thing, I added rel="ugc" to all newbie links. While I was at it, I also added this to all links in signatures.
Thanks to everyone reporting them!
Thanks to everyone reporting them!
Thanks for letting us know. I didn't inspect link posted by newbie user earlier. Anyway, i did further research and Google say other way to discourage spammer is by adding "noindex robots meta tag"[1]. But it's not practical option since entire page wouldn't be index by google. But on other hand, one of Google documentation mention it's possible to include multiple values inside rel[2]. Anyway i have following question to people who own website,
Do you think using all possible value (such as rel="nofollow,noindex,ugc") would further discourage spammer from performing SEO spam?
[1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/monitor-debug/prevent-abuse
[2] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/qualify-outbound-links
- Doing it as a hired marketing agency and partially deceiving their client who expects dofollow links.
- Hoping to rank up to where their links become dofollow
- Are fine with getting nofollow backlinks (e.g. if the link is visible, to entice potential visitors)
- Havent bothered figuring out or monitoring if their links are dofollow
There's other reasons, but in general, those that are still spamming links that have been nofollow for 2 years now are probably not going to stop as those who do care have already figured it out and directed their efforts elsewhere.
Re: Growing SEO spam on Bitcointalk (TLDR: rel="ugc" should be added)
While the discussion seems to have expanded beyond just site-wide technological solutions (to detecting, catching and discussing larger cases of SEO / link spam), rel="ugc" attributes on links posted by Newbies (so essentially anyone without any merit points) are already being added since around January, 2021:
Someone did notice the rel="ugc" attributes on signature links but I haven't seen the change to newbie links mentioned here (hence this post). Nevertheless, do keep reporting any cases of SEO spam you notice - especially if posted by non-newbie users.
Not sure what they're trying to do. In case it is some SEO-motivated thing, I added rel="ugc" to all newbie links. While I was at it, I also added this to all links in signatures.
Thanks to everyone reporting them!
Thanks to everyone reporting them!
Someone did notice the rel="ugc" attributes on signature links but I haven't seen the change to newbie links mentioned here (hence this post). Nevertheless, do keep reporting any cases of SEO spam you notice - especially if posted by non-newbie users.
Re: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ
29. Sending unsolicited PMs, including but not limited to advertising and flood, is not allowed.
I have a question about this rule that I don't know if it has been asked and answered already in any of the 48 pages of the thread.
What does "unsolicited" really mean here? I mean, if I send a PM to someone on my own initiative it is always going to be unsolicited. I imagine it's a way of saying that any PM can be reported and the moderators will exercise their judgement on the provenance of that message, or not. Is that so?
Re: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ
25. Ban evasion (using or creating accounts while one of your accounts is banned) is not allowed.[e]
I can't believe I'm asking this, but it seems to be necessary. Imagine this scenario:I am (the person behind Royse777 right now) temp banned for 14 days. CasinoCritique is the account representing casinociritique.com. People handling casinocritque are: I, Mr. X, Mr. Y.
During my ban. Mr. X posted something, Mr. Y posted something and I also posted something too.
Since your brain is malfunctioning, you are going to say Royse777 is ban evading.
Is this ban evading? I'd say it is (and I can't believe this isn't obvious to everyone)! But just in case: please confirm During my ban. Mr. X posted something, Mr. Y posted something and I also posted something too.
Since your brain is malfunctioning, you are going to say Royse777 is ban evading.
A focused and diligent person who sees things correctly and accurately, it's really fun to work with him!
Quickly answers every question and gives an answer and then also shows you how everything works! Thats the man you would love to work with you!
Thanks @mprep
Appreciate the repeated feedback. It's been a pleasure working with you as well.Quickly answers every question and gives an answer and then also shows you how everything works! Thats the man you would love to work with you!
Thanks @mprep