Crowdholding

Part 2: How do we eliminate spam through moderation?

Part 2: How do we eliminate spam through moderation?

task

EXPIRED


YUP icon 2000


Part 2: How do we eliminate spam through moderation?

Rewards

No YUP/tokens awarded

This is a two part task. Part 1 focuses on moderation rules, while part 2 focuses on how to eliminate/reduce spam all together.

 

One way we to eliminate or reduce spam significantly has got us thinking about a new filtering idea.  

 

When we on board a business they will fill out an application that asks questions which creates a one page automated synopsis of their White Paper as the first introductory task. Internally CH looks over the business then approves this application. When we hit approve, a introductory task is automed that will never close.

The task goal is to have the responses be generic thoughts on the project, in addition to allowing the Crowdholder to let them know their expertise and how they can help. The admin of that project can select the users that show high quality and make them legendary users for that project. This means all future tasks can only be answered by those selected from the introductory task (which is an always on going forum). However, any user can vote still, regardless being selected in the future as a legendary user for all future project tasks.

 

This could potentially eliminate spammers and bring high quality content to the people who create this and deserve this. We could in fact, even allow these users to invite other legendary users for the project as they see fit, instead of always allowing the project admin selecting all of them.

 

Give your thoughts. Where do you see problems arising? Would you appreciate the filtering system that’s proposed. Do you have other examples or ideas from other forum type applications?

 

We look forward to your feedback!





35 COMMENTS 121 VOTES

Most recent Most voted Most verbose

thanks for the have this amazing post https://www.google.com i msuts he liek to viist here

4 months ago

thanks for google the post here

4 months ago

The phrase 'high quality' can be subjective because it begs the question: who will be the final arbiter to decide which are high quality responses and which are not? Consider that some people have superior command of the English language but may not be necessarily robust in substance, conversely, some are mediocre in English but may have better grasps of the concepts being flouted in the projects. It is a delicate issue that needs to navigated carefully.

This might also expose the projects to group think where only like-minded people are given the chance to participate, and worse, it might be susceptible to 'cartels' that can control/restrict the flow of discussions in a given project, therefore being counter-productive by alienating differing opinion, or, a broader market.

I hope that you exert every effort to embrace diversity as a foundation in building consensus. Thanks for the opportunity to comment!

7 months ago

I really appreciate the filtering system that's proposed and my own advice is to try and get more members then you can start filtering spammers by using robot. It will really help alot

7 months ago

spammers can not be eliminated, we can only minimize to reduce spammers

8 months ago

by participating and jumping in the field

8 months ago

Human being is disobedient in nature, they do things that are wrong.

Spamming can be manage but not eradicate

But I will recommend a bot will be developed to minimize the rate is spamming.

Thank you

8 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

8 months ago

Hi Oluwakemi! Thanks for supporting us, but please read the task fully, and answer questions in the task.

This platform is designed for co-creation between the public and businesses. Your comment must help the business in certain way. Everybody can say this project is the best, but it doesn't help the business with kind words.

Questions in the task is as following:
Give your thoughts. Where do you see problems arising? Would you appreciate the filtering system that’s proposed. Do you have other examples or ideas from other forum type applications?

AND your comment is:
"The project is highly captivating and promising. ..you always have my support.
Good luck"

You didn't answer what was asked, hence I considered it a spam. So I have to remove it to protect our co-creation environment.

Please try to answer what have been asked in the task next time.

If you continue spamming like this, then I have to ban your account.

If you are still confused, please check our code of conduct: https://intercom.help/crowdholding/general-support/code-of-conduc...

8 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

8 months ago

Your comment is as following: "I strongly agree with elimination of spams through moderation, because it will reduce spam links, comments, bots that are not qualified or disturbing. With these features the comment column will look clean and quality.
Good luck".

It is almost identical as what Crowdholder Nasrullah. answered. Therefore, I considered that it is plagiarism. Please do not copy other people's content, and please respect other people's intellectual effort. If same act happened again, we will ban you from our platform in accordance with our code of conduct.

8 months ago

This eliminating of spams from crowd holding platform can be realistic and come to stay but you must be ready to face a lot of challenges and many will exit because of this. We the subscribers of crowd holding must work hand in hand with the team to achieve this.

8 months ago

How do we eliminate spam through moderation? This is a big question that require serious answers.


This is not a mere question that anybody can just jump into and give a straight answer to avoid controversy. To my own best knowledge, spamming can never be eliminated from we human but it can be reduced to the bearest minimum which can be manage in either way.

Spamming had been in existence since the beginning of human race which is no more new to us all. Crowd holding can only suppress or minimize this either by making use of robot or using human to scrutinizing all kinds of projects submitted or comments raised on this platform without any bias or what so ever.

8 months ago

While I will commend your initiative, here are my few criticism:
- if I understand your message, I will say, those selected of course will be rewarded more. And anyway that will bring segregation with profit alteration will discourage some to have anything to do with this platform
- how are you sure that those selected are not spammers - this is an internet system where you don't know who is who.

I will advise that you focus on the presale marketing: possible can employ a good editor, because in "every nonsense, there is always a sense"
Pls the way it is now, placing everybody equally is a better way. Thanks

8 months ago

I greatly support these project because it will eliminate spam. So it great

8 months ago

But "how to eliminate spam " is the question which has been asked in the task. We appreciate your support, but please keep in mind, answer the question which has been asked in the task.

Moreover, I considered your comment is a spam, coz your comment is short without added value. If you continue spam with short comments which doesn't help the task, we will ban you from the platform.

8 months ago

It a good idea to reduce or eliminate Spammers but wrong timing. what Crowd holding need now is aggressive Publicity and advertisements to get more member s already number of members are few,if spamming filtering mechanism is now put in place may lead to lesser member or Zero.
My advise is strive to get more members then later you can start filtering spam members

8 months ago

i think just report the spamming

8 months ago

I think quality is more important than quantity but I don't mean the English language level. Even if someone is struggling to express his idea, the idea itself might be worth the contribution.

So I support the concept of your proposed idea since it would as you said elimante the spammers.

8 months ago

jbm386

Signification time spent with enterprise software companies

I like the idea creating a "thought leaders" or legendary contributors list / tier to help improve the integrity of the task responses. One thing I would consider is making you the controller of a master list of "legendary users" and creating a tier structure that allows people to earn their way into that status.


Maybe provide them a bonus rate or matching rate of YUP as an incentive for good contributors to keep adding value to your client's project / tasks. That way you constantly have people competing to provide intelligent responses instead of flying through as many tasks as fast as they can or have them manipulate voting by creating other usernames or getting their friends to vote for them.


I think contribution / task response manipulation is going to be a large challenge for your team as this starts to take off.


One other thought, you can have the project owners potentially provide a higher tier vote on what they think is worth an up-vote. The only thing you would need to be careful of there is that they don't down-vote comments that are critical or constructive and only up-voting comments that are basically just praising them or saying their project is great.


Hope this helps!

8 months ago

LeeKe Mac

If I make a comment - its usually honest and thoughtful. #dontfeedspamtrolls

Intoductory spam filtering tasks:
For me personally - I would appreciate this type of spam filtering to be in place. Its frustrating to see low quality, content farming posts that offer no thoughtful analysis of the question asked getting upvoted over a comment that has been answered with a quality response.
Quality content isn't just about long wordy technical responses, but more about offering a justification of the question/s asked, giving an opinion on this and then explaining your reasoning. Again - its frustrating to see answers get upvoted when the respondents clearly didn't even read the question correctly or responded with one liners and still get higher votes.
Also - spammers and content farmers do more damage to forums overall because their motivation is entirely selfish and to me has no place in a quality forum/platform especially. Users who place a value on their time and effort are less likely to return to offer quality content and give good feedback if they see responses like "oh great project, I love this and support you", get more upvotes than posts that actually have clear thoughtful responses.

Potential problems with this type of spam filtering process:
-Moderation response times,
-Possibility of subjective moderation,
-Unpopular with the cheaters
-Overmoderation might cause negative backlash from some users - however quality content users should appreciate that having a moderated forum means you are not competing against spammers who cheat the system, but rather sharing in the riches with like minded people who understand the value of quality contributions.


Other forum checks:
Being a moderator of a Pay per Post crypto forum and a Facebook group myself, I find myself frustrated beyond belief at the high intensity of users who are only here to "game the system through cheating, duplicate accounts and content farming". The more steps that can be implemented to rule out these types of detrimental behaviours the better.
-Automatic IP banning for multiple accounts
-Duplicate responses check
-Plagiarizm checking

8 months ago

This is a bad idea on so many levels I don't even know where to start desintegrating it. I'll just list a few keywords as the whole thing would be too long to write. Exclusion, echo chamber, censorship, central authority. Basically you want to go against everything blockchain is fighting for.

How bout you fix your shitty system that punishes contributing likers and use another one that actually rewards good content and likes?

8 months ago

That is a great idea. Reward good content instead of punishing bad ones, to make the environment more better for co-creation! I will keep this in mind, and many thanks.

8 months ago

Zexro Indra

former mutual wealth advisor for indonesia

problems will arise, if too much content is considered spam. this will make members feel lazy to start posting a content

member must fill captcha to be able to send content is effective way.

using member as moderator is an effective way.
moderators in the test first and must go through a rigorous selection.
moderators may remove inappropriate content or spam

8 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

8 months ago

I strongly agree with the idea, because it will reduce spam links, comments, bots that are not qualified or disturbing. With the feature the comment column will look clean and quality. My suggestion might be added SPAM COMMENT report option feature, so that other users can participate or can also report unqualified omentar, spam comment, or other spam link.

8 months ago

Rosario Colletti

Power is nothing without control

Reporting spam comments is a feature that exists already. Should it be more visible?

8 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

8 months ago

Hello Shittu! We have detected that your comment is identical as the one you posted in task: https://www.crowdholding.com/project/68/task/481/part-1-how-do-we...

Please do not comment the same content twice, because it wont produce any added value. As a result, I removed your comment according to the Crowdholding Code of Conduct, Section "No Spam", "Spam is defined as .... or posting same/similar content more than one time."

If you are still not clear with our code of conduct, please read: http://help.crowdholding.com/general-support/code-of-conduct

8 months ago

You are doing the right thing already. Why are you making it harder to your members to participate? How many active members are responding to your task? Not much yet. I can see people also who are trying their best, and even apologising for their bad English.
My suggestion is, do more work on the marketing side, invite more members. Do airdrop, make your community bigger. Then that's the time you can filter your users.

8 months ago

John Dexter Villapana

Im very curios on how things work

There should be more moderator to check the community daily. But what if the moderator also doing spam.

8 months ago

Randy Tice

Just take a look at my past contributions to projects; you will see value there.

First off, great idea!

Here are some problems:

- Just having one open forum task to select legendary users will increase specialized input, but decrease general crowdsourcing benefits, leading to "eliteism". To avoid this, simply allow projects to choose if they want to utilize legendary users or not (instead of making all future tasks available to legendary users). Some tasks will require specialized input while others would benefit more from the general crowd.

- Voting. I forget, was there a reward for voting? If there isn't, then no will vote on a task that they can't participate in themselves. If there are only, say, 3 legendaries allowed to do a task, then voting for that task will be nonexistent. No one will want to jump into a task to see other people get all the action.

Just throwing out an idea here: The crowdholder of the month thingy is a great addition. Consider having more "rewards" or promotions to encourage the general userbase to be more active and constructive. Even offering vanity rank levels to a profile can help (get a shiny something next to their name dependent on how active and constructive they are).

8 months ago

The phrase 'high quality' can be subjective because it begs the question: who will be the final arbiter to decide which are high quality responses and which are not? Consider that some people have superior command of the English language but may not be necessarily robust in substance, conversely, some are mediocre in English but may have better grasps of the concepts being flouted in the projects. It is a delicate issue that needs to navigated carefully.

This might also expose the projects to group think where only like-minded people are given the chance to participate, and worse, it might be susceptible to 'cartels' that can control/restrict the flow of discussions in a given project, therefore being counter-productive by alienating differing opinion, or, a broader market.

I hope that you exert every effort to embrace diversity as a foundation in building consensus. Thanks for the opportunity to comment!

8 months ago

In order for the participants to participate in this project to be properly selected, it is a good idea that each advertiser requires every time to join their social media and provide a form to facilitate the examination, such as and in check before giving bonuses, and advertisers should also display smart contract to increase participants' trust

8 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

8 months ago