Eliminating Post Count on Transactional Forums

[PetraAnn]

We have discussed this possibility / probability. However, we've concluded that the move of spam patterns to other sections will make them easier to identify and eliminate.

This. It's very hard to discern if a 1 post account that only has "interested" is a spam account, is going to be a spam account, or if it's really a new BHW user that's interested in the seller's service, the freebie, etc. If the spammers who have it pretty easy right now have to actually put some effort into it, we'll all likely be able to spot it easier. You (the user) can report it and we (the staff) can deal with it.

 

[Steptoe]

Makes complete sense to disregard posts made in those forums for post count purposes. Why should people have the benefits of forum resources like WTB/HAF without having actually contributed to the community?

 

[Stavro]

I agree with this decision.

Over the years, it seems this forum stopped being a community with a marketplace for well-trusted members, and became more of a marketplace with a community on the side. Hopefully this encourages people to come back to the community side of BHW instead of just reaching their 100 and ghosting.

I used to look through a seller's post history before buying here. Unfortunately, the number of sellers whose entire "quality post" history consists of spamming "sample plz" 100 times has led me to avoid the marketplace entirely.

We've repeatedly been assured that sellers are thoroughly vetted, and BHW has specifically said that a seller's post history and engagement are reviewed during the service review process. When so many sellers can reach the Marketplace with a post history like that, it makes me question how much weight I should put on the rest of the service review.

 

[Venusaur]

Reaction counts as well

Like this post that I've already reported: https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/w...t-post-press-release-article-writing.1844643/

23 likes from bots, spammers and scammers
Scammers are creating those posts just to farm likes, as there are VIP farms and bots instantly liking their HAF/WTB posts

 

[LordsOfLeo]

 

[Vynith]

Sounds good to me and judging from the poll most also agree.

I really can't think of any downside to implementing this tbh.

 

[AdEngine]

Yes, definitely a good idea. I also think there should be a bump button. I’ve seen many threads where I tried to read the reviews, but many pages only have messages for bump, which are useless to buyers.

 

[Stavro]

As a follow-up, I'd suggest adding Introductions to the list, since short repetitive replies are the norm there. Some members are still falling through the cracks, so excluding that section would remove a lot of ambiguity around whether someone qualifies for VIP based on when specific rules went into effect.

 

[SettingSun77]

As a follow-up, I'd suggest excluding post counts in Introductions, where short repetitive replies are the norm. Some members are still falling through the cracks, so excluding those sections would remove the ambiguity around whether someone qualifies for VIP based on when specific rules went into effect.

There's no ambiguity about the rules in that section. "Hello" and "Welcome" etc. are not allowed - if reported / spotted by staff, they will be removed. This rule has been clear and heavily enforced since it was introduced early last year. But it isn't a transactional section and good quality posts and discussions can be had and made in there, which is why it's not part of our discussions relating to post count removal.

 

[Stavro]

There's no ambiguity about the rules in that section. "Hello" and "Welcome" etc. are not allowed - if reported / spotted by staff, they will be removed. This rule has been clear and heavily enforced since it was introduced early last year. But it isn't a transactional section and good quality posts and discussions can be had and made in there, which is why it's not part of our discussions relating to post count removal.

There's no ambiguity about the rule existing today. I meant ambiguity around older posts from before the rule change that apparently still count toward Jr. VIP and marketplace qualification, even though those same posts would be removed if they were made today.

 

[SettingSun77]

There's no ambiguity about the rule existing today. I meant ambiguity around older posts from before the rule change that apparently still count toward Jr. VIP and marketplace qualification, even though those same posts would be removed if they were made today.

We disagree that there's ambiguity here. It's comparable to the rule we introduced relating to outside contact information - it would be unfair to punish members for publishing that information on posts made before it was introduced in the same way it would be unfair to say to someone "No you can't upgrade because of posts you made before we introduced this rule".

Anyway, this is a discussion for another time and topic.