Bitcoin Forum

I woke up today, and saw updating posts in Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns [Last update: 28-Oct-2019] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg52921016#msg52921016). Those updating posts announced there are two new campaigns from Hhampuz.

I already in one of Hhampuz's campaign but I am curious what are his new ones, then I visited bounty threads and checked.

Amazingly, both two campaigns have very low weekly post quota, only 15 in total. To be honest with you all, it is my first time I saw weekly paid campaigns that have required post quota that require only 15 posts each week.

Blender.io

Smartmixer

I don't talk about campaign which does not require a minimum post weekly like ChipMixer, it is an outlier in the forum.

---

It is unclear why Hhampuz decided to change weekly quota (previously his campaigns and most of campaigns from other managers, usually require 25 posts weekly). Personally, I think it is very good change because it will give participants more time to make better posts. They don't have to make posts to satisfy post quota (at 25, as previously), and it will potentially increase their post quality.

I know accepted participants in those campaigns are surely good posters and it is rarely or unlikely to see them making shit posts.
Anyway, lower weekly post quota will boost their post quality in average.

You rocked, Hhampuz!

Look at how many open spots there are. This is the free market at work.

Relatively low amount of member slots in comparison to other campaigns and lower pay too. Also, I just want to add on that lower weekly post-quota does not mean that their shitpost ratio will go down. This is especially important on Local boards. Most members of this forum know English at various levels so we have a lot of people reporting content that's on the global forum, on top of having multiple moderators. Unfortunately, however, local boards do not have these reassuring elements. Even after Yahoo's and other members contribution to the ban list of Cryptotalk shitposters, there are still a lot spamming away.

Long story short: It's a good initiative. But you should know that lower weekly post quota does not mean higher quality posts. It's all dependant on the person.

This isn't a general reduction on the number of weekly posts to be made, this is two campaigns handled by the same user(Hamphuz)and probably based on his agreements with the project company decided on 15 posts, he could manage a bounty tomorrow and it'll be 25 posts, there's nothing fixed, the weekly posts for those campaigns could even increase in the second week.

If you wish to know why he reduced the number of posts per week, you can go to him via pm, as far as we are concerned there is no enforcement for the reduction of weekly posts in the forum.

true but at least it helps reduce unnecessary spam posts, compare to higher weekly minimum post requirement
and with fix payment scheme like that, participants don't need to chase for maximum post to get more payout
they could spend time to concentrate more on the quality of their posts, just like the OP said

one thing I notice is these campaigns are paying with fixed $ rate instead of BTC amount/post/week
that would be slightly a disadvantage from participants perspective when BTC price is rising

This is actually for the owners budget allocation. The budget fix in dollars which I believe the reason why Hhampuz decided to do that since the price of BTC is very volatile. This Actually not a disadvantage since you will
earn the correct amount that it was stated on the signature campaign. If ever the price of BTC was dump again then you will not be affected.  

---

This changes is not a general standar but only hhampuz preference for his own campaign.

I think it all comes to how the manager and the owners of the project or business agreed upon certain terms. Back in 2017 and 2018, i used to see campaigns that would even require one to make only 7 or 10 posts per week to get paid.

Hhampuz is a very good manager no doubt and he will try as much as possible to let in quality posts onto the latest campaigns especially the Blender.io campaign. Payment looks pretty decent for the minimum post count compared so many campaigns that still exist right now.

I have also observed that most members are crossed over from the cryptotalk campaign

In fact, the payment rate for Blender.io campaign is much higher than Playbetr campaign, which I participated in ($3 per post compare to $2 per post). I think you missed important point, that is one of reasons why people applied and tried moving from their current campaigns to Blender.io.

---

Believe it or not, if the campaign requires 25 posts weekly, people will keep applying and joining.

---

Sure it is basic deal for business with signature campaign that should bring benefits for companies, managers, participants and the forum.

---

Each types of payment rate have their own advantages and disadvantages for companies and participants.
In the long upwards trend of bitcoin, participants will feel more happily if they get paid in fixed amount of bitcoin. In contrast, their estimated payments in fiats might decrease if bitcoin price falls dramatically.

This is what is the game-changer for the shitposters. It's much better to have a few posts by reputed HQ members that 1000 posts of a shitposters.
Looking in some boards you can find Legendarily , Heroes posting basically low effort or 0 value post, opinions that were already given just interpreted another way and giving nothing to the conversations, only to fulfill the sig. campaign  requirements. I don't think you'll pay attention to their signatures or you just gonna proclaim that this campaign is just for shitposters.

On the opposite side, the quality posters tend to attract more attention and credibility and advertising a project have a higher chance to get the right exposure.

Lower post count with higher quality is more important than many shitposts. We are moving to the right direction. My admiration to Hhampuz.

First time to see a bitcoin signature campaign that do ask that 15 required post per week yet most of the time they do ask out 25-50 per week.
These low numbers can only be seen on bounties and im quite surprised.That merit requirement is already being implied for a while now
and soon most managers would do the same or making this as a standard requirement for you to join up a campaign.

This development from @Hhampuz is a nice one. He's doing quite a great job, I'm sure he's the one that insist the 15 weekly post to recieve payment since the payrate aren't as his usual to demand his usual weekly post count of maximum 50 posts. My current campaigns pays $300 for Hero member and demanding a maximum of 50 posts monthly that's around 12.5 weekly and a payrate of $75 weekly.

All this type of campaigns are very forum friendly as the participants won't get pressured into posting above their limits. Kudos to @Hhampuz,

I served in the bitblender signature campaign while that ran, which was also managed by Hhampuz.  That campaign had a minimum of 15 as well, but the difference was that it paid per post up to a maximum of 60 (if I recall correctly.)

For the two campaigns Hhampuz started yesterday there's a flat rate payment that requires the minimum of 15 posts to qualify.  I like this approach better.  If you consider the pay rate per post, it's actually more generous than all the other campaigns except ChipMixer.

I do not think it will become a new standard and I have not seen anything new either. look at the requirements to be eligible in the campaign and look at the requirements to be eligible in other campaigns, are the same requirements since years. Looking at the 200 character question, should a quality post be 200 characters long? I mean the person should write a letter? should one actually write 15 letters? another point, in the off-topic section almost nobody posts because all sign campaigns don't pay people who post in that section, Is something i honestly don't understand

Right. Not only from a spam standpoint it's a better standard, but also in the sense that people tend to develop a strong dislike towards a certain service that's being represented everywhere, mainly so if the posts happen to be crap like what we see happen with the cryptotalk campaign. I can't open one single thread without seeing that signature flash up like 5-10 times in every page of a thread.

The problem with cryptotalk campaign is that they seem to be paying for nearly everything you post, also bumps according to some people. If the standard is that low, no wonder every participant is incentivized to post like 10 times a day. Without any rules the no minimum post still leads to a lot of spam. :-\

lower quotas is better than nothing. it's a step in the right direction.

there shouldn't be any weekly quotas at all since it literally gives people financial incentive to post when they don't want to. so of course it's gonna create spam---participants are gonna make sure they get paid.


you think it's improved at all since they lowered it from 20 paid posts per day to 10?

The thing is that these campaigns (specifically these two) have a fixed payment amount. So, if they always pay $45 for everyone, then how are them not supposed to have a minimum number of posts? I make 0 posts and get $45? Or if I need at least 1, are they going to pay $45 for a single post? And if they are not, then there is the minimum.

Then there are campaigns like ChipMixer which have no minimum but pay per post. And while this is not a direct financial incentive, people can still be inclined to post more (and thus maybe make less HQ posts) to make the most amount of money.

It's hard to find the perfect solution.

Perhaps a bit, but only to go from super bad to semi bad. Perhaps that 5 paid posts per day will help the overall quality go from semi bad to just bad.

Campaigns need firm management where participants are enrollend manually instead of automatically by a bot. Sure, Yahoo can boot people from the campaign at any time, which he has been doing a lot based on his massive ban list, but it's not going to change anything as long as there are hundreds or thousands of accounts filling up the spots of those who have been booted.

I think it's great they've lowered the bar down from 25 posts a week to 15. I don't think 2 posts a day would be unreasonable. Most of the time I scan through this forum just to check for new info and post on anything I feel my input useful (I may be too selfcenterd though ;D)


I've also just been taking a look at some of the gambling campaigns and it seems they've reduced the number of times people have to post in the gambling sections to 5 posts a week (in stead of what used to be 17) that is at least a move in the right direction too (if I'm remembering correctly).

---

Under the philosophy that any bad publicity is still publicity (so I won't mention names) one of those campaigns still wants a higher 7 posts a week in the gambling section which could do with coming in line with the others imo.

For this specific campaign, I have to agree. Yahoo and other people who report abusers are doing a great job, however, it's not enough. That's probably the worst side of the automatic enrollment. While it saves huge for the campaign owner since you do not have to pay a human being to regulate it "that" much, it is very, very prone to abuse. I was shocked, even after 2 weeks of constant banning the abusers the campaign still had almost the same number of people joining if not higher. There are also many, many alts. If you just carefully skim through the banned participants thread and check the accounts, most of them are immediately inactive after they're banned. Automatic enrollment is good, but yahoo alone can not prevent all rule breakers. If the campaign owner keen to having their automatic system, there has to be more managers IMO.

Most of those users were either banned for posting too much by the campaign manager or the campaign is now less interesting to them not forgetting Cryptotalk just reduced the maximum daily post count to 10 and if you observe their post numbers reduce same periods that announcement was made.

They're just acting smart since sooner or later the campaign would come to an end and it might be difficult then to get into another campaign so they're just utilizing this opportunity to get into a bitcoin paid campaign or probably they're tired and can't keep up with the spamming and just want to take a break 😁.

It's 200 chars, not 200 words. It's not that difficult to achieve with a target of 15 posts a week.


The issue with the automatic enrollment was discussed multiple times, and Yobit should know about it already if they read or visit this forum. It's not going to solve anything if they don't want to change it, which could be one of the reasons why they lower the paid post per day quota because there's a lot of users on the campaign that should give them enough publicity.

my point was that all campaigns should be paid per post---ie getting paid for what you would normally post anyway.

fixed payments incentivize people to post > the quota amount, no matter what. that's good for the campaign managers and their clients, but it's bad for the forum. it's hard to gauge the exact effects vs pay per post/no minimum, but it's pretty obvious logically that a required quota will cause more spam.

I partly agree here. Yes, fixed payment with minimum post amount will cause spam especially if the amount is rather high (20 or more per week). However payment per post results in even more spam because people try to write as many posts as possible. Just look at CryptoTalk signature campaign. They limited maximum number of payed posts to 35 per week but that is still too many in my opinion.

that's because the standards are way too low in that campaign. paying per post doesn't remove the need for other standards of quality.

my point was that fixed-term payments create additional incentives to spam that don't exist with per-post payments. so they are decidedly worse for the forum, period.

even if the quota is only 10 or 15 posts a week (and quotas this low are very rare), it forces people to post when they otherwise wouldn't. in other words, post padding. what's even worse is that most of these campaigns remove people who don't meet their quotas. this makes the spam incentive even stronger.

It's not fair to compare cryptotalk's semi no-rule signature campaign to those managed by proven campaign managers. In most pay-per-post campaigns managed by proven managers there are a bunch of participants who never reach any serious number of weekly posts. Simply for the fact that they don't have to post x number of times to claim payment.

Is there still an incentive to post for the sake of collecting payments? Surely is, but that's something you can't avoid and technically shouldn't be an issue as long as the posts are of decent enough quality to not conflict the manager's quality standards. If the posts seem forced and lose quality the manager will kick you out. It's a self regulating system that works well.