Bitcoin Forum

I have had this on my mind lately and decided to create this thread to see how everyone feels about it. It is about advertising in signature campaigns. To be more precise about the free advertising that some companies/projects receive.

Let me give you some more information about what I mean.

As you know, signature campaigns have their own rules that you need to obey to apply for their campaigns. One of these rules is often:
Wear the avatar and signature when you apply! The campaign managers don't force the users to wear the sigs before they get accepted, but the rule is still there, and many users do.

People start to apply, put on their sigs and avatars, and there are dozens of applications. Let us say that it takes a campaign manager an average of 2 days to select campaign participants. The campaign receives a total of 50 applications, and 50 users are wearing their sigs/avatars even before they have been accepted. (it is just an example). Out of these 50 users, 10 will be selected as participants of the campaign. That means that 40 users have been advertising a campaign for free for 2 days.

How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
Do you think it shouldn't be a requirement (mostly it isn't anyway) to wear an avatar/sig until you are accepted? 

Let the market choose what the right decision is. If the laborers/workers decide that the wages are worth the potential of exploitation, then that is their rational (presumably) action given their circumstances.

It is free advertising, but shouldn't you be a great poster when you're applying to a signature campaign anyway? ;)

[/quote]Look, let me tell you this. There's a simple explanation to why I pooped my pants last Thursday. It wasn't because I had the tacos - I love that place - no it was because I got too nervous and you know I get the sweats. Yeah, the sweats, they're really bad; it's almost so bad that my pants get soaked and I need to start changing them but anyway that's getting too off-topic. All I'm saying is, I gotta get back to that Taco Bell. Those were some great burritos. [quote author="

It depends on manager and applicants.

If participants think they are truly good quality, and confident on their competitive, and don't want to promote free before get acceptance announcement, they can not wear avatar and signature.

If they think that wear avatar and signature can give them some advantages, they can wear it.

Some managers count posts since the application posts if people wear avatar and signature at the time then get acceptances later.

It is freedom.

That's a rule that many managers state in their requirements, but do not always enforce, maybe due to the fact that the users applying for their campaign may be currently wearing some other signature of some other campaign, and taking that off would mean they would lose their current spot without any guarantee of getting into the new one they are applying for.
Some may use it as a means to check for bugs in the sig codes when launching a campaign. While some actually try to exploit the participants.

Whether or not the rules are fair when enforced, the employer (and managers) reserves the right to make them and the applicants can aswell reject them by not applying.

I think this thread should be in service discussion board, not Meta.

It's a free market: the campaign manager can ask anything, and the participant can choose whether or not to join.

This is better though.

If the user's confident when applying and to get accepted, I guess 2 days of wait isn't a matter.

And I didn't see any complaints yet with this reason (with only 2-3 days of wait), I guess this doesn't matter to them.

Also some users applied without wearing signatures just giving a note on application post and get accepted, and that could be applied to anyone though.

There are two options of the OP question.
1. Applicants are in a sig campaign, of course not using sig, wait for him to be accepted and then he will replace it.
2. The applicant is 'not' in the campaign / is single, meaning he is free to do what he wants, including installing sig & avatar, free advertising.

Conclusion: (I don't mind).

In general, managers choose campaign participants, not based on who is wearing a sig or avatar. The proof: many participants were accepted, from other campaigns, that's the point.

If chosen or not, by the campaign manager is not one thing to regret, even though within 1-2 days using free advertising sig & avatar.

Yes it is counted and consider as free advertisement since one is not being paid yet. The bounty manager already knows about it but they keep it that way because it is the promotion for the project which bounty manager wanted to keep it up for longer and higher pay for that project.The better promotion it gets, the better pay and longer promotion it could get.

My few cents here in advertising for free does not really affect me as a user. Later on of the application the signature will be remove if not accepted. And if ever I gets accepted then it will not a free advertisement anymore because I will get paid.

There is nothing to worry about it as long as you advertise related cryptocurrency to which most of the users here wanted an improvement with it. I will be happy that I was able to help a project to advertise. Whatever improvement or success being done to that project it means also an improvement to cryptocurrency to which most of us here wanted a development in the world of cryptocurrency to get into the next level compared to what it achieved now.

So free advertisement will be okay for me at least I was helping that project and the users tha are promoting will get higher chances of getting payment. The success of other here is also our success. So let us help one another. But, still receiving few cents of reward still best than doing a free ads.

I don't think that should be requirement, to wear signature and avatar before you are  accepted, but not necessarily for the "free service reason". When they start new campaign, goal for both campaign and manager is to get as best members as possible into the campaign (I guess), and quality members are usually in some other campaign, making them less likely to apply if they could loose their spot in the current campaign. So imho it's not the bad idea to be somewhat more lenient in that regard.

But as others said, its always up to manager, and you can choose not to apply if you don't like the rules.

For most of the time, all I do is update and would just change the signature once and only upon acceptance. The argument is simple.

If you answered no to free advertising, meaning you'd only change once you are part and accepted:
If you were a good poster, a helpful one to the community, and most of your activities isn't a burst post nor a short unnecessary one, then most campaign managers would often take you to join and be part of what campaign they manage. It isn't about when to put such requirement, sometimes you must put your shoes higher if you are a great user in the community. You promote them, you are the influencer, you are to be part of the campaign. Take it as they only pay you by advertising them.

If you answered yes to free advertising, meaning you'd change even you aren't part nor accepted:
If you were just being active and having some quality communication with other users here in the forum, it would be fine to just put any campaign's signature. What would you gonna do if you were vacant for a long time and having a hard time being accepted by the managers? Then just be a good poster, a good user, then soon time will come to you.

Hence, what's the point of having a doubt when to change your signature nor avatar? For me, neither yes or a no. It doesn't matter. Campaigns were just perks. I kept in mind the ideology of "good quality posts matter"... patience, then the light would soon shine upon you.

For me it doesn't matter, that's the rule of some campaign, wear signature and apply then you wait for the result.
It doesn't cost me much so I don't really care at all, besides, I can even wear signature even if I'm not getting paid, but it's still better if you get paid.

Not a big deal, in short.

There are several reasons why this is happening.
One is that members who apply for new campaign want to be accepted and they are not participating in any other campaign at that moment and they think this will help them :)
People who are in some other campaign usually apply with note that signature and avatar will be changed if they are accepted. (That is what I would do if you ask me)

I didn't saw many managers demanding from anyone to have signatures and avatars before they receive confirmation or before they are listed in spreadsheet.

However, you can use your signature space as you like, as long as you respect forum rules, so I can advertise my own website or business for free  ;)

I don't see anything wrong with someone having a signature and an avatar as one of the qualifying conditions for a particular signature campaign - some campaign managers won't even consider candidates who don't meet that requirement. The problem arises when a user is already a participant in a campaign and wants to compete for a place in another campaign, but I think most campaigns' managers have understanding and do not require someone to add signature and avatar before being accepted.

I think that it is much more important for the user to be aware of what he is advertising through his profile, and whether he will promote something for one or two days for free is less important.

First, I would suggest you to move the thread to service discussion.
It's campaign managers choice how they want their applicants. I think it's easy way for them, otherwise, it may take long time to ensure everyone is wearing the signature and avatar. On the other hand, it's personal decision of every member how they want to apply. If they can't comply with the rules, they shouldn't apply at all and if everyone feels like it doesn't worth applying with wearing signature ad avatar, I think at some point, CM will be forced to allow users to apply without wearing signature and avatar.

I don't mind. I am trying to join their campaign and wearing their signature by the time I apply is just another way of showing that I am interested in joining their campaign. it's not like I am losing something if I wear their signature for two days without getting paid. besides, you can put "I'll wear appropriate signature once accepted" if you are not comfortable wearing their signature before you get accepted. I see a lot of members doing this and still getting accepted in the campaign

I'd probably categorize it as a "problem", but it's a really really small problem that it's more of a slight annoyance and I don't think it's even worth discussing in my opinion unless you're trying to apply in a couple of campaigns at the same time.

But yea, if it's a huge problem for you, let the campaign be affected by not applying. But it looks like people don't mind it that much.

I think it is a good fit for Meta. It is related to the forum and the opinions that forum members have about this particular topic. Service Discussion would also work but I prefer to leave it here.

---

There haven't been that many responses so far. 10 users voted that they don't mind while 5 individuals think it is not OK to advertise a service before getting accepted.
I didn't post my own opinion so here it is. I voted No, I don't think it is OK. If it was a signature I would be interested in wearing even without getting paid for it, sure, I would. But if I am applying for a campaign, I would rather add the signature if and when I get accepted.

As long as this happens only for a short while (max 2, maybe 3 days) it's not a big issue. I've seen worse (long ago).
I think that the campaigns paying in their own token not listed anywhere are the real issue. There people work for free without knowing/acknowledging that!

My vote for the situation as OP described it is "I don't mind".

Ideally you should be, but we all know that isn't the reality when it comes to campaign applications.  And even good posters get rejected from campaigns for various reasons.  LOL at your hidden text, btw.

OP, I've noticed this in the past and I don't think it's fair that some campaigns require applicants to have the signature and/or avatar and/or personal message in place before they get accepted, especially when the campaign manager takes his sweet time reviewing applications.  Lutpin used to be guilty of this if I remember correctly, and if I'm wrong I apologize for sticking him out.  I have a feeling that campaign owners/managers know precisely the effect of this requirement is, and that's why I don't think it's fair.

In addition, if you have to have all the advertising in place in your profile at the time of application, you're basically limited to how many campaigns you can apply to at one time (assuming multiple campaigns have the same requirement).

Most campaign applicants are shitposters, let's be honest.  They're the type that don't like to complain too loudly lest they damage their chances of getting a spot in a campaign--and they're also the kinds of members that won't bother to express an opinion in a Meta poll.  I suspect more people think it's a problem than you think.

It's everyone choice to comply or not but I think it's a weird requirement and it feels a bit low rent to me.

It might screw up people who are already in campaigns and aren't accepted for the new one. If they figure out you've removed it for any period of time you can be booted or not paid. They shouldn't be meddling with people until after they're recruited.

As long as you did it based on your own will or you are not forced to do so then I think there's nothing wrong with that. Actually, prospective participants tend to do it simply because they want to impress the manager. Yeah I know CM still depends on one's activity, merit and everything but he is more interested to those applications with "Wear signature: Yes" than "Wear signature: Will do after getting accepted" most of the time. However, such act gives no guarantee but only an increase to your chance :).
That's not the point I think. Whether it is required or not, there is no specific rule for that thus you can do it freely.

Even though it is not a requirement it might improve your chances to get accepted so it is worth the risk. Also, with many casinos the users will already be wearing the signature of the campaign they want to join because it's a good way to promote their own referral link.

This should not be compulsory and the manger should not give the benefit to those who have wear the signatures before.
The reason is not free advertising but let suppose a person is already in another campaign, but now he sees a better campaign and he changes signature and apply for it. If the new campaign does not accept him, he will lose his previous campaign too because he already changed his signature.

no one is forcing him to apply to another campaign though. its his free will.

but why don't he just apply and wear the signature and avatar later when he is confirmed accepted. it would not risk his position in his current campaign and then also get the chance to be accepted to the new one. as far as i know that is what other users are doing.

I understand this but i was only saying in case he wants to apply in a campaign where the manager is enforcing this rule or only accepting participants who are already wearing the signatures.

You are probably right. 6 members have so far voted that they don't think it is OK. But I don't see 6 posts where users state that they are against such doings.

It's not your will if it's a requirement of the campaign and a rule. You are not being forced to do it but the rule makes you think: Will the manager even consider me if I don't update my signature like the other people did?

It doesn't help at all. And it shouldn't. If the quality of your posts don't meet the personal requirements of the campaign manager, changing your signature details will not improve that.  

I could easily argue for both sides but in the end, I'm not bothered with the end result...
<sup>- We could be wearing a sig/avatar while not posting anything before getting accepted (regardless of the potential conversions from our previous posts).
- When we apply in such campaigns, we put ourselves out there and by doing so, there will be a risk of losing/wasting a small portion of our efforts for nothing (part of the system).</sup>

I do.

It will not improve your chances if you are a shit poster or you are tagged I, prefer not to wear the signature before I get accepted this is not to lose your current signature campaign if you are not accepted then you lose the campaign you previously had, manager understand this.

I'm ok with that, in the end it's participant's choice. BMs should always give a clear note about that though.

I usually have this rule in my campaign threads and It's mainly just a copy/paste thing that I never changed from way back.. AFAIK I've never enforced this rule though. As a matter of fact sometimes I try and work with the users applying to make sure they get paid in their current campaign before they switch over (if they are in a campaign when applying). Not sure how others do it though..

I fell out of circulation a bit, but previously I applied to many campaigns and I have seen many times that applying users simply wrote "Will wear signature and avatar once accepted" or something similar and many of them got a spot in the campaign so I don't think it is the most important for good campaign manager. Finding a good candidate is much more valuable than two days of free advertising by a shitposter ...

Some users wear the signature beforehand because they think they will highly selected once the manager sees they are already wearing the signature or the avatar when in fact it does not. The manager has the right to select the participants whom he sees a good advertiser for the campaign. And there are confident participants who removes their signature when they see a new campaign though they already have an existing one, once they got rejected they will just put back the signature of their first campaign. such a shame.

I don't think it's something wrong to give free advertising when applying. But personally, when I apply to campaigns, I don't change my avatar and signature. It's not because that I'm in other campaign at this time. It's because there is guarantee that manager will accept me. So, then I would have to remove that signature and avatar and add old one. It's not needed extra task. It's not something difficult, but when I'm on mobile, it's not very comfortable to copy/paste these signature codes, download avatar. I update my signature only when I get confirmation from manager that I'm accepted.

From my own experience, no you haven't. We have worked together in several campaigns and I was accepted in each and every one of them without putting on the signature beforehand.

Just so everyone is on the same page, this has nothing to do with a specific campaign manager, nor am I targeting anyone with this thread. It is just a rule that I have noticed in almost all campaigns.

---

Based on the votes, the results strongly suggest that users don't mind.
20 (66.7%) users have no problem wearing a signature.
 9 (30%) members think it is not OK to put it on before being accepted in the campaign.

This makes sense to me, though. If you aim to switch campaigns, then clearly you're confident in your writing skills, to a degree where you're willing to take an interim period to establish yourself in a (probably) better campaign. Interestingly enough, from a service provider standpoint, it's actually worse for them to add these requirements as it does remove some incentive to apply to the campaign, especially if you write quality posts. Though, I don't think that the best posters here switch campaigns that often.

You are never sure if the new high paying campaign last for a week or month or more. Moving to other campaign is a risk itself even if you are selected.

Secondly, people does not mind if they wear signatures before being accepted, they only care if they can get into the campaign somehow and wear the signature in advance only for the hope to get selected.

Judging by the drooling zombies who mindlessly apply for everything I'm not so sure that applies.



Yes. I absolutely would be discouraged from considering switching if this requirement was upheld. I'd have a probe of something else if it was risk free and no further. And some campaigns take on a pretty ragged bunch or have very peculiar and unspoken requirements so even if I was confident in my own soaring genius, that may not be recognised by them.

Well, humans aren't exactly ideals, right? That's why we always use rational agents in our strategic planning.

Shitposters aside, the intent of making such a rule can be seen as reasonable.

---

Another case of how status quo thinking with signature campaigns has made it worse. ::)

IMHO, I would not wear the signature unless I'm accepted, because I have to earn a spot.

Wouldn't be fair if I'm advertising for a service I wouldn't even be using without some sort of compensation given this is a populous Bitcoin forum.

If the campaign rule does not require to wear avatar and signature, people can not wear it.
Stay with rules, it is all people must bear in mind.

If rule does require it but you don't wear it, your application will not be taken into consideration.

Free advertisement or not, who do kind it. If we take into account most of forum users don't make posts or make less posts if they are not in campaigns. I say most, not all.

I think currently no managers are forcing participants to wear Signature & Avatar before apply. Sometimes it's on the rules due to the nature of the Signature Campaigns, which doesn't mean you will not be accepted unless you do not wear Signature. For me, I do not give priority who wear Signature before acceptance. I just inform after accepted if the participants hadn't wear Signature.

You any managers forcing to wear Signature before apply then he can do it. Nothing wrong since there are no guidelines or rules for the Signature campaign. But participants would ignore such as campaign if they do not like to comply with campaign rules. But of course, campaign rules should comply with forum rules as well. Not one forcing participants to apply on any campaign.

Bump to see if the communities' stance on free advertising has changed. 

As a user; I don't consider that an advertisement instead a requirement to be considered in the first place for the Job. I don't think anyone should consider that an advertisement if it's required to wear before getting a slot at your account been reviewed. If I'm not in a campaign, I wear the ads of whatever company I'm applying for before even dropping my applications and when I'm in a campaign, even though the manager stressed the wearing of avatar and signature part, I still apply because I know what I can offer. If it's someone I haven't worked with, I'll just simply leave a note of updating those ads if I'm been hired.

From the aspect of a manager; Actually majority of the applicants don't really care for the free advertisment of a thing. Some can even keep wearing your ads until another opportunity present itself for them to get hired. Nobody is forcing them to wear the ad but it'll just be easier so avoid hiring users that aren't not wearing the ads. I did manage a campaign that I had to disqualified 3/4 users that weren't wearing the ad although they have been accepted. Some users apply in so many campaign that they take the slot meant for other and make project lose days of publicity. Hope you understand what I'm trying to mean here.

I remembered seeing a similar thread some time back... not sure who created that.

Because that one had yahoo answering (when he is known to impose that rule).

Signature campaigns could exploit this by taking their time accepting the applications but requiring them to change their signature before accepting and then some people might forget. If the signature campaign does not have that requirement and the member is doing it at of their own will then I would say they are trying to persuade the signature campaign manager to accept them and not sure its the right thing to do.

As long as its okay for the users then its not a big thing, even I used to wear signatures before applying to any campaign since I only apply when my signature space is free. Campaign manager can change the rule if they want and forum can't enforce any rules regarding the signature worn by the members if its not a NSFW content.

I don't think you should advertise a product that you don't use and like. If you think it is beneficial, then you should be pleased to advertise it. If you don't use or know the product, then you shouldn't risk your reputation by being associated with it.

For people to do this we first need to hold people responsible for advertising services that scam because it is clear that they did not use the service just advertised it to fill their pockets.

Yes, that's exactly right. I have never seen any off the well-known forum managers who manage bitcoin-paying signature campaigns do something like that, but there is a possibility that an outsider who is part of the team of a project attempts something like that. Make it a requirement to wear the signature and avatar when applying, and stating that the decision on who is accepted will be made one week from now. They could even take it one step further and request that the applicants like and follow the project's social media platforms. Once the deadline passes, they just disappear. And there you have it, one week of free advertising and increased social media activity.