|
Title: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on September 24, 2019, 05:27:23 AM Anyway, this is an exciting topic, but maybe we should move somewhere else. Anyone care to create a thread about this issue? It would be best to give @eternalgloom peace of mind and wish him good luck for his future endeavors. OK, hear me out before you come to a conclusion, the signature industry on the forum is still a very vital feature of the forum and should not be ignored quite yet unless the total eliminate of the privilege comes into implemented. There's is a reason theymos hasn't removed the privilege yet, he might still be looking for a better solution to make the industry a little bit conducive for the forum. Right now the lack of cooperation or moderation of the sector is also contributing to the problems it's facing. Users are been required to produce excessive amount of post while recieving peanuts as payment which also contribute the high level of spamming the forum is recording. This question was asked on the previous thread, this conversation was ongoing, Hence, how to drive up pay rates? I only know to cut supply (less I gave this suggestion: Or simply, the campaign manager should come into an agreement to set a minimum payrate per rank then projects willing to pay participants above the minimum payrate are free to do so but no projects will pay below the minimum. This way project hoping to employ the best posters on the forum will be forced to increase their payrate to attract them. Some signature payrate are just so ridiculous they only attracts spamming. For the payrate, I recommend minimum; Member = 0.002BTC Full member = 0.004BTC Snr member = 0.006BTC Hero member = 0.008BTC Legendary = 0.01BTC Like I said payrate are only subjected to minimum payment, projects that's are capable of paying more are free to increase their payrate pay rank. These too has to be match with a reasonable amount of maximum post count per week (haven't come to a conclusion of any number that would be suitable). I understand all fingers aren't equal although the suggestion above isn't that much considering the level of publicity you'll be recieving by advertising your product on the forum. I recommend we give this a try, if it doesn't improve the current situation of signature campaigns then we brainstorm on other solutions or call for a total elimination of the privilege. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: Little Mouse on September 24, 2019, 05:57:50 AM Like I said payrate are only subjected to minimum payment, projects that's are capable of paying more are free to increase their payrate pay rank. It's true that with lower fee, a campaign will certainly not get a higher output or quality output. For example, if we look at Darkstar, Yahoo and Hhampuz, and compare their payrates with others for management, we will see a huge different. Not different in the pay rate, we will see different in the management as well.However, it's not that as easy as for each projects to pay high amount initially, you know everyone wants least cost with higher output. Projects will try to reduce their cost. On the other hand, imagine BTC is at ATH. 0.01 BTC = $200 for 25 posts max, I don't think with current rate, much people will be interested to post 25+ in a week (It depends on user too, Royse posts 100+ each week although he is not required to do so). With ATH rate, a project will be paid a significant amount per week which may bring them loss. Fixing the rate will not get anything better. I think rate isn't something we should account, it's always the campaign manager and users. If CM recruit regular poster, payrate will not make any much different. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: TECSHARE on September 24, 2019, 06:00:28 AM I have a suggestion. The primary issue seems to be signature managers not upholding standards which results in spam and other issues. I think these issues could be largely combated by forming a sort of signature manager's union. This would be loosely organized but focused on making sure each of its manager members upholds certain standards which protect their own industry by using sustainable business practices.
Once formed, campaigns which explicitly flaunt these standards could be blacklisted, and users who participate in blacklisted campaigns would themselves be barred from participating in the well managed campaigns. Obviously this method has some potential for abuse itself, but if transparency, clearly defined standards, an fair notice is given to users participating in barred campaigns, I think abuse could be minimized while also choking out the worst of the abusers. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: yahoo62278 on September 24, 2019, 06:05:56 AM From my perspective as a campaign manager for years now, I think quite a lot has changed around here as far as Signature campaigns are concerned. We have had multiple accounts banned, Multiple accounts receive signature bans, the merit system has been introduced making it harder for shitposters to rank up, as well as tons of posts are reported every week and deleted or threads archived/deleted.
I can remember a year or so ago, when I would launch a campaign for a company, there would be 10 pages of applicants of all ranks within a couple hours of launching the thread. I could fill 100 spots in less than 24 hours easy. Not too mention I could fill 100 spots in multiple new campaigns in a week. Now, I can barely fill 25-50 spots in 1 new campaign. I almost always have an open spot for member ranks and most of the time full members. So IMO the system we have has been working and there are less users creating the shitstorm on the forum then there were before. Now on to your rate suggestion. It will NOT work period. Not every company just starting up has a 10btc bankroll for campaigns. Look at all the campaigns. Look at the number of users allowed into each campaign. When us managers are contacted we find out how many weeks the company is interested in running their campaign, and how much of a weekly budget they want to commit to the campaign. Yes, we give our input and try to get the rates as good as we can, but ultimately it depends on the company and their budget. Some companies have a big budget, some don't. Go and tell Pepsi they have to match Coke's weekly budget and see what answer they give you. I have lowered the minimum weekly post count to 20 posts in most campaigns depending on the payrate, but at the same time companies want as much bang for their buck as they can get. They're not gonna pay someone 100$ a day to make posts on a forum if they see no results coming from it. So i'd say if you guys want the rates to go up, then do something to help that happen. Bitching about it is not the way to go about it. Companies need sign ups, companies want users asking questions in their threads engaging in conversation about their website/service. Companies do not just want users wearing an advertisement and posting trash in their thread. Research the site that hired you and show a general interest in the company buying your food that week IMO. Just my opinion Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: tranthidung on September 24, 2019, 06:12:29 AM It is simple. Remove all signatures like 8 years ago or "require payments to wear sig ads" that is what theymos wrote.
No more signature images (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51077.0) Signature images are making too much of a mess, so adding them is now disabled for everyone. Existing ones have not been removed, but they will be removed next time you change anything on that profile page. Choosing one among three ones below.What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality? Fortunately, merit system changed the forum, and recently the bump changes have started to change the forum much better.I have mostly ruled out: - Removing signatures or sig ads globally. - Requiring payment to wear sig ads. - Banning account sales. Shitposters already unable to join good campaigns, and from now on bounties, campaigns will reduce their campaigns' intensity (IMO) because making posts in Altcoin section (Announcement, bounties) don't bump threads (that not what companies wanted). In addition, from theymos' perspective to maintain the forum as a welcome one for 'good' newbies, I think he also want to welcome good 'newbie' companies here, even they are good ones. So I guess they have allowable rights (so far) from admin to run their campaigns with their funds at any pay rates they can manage to pay for participants and to run their campaigns as long enough to have effects, as long as they don't pay for shit posts. A 'newbie' company from third-world nation mostly has lower original fund than one from developed nation. Consequently, having a fixed minimum pay rate will automatically create a gap between different world-class companies. There are users usually make very high quality posts, so payments from campaigns mean nothing with them. Good posters who often join campaigns will keep making good posts when they are free from signatures. In contrast, shit posters will keep posting shit ones no matter how many satoshis they can earn per post. There is no abuse or slavery hidden through signatures. Everyone have rights to wear signature (correspond to their ranks, of course) and join campaigns or not. Don't join campaigns and say companies abuse participants. Months ago when merit system came, people cried (me too :'(), complained, made noise, but the fact is they have their freedom to leave the forum, and the forum does not abuse them through merit points. If they accept rules as well as challenges from merit system, join it, then make good quality posts and rank up. If not, simply leave and enjoy their lives or freedom of posting shit in other forums. There is no rules on minimum pay rates to avoid spam, in my opinion. A campaign results in spam or not from their participants, it mainly depends on their management style and rule:
Payrate is just one of vital components for successful campaign. I agree with payrate's contribution to quality of participants for each campaign, but it is not enough. You can pay a participant 0.005 BTC per post, but if you (as manager) or others play as managers of campaign don't have strict rules to choose participants, and after that to check their post quality before sending payment, such campaigns will end with failures and spam. Even good posters will decrease their post quality if managers are not strictly manage after choosing them into campaigns. In campaigns I joined, there are sometimes managers have to send warning message after payment sent, because some of participants show signal to turn into burst posting, that is not good for managers, and for companies. Yobit, months ago, run their campaign with high payrates, but there is no one says that campaign is a successful one. That campaign attracted both spammers and good posters. Spammers banned temporarily if reported by users; good posters did not ban because they made posts that are good enough to not get reports from users. Because of terrible management, the number of spammers overwhelmed the number of good posters among Yobit participants. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: PrimeNumber7 on September 24, 2019, 06:13:25 AM Minimum wages and arbitrary regulation almost always results in negative outcomes. I don’t think it would even be possible to enforce minimum payments because signature campaigns could be arranged on reddit or elsewhere, or arrangements could be made such that participants would need to give back a portion of their earnings if they want to be accepted, or if they want to stay in the campaign.
The free market is already working to find the correct price for signature campaigns. There are currently a decent number of open spots in various signature campaigns with posting restrictions, and requirements to post in certain sections. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: DdmrDdmr on September 24, 2019, 06:59:57 AM I like @suchmoon’s study on the Effect of signature bans (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5187016.msg52539798#msg52539798). Granted that it is a very small sample (and thus far from conclusive), but it gives us insights on the significance of Signatures on the forum. The sample studied reduced their posting count by 75,47% due to a signature ban. As I said, it´s not an extrapolable to the whole forum, but it does on hint a direction.
Signatures campaigns pivot around five main elements: - The corporation, who wishes as much exposure, awareness and click-throughs as possible (for as little as they can pay; fair in the best cases). Budget will be very variable, and, as we know, is tokenized in most cases due to the lack of it beforehand. - The managers, who for the most, are managing a tokenized campaign, and (unfortunately) do not spend the time to control posting quality as maximum exposure seems to be the main goal (arguably perhaps not the best approach). - The campaign subscriber, who wished (I guess) to be paid is something more tangible, but tends to be happy to take tokens in return for posting. - The campaign’s target audience. - The forum as an entity, who overlooks the generality, and I figure strives to keep an equilibrium between visitors and growth vs post content quality. Now reality is that most campaigns will not have a budget such as that proposed, even if desired. Imposing minimum payments would give the forum a more implicated role which I don’t think it wants to have, aside from the measure probably driving down very noticeably the amount of live campaigns on the forum. That in turns drives down traffic to the forum (not a desired effect I figure), and makes the running campaigns less valuable (less target audience). Sure the forum would benefit content wise if campaigns were to be controlled and parametrized as are the top running campaigns, but arguably the scenario depicted in the paragraph above would happen, which I figure is likely against goals. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on September 24, 2019, 07:32:02 AM Like I said payrate are only subjected to minimum payment, projects that's are capable of paying more are free to increase their payrate pay rank. However, it's not that as easy as for each projects to pay high amount initially, you know everyone wants least cost with higher output. Projects will try to reduce their cost.On the other hand, imagine BTC is at ATH. 0.01 BTC = $200 for 25 posts max, I don't think with current rate, much people will be interested to post 25+ in a week (It depends on user too, Royse posts 100+ each week although he is not required to do so). That can be worked on too, for each $5000 price gain of bitcoin the minimum payrate can be revisited and adjusted in a manner it would be suitable for both the projects and campaign participants. I don't intend project paying as much as your example suggested, I used the current ~$10,000 bitcoin price to make this suggestion. The idea is the participants are been paid poorly and when that's the case what do you expect the output to be like? Garbage in, garbage out. Take a closer look at well paying campaign, the quality of post been delivered by the participants are way above the others, in some instances, the posts counts (irrespective of them been paid for those extra post counts or not) are even more because this guys are been encourage by the payrate they recieve. We're humans here not robot don't forget that, we work with emotions. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: yahoo62278 on September 24, 2019, 07:37:32 AM Like I said payrate are only subjected to minimum payment, projects that's are capable of paying more are free to increase their payrate pay rank. However, it's not that as easy as for each projects to pay high amount initially, you know everyone wants least cost with higher output. Projects will try to reduce their cost.On the other hand, imagine BTC is at ATH. 0.01 BTC = $200 for 25 posts max, I don't think with current rate, much people will be interested to post 25+ in a week (It depends on user too, Royse posts 100+ each week although he is not required to do so). That can be worked on too, for each $5000 price gain of bitcoin the minimum payrate can be revisited and adjusted in a manner it would be suitable for both the projects and campaign participants. I don't intend project paying as much as your example suggested, I used the current ~$10,000 bitcoin price to make this suggestion. The idea is the participants are been paid poorly and when that's the case what do you expect the output to be like? Garbage in, garbage out. Take a closer look at well paying campaign, the quality of post been delivered by the participants are way above the others, in some instances, the posts counts (irrespective of them been paid for those extra post counts or not) are even more because this guys are been encourage by the payrate they recieve. We're humans here not robot don't forget that, we work with emotions. Not sure why you think you deserve more money for posting on a forum. Go look at the rates when campaigns started on here. The rates are not gonna go up because half the world doesn't want to go out and get a job. This forum isn't the classified ads section of your local newspaper. Rates will only rise if companies see that campaigns do them good. The biggest thing about posters that join campaigns that pisses me off is the fact that if the post rate is 20 posts per week, guess how many they do? 20 damn posts right on the nose, then they complain because 1 or 2 posts got deleted and they didn't get paid. Stop doing the bare minimum people. Help the companies that hired you and make signature campaigns worth the money. Otherwise take the money you make and be happy. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: TECSHARE on September 24, 2019, 07:40:08 AM I just wanted to add, that as a dedicated student of economics, minimum wage centralized price control systems are always counter productive and IMO are not a solution to these issues here.
Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on September 24, 2019, 07:59:28 AM Not sure why you think you deserve more money for posting on a forum. There are some things not everyone is open to airing out but in their inner most mind they all want that, don't consider this my suggestion to be me just wanting to be paid more for posting, it's like a open discussion that everyone is open to air their views irrespective of the suggestion been poor or not. Quote The biggest thing about posters that join campaigns that pisses me off is the fact that if the post rate is 20 posts per week, guess how many they do? 20 damn posts right on the nose, then they complain because 1 or 2 posts got deleted and they didn't get paid. I know I'm not in a position to give you any suggestions on this but how about punishing the offenders so they learn from their mistakes, there are far more individual willing to give in their best for the successful of the project. An extra amount of post isn't much of a deal irrespective of you not been paid for them. PS: No personal attacks please lets keep the conversation professional. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: AB de Royse777 on September 24, 2019, 08:20:01 AM I will keep this short, I have some work in line to do. Just spotted the topic and thought to leave my thoughts here.
Signature campaigns are a privilege, ~snip~ Not always. Ex: Livercoin, Yobit. Honestly speaking the privilege thing is not always right only for the participants. Sometimes a campaign management feel privileged when they can hire some particulate forum members. Ex: Suchmoon in ChipMixer, some other users in ChipMixer and also various campaigns. In this forum, although we do not know (99.99% cases) anyone by facial or in real life but every user has their own image, their own personality. A user born when they join and their forum activities build up their character. Ex: If I mention game-protect then we know who we are talking about, if I mention yahoo - he has an image, me has an image, the OP has an image. Similarly almost all the users has their own images and in a signature campaign, the image of a user reflects their worth. Everything has it's own price. So, I kinda slightly disagree on saying "Signature campaigns are a privilege". It's an opportunity for users to get some financial benefit with the things they already are doing and from the companies perspective - it's a way to monetize the traffic of this forum so that they can build up a business. Both party are getting benefited. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: eternalgloom on September 24, 2019, 08:45:42 AM The biggest thing about posters that join campaigns that pisses me off is the fact that if the post rate is 20 posts per week, guess how many they do? 20 damn posts right on the nose, then they complain because 1 or 2 posts got deleted and they didn't get paid. Stop doing the bare minimum people. Help the companies that hired you and make signature campaigns worth the money. Otherwise take the money you make and be happy. I really like it when people do that, it's the biggest cause of people getting removed from campaigns, so new spots open up regularly :P You're right though, I do think it's only fair that you give companies something back for the money they pay you. I'm not a big fan of the F/P model though, after being in F/P campaigns for just about 5 years straight, the weekly minimum post requirements do start to wear on you. It would be good if some new companies started signature campaigns on Bitcointalk and perhaps changed things up regarding the current signature campaign model. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: The Cryptovator on September 24, 2019, 09:07:21 AM Admin gave us opportunity to a wear signature on our profile, what more we can expect from him? This is not a big opportunity for us since forum isn't money making machine? We should not force him fixed pay rate for us. Fix pay rates a task of managers how they could convince a company, and its totally depend on budget them.
The question is, why should we join a low rate campaign? If all quality poster avoid apply on low rates campaign then manager and company might reconsider pay rates. There might be managers association and they might fixed a pay rate for campaign. So it will be out of moderation by forum. Regarding spam, its depend on managers. I don't think a manager will encourage to choose a spammer even there is low pay rate. Since there is merit system, a spammer will not able to rank up and could not join any btc signature campaign. So I think this is not appropriate to ask admin for fixed pay rate for signature campaign. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: Heisenberg_Hunter on September 24, 2019, 09:11:46 AM I guess people are still not aware of the fact what a discussion forum actually is. I have been part of various torrenting forums where I upload movies and TV-series of my self-interest and none paid for me at that time. If every uploader need to be paid for uploading a movie or TV-series which makes the website popular then the admin of the site should pay around $10,000 per month for plenty of uploaders who have been spending their time and money for such stuffs.
The campaign participants are promoting products but are they really helpful for the companies? Almost 90% of the people posting in Gambling Section are posting only for getting paid for their weekly campaign and there are hardly only a few of them being gamblers in real life. As yahoo said, Signature payments are kinda privilege and they are being paid just for posting in a forum. I have never seen in any of the forums, that posters are being paid for their posting. This payment which I receive is like an extra pay for me per week and they are somewhere very much lesser than what I am getting paid in my real life work. People who are not willing to get a job or have a insane minimal pay rates in their real life might be sticking onto the campaign payments to feed them. Many are striving hard for freelancing works and not many of them are successful in getting one, but the forum provides a very good opportunity to earn money just by wearing a signature and posting. Similarly almost all the users has their own images and in a signature campaign, the image of a user reflects their worth. Everything has it's own price. What price does other forums give for us? None, but people seem to be contributing to every other forum regardless they are getting paid or not. For members receiving alts as payments for campaign : Are everyone doing their work perfectly for what they are getting paid? Posting comes from the user's perspective and not from what they are getting paid for! Even how good they are paid, some seems to post shit and on other hand, even how low they are being paid they would be contributing endlessly.Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: mu_enrico on September 24, 2019, 09:14:17 AM Thanks for bringing this topic @CryptopreneurBrainboss :)
Or simply, the campaign manager should come into an agreement You are suggesting a cartel mate...minimum wage centralized price control systems are always counter productive and IMO are not a solution to these issues here. I, also as a "student" of economics (supporter of free-market to be precise) agree with @TECSHARE opinion.If small businesses cannot pay its workers at a required minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs, which means that some of the members who are willing to accept lower wage will lose the opportunity to get some income. And for the same reason, the small businesses also lose the opportunity to get some marketing effort to grow then to afford to pay more for the salaries. In short, it will stunt the bct-economic growth. Merit system works at a certain extent, Campaign managers already work as professional as they can, So what's the solution? I don't know atm, let me think while playing slots on MintDice. But Wiseman says, "The problem is always about revenue." Instead of thinking about how to limit the posters, pressuring managers to make it more efficient, etc., think about how to attract more business here. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: hilariousetc on September 24, 2019, 02:28:48 PM You can't force people to pay minimums and I don't think that's something the forum should get involved with. It doesn't matter whether someone is getting paid a cent per post or $100. The issue is the quality of posts and campaign managers and regardless of how much a user is being paid they should be upholding some minimum standards and for those that don't there should be repercussions as I've long said. If you let people do what they want then the greedy and lazy will abuse that.
So, I kinda slightly disagree on saying "Signature campaigns are a privilege". It's an opportunity for users to get some financial benefit with the things they already are doing and from the companies perspective - it's a way to monetize the traffic of this forum so that they can build up a business. Both party are getting benefited. And that's why it's a privilege. Nothing here is guaranteed. theymos could remove signatures anytime he wants if he feels that's what's best. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 24, 2019, 02:36:21 PM We already have a pretty comprehensive set of rules for both campaign managers and participants here: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0).
This sticky gives very clear guidelines for what is considered spam, and what bans will be handed out to signature spammers. It also gives very clear guidelines that managers should be monitoring their participants, and campaigns which don't do this will also be banned. The problem is that these rules are going completely unenforced, and without some clear direction from theymos on this issue plus probably several new mods, this will continue to be the case. I think this would need a considerable amount of work to start with, but would settle down relatively quickly. Once word starts spreading among the bad managers and users that both users and campaigns were being rapidly banned for spamming, I suspect they would quickly clean up their act. I agree with many of the points above that enforcing some sort of minimum wage does little to address the underlying problem, and is mostly an unworkable solution. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: hosseinimr93 on September 24, 2019, 03:27:44 PM It's companies right to determine the rates. Also, participants has the right to decide whether accept the rates or not. No one forces the users to participate in a signature campaign. It's up to users to decide whether participate in a campaign or not.
Here we have a free competitive market. ChipMixer has the highest rates. They can attract the best and most constructive users and they are benefiting too. There are some other companies that cannot afford high rates and are not able to attract good users. They have to stop their campaign after a few weeks. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on September 24, 2019, 04:52:06 PM I agree with many of the points above that enforcing some sort of minimum wage does little to address the underlying problem, and is mostly an unworkable solution. I'm begining to see reasons in that too although what's I'm advocating for is for some attention to be given to this sector. Great, i have see those signature guidelines you highlighted a link to although, most of those rules aren't been enforced. The section is just been allowed to surfer. The forum did something to some extent to address the spam rate on the forum (which has reduced spamming to some extent). We have the bump system and merit system implemented to tackle that problem, something that doesn't involve total elimination of the signature privilege should be done too. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: eddie13 on September 24, 2019, 05:10:40 PM It all comes down to the campaign managers and the companies being responsible for their participants..
I think if a paid poster gets banned for spamming then whoever is paying them to do so should recieve a stern warning, meaning the campaign manager and the representetives of the company.. If the campaign manager gets a warning about his employee being banned, strike 1, Warn them one more time strike 2, if they keep paying employees that are getting banned for spamming then strike 3 permaban that manager.. Something like if you are a manager and 3 accounts you are paying get banned for the spam that you are paying for in a rolling month - Permaban that manager. Same for plagiarism, you have been paying accounts to plagerise? Permaban.. Ha ha, by by shit manager.. Better not ban evade and come back with another account to shitmanage with either.. That would put a fire under the asses of managers to make darn sure they aren't incentivising spammers.. If you want to ban users for spamming I think it is perfectly logical to ban whoever is paying them to spam right along with them.. What needs to happen is the companies representatives are the ones that need to be held accountable for the actions of their employees.. I have lowered the minimum weekly post count to 20 posts in most campaigns depending on the payrate, but at the same time companies want as much bang for their buck as they can get. You negotiate this with the companies don't you? Why don't you refuse to implement minimum weekly posts yourself? You can also refuse to accept low posting standards too.. Not you in specific Yahoo because you do a good job, but you would probably keep a lot closer eye on your employees post quality if you yourself risked a permaban by paying for spam wouldn't you? Maybe not 3 banned employees a month, maybe 5, maybe 2, but I advocate putting the pressure directly on those who are supposed to be responsible for it in the first place.. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: suchmoon on September 24, 2019, 06:39:30 PM ~ Assuming you know who's responsible for the campaign. Any forum rules regarding campaigns - whether it's the OP's "minimum wage" or what you're suggesting - can work only if the forum controls all signatures, i.e. instead of being able to enter custom bbcode users would have to choose from a list of "approved" campaigns and that way you can tie them to managers etc. That obviously creates problems for everyone who just wants a personal unpaid signature. Perhaps some hybrid solution is possible where signature campaigns have to register with the forum voluntarily and anyone non-compliant can be reported to moderators. Perhaps some clever incentive can be created to encourage compliance. But TBH I can't see that happening given the strong financial incentives to the contrary. If you put any pressure on garbage campaigns they'll just move the management off site. Absent proper enforcement any good ideas will remain "guidelines" and garbage campaigns will continue to do what they think benefits them most, i.e. spam the forum. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 24, 2019, 06:50:28 PM Any forum rules regarding campaigns - whether it's the OP's "minimum wage" or what you're suggesting - can work only if the forum controls all signatures Not necessarily. When theymos stepped in (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5133809.msg50727083#msg50727083) and dealt with the Yobit spammers, he simply wiped all Yobit signatures and banned them for 60 days. He wasn't able to ban the signature campaign itself, since it is run off-site on the Yobit exchange, and there was no manager to ban as far as I am aware. However, you can't argue that what he did didn't work - the spam was horrendous and disappeared instantly.I don't think it's a huge issue if these campaigns move their management off-site. If we start banning campaigns and their participants which are largely spamming, future campaigns will very quickly learn to employ a manager who actually pays attention to post quality. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: Theb on September 24, 2019, 07:26:05 PM Lets be real pay rates shouldn't be moderated in the forum it's like forcing out a budget for any willing projects wanting to promote here in the forum. High payments does not equate to higher quality post because the two things are totally irrelevant so what if someone is paying .01 BTCs for Legendaries and .05 BTCs on another project? Does it gives assurance that the ones being paid double will give twice the quality of posts in the forum? It doesn't. If you want a realistic approach then you should request that the campaign managers here in the forum has a commitment on moderating each members part of their campaign and monitor the quality of their post each time they count it, its the best thing to see if the members part of their campaign are actually worth it of what they are paying for.
Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: Coyster on September 24, 2019, 08:01:03 PM If we start banning campaigns and their participants which are largely spamming, future campaigns will very quickly learn to employ a manager who actually pays attention to post quality. And they should, you cannot simply start a campaign and employ just anybody to run it, neglecting one of the most important role the CM plays in the campaign by checkmating users posts quality, and only top managers do that.Other campaign managers should either try to improve on how they do their job, making their campaign participants pay more attention to what they write that gets them paid. Or the campaigns should only choose the very best managers in the forum. As for the BTC rate, I think every campaign would pay it's participants based on the effect the advertisement is having on their company, if they are actually getting traffic, they wouldn't mind paying a little more than others, I doubt if the forum can impose anything on them. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: yahoo62278 on September 24, 2019, 08:08:46 PM I know I'm not in a position to give you any suggestions on this but how about punishing the offenders so they learn from their mistakes, there are far more individual willing to give in their best for the successful of the project. An extra amount of post isn't much of a deal irrespective of you not been paid for them. PS: No personal attacks please lets keep the conversation professional. Look at suchmoons small sample Effect of Signature Bans (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5187016.0). Even though it's a small sample size, it is a correct view of what happens when users are banned from wearing signatures. Users just fade away into nothing in most cases. I'm not against users making money obviously, and I would love for everyone to make more money. Users need to stop thinking only about themselves though. When they join campaigns, their first thought isn't how can I help this company. Their first thought isn't to log in to the website and check out the platform. All they are thinking is please accept me so i can make some money. I'm not trying to personally attack you, my answers in most cases are directed towards everyone but you are the one who posted the topic and the 1 I am responding to. Everyone has an opinion and I feel they should be free to post their opinion, whether I agree or not. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: suchmoon on September 24, 2019, 09:24:00 PM I don't think it's a huge issue if these campaigns move their management off-site. If we start banning campaigns and their participants which are largely spamming, future campaigns will very quickly learn to employ a manager who actually pays attention to post quality. IMO Stake campaign was sufficiently bad but it didn't get the same treatment as Yobit, and its manager and participants didn't seem to be concerned about the spam or the Yobit precedent. Not every such campaign is going to have someone like Stunna to pull the plug. So I'm not certain if it's a good deterrent to ban a URL and everyone carrying it when some unknown arbitrary spam threshold is breached. Shitty offsite campaigns would just roll the dice (pun intended) - it's mostly their participants at risk anyway, not the "management". Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: DaveF on September 24, 2019, 09:35:49 PM There really aren't that many people willing to give their best though. Each campaign(the 1s that I manage) only has so many open spots per rank. No matter who is in the spot in most cases, users are only willing to post enough to get paid. They are not posting because they like a topic, they are not posting because they want to inform others about a subject in most cases, they are posting to be paid. If they're being paid for 20 posts, then they do 20 posts. Every now and then I get a guy who is paid for 20-25 posts per week and they do 40-50 posts a week. Look at suchmoons small sample Effect of Signature Bans (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5187016.0). Even though it's a small sample size, it is a correct view of what happens when users are banned from wearing signatures. Users just fade away into nothing in most cases. I'm not against users making money obviously, and I would love for everyone to make more money. Users need to stop thinking only about themselves though. When they join campaigns, their first thought isn't how can I help this company. Their first thought isn't to log in to the website and check out the platform. All they are thinking is please accept me so i can make some money. I'm not trying to personally attack you, my answers in most cases are directed towards everyone but you are the one who posted the topic and the 1 I am responding to. Everyone has an opinion and I feel they should be free to post their opinion, whether I agree or not. The problem I feel is the you must make "X" posts to get paid "Y" (like mintdice turned into) campaigns as opposed to pay per post There is life outside the forum, and it can change and things can come up. Looking at the raw numbers of the sheet I have done Week 1 = 39 posts Week 2 = 35 posts Week 3 = 36 posts Week 4 = 34 posts Week 5 = 32 posts Some of those are in the excluded boards but all in all I have been above 30 every week. As of today 1/2 way though the posting week I figure I am at about 16 posts. If something happened today that would cause me to go offline for 5 days I would not make the number for this week. AND since I would lose a day or 2 of posting into the next week I would feel that I would have to "post for the sake of posting" to make my numbers. In the old way, with some bare requirements to post at least 5 in the gambling forum and and a lower number of required posts overall it took the pressure off so if something came up, it came up and you just made a bit less those weeks. This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently. -Dave Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: yahoo62278 on September 24, 2019, 10:00:27 PM There really aren't that many people willing to give their best though. Each campaign(the 1s that I manage) only has so many open spots per rank. No matter who is in the spot in most cases, users are only willing to post enough to get paid. They are not posting because they like a topic, they are not posting because they want to inform others about a subject in most cases, they are posting to be paid. If they're being paid for 20 posts, then they do 20 posts. Every now and then I get a guy who is paid for 20-25 posts per week and they do 40-50 posts a week. Look at suchmoons small sample Effect of Signature Bans (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5187016.0). Even though it's a small sample size, it is a correct view of what happens when users are banned from wearing signatures. Users just fade away into nothing in most cases. I'm not against users making money obviously, and I would love for everyone to make more money. Users need to stop thinking only about themselves though. When they join campaigns, their first thought isn't how can I help this company. Their first thought isn't to log in to the website and check out the platform. All they are thinking is please accept me so i can make some money. I'm not trying to personally attack you, my answers in most cases are directed towards everyone but you are the one who posted the topic and the 1 I am responding to. Everyone has an opinion and I feel they should be free to post their opinion, whether I agree or not. The problem I feel is the you must make "X" posts to get paid "Y" (like mintdice turned into) campaigns as opposed to pay per post There is life outside the forum, and it can change and things can come up. Looking at the raw numbers of the sheet I have done Week 1 = 39 posts Week 2 = 35 posts Week 3 = 36 posts Week 4 = 34 posts Week 5 = 32 posts Some of those are in the excluded boards but all in all I have been above 30 every week. As of today 1/2 way though the posting week I figure I am at about 16 posts. If something happened today that would cause me to go offline for 5 days I would not make the number for this week. AND since I would lose a day or 2 of posting into the next week I would feel that I would have to "post for the sake of posting" to make my numbers. In the old way, with some bare requirements to post at least 5 in the gambling forum and and a lower number of required posts overall it took the pressure off so if something came up, it came up and you just made a bit less those weeks. This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently. -Dave Let's do the math here for a sec. A campaign has a requirement of 20 posts in a week. You have 7 days in that week to get your posts in. That's an average of 2.85 posts per day. Technology is a wonderful thing as well. Users can login to this forum via mobile phones, laptops, desktops, ipads, tablets, and who knows what ever else they may have. Most people are not going to run into the problem of going offline for 5 days and not being paid. Maybe users who live in an area where mandatory brownouts or electricity being restricted, but other then those specific cases most users have 1 of the devices mentioned above and would be able to access the forum daily. Yes, some have a life outside this forum. I do as well, but I login every day. I even have to take a laptop with me on vacations with my family to ensure that campaigns are paid out even if I am out of town. God forbid I'm late paying everyone. Everyone is not me, I get that but you cannot tell me that making 3 or less posts in a day is a rough task to do. Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so. If users cannot make 2.85 posts per day or whatever be the case, then maybe the forum campaigns are not for them. Dave I have never had an issue with your posting habits. You do a fine job and are obviously 1 that comes to mind when I say only a few do over the minimum. Your posts are spread out in a few sections as well which is great. I have other people I have skipped but want to reply to and will do so later tonight. I just refreshed the page and seen this reply and wanted to get my thoughts in before they left my head. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: ahmadakbari on September 24, 2019, 10:12:49 PM This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently. Requiring users to make a specific number of posts is really needed. A user making only 5 posts per week is not helpful. Usually, even if you don't make the required posts for 1 week, you won't be removed from the campaign. For avoiding spams managers usually check the posts history before accepting participants and that's why the person who has made low number of posts before applying for the campaign is not accpeted. Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so. Then the participant will be likely removed due to burst posting. ;)Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: actmyname on September 24, 2019, 10:50:47 PM Requiring users to make a specific number of posts is really needed. A user making only 5 posts per week is not helpful. I would argue the contrary. 5 posts per week spread over 5 weeks will garner far more clicks than 25 posts spread over one week, especially if those posts are within a (relatively) short duration of one another.Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so. Then the participant will be likely removed due to burst posting. ;)If you want a better example, take a look at the amount of time between this post and my next post. :) Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: eddie13 on September 25, 2019, 12:14:58 AM Yes, some have a life outside this forum. I do as well, but I login every day. I even have to take a laptop with me on vacations with my family to ensure that campaigns are paid out even if I am out of town. God forbid I'm late paying everyone. Everyone is not me, I get that but you cannot tell me that making 3 or less posts in a day is a rough task to do. Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so. Not me.. I just went on 2 small vacations and didn't touch my laptop for 3 days each.. No way I am posting from the Holiday Inn when I could be enjoying a drink with fine company, to make my quota of posts, to make only a few dollars a week.. I don't want to feel pressure to post when I don't want to.. Why can't I not post at all for a week or 2? If I don't post what you want, don't pay me, fine.. But why should I get booted out of the gig for not meeting some spam quota? It's like I'm discriminated against because I don't make sure I post for money.. You make a heck of a lot more than a signature payment doing what you do, and for that money I would stay on top of my commitments too for sure, but such a commitment to only make some dust? These companies are missing out big not having their name under my posts because of their stupid rules.. My posts are more valuable than many in my rank payrate that are maxing out but no company is getting anything out of them, or me getting some dust out of them, because it simply has not been worth it to me to commit to some quota.. I can't even remember the last sig I got paid for.. The last many have been free.. I have done all my posting long since before the merit system absolutely for free for no other reason than I wanted to say whatever I had to say.. I want something for a signature deal but haven't found one yet.. (Maybe I have long advocated for strong action against poor campaign managers?) Oh well.. I have been looking lately but haven't found anything.. PM if anyone has a sig for me.. Another though.. Maybe posters shouldn't be getting paid to post if you can easily tell that they are only posting to get paid.. Hmmm... I don't see how half of them provide any valuable advertising at all.. I can hardly believe anyone is clicking signatures on page 47 of that spam megathread.. I only ever really look at a users signature if They come across as very smart and I am interested in what they have to say and want to know more.. I think companies should want their signatures under the best most viewed posts rather than the most posts everyone just skipps over because they aren't worth the time to read.. If I was a company I'd not like wasting my money paying for my advertisment to be posted under trash, it makes their company look like trash.. I would want my advertisement only under quality, because I wouldn't be trying to advertise anything that wasn't a quality product.. I just don't see how companies think they are getting anything from hiring poor quality posters at all other than hurting their reputation by doing so.. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: malevolent on September 25, 2019, 12:52:45 AM Isn't it better to just hire more people? Enforcing minimum weekly post counts probably has a negative effect on post quality if people know they *have* to post enough or they'll be kicked out of the campaign.
If there's concern about transaction fees (especially if fees increase), people could always create accounts on whatever service they advertise and get paid there. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: TECSHARE on September 25, 2019, 01:46:27 AM Isn't it better to just hire more people? Enforcing minimum weekly post counts probably has a negative effect on post quality if people know they *have* to post enough or they'll be kicked out of the campaign. If there's concern about transaction fees (especially if fees increase), people could always create accounts on whatever service they advertise and get paid there. Or just set a minimum payout rate to accumulate to before sent. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: DooMAD on September 25, 2019, 03:07:03 AM I definitely support the notion of scrapping the minimum number of posts per week. There might be the occasional week where I hit 20 posts, but it's certainly not common for me. Sometimes I don't even hit 10 posts in a week. My inclination is to post only when I have something to say, so I'm fairly sure the quality of my contributions would suffer if I was forced to post more than I naturally do.
Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: Coyster on September 25, 2019, 04:07:52 AM Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so. Then the participant will be likely removed due to burst posting. ;)I am a student, and there are times, such as this in the semester when it's difficult to stay online for so long, but I enjoy reading threads on this forum and expressing my own opinions, I still come in at intervals and go straight to threads i like, such as this one, and write out my ideas. Though I'll be making less posts than i would/do when the semester ends. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: The Cryptovator on September 25, 2019, 06:06:47 AM This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently A good manager will exclude spam post from weekly count. They might have some demenad who is paying you for posting on this forum. If someone isn't capable to fulfil weekly requirements then he shouldn't apply for campaign. I believe those managers asking for a minimum number of post, their minimum requirement 25/30 weekly. And I believe this is really not too much. I think paying per post would encourage spam more than fixed post, for example If paying per post and there is maximum post 100 then users will try to get maximum payment. All users are not same but most likely 90% users will try their best. I there there is life out of forum for everyone. But if you like freedom then no one forcing you to join any campaign. Like I am working abroad and my company always forcing work fast and there is daily fixed working time. So I have to follow them in order to get payment. Same like for signature campaign. And I don't it would be wrong if company/manager ask for minimum post count since they are paying for that. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: hilariousetc on September 25, 2019, 07:52:17 AM We already have a pretty comprehensive set of rules for both campaign managers and participants here: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0). This sticky gives very clear guidelines for what is considered spam, and what bans will be handed out to signature spammers. They were never really enforced so it's largely useless until they are. ~ Assuming you know who's responsible for the campaign. Any forum rules regarding campaigns - whether it's the OP's "minimum wage" or what you're suggesting - can work only if the forum controls all signatures, i.e. instead of being able to enter custom bbcode users would have to choose from a list of "approved" campaigns and that way you can tie them to managers etc. That obviously creates problems for everyone who just wants a personal unpaid signature. The best way would just be to blacklist the problem signatures like they were in Yobit's case. Yes, some have a life outside this forum. I do as well, but I login every day. I even have to take a laptop with me on vacations with my family to ensure that campaigns are paid out even if I am out of town. God forbid I'm late paying everyone. Everyone is not me, I get that but you cannot tell me that making 3 or less posts in a day is a rough task to do. Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so. Not me.. I just went on 2 small vacations and didn't touch my laptop for 3 days each.. No way I am posting from the Holiday Inn when I could be enjoying a drink with fine company, to make my quota of posts, to make only a few dollars a week.. Being a signature campaign manager is different. You can't stop paying users just because you go on vacation. On the flipside, you can also look at it as being something you can get paid for from anywhere in the world. I know I'd much rather be sat next to a beach/pool and earning money than sit in front on my PC at home doing the same. Isn't it better to just hire more people? Enforcing minimum weekly post counts probably has a negative effect on post quality if people know they *have* to post enough or they'll be kicked out of the campaign. But who does the hiring? The board hires more people or the campaigns? With the latter the issue is they're greedy and/or lazy and they are usually always understaffed or overworked here (if they even have a dedicated manager here in the first place) and want to get the 'hob' done with minimal work or expense to them and hiring more people is often an expense they can avoid, but that's why there needs to be repercussions for the problem campaigns that do little to nothing. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: stompix on September 25, 2019, 08:27:22 AM Like I said payrate are only subjected to minimum payment, projects that's are capable of paying more are free to increase their payrate pay rank. These too has to be match with a reasonable amount of maximum post count per week (haven't come to a conclusion of any number that would be suitable). I think I'm going to order a few hundred bags of popcorn for this.... So, let's see the trend here, first, there was somebody suggesting that signature participants should form a union.....Detroit..cough.. Then... - minimum payment per post - maximum Pretty interesting, wonder what will pop next? I have some ideas if you don't mind! - put in place a maximum pay rate per post - cut the payment gap between Legendaries and Full Members or tax the Legendary members! - introduce a minimum payment that will be sent to all members/full members no matter their activity on the forum, the funds will come from the taxed Legendaries! - create a code of antimonopoly rules which will not allow a campaign that promotes casinos for examples to have more than 10% of all the participants running a casino signature - if a campaign closes before time and doesn't pay, the participants should still get paid from reserve funds, don't make me repeat who will pay for it Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: Pmalek on September 25, 2019, 09:53:42 AM Same for plagiarism, you have been paying accounts to plagerise? Permaban.. A campaign manager would have to work full time to do such in depth checks for every single post and to run them through a plagiarism checker. After that he would have to filter out posts that he suspects are plagiarized and compare them further with found sources... That is an awful lot of work. 50 members per campaign posting 25 posts each (minimum) equals 1250 posts per week. Not to mention that sometimes only parts of the post are plagiarized so during the initial checking he could think everything is ok when in fact 2 out of the total 20 sentences are copy/pasted. My question to campaign managers, would you really go through all this hassle? Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: mu_enrico on September 25, 2019, 12:35:23 PM A lot of interesting ideas, and I start to feel this thread is like the miniature of the real-world economy. The authority complaining about the externalities (junk posts), the labors want salary raise, business owners want profits, etc.
Anyway, I see a few incentive problems here: - More post count = more links = more traffic; - Rewards are given based on post count; and - More post count generally lowers post quality. << externalities Since it is highly improbable that we change the reward based on post quality, not quantity. And because of this issue: 50 members per campaign posting 25 posts each (minimum) equals 1250 posts per week. Not to mention that sometimes only parts of the post are plagiarized so during the initial checking he could think everything is ok when in fact 2 out of the total 20 sentences are copy/pasted. My question to campaign managers, would you really go through all this hassle? Maybe managers should hire one or two qualified post reviewer (similar to peer review) as a quality controller. Hence, even with the 20-25 post per week, no one will complain about the quality. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: actmyname on September 25, 2019, 01:57:23 PM 50 members per campaign posting 25 posts each (minimum) equals 1250 posts per week. Not to mention that sometimes only parts of the post are plagiarized so during the initial checking he could think everything is ok when in fact 2 out of the total 20 sentences are copy/pasted. Maybe managers should hire one or two qualified post reviewer (similar to peer review) as a quality controller. Hence, even with the 20-25 post per week, no one will complain about the quality.My question to campaign managers, would you really go through all this hassle? And regarding the plagiarism issue: it's simple enough to automate the process. We already have some people who have checked entire post histories for plagiarism, so I don't see why the same cannot be done for a campaign cycle across a few dozen users. I see a lot of people here taking the piss. We already know, "signatures are a privilege, not a right," yet I see absurd suggestions... under the expectation that signatures will be around for a long time. ::) Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: mu_enrico on September 25, 2019, 02:31:28 PM Stop. Yes master.People report posts, yes? I've actually smashed through hundreds of posts in the 777Coin and Bitvest campaigns. It's all based on Voluntaryism...And regarding the plagiarism issue: it's simple enough to automate the process. We already have some people who have checked entire post histories for plagiarism, so I don't see why the same cannot be done for a campaign cycle across a few dozen users. I see what is the direction of this discussion, You and I have different view about a few basic principles. But yeah, Voluntarysim is the core value of this forum. Thanks for the input. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: tranthidung on September 26, 2019, 09:48:28 AM - Rewards are given based on post count; and There are some campaigns which pay bonus of best posters each week based on their post quality. Criteria to judge best participants simply based on earned merits each week and it probably does not reflect quality of participants correctly. Campaigns I've known are: Bustadice, and ChipMixer. Bustadice has still paid bonus, but I am not sure about ChipMixer (it likely stopped bonus payments).- More post count generally lowers post quality. << externalities Since it is highly improbable that we change the reward based on post quality, not quantity. And because of this issue: Posts will be counted by managers, and depend on each manager, there are minimum quality level at which manager will accept (from that level and above) or will reject (below that level) posts made by participants. There are no issues and correlations between more postcounts and lower post quality (in good campaigns managed by good managers). There are risks for companies and managers if they don't manage their campaigns well, and don't warn to stop spamming from their participants. As a result of that, good managers will definitely do their works well to protect themselves. Campaign Operators: Signature Campaigns are a great way to introduce your business and advertise your services to the bitcoin ecosystem but this cannot be abused by you paying people to make poor contributions en masse. As a signature campaign operator you will ultimately be held responsible for the quality of posts of users bearing your signature advertisement and you will need to monitor your users closely or it will be quickly abused. If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way. The Staff and Admins do not want to have to do this but it's a last resort in an attempt to clean up the forum as signature campaigns cannot continue to operate here in such a lazy way as it is not fair that others have to go through pages of drivel to find anything of substance nor should Staff be left to clean up the mess you are paying people to make. < ... > Types of campaigns: There are generally two types of campaigns: 'Fixed' campaigns which offer a fixed amount of bitcoins for a minimum of X amount of posts and 'Pay Per Post' which is pretty self-explanatory. Pay Per Post campaigns pay for every post that a user makes and thus tend to be the most abused whilst fixed campaigns tend to limit the amount of spam generated. It's up to you which campaign you choose and both are fine just as long as you have someone monitoring them. If you don't then either form of campaign will be abused. If you want to check out or compare other signature campaigns an overview of all the currently active ones can be found here. < ... > Please note: You as a campaign will not be warned or have your signatures removed for having a handful of low quality posters on your campaign especially if they're quickly dealt with. We accept that no campaign will be able to stop spam 100% of the time but these guidelines are there for the campaigns where it becomes blatantly obvious they are doing little to nothing at all to try prevent spam and are happily paying people to post rubbish continually even after a warning. Please monitor your users closely and there should be no issues. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on September 26, 2019, 11:59:53 AM It all comes down to the campaign managers and the companies being responsible for their participants.. I think if a paid poster gets banned for spamming then whoever is paying them to do so should recieve a stern warning, meaning the campaign manager and the representetives of the company.. I don't buy into this, it'll be putting too much pressure on the managers, they aren't no AI (LoyceV 😁) to be reviewing every participants post for Plagiarism. Even moderators don't go around the forum searching for plagiarism post and spam for them to review, they work on reported cases. Unless there's an automated system like a bot set in place to handle this, it'll just be a waste of time. About managers getting punished for the participants posting habit, i think that's fair if the managers are intentionally paying the spammers for their spamming (like Yobit signature campaign). Plagiarism can't be notice that quickly although an offtopic, irrelevant or spam reply can be spotted without any effort so the managers have no excuse in paying for those post, they were employed to manage the campaigns therefore should be responsible in overseeing the affair of the campaign operation on the forum. Unlike the yobit scenario that only the signature ads was affected maybe introducing a punishment for not so serious managers will make a difference. Title: Re: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. Post by: UmerIdrees on September 26, 2019, 02:45:28 PM I know I'm not in a position to give you any suggestions on this but how about punishing the offenders so they learn from their mistakes, there are far more individual willing to give in their best for the successful of the project. An extra amount of post isn't much of a deal irrespective of you not been paid for them. PS: No personal attacks please lets keep the conversation professional. It is easy to determine who is posting only to complete his paid post counts and who is actually involved in the discussion. Those who actually involved in discussion are real posters, they will always review , what others have said about their point of view and care to reply them. If you see a person posting 20 different posts each in different thread every week, you should believe he is only filling the shoes to get paid and do not care about the forum discussions. |