With regards to the first 100 "creative and constructive" replies, I submit the following suggestions :

1. you have many listed websites under your "reviews and stats" section in your ANN ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5053561.msg47054262#msg47054262 ). this is a good strategy - but it needs to be maintained. I would recommend that you do some variation of the following :
   a. give person #1 the responsibility to assign each site to a different person. so for example "BitcoinExchangeGuide" would be assigned to person #2, "awebanalysis" would be assigned to person #3, etc.
   b. give person #1 the responsibility to keep the list up-to-date. i.e. he/she should periodically check for new review sites as they pop up on google
   c. give person #1 the responsibility to assign a person #X to each new site as it becomes available
   d. each person #X is then responsible for checking that site every few days and verifying that the information it contains about the coin is up-to-date and complete.

the effort to make sure that each entry is "complete" has further ramifications - this is because some of these sites will give scores to your coin depending on various factors. Take for example coingecko.com (which is not on your list and which i recommend adding to it). Coingecko gives a "sociability" score, a "development" score, and a few others to each coin. Those scores depend on the existence and activity of various social media channels. there is another coin that i have been involved with, which did not have a reddit account until recently. someone went to the coingecko site and noticed that the coin's sociability score was not very high. upon investigating i realized that coingecko was taking the number of reddit subscribers into account in its score - but the maintainers of the other coin, having a bazillion things to do, had not updated coingecko on their new reddit channel. I went ahead and informed coingecko. After a few days i went back and verified that the channel had been added to their profile of the coin - and the sociability of the score had more than doubled as a result. "is this coin a scam" works similarly - one of the things they take into account is the existence of a white paper. yours is slated to be done in the future - be sure "is this coin a scam" knows about it once it is done and published.

people who are investigating the coin to see if it is worthy of investment are likely to depend on such sites when making their preliminary investigations, so it is important to keep the information accurate and up-to-date.

this leads to the next suggestion concerning the review sites :

   e. order the review sites according to their appearance on the google search engine

for example, pretend you want to own cryptocurrencies and are doing research. you have heard the name "Cobrabytes" but that's all you know about it. Think of various queries you might do on google to find out about the coin :

      1. "what is cobrabytes"
      2. "cobrabytes scam"
      etc.

see the order in which your review sites appear in the result. if your team is running behind on maintaining the coin profiles on those sites (particularly right after adding more social media channels), prioritize updating them according to their order in google results, since the ones towards the top are more likely to receive more exposure.

2. assign individuals to maintain social media accounts, and make sure they know the criteria that ratings sites use with respect to those social media accounts.

for example, "is this coin a scam" checks your facebook account and verifies that it has a new post at least every 3 days (or is it 5 ? i forget). I assume this limit is specific to "is this coin a scam."  Whoever maintains a facebook account should know the limits that all the review sites use, take the strictest one, and follow it.

3. make sure the developers also know the limits with respect to github commits.

many of the sites check activity on github to determine if a coin is "dead."  Now, you don't want to just game the system to make it "appear" that activity is occurring, such as editing one configuration file and then committing it. that would be silly, and dishonest. have your developers keep updating the code in legitimate ways, i.e. to make it better, to add features, to fix known bugs. however, you might as well modify their timelines to match what the rating sites are looking for.  For example, say your developers have a methodology wherein they commit code once every two weeks. they may want to modify that methodology and commit code in smaller chunks, and at more frequent intervals, thereby satisfying what the rating sites are looking for, while still legitimately contributing to the development of the codebase. even if the code is stable and your team is in a waiting pattern, they can still add new test cases against the code, run them, and check them in. not only does that keep the commit rate up, it further enhances the solidity of your code. also, don't have only one individual in charge of commits. it's better that each individual that makes code changes, after having the others review the code, commit his own code. that makes it clear to the sites that are scanning github that the project has more than one active developer and that the project is not overly reliant on one developer who does the majority of all commits. (what happens if that person decides to leave? if the project is overly reliant on that person, that would be bad. spread your development activities across the whole team to provide resiliency in case someone takes a leave of absence)

I hope this helps.

Belo trabalho, camarada. Uma compilação de respeito
Até tive a dar uma olhada nos artigos e com certeza vai me adicionar bastante informação útil. Muito obrigado!