[1] All managers ask (or should ask) for "constructive posts". What are "constructive posts"? How can we define constructive posts? Should they be defined as "replies on the subject, no matter their length" (including one liners)? Or should they be considered constructive only if they meet a minimum character length? I saw that some managers accept small posts as being valid for their campaigns, while others don't. No matter if the posts are on subject and usefull; they just deny them. We need a consensus here.
The standard is not off-topic or answer should be related to the OP. Theymos already said something about off-topic replies and I think that's what managers also use as reference.
All replies must respond to the topic's original post in some way, even if they are replying to an on-topic reply. If your reply has nothing to do with the topic post, either add some content that is relevant or create a new topic.
For me, being constructive has nothing to do with length but if you are in a campaign that pays for your post, then you have no choice but to meet the minimum characters while being constructive.
Every manager and every campaign have their own set of standards so I'm not sure about having a consensus. They are free to dictate the length of post required. When it comes to allowing post quality though, I think some managers here, especially those managing signature bounties, should be more strict.
[2] Should some boards be banned from any campaign? I saw that some managers say that posts in some sections are not accepted; other say that posts from other boards are not accepted. Can be a general rule for boards not accepted in any campaign? Example: ban all posts from Politic&Society and Off-topic boards.
I believe so. The main goal is better exposure of their project to their target markets which are crypto enthusiasts. Topics in Off-topic and politics & society boards aren't really related to crypto so why pay for posts made there?
[3] Should participants be accepted only if they meet
a certain amount of merits in the past 1-2 months prior applying to the campaign (and also prior being accepted inside the campaign)? And another suggestion here, the merit number could be fixed for each kind of rank, but lower for low rank users and bigger for higher rank users. Currently,
out of 21 signature campaigns, only 4 or 5 have a merit requirement; can such requirement be implemented for all campaigns? But I'm not talking about a trivial minimum threshold as the actual one is (5 merits); I'm talking about a
serious threshold, such as 20-30 merits.
[4] Should participants be excluded from campaigns if they don't earn a minimum amount of merits per week? Furthermore, similar to (3): could this minimum threshold be a fixed number for a low rank, a bigger number for a higher rank and so on?
Merit is just an added requirement to gauge if the applicant is a quality poster or not. The number could be raised or be reduced but the main basis is the user's post history. I've seen some managers say they're going to make an exception even if the min. merit isn't met and also seen some reject applicants even though they met the minimum requirement.
[5] Should be accepted inside any campaign only members of certain ranks (eg. minimum Senior users)? Several campaigns are oriented only to high rank users; why wouldn't be applied here a general rule to be accepted in all the campaigns only these kind of users?
The thinking is that most higher rank members are more experienced and have better post quality. We know that is not always the case but the number of good posters that are high ranked accounts are probably higher than lower ranks. We can also add the characters allowed in the signature space of higher rank accounts as another reason.
Given that there are fewer high rank accounts, I think company's should also be given the option to choose lower rank accounts if they want to have more promoters.
[6] All campaigns have a minimum and a maximum posts number per week. Could these limits be fixed for all the campaigns? Example: have a minimum of 10 posts/week and a maximum number of 25 posts/week.
It's possible but that is entirely up to the company. There are cases when the community would stepped in if they think the number of posts required is too many and it's causing a lot of spam like in the case of yobit or cryptotalk.
[7] All managers ask that participants don't have a negative trust; what if this rule would be improved to high rank users, meaning to be required to have a positive trust in order to be accepted?
Neutral should be enough. Requiring positive trusted applicants only could cause more forum drama and maybe even trust trading.
[8] Can there be set a common sense rule for
maximum number of posts accepted per day? Example: only 5 posts per day to be taken into account. Currently,
out of 21 signature campaigns, only one states clearly that it accepts maximum 7 posts per day, four state they accept maximum 8 posts per day, while
15 mention only that burst posting is not allowed, without giving any definition of burst posting. So what is "
burst posting" then? In order to eliminate spam even more, can it be defined as a certain number of posts per day?
The limit per day is only to discourage posters from completing their task in a short period of time. Companies also wants maximum exposure and given how fast topics or posts are buried here, they would want their signature to be seen daily if possible. But again, posts per day is not up to the forum.
Show Posts
