Should the number of quality posts be limited?

[deisik]

I've been contacted by a signature campaign manager (not of the campaign I'm currently enrolled in) who claimed that I make too many posts and reporting this to moderators was part of his job (though he doesn't himself consider my posts as nonconstructive). In the last months I've been making around 150-170 posts weekly. I don't think that this is a very large number itself, since many signature campaigns allowed 100 posts per week (e.g. CoinsBank) or didn't limit the number of posts at all (e.g. PrimeDice at the beginning) in the past as well as there are a lot of users who make even greater number of good quality posts on a pretty regular basis. Moreover, I've also been privately contacted by advertisers a few times within last weeks who wanted me to wear their avatar because they considered my posts in the Economics section as top-notch. I've read the signature campaign guidelines, and they talk primarily about limiting the number of low quality posts. Really, if more members contribute a greater number of constructive posts, the ratio of good to low quality posts will necessarily rise, which can only be welcomed and surely not rejected. So, I would like the forum administration to have their authoritative say on this matter...

Namely, should the number of quality posts be limited (irrespective of signature campaign limits)?

[shorena]

No, thats bullshit. I could understand the reasoning if the quality of your posts would drop due to the high amount. I havent checked your history, but from what I read from you that should not be the case. If you have the time on your hand you should be allowed to post as much as you want (you are according to the forums rules anyway). If the campaign (manager) does not wants to pay as much, they can put a limit on what they are willing to pay.

[deisik]

No, thats bullshit. I could understand the reasoning if the quality of your posts would drop due to the high amount. I havent checked your history, but from what I read from you that should not be the case. If you have the time on your hand you should be allowed to post as much as you want (you are according to the forums rules anyway). If the campaign (manager) does not wants to pay as much, they can put a limit on what they are willing to pay.

In fact, being enrolled in a signature campaign makes me more constructive, so to speak

I can't really say that the quality of my posts increased greatly purely on technical grounds (I mean how knowledgeable and insightful they are), but I'm surely paying more attention so as not to get drawn into flame wars, even though I'm still being openly provoked by some members (who are not enrolled in the signature campaign themselves, just in case). Besides, now I'm trying to explain things to people even if they assert out of hand that I'm outright wrong on some question, instead of just brushing them off

[hilariousandco]

Namely, should the number of quality posts be limited?

There would be nothing wrong with making 1000 posts a day if they were all well thought out and constructive but limiting the amount of posts someone is allowed to make would be impossible to enforce at staff level, but that's something campaigns should decide on how many posts they will pay for. It's unconstructive posts people should be concerned about though and poor posters shouldn't even be allowed onto campaigns in the first place or kicked off fairly swiftly if the quality drops.

[Wendigo]

I think you should consult with our campaign manager who I think is Yahoo and he is in charge of the quality control of the enrolled posters.
If you have the free time and need the cash I guess you could post as much as you would like to your heart's content every day. Now measuring quality is a very subjective thing and you would be better off asking Yahoo or the campaign owner Namworld about how many posts you could make and if there is any limit to that.

[Lutpin]

I've been contacted by a signature campaign manager (not of the campaign I'm currently enrolled in) who claimed that I make too many posts and reporting this to moderators was part of his job (though he doesn't himself consider my posts as nonconstructive).

Who was that "signature campaign manager"?

I think you should consult with our campaign manager who I think is Yahoo and he is in charge of the quality control of the enrolled posters.

Why bothering yahoo over obvious bullshit?

I could understand the reasoning if the quality of your posts would drop due to the high amount. I havent checked your history, but from what I read from you that should not be the case.

I've read quite a few of their posts, and while I sometimes disagree with their opinion, the "post quality" is well above the forum average and not at all something people should worry about. Especially not, when they are not in charge of the campaign the user is enrolled.


(Nice coinroll combo)

[deisik]

Namely, should the number of quality posts be limited?

There would be nothing wrong with making 1000 posts a day if they were all well thought out and constructive but limiting the amount of posts someone is allowed to make would be impossible to enforce at staff level, but that's something campaigns should decide on how many posts they will pay for. It's unconstructive posts people should be concerned about though and poor posters shouldn't even be allowed onto campaigns in the first place or kicked off fairly swiftly if the quality drops.

That's what I wanted to hear

If you don't mind, could you officially inform campaign managers about your position on this since you seem to be working with them in respect to such issues? It would allow to avoid further confusion and misunderstanding that might likely arise in the future

I've been contacted by a signature campaign manager (not of the campaign I'm currently enrolled in) who claimed that I make too many posts and reporting this to moderators was part of his job (though he doesn't himself consider my posts as nonconstructive).

Who was that "signature campaign manager"?

I would like to keep it between ourselves, and I hope this issue should be considered as resolved now

[Wendigo]

Yeah we have a really nice Coinroll rally going on in here don't we? 

I just thought consulting the owner and the manager first made more sense instead of judging other people's posts from our own perspective which has no authority on the matter. And the OP asked about authoritative opinion from the forum staff so if you don't want to bother Yahoo with this who is going to say their final word on the matter at hand? Hilarious already said it's an internal inquiry.

[hilariousandco]

Namely, should the number of quality posts be limited?

There would be nothing wrong with making 1000 posts a day if they were all well thought out and constructive but limiting the amount of posts someone is allowed to make would be impossible to enforce at staff level, but that's something campaigns should decide on how many posts they will pay for. It's unconstructive posts people should be concerned about though and poor posters shouldn't even be allowed onto campaigns in the first place or kicked off fairly swiftly if the quality drops.

That's what I wanted to hear

If you don't mind, could you officially inform campaign managers about your position on this since you seem to be working with them in respect to such issues? It would allow to avoid further confusion and misunderstanding that might likely arise in the future

What do you want me to tell them exactly? Leave constructive posters alone?










Inb4:

I've been contacted by a signature campaign manager (not of the campaign I'm currently enrolled in) who claimed that I make too many posts and reporting this to moderators was part of his job (though he doesn't himself consider my posts as nonconstructive).

Who was that "signature campaign manager"?

I would like to keep it between ourselves, and I hope this issue should be considered as resolved

You should have ignored him or told him where to go.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Namely, should the number of quality posts be limited (irrespective of signature campaign limits)?

No it shouldn't be as long as are they're less annoying.
For example,It's annoying to see 3 new topics started by you in Meta one after another when that kind of discussion was not really necessary.
It's just my personal opinion though others may be okay with it.

To elaborate it further,take this altcoin chronobank.io.Whenever I open my reddit/facebook/bitcointalk these days I see their advertisements all over my news feed.It is annoying and I lose interest immediately even though it could be a good project.Get it?

[chixka000]

I know that you were that active and basically that certain manager thinks that maybe it was too much (in his/her opinion) but that should not matter if that certain manager will going to report you then let the staff decide anyways.


edit; I notice some good point that joel stated please try to consider that one.

[moonpie45]

To be entirely fair, you do seem to be making a large number of threads that give off the aurora of a spammer, for example this one, and of course this one. You have replied several times to both threads.

That of course is none of my business