I don't think it is logical that the complain of shit posting should get to the roof. My candid reason is that we are the architect of it all. By "we" , I'm trying to be subtle and modest in my position.
The signature campaigns or maybe the managers are the first culprit because when requirement for post per week is placed high, what do you expect?
Some campaign require as much as 40 post per week to be eligible for payment while some have been running for months with 50/60 maximum post (per week) - I mean, even where you state 10/15 minimum and we will pay 60 maximum, it becomes a 'dog race without nor direction'.
I also think that 30 post with 200 words is challenging. In other words, I have observed that a certain manager keeps it 'moderate' at 25 post per week and that can work.
However, I don't intend to hype any manager (that was why I left out names and campaigns) but to profer and project an advise on how shit posting can be curtailed.
My advise therefore is that, 25 post can help especially with the merit regime.
I dont think why not. First off, this is a forum and what does a forum mean? It is a place or opportunity for discussing a subject.
There will be no discussion of subject if every post is a shit post, if the majority of posts are made just to complete their signature campaigns. There's nothing wrong with 25+ posts per week if the posts are sensible, healthy and relevant to the topic. It would actually be better if that's the case.