A thought regarding sig camp applications

[Betwrong]

No campaign manager myself, so I apologize if it's none of my business, but I feel like my suggestion might be useful, or at least worth considering by sig campaign managers.

Since https://bpip.org/ is around, why not to ask the applicants for the link to their profile there instead of "Bitcointalk profile URL:"? I may be wrong, but I think managers could save some time by going straight to bpip.org applicant's profile, when deciding whom to choose.


Also, if it's in a wrong section, please, mods, kindly move it to the right one.

Thank you!

[Upgrade00]

Different managers have different modes of operation and how they select participants for their campaigns. Most use posting quality, some prioritize certain boards while some blacklist some boards. The posting style of the user is the first criteria most managers use and this information is available on the users BT profile, along with other recent data.
If data from bpip is necessary the manager can always check that themselves.
This topic would be suited in the service discussion board, the option to move it is at the bottom left corner of this thread.

[Saisher]

It's preferable for bounty manager to check the posting quality of the applicants and the url of the profile is the best way to get into the post history of the participants, reputation is also important but you can also check it in the profile, everything are on the participant's profile.

[TheUltraElite]

BPIP is a community driven project. Dont get me wrong, the members who run it are trustworthy and worth a mention but it is always possible that they are unable to maintain the project for a long period of time. On the other hand forum profile links are going to remain as it is lets not think about new forum software.

It all comes down to the managers choice though. They may decide to sue BPIP link in future. Definitely it gives an at-a-glance look at the merit stats are some more important information to evaluate the post quality.

[Maus0728]

Because that was the way it was before? Some sort of culture when applying as a signature campaign participant? Or maybe, it is the most ubiquitous process when applying as a campaign participant.

I agree with you though since bpip.org is also a good alternative to discern every intricate details that pertains to a particular account such as seclog, forum recognition, and other specific merit stats. Maybe, it'll change when the new forum have been published.

[Darker45]

It all comes down to the managers choice though. They may decide to sue BPIP link in future. Definitely it gives an at-a-glance look at the merit stats are some more important information to evaluate the post quality.

Of course, it is the manager's prerogative. A manager may or may not need the information which are easily accessible through BPIP in vetting signature campaign applicants.

More than the merit stats, however, I would say that two of the most important data that the BPIP could readily give to a manager are "Posts deleted by moderators" and "Posts made per post deleted". For me, these data somehow speak of the kind of poster the applicant is.

Especially if the former is higher than the latter, I would say the poster needs a lot of improvement.

[crwth]

I'm sure that we all can agree with how helpful BPIP is with anything Bitcointalk Member related. All of the related stats that a manager could see right out of the page is undoubtedly helpful. Maybe when a signature campaign manager sees this topic, they can incorporate it right away.

I think what could happen as well is that they move away from it due to the information that they could gather. It could make them feel like it's going to make their work even more complicated to what it is now.

[hugeblack]

Each manager has his own view of the members ’evaluation, but many of them do not care about the users’ statistics, but rather the quality of posts and where those posts are.
These statistics are not useful for these managers.
Also, it is easy to search for users in bpip using the username, so asking them to add it to the application appears to be meaningless.

[shield132]

Believe me, it just takes some seconds to check someone's profile on BPIP. To be fair, I have no idea why do they ask participants to post their bitcointalk url cause managerd can just click on their profile through their post and they'll easily get your bitcointalk profile.
I think it's really their job whether they use BPIP or Loycev's tools, in any way both of them are very beneficial but nothing can change the way they look into participants post quality.

[LoyceV]

Since https://bpip.org/ is around, why not to ask the applicants for the link to their profile there instead of "Bitcointalk profile URL:"?

Managers can use [BETA] BPIP Extension - user info add-on / extension for Firefox, Chrome, et al.

[LTU_btc]

I agree with @TheUltraElite. I think that current application format is good enough, and I don't see any reasons to change it. Posting profile link gives manager all information thst he need - mainly post history and additionaly things like recent merit history or trust.
While BPIP is one of the best Bitcointalk community projects, but still, it's external website. It may get down or creators one day may decide to close it. And they don't have most important thing for mannager - history of posts.
Anyway, if manager use BPIP extension on browser, they just need one extra mouse click to open user profile on BPIP while checking applications.

[examplens]

there is no serious reason for discussion here. Sig. managers are paid to choose the best candidates for the campaign. However, they need to check participants post history surely. BPIP as a useful tool can help them, but some of the best managers are old school I guess they do most of the work manually. The campaign in last time has not too many participants, usually up to 20. it's not as big a problem as it used to be 50-100 participants per campaign.
So, asking to post profile link is just one more rule from the manager, like minimum posts, minimum earned merits etc...

[Findingnemo]

FYI, BPIP also has some issues regarding profile updates in the past even on merit counts for some members so the manager have check the accuracy again in bitcointalk so they are going straight with bitcointalk's profile link.

[ChuckBuck]

FYI, BPIP also has some issues regarding profile updates in the past even on merit counts for some members so the manager have check the accuracy again in bitcointalk so they are going straight with bitcointalk's profile link.

Yes, I agree with you on this matter. Although these data may not be updated until BPIP was born. I also see that not all data on Bitcointalk is updated on BPIP. Even for my profile, there are many statuses about changing passwords, emails are not updated.

Since https://bpip.org/ is around, why not to ask the applicants for the link to their profile there instead of "Bitcointalk profile URL:"? I may be wrong, but I think managers could save some time by going straight to bpip.org applicant's profile, when deciding whom to choose.

No one is wrong to give their opinion. But in response to your opinion, I think it is not really necessary, because BPIP data is Bitcointalk data. How can they be separate from other links. I think no need 

[yahoo62278]

It's preferable for bounty manager to check the posting quality of the applicants and the url of the profile is the best way to get into the post history of the participants, reputation is also important but you can also check it in the profile, everything are on the participant's profile.

This right here is a good answer. When choosing an applicant we need to see how active a poster the applicant is. Also gives us a chance to look over quality of the posts a user makes and what sections they visit most recently.

Ideally a good candidate will post all over the forum vs just 1 or 2 sections as well as posts in sections relevant to the project.

Bpip is extremely helpful for information as well but it's faster just to look at a profile.

[Metherry]

I remember that this project stopped several months ago for a few days and may stop in the future because it is run by the community and the forum has no income.

Why do we need campaign managers to use it?

The selection of members to participate in the signature campaigns is done through their competence and the quality of their posts.
using any method to evaluate them will not make a difference.

It is also easy to search for some details without the need for that site.

[Betwrong]

Thank you for all of your replies, guys!

Now I'm locking this thread cos there's nothing to add here.

To sum it all up: Bpip is a very helpful site, but:

1. All managers are aware of it's existence, so they can go there if needed;

2. Normally the info from btctalk profile is enough;

3. The info on Bpip isn't always up to date, and, although very rarely, the site can be down.

Overall, Bpip is a great site, and I'm very grateful to its creators and maintainers, and, apparently, no one is going to argue with this.