Bots vs. Humans - What's better for a signature campaign?

[iram66680]

Of course, humans.

In one recent incident involving a bot-managed signature campaign (Coinomat), it was found that some people were inserting invisible or barely visible characters into their posts to fool the bot into thinking that their posts went over the 75 character limit. This trick wouldn't have worked had there been a human manually counting and checking the posts instead.

Hidden characters like the ones on that posts are not easy to detect even by humans.

In the first place, it shouldn't even be counted as constructive. Humans can count the constructive post more effectively than bots.

[avatar_kiyoshi]

Human, but of course not lazy human. Human can choose which a constructive post or not.
You can easy to cheated the bots.

[azguard]

Boots may be good in start but more reliable are humans. Reason is you can make boot to think and act like human if can then maybe i will pick boot.

[monbux]

The opinion would depend on what position I'm in.  If I were a participant of the campaign, I would want a human to run it.  On the other hand, if I were the operator, I would much rather have a bot as for its much cheaper.  IMHO, bots would still make less mistakes than humans when it comes down to counting the signatures.  The coinomat problem, they can code their bot to specifically only detect characters over x font size.

[sandy47bt]

As participant, i would want bot for manage signature campaign. But as operator, i would choose human for manage signature campaign.
But, i think it would better if signature campaign use human since they not only check posts

[onewiseguy]

I've had some experience with the Bitmixer bot and it definitely seemed that using a bot made things much easier for the operator. Despite (or perhaps due to) the fact that almost everything was automated, most of the participants there were quite satisfied with the campaign and everything worked fairly smoothly. Other campaigns (which I won't mention here) also use similar bots but it seems their experiences weren't quite so trouble-free.

Bots are probably cheaper, I would assume, since there is no need to pay for a separate campaign manager. Bots on the other hand are probably easier to take advantage of as well. And even with a bot, a little bit of work might still be required for checking posts, making adjustments to the bot, responding to queries, etc.

Which one do you think is better for managing a signature campaign? And when choosing a signature campaign to join, which option would you personally prefer?

EDIT: Added a poll as per twister's suggestion.

I would think both would go good hand in hand.

but I have to agree bots can and will be faster but also miss somethings that humans cant.  bots cant think logically so an issue could arise and a bot will probably deny it.

so why not use both, the price of maintain the campaign might be more expensive but better to pay for quality posts.

[tyrexs]

I think human beings would be better than bots, because it is simple bots can not think or bots will do the same thing over and over again

[ajareselde]

I would choose bots since bots usually more generous than human when check a post is constructive or not
Also, they can check posts faster & can pay their member faster

So you are just looking at this to benefit you as a member of such campaign, which is kinda lame.
Bots can easily be manipulated, it's a child's play once you understand the rules they are judging by, and it's not healthy both for the forum, and the service you're promoting.
If the campaign is of larger number of users, then more campaign managers should be hired, and there will be no problems with slow payouts and manual post checks.

cheers

[subSTRATA]

Bots can easily be manipulated

biggest and most apparent fault to using a bot for counting posts; there was a thread about the coinomat campaign being 'scammed' by some users somewhere, but it really demonstrates how big of a fault that is for bots. humans on the other hand, wouldn't be restricted by the rules a bot will follow.

[jaberwock]

Any signature campaign member would prefer a bot to count and pay for the posts. They don't delay payment and you'll not have surprises about how many of your posts will be counted as constructive. Anyone that says otherwise is lying.

From signature campaign's point of view, I'm not sure. Bots are cheaper but can be abused, but signature campaign managers can do bad things and/or be banned and it will hurt the company's name and cause lots of headache for them(it already happened at least a couple of times). And the company always will have to deal with people complaining that the manager is unfair with them, and if you hire more managers it will be worse because people will claim that one is more severe than other etc...

It is not an easy choice, I must say

[Nahl]

i know only human can count constructive post but this time i will vote for bots because can faster counting post
and can paid the users more on time that human because we all know human is very often for delaying a payment

[avatar_kiyoshi]

i know only human can count constructive post but this time i will vote for bots because can faster counting post
and can paid the users more on time that human because we all know human is very often for delaying a payment

Because that's lazy human or busy human I'm sure if add more staff for monitoring SIG campaign it will be good idea, although the company must pay more too.

The benefit of using bots is not delay for payment, but the post can be manipulate by someone play not health.

[foxkyu]

in my opinión human is better than bot for signature campaign
bot only do what code written, but human can do more
for example if bot have to count post, bot only count post, but if human count post, human can check which is qualitative post or not