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

[Lorenzo]

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.

[twister]

I think Humans are better, Bots rely on rules established in a script and they follow those rules quite well but users might still find ways to abuse those rules and take advantage of them. As you yourself mentioned that a human is still needed to check posts for quality etc. for campaigns managed by bots and it's because they can't manage those things all by themselves, no matter how developed or sophisticated they are.

Plus participants from time to time have lots of queries that a Bot can't answer. And which is why I would prefer to join a campaign that's managed by a human rather than a bot.

PS: you should add a Poll.

[hasiramasenju]

why not try to combine both i think it will be good option maybe bots can relieve human work because bot work faster but the bot can't choose the post is constructive or no because mostly bot only count for number of characters and for calculate quality post only human can do it and if we combine both then we will get constructive post with the specified number of characters

[Xialla]

combination of both. bots for counting, holding lists and sending BTC and humans for accepting people, checking posts and support in thread.)

[WhatTheGox]

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 wasn't aware there were bots judging posting standards for signature campaigns, yikes!  I'd say its all well and good but you might actually get banned by the forum mods if your posts are really spammy.

[Lorenzo]

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 wasn't aware there were bots judging posting standards for signature campaigns, yikes!  I'd say its all well and good but you might actually get banned by the forum mods if your posts are really spammy.

They usually tend to follow a simple script. For example, if a post is under 75 characters in length, then it isn't counted. If a post happens to be located in the off-topic section, then it isn't counted, etc.

[favdesu]

A human campaign manager is much better in my opinion. they can filter out bad apples.

a bot only moves depending on a ruleset, which can be gamed. however, it's up to users to point out cheaters (happened already with coinomat)

[jacktheking]

For the time being, I would say humans. Unless someone make a very good Bot, I will still say humans. Not only this would be error-free, it could also boost the Bitcoin economy by providing campaign manager job to Bitcoiner. Sorry if I sound too.. LoL.

[dezoel]

bot and human has anvantage and disanvantage, bot maybe good for who want on time payment. Human is better than bot for me, no error/server down on human...
I'll say human... ( I choose wrong answer on survey )

[Mt. Gox]

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.

[Muhammed Zakir]

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.

[Mt. Gox]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If someone posted a 20 character post and appended it with a string of invisible text, a human checker would see that it's too short and disqualify it for payment whereas a bot would think that it's long enough. The human wouldn't be fooled by it, but the bot would be.

[Borisz]

I think it is a balance between a bot letting through some spammers or low quality posts and a human having to be there and check every post made by participants.

Economically, you have to say: OK, I lose X coins on my campaign due to low quality posts and tricks if I use a bot OR I lose Y coins to pay someone to check the posts manually, do payouts etc. (or I do it myself, but since time=money, I still lose the Y coins.) Which losses are bigger decide what method would win. A lot of these things have to be discovered by trial and error.

As others mentioned before, it could be a combination of both. A bot can do a lot of tasks quickly, roughly and where human intervention is needed, it can be made. I would use a bot in the first line to check, which would also estimate the validity of a user's performance in a percentage based on a factor of e.g.: number of posts, average length, topics etc. If this percentage is below a threshold, the bot pauses payout and asks for manual check.

(Have to say I don't know what bots are out there, but I think I'll give it a try and look up a few things.)

[seoincorporation]

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.

A bot can be great if he can do all the Job. But is hard to trust in a bot for checking posts, i think that is the hard part.

Is the first time i read about bots on the signature campaigns, i like the concept, could be fun to make my own bot for that.

At last i think is better a bot, but a full implemented one, at the point where you only need to send founds and he do all the job 

[Lorenzo]

It looks like the humans are winning this one!

(Have to say I don't know what bots are out there, but I think I'll give it a try and look up a few things.)

I'm only aware of two bots at the moment. There is the Bitmixer bot and then there is marcotheminer's bot which was directly based on the Bitmixer bot (link). Marco sells his bot to signature campaign operators who then customize it according to their needs. Stunna's plan to reopen/relaunch the PD campaign was supposed to include a bot as well but I'm not sure what happened to that.

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.

A bot can be great if he can do all the Job. But is hard to trust in a bot for checking posts, i think that is the hard part.

Is the first time i read about bots on the signature campaigns, i like the concept, could be fun to make my own bot for that.

At last i think is better a bot, but a full implemented one, at the point where you only need to send founds and he do all the job 

The Bitmixer bot probably comes closest to that description. Registration, counting of posts, and even sending of payments are all done automatically with no input from the owner. In fact, the owner himself rarely posts on the forums but since everything is automated, problems are usually quite rare.

[favdesu]

It looks like the humans are winning this one!

(Have to say I don't know what bots are out there, but I think I'll give it a try and look up a few things.)

I'm only aware of two bots at the moment. There is the Bitmixer bot and then there is marcotheminer's bot which was directly based on the Bitmixer bot (link). Marco sells his bot to signature campaign operators who then customize it according to their needs. Stunna's plan to reopen/relaunch the PD campaign was supposed to include a bot as well but I'm not sure what happened to that.

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.

A bot can be great if he can do all the Job. But is hard to trust in a bot for checking posts, i think that is the hard part.

Is the first time i read about bots on the signature campaigns, i like the concept, could be fun to make my own bot for that.

At last i think is better a bot, but a full implemented one, at the point where you only need to send founds and he do all the job 

The Bitmixer bot probably comes closest to that description. Registration, counting of posts, and even sending of payments are all done automatically with no input from the owner. In fact, the owner himself rarely posts on the forums but since everything is automated, problems are usually quite rare.

but can't you cheat bitmixer? what bot do they use?

[Amph]

bot all the way, cheaper more efficient, more reliable in 1 vs 1, not ruled by sentiments or angry moments(sometime you can be disqualified for something stupid that has not really to do with your posting)

i find the bit-x bot very good to be honest

[OROBTC]

...

I vote for the bot, at least in bitmixer's case.  I have not had a problem. 

And if I had to guess, the owner probably does a little bit of spot-checking to make sure posts are of reasonable quality.  Bot to do the tedious work, person to spot-check quality.

*   *   *

I wonder if bitmixer's bot also does the mixing...  The site runs very smoothly.  Automating as much as possible of a website means less work, and once it is shown to be working well, that adds value to them, and to their customers.

[Lorenzo]

It looks like the humans are winning this one!

(Have to say I don't know what bots are out there, but I think I'll give it a try and look up a few things.)

I'm only aware of two bots at the moment. There is the Bitmixer bot and then there is marcotheminer's bot which was directly based on the Bitmixer bot (link). Marco sells his bot to signature campaign operators who then customize it according to their needs. Stunna's plan to reopen/relaunch the PD campaign was supposed to include a bot as well but I'm not sure what happened to that.

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.

A bot can be great if he can do all the Job. But is hard to trust in a bot for checking posts, i think that is the hard part.

Is the first time i read about bots on the signature campaigns, i like the concept, could be fun to make my own bot for that.

At last i think is better a bot, but a full implemented one, at the point where you only need to send founds and he do all the job 

The Bitmixer bot probably comes closest to that description. Registration, counting of posts, and even sending of payments are all done automatically with no input from the owner. In fact, the owner himself rarely posts on the forums but since everything is automated, problems are usually quite rare.

but can't you cheat bitmixer? what bot do they use?

The bot was probably developed specifically for their campaign since it appears that they're the only one who is using it. Cases where people have tried to cheat the system are rare. Once it was discovered that someone was copying and pasting the exact same messages across multiple boards but their posts were later deleted by a mod.

And while the Bitmixer account doesn't post very much, I'm sure its owner visits these forums frequently to check threads and PMs in case someone wants to ask him a question or report something.

Also, it's interesting to see that the poll has returned to an almost even 50:50 split.

[deluxeCITY]

Humans all the way. Bots are obvious to spot and clearly no one trusts a bot.