Proposal for changing pay per post signature campaigns to fixed payment ones

[aakashsangwan]

Signature campaigns are causing more and more spam posts on the forum, but they can't be banned bcz the forum gets money from them.


So, everyone is fed up of the spam on the forum which is increasing day by day, I thought that the signature campaigns should be changed to fixed payment campaigns, at least this will reduce the spam posts on the forum, as;

If someone is in a pay per post campaign then he will try to post the maximum number of posts counted in that payment period,hence creating spam.

But in a fixed payment campaign, the person only have to post minimum number of posts required for the payment, as more Posts will not pay him, so he will not spam.

What are your opinions about this proposal. Please also cast your vote in the poll. Poll will run for 10 days.

Regards
Aakash

[FruitsBasket]

Signature campaigns are causing more and more spam posts on the forum, but they can't be banned bcz the forum gets money from them.


So, everyone is fed up of the spam on the forum which is increasing day by day, I thought that the signature campaigns should be changed to fixed payment campaigns, at least this will reduce the spam posts on the forum, as;

If someone is in a pay per post campaign then he will try to post the maximum number of posts counted in that payment period,hence creating spam.

But in a fixed payment campaign, the person only have to post minimum number of posts required for the payment, as more Posts will not pay him, so he will not spam.

What are your opinions about this proposal. Please also cast your vote in the poll. Poll will run for 10 days.

Regards
Aakash

This will lead to multi accounts that are joining a campaign. So people will instead of use 1 account to get for example 100 post a week and earn 0.1btc they will use 3 accounts in a fixed campaign and earn the same amount. So this will not stop the spamming, I think that most of the spam comes from yobit and some other low accepting campaigns.

[botany]

Will not make a difference as you are still being paid to post. What you need is campaign managers paying attention to the quality of posts, which right not they have no incentive to.

[suchmoon]

they can't be banned bcz the forum gets money from them.

I don't think that's true. Enforcement might not be feasible though.

[Lutpin]

IMO it's not about what type of campaign is run, but how the campagin is run by the manager.
I've been managing both, and I think both sort of campaigns can be successful, without either of them spreading spam around the forum, if managed correctly.

What you need is campaign managers paying attention to the quality of posts, which right not they have no incentive to.

Please don't generalise, your statement is wrong for several reasons.
First, there are managers who pay attention to their participants, some more close, some more vaguely, but saying they don't is a front against all of them.
Secondly, there are enough incentives for a manager to keep an eye on the users and their,
as those users represent the service they advertise and you wouldn't want to be advertised by some kind of users, believe me.

If someone is in a pay per post campaign then he will try to post the maximum number of posts counted in that payment period,hence creating spam.

You're asuming a certain kind of mentality for every user enrolled in a campaign, which they don't necessarily have.

But in a fixed payment campaign, the person only have to post minimum number of posts required for the payment, as more Posts will not pay him, so he will not spam.

Asuming X posts in a term of Y days can't be spam, just because the minimum number in a fixed campaign is lower than the maximum number in a ppp campaign.
The quality of someones posts isn't determined by how many they write in a certain time, but by the actual content of said posts.
I can show you users with ten + posts a day, who no one would consider spamming, and I can show you users with one or two posts a day, who clearly are sig spamming.

What are your opinions about this proposal.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

[Slowturtleinc]

There are a lot of poorly written posts that are clearly written by people that have a weak undestanding of the English language.
Find they also seem to congregate towards the signatures for payment. So in a round about way we are against people practicing English writing.
Noticed a large uptick from one signature that seems to be Russian based and the majority of the people in it write very poor.

Take a lesson from the drug war,every time it cracked down a new version would pop up to replace it.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Very creative topic my dear.This hasn't been thought of since ages.Where was your genius idea all these days ?On a serious note do what I do,found a signature spammer ,report it to campaign manager.Since morning I have successfully managed to remove two members from secondstrade and warned one from Xotica

i remove  below users because they post quality is very low.

absy
AMR008

thank you.

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out. Since I haven't mentioned anything about necroposting on the campaign rules, I will have to forward him a warning for this week.

Best regards,
notaek

[notaek]

If someone is in a pay per post campaign then he will try to post the maximum number of posts counted in that payment period,hence creating spam.

....so that, one won't be able to login to their alts and start posting, right?

But in a fixed payment campaign, the person only have to post minimum number of posts required for the payment, as more Posts will not pay him, so he will not spam.

Yes, it will be easier to maintain a minimum of 25 posts through all of their alt accounts, within the timeframe.


Every type has its own merits and demerits and its better if you leave this decision for the campaign owners. Each have their own way of initiating a campaign, thinking as to how well they can expose their niche. Also budget is another factor for them. So its not you who should decide after all.

[Lutpin]

Seeing as OP was a part of a pay per post campaign co-managed by me back in their junior days, I'd have one more question, if I may:

If someone is in a pay per post campaign then he will try to post the maximum number of posts counted in that payment period,hence creating spam.

If someone, let's asume it's you, was in a pay per post campaign, then you were trying to post the maximum number of posts counted in the payment period, hence you were creating spam.
Right OP? Were you sig spamming?

[aakashsangwan]

Seeing as OP was a part of a pay per post campaign co-managed by me back in their junior days, I'd have one more question, if I may:

If someone is in a pay per post campaign then he will try to post the maximum number of posts counted in that payment period,hence creating spam.

If someone, let's asume it's you, was in a pay per post campaign, then you were trying to post the maximum number of posts counted in the payment period, hence you were creating spam.
Right OP? Were you sig spamming?

Well, everybody try to create maximum posts on the day of post count or on the day before it. You can check out for most of the persons, this will come out to be true.

[Bit_Happy]

Seeing as OP was a part of a pay per post campaign co-managed by me back in their junior days, I'd have one more question, if I may:

If someone is in a pay per post campaign then he will try to post the maximum number of posts counted in that payment period,hence creating spam.

If someone, let's asume it's you, was in a pay per post campaign, then you were trying to post the maximum number of posts counted in the payment period, hence you were creating spam.
Right OP? Were you sig spamming?

Well, everybody try to create maximum posts on the day of post count or on the day before it. You can check out for most of the persons, this will come out to be true.

Did the OP just confess to sig spamming?

[lolnabtc]

I don't really agree with your idea either. Another way to look at pay-per-post campaigns is that participants aren't required to meet a certain post threshold per week or month. If a user participates in a paid per post campaign with no post requirements, then there's no pressure on them to meet minimum post counts every week or month. On the flipside, if users are forced to make a certain number of posts for their campaign, and they don't usually make that many posts, chances are good they'll start posting crap posts just to get paid for their posts and meet campaign minimum requirements.

[suchmoon]

Seeing as OP was a part of a pay per post campaign co-managed by me back in their junior days, I'd have one more question, if I may:

If someone is in a pay per post campaign then he will try to post the maximum number of posts counted in that payment period,hence creating spam.

If someone, let's asume it's you, was in a pay per post campaign, then you were trying to post the maximum number of posts counted in the payment period, hence you were creating spam.
Right OP? Were you sig spamming?

Well, everybody try to create maximum posts on the day of post count or on the day before it. You can check out for most of the persons, this will come out to be true.

Did the OP just confess to sig spamming?

http://replygif.net/thumbnail/1112.gif

Yeah but it's only bad when others do it. +1 immunity point if you create a thread to tell everyone else how bad it is.

[aakashsangwan]

Seeing as OP was a part of a pay per post campaign co-managed by me back in their junior days, I'd have one more question, if I may:

If someone is in a pay per post campaign then he will try to post the maximum number of posts counted in that payment period,hence creating spam.

If someone, let's asume it's you, was in a pay per post campaign, then you were trying to post the maximum number of posts counted in the payment period, hence you were creating spam.
Right OP? Were you sig spamming?

Well, everybody try to create maximum posts on the day of post count or on the day before it. You can check out for most of the persons, this will come out to be true.

Did the OP just confess to sig spamming?

http://replygif.net/thumbnail/1112.gif

Yeah but it's only bad when others do it. +1 immunity point if you create a thread to tell everyone else how bad it is.

it's not signature spamming brother.
My most posts are constructive and on topic.

[Technologeek]

it's not signature spamming brother.
My most posts are constructive and on topic.

90% of your posts are in the Gambling section.That's what I call Sig Spamming brother.

[aakashsangwan]

it's not signature spamming brother.
My most posts are constructive and on topic.

90% of your posts are in the Gambling section.That's what I call Sig Spamming brother.

This is going off topic now.
Well it's the same for you buddy. You have 50 percent posts in gambling section. Lol  so you consider yourself also as a spammer hahah
It's the signature campaign related to gambling and also that I do gamble on regular basis. So yes I love posting in gambling section. But I'm trying to leave gambling as its becoming a bad habit of me.

[Technologeek]

This is going off topic now.
Well it's the same for you buddy. You have 50 percent posts in gambling section. Lol   so you consider yourself also as a spammer hahah
It's the signature campaign related to gambling and also that I do gamble on regular basis. So yes I love posting in gambling section. But I'm trying to leave gambling as its becoming a bad habit of me.

That clearly shows you don't know how to calculate percentage.No wonder you suck at gambling mate.To be on topic, posting in gambling section doesnt necessary mean your posts are highly constructive.In fact gambling section is the only place where most of the sig spammers dwell.Threads like "How your life will be without gambling " or "How gambling has made you a better person" are curse to the forum.

[aakashsangwan]

-SNIP-
No wonder you suck at gambling mate.
-SNIP-

Why do you think that I suck at gambling? 
I have made more than 2 bitcoins in gambling, OK. And that too with just signature campaign earnings. So please stop mocking me

[Lutpin]

Well, everybody try to create maximum posts on the day of post count or on the day before it. You can check out for most of the persons, this will come out to be true.

What's the experience you're talking from?
Because I got some experience to back my posts up, you on the other side, well...

Yeah but it's only bad when others do it. +1 immunity point if you create a thread to tell everyone else how bad it is.

That way where my question was heading.
It was ok as long as OP was in a ppp campaign.
Now that they have found a fixed campaign, all ppp campaigns are bad, mkay.

My most posts[Most of my posts] are constructive and on topic.

Like the posts of many other peoples in pay per post campaigns.