A suggested feature in the new forum: sig campaign ranking

[IdiotCoder]

The last few threads I posted were interesting and on topic. However, the enjoyment of the thread died when some poor kid living in Bangledesh posted yet another reply with poor Englidh, no consideration to the original topic at hand, and what appears to be a rushed-processed posr just to get enough to eat. I have nothing against poor people trying to ease their hunger problem, but basic food shouldn't be that expensive by Bitcoin standards.

What I am proposing in the new forum software is a way for signature campaign managers to rate out of five stars the quality of their posts. If they're good they get rewarded by being paid more per post. If they're bad they get paid less. This is exactly what Postloop does. That way the poor kid gets paid to improve their English.

This should be easy to implement in Node.js.

[1715342685]

1715342685

[1715342685]

1715342685

[1715342685]

1715342685

[1715342685]

1715342685

[DarkStar_]

Your proposal creates a few problems, and probably wouldn't be worth it to do.

How are campaign managers selected to be able to rate? Someone could create a new campaign with crappy rates and accept no one, become a manager and use it to abuse. Also, most/all of the campaigns have payout rates decided by the campaign owners, so everyone would have to agree to the new system, which might be hard to do. Some managers are more tolerant to spam (secondstrade)

A better solution to the problem would be just removing/banning the campaigns with a lot of spam or warning the managers with a higher standard, which is kinda what is being done right now.

[Joel_Jantsen]

The last few threads I posted were interesting and on topic. However, the enjoyment of the thread died when some poor kid living in Bangledesh posted yet another reply with poor Englidh, no consideration to the original topic at hand, and what appears to be a rushed-processed posr just to get enough to eat. I have nothing against poor people trying to ease their hunger problem, but basic food shouldn't be that expensive by Bitcoin standards.

Need not mention it.No one really cares about your views on socio-economic conditions of a country on a New Forum Software thread.

What I am proposing in the new forum software is a way for signature campaign managers to rate out of five stars the quality of their posts. If they're good they get rewarded by being paid more per post. If they're bad they get paid less. This is exactly what Postloop does. That way the poor kid gets paid to improve their English.

Well thought! Such innovate,much creative thinking!
Why your logic is flawed : -
 -> Posts are subjective,a signature campaign manager who hates Eth will never give good ratings for a post which promotes Eth.Basic human psycology.
 -> Signature campaign managers will be wasting time giving stars individually.
 -> Better yet,just follow the curated campaigners who are not included in the SMAS list ?
 -> Moreover,most of the campaigns like to keep fixed flat rates.

This should be easy to implement in Node.js.

Doesn't even need Node.js.

[Iranus]

Signature campaigns are just private companies deciding to advertisement campaigns by getting users that they regard to be "trusted" (those with higher ranks) to post.

The way I see it, a "rating" system which changes people's rate of pay would increase the level of spam, because it would create the idea that signature campaigns are directly endorsed by the forum, when in fact they're just an accepted part of the free marketplace.

Furthermore, anyone who is suspected of being a spammer should be banned.  Period.  They shouldn't be given partial pay because they're a spammer... just kicked out.

[SingAlong]

Signature campaigns are just private companies deciding to advertisement campaigns by getting users that they regard to be "trusted" (those with higher ranks) to post.

The way I see it, a "rating" system which changes people's rate of pay would increase the level of spam, because it would create the idea that signature campaigns are directly endorsed by the forum, when in fact they're just an accepted part of the free marketplace.

Furthermore, anyone who is suspected of being a spammer should be banned.  Period.  They shouldn't be given partial pay because they're a spammer... just kicked out.

And I'm fine with the current system that we have though it can be improved but we need a better one unlike this one which the suggestion given contains some flaws.

Managers are the people who accepts participants in their respective campaigns hence they should choose the righteous ones with constructive post and monitor whether their specific participants are post bursting or posting rubbish and should be kicked out from the campaign which is the thing that they are doing now.

Also a lot of campaigns nowadays are not accepting participants with red trust or a certain level of red trust with various reasons.