Required Minimum Post of a Signature Campaign should not allow too!

[BlackMambaPH]

As we've discussed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2045928.msg20448891#msg20448891

Banning or not allowing campign manager to make a minimum post every week will help lessening signature spammers.

Thoughts?

[actmyname]

As we've discussed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2045928.msg20448891#msg20448891
Banning or not allowing campign manager to make a minimum post every week will help lessening signature spammers.

Thoughts?

The FortuneJack campaign involving their 25 posts in the Gambling section is definitely an incentive to spam. In the campaign (highest-paying, IIRC) one is pretty much forced to spam because it's nearly impossible to actually sustain a full 25 posts in that cesspool unless you're a thread-starter or in some deep discussion.

You'll get shit like this with minimum post requirements:

An interesting site seems to me, for visiting. Is this some kind of poker game? i don't really understand the game on this site. It seems like I have to make sure to come to this site and play. Cool site, hopefully more visitors who come to playing here. I will telling too to my friend who like playing a poker game to coming at this site.

If you limit it to a maximum, then you'll see what happens: most actually just go up to that point and stop posting (given that they no longer get money for their contributions so there's no motivation; this works out for the best though). I for one joined my campaign because there was only a minimum post of 1 and since I couldn't be arsed to post a lot consistently this worked out great for me.

On the stance, I suppose that campaigns with high minimum posts/week should be eliminated. I think 10/week in all boards is fair.

(Advocating for keeping minimum posts: they ensure that the advertiser is allowed a somewhat consistent way to track their views. If the posting fluctuates then it's unclear whether the advertising is failing, the website is failing, or if it's just simply a lack of posts)

[dothebeats]

I, for one agrees to this. However, services create their own campaign to advertise their brand around the forum. Having a minimum post might be the most economical way for them to sell their name, but at the expense of post quality in this forum. Why not only allow campaigns with a pay/post rule rather than a fixed/week? The latter seems to attract more careless, spammy posts over the former. Also, the blacklist of members for signature campaigns would also be a great help to somehow reduce the spam here.

[botany]

As we've discussed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2045928.msg20448891#msg20448891
Banning or not allowing campign manager to make a minimum post every week will help lessening signature spammers.

Thoughts?

Signature campaigns wouldn't want people signing up, not making any posts and then claiming their payment.
Minimum posts are essential (whether on a weekly or monthly basis). Otherwise, campaigns will pay per post and that creates bigger problems.

[Lutpin]

In a fixed campaign, users reach a number of posts and get paid a fixed amount per time.
In a pay per post campaign, users can earn more the more they post.
Why do you think fixed campaigns are a problem, but pay per post ones are not?

Signature spam is a problem of users and managers, not one of the payment scheme used by the campaign.

[hilariousetc]

As we've discussed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2045928.msg20448891#msg20448891
Banning or not allowing campign manager to make a minimum post every week will help lessening signature spammers.

Thoughts?

Signature campaigns wouldn't want people signing up, not making any posts and then claiming their payment.
Minimum posts are essential (whether on a weekly or monthly basis). Otherwise, campaigns will pay per post and that creates bigger problems.

Yeah, restricting the minimum post limit is probably unreasonable really (as long as it's not a ridiculous amount) and fixed campaigns that require a minimum amount of posts usually make much less spam than those who are on unlimited one. However, I think we should prohibit campaigns from forcing users to post in certain sections (as with threads) because that's when people really start to churn stuff out that they have absolutely no interest in. The entire Gambling Discussion sub was essentially solely created because of FortuneJack shitposters talking crap about every possible sports league in the world because they needed to make most of their posts in the Gambling sub and there's only so much shit you can talk about Gambling and they'd exhausted every possible permutation to discuss how bad or good gambling is a long time ago.

[actmyname]

Signature campaigns wouldn't want people signing up, not making any posts and then claiming their payment.
Minimum posts are essential (whether on a weekly or monthly basis). Otherwise, campaigns will pay per post and that creates bigger problems.

Firstly, one could simply reject payment given the quality of the poster or have an incentive programme.

What such problems would there be to switch to pay/post?I'm willing to say that accounts enrolled in signature campaigns would be posting to the maximum most of the time anyway. Additionally, if you're going by a pay/post system, if the user in question decides to post less during the timeframe, then you pay them less in accordance. In fact this would be a favorable outcome considering the site would have the user spreading posts across multiple weeks for the same amount as one who would post for say, one week.

As an example, consider the following:
Alan and Bryan are enrolled in a campaign that is pay/post. It pays 1 mBTC per post and the maximum posts/week is 20.

Alan posts 10 in the first week and 10 in the second week.
Bryan posts 19 in the first week and 1 in the second week.

I'd be willing to say that Alan brings along more of an effect than Bryan.

Why do you think fixed campaigns are a problem, but pay per post ones are not?

Signature spam is a problem of users and managers, not one of the payment scheme used by the campaign.

Fixed campaigns force the users to post even if they're unwilling. This, in turn, could result in spam.

[DarkStar_]

Why do you think fixed campaigns are a problem, but pay per post ones are not?

Signature spam is a problem of users and managers, not one of the payment scheme used by the campaign.

Fixed campaigns force the users to post even if they're unwilling. This, in turn, could result in spam.

That's a problem with the campaign rules. IIRC both Crypto-* fixed rate campaigns Lutpin manages have your posts rollover if you don't meet the 25 to get paid, so if you made lets say 20 legit posts, you won't have the need to quickly spam 5 or else lose payment for all the previous posts.

I believe FortuneJack doesn't rollover posts, so people would want to spam a few posts instead of losing their entire payment. I'm pretty sure their campaign isn't managed too well, which doesn't help.

[botany]

Yeah, restricting the minimum post limit is probably unreasonable really (as long as it's not a ridiculous amount) and fixed campaigns that require a minimum amount of posts usually make much less spam than those who are on unlimited one. However, I think we should prohibit campaigns from forcing users to post in certain sections (as with threads) because that's when people really start to churn stuff out that they have absolutely no interest in. The entire Gambling Discussion sub was essentially solely created because of FortuneJack shitposters talking crap about every possible sports league in the world because they needed to make most of their posts in the Gambling sub and there's only so much shit you can talk about Gambling and they'd exhausted every possible permutation to discuss how bad or good gambling is a long time ago.

We had 15-20 accounts copy-pasting in the football discussion thread. I would suspect such behaviour is forced by signature campaign posting requirements too.

[hilariousetc]

I'm pretty sure their campaign isn't managed too well, which doesn't help.

I don't think it's run at all. It took me several messages to get them to do something about the spam coming from their campaign and the user who had about 10 accounts on there shitposting in the sports threads one after the other. Pretty sure there's at least one guy still on that campaign with multiple alts doing the same.

Yeah, restricting the minimum post limit is probably unreasonable really (as long as it's not a ridiculous amount) and fixed campaigns that require a minimum amount of posts usually make much less spam than those who are on unlimited one. However, I think we should prohibit campaigns from forcing users to post in certain sections (as with threads) because that's when people really start to churn stuff out that they have absolutely no interest in. The entire Gambling Discussion sub was essentially solely created because of FortuneJack shitposters talking crap about every possible sports league in the world because they needed to make most of their posts in the Gambling sub and there's only so much shit you can talk about Gambling and they'd exhausted every possible permutation to discuss how bad or good gambling is a long time ago.

We had 15-20 accounts copy-pasting in the football discussion thread. I would suspect such behaviour is forced by signature campaign posting requirements too.

There have probably been hundreds caught doing this. I'm sure there's plenty more still doing it in those and all the other sports threads but I'm not going to waste my time looking for them.

[digaran]

Ban all the campaigns paying less than 0.0007 per post,  disable signature for members posting not 10 but 5 consecutive shit posts, problem solved.
You either want a high quality and high standard community or you don't, which is it?
If you want to advertise your cheap ass project, company, service then find some cheap forum to do it.
If some body has to earn even $2 in a day otherwise dies from hunger, they'd be willing to join a signature paying 0.0001 per post to make a living and we have millions of such people, only the matter of time before they find this forum 1000 people at a day. lol

[actmyname]

Ban all the campaigns paying less than 0.0007 per post,  disable signature for members posting not 10 but 5 consecutive shit posts, problem solved.

To be honest, a dollar per post is still relatively high in terms of paying someone. US minimum wage is $7.25 so you need to maintain one post approximately every 8 minutes. (Which is why we have a maximum). And if the signature campaigns under that $1.94 threshold are banned then you'll see a flood of accounts going to the higher paying campaigns. Do you really want spammers to be paid more? Because regardless of the price I am sure that services will start up campaigns and allow spammers a place of refuge. They're just offering low rates right now because they can get away with it and flood their ads everywhere.

[hilariousetc]

Ban all the campaigns paying less than 0.0007 per post,  disable signature for members posting not 10 but 5 consecutive shit posts, problem solved.
You either want a high quality and high standard community or you don't, which is it?
If you want to advertise your cheap ass project, company, service then find some cheap forum to do it.
If some body has to earn even $2 in a day otherwise dies from hunger, they'd be willing to join a signature paying 0.0001 per post to make a living and we have millions of such people, only the matter of time before they find this forum 1000 people at a day. lol

It's alright suggesting these things but numerous rules/restrictions and ideas have been proposed to combat spam but theymos never responds to them so not much that can be done. Things like being harsher on poorly run campaigns can easily be implemented but then there's proposals like making users pay a fee to get a bigger signature which are more difficult/controversial but would stop people signing up purely to earn here without at least investing in bitcoin/their account.

Ban all the campaigns paying less than 0.0007 per post,  disable signature for members posting not 10 but 5 consecutive shit posts, problem solved.

To be honest, a dollar per post is still relatively high in terms of paying someone. US minimum wage is $7.25 so you need to maintain one post approximately every 8 minutes. (Which is why we have a maximum). And if the signature campaigns under that $1.94 threshold are banned then you'll see a flood of accounts going to the higher paying campaigns. Do you really want spammers to be paid more? Because regardless of the price I am sure that services will start up campaigns and allow spammers a place of refuge. They're just offering low rates right now because they can get away with it and flood their ads everywhere.

I don't think a minimum price would be a good idea and campaigns that pay 0.0007 are rare and hard to get on when they appear. If campaigns were better managed in the first place pay wouldn't really be an issue.

[Patatas]

Banning or not allowing campign manager to make a minimum post every week will help lessening signature spammers.

Thoughts?

1.You can help lessen signature spammers by giving up your job as a campaign manager to someone who can hire good posters.All the signature campaigns you have managed produced a good amount of shit posters including yourself.

2.If there isn't a minimum posts every week condition,fixed campaigns would end up paying week's quote for posters who make just 5-7 posts per week.Not the best outcome for someone paying 0.03+ per week.They expect some promotion isn't it ?

3.The proposal would make sense if the week's quote is around 40-50 posts in a campaign filled with bad quality posters.

4.Lutpin's rules for crypto-games signature campaign is a perfect example how he can manage to keep minimum posts per week and make sure no one spams.25 posts per week,isn't spam compared to what pay per post campaigns do.

[BlackMambaPH]

Banning or not allowing campign manager to make a minimum post every week will help lessening signature spammers.

Thoughts?

1.You can help lessen signature spammers by giving up your job as a campaign manager to someone who can hire good posters.All the signature campaigns you have managed produced a good amount of shit posters including yourself.

I haven't denied that I'm not doing shit poster, that's why I propose this. LOL

Well, you're also doing it right now. We're all signature spammer here.  -Just kidding.

[Patatas]

Well, you're also doing it right now. We're all signature spammer here.  -Just kidding.

No,I don't get paid for the posts in this section :')

[cramcram21]

In a fixed campaign, users reach a number of posts and get paid a fixed amount per time.
In a pay per post campaign, users can earn more the more they post.
Why do you think fixed campaigns are a problem, but pay per post ones are not?

Signature spam is a problem of users and managers, not one of the payment scheme used by the campaign.

Right it is a problem between the campaign manager and the poster ,
The campaign's are not the problem the users are,
It doesn't matter if the campaign is fixed or a pay per post ,
The one who is spamming is the user and that deserve's a punishment specially if they are just trolling around and spamming some shitty post.

[BitHodler]

The one who is spamming is the user and that deserve's a punishment specially if they are just trolling around and spamming some shitty post.

The users are responsible at the second level, where the managers are responsible at the first level, since they in most cases (unless the campaign is fully automated by a bot) are the one accepting or rejecting users.

In order to reduce spam, it's important to rule out any member level below the SR level. I seriously don't see a single point for any signature campaign to accept JR members due to their very limited signatures.

I even would like to see signature spaces be wiped out completely below the Full member rank. Once you reach Full member rank, you'll get the opportunity to have the same signature rights as JR members have right now.

SR members would then have the same signature rights as current full members, and Hero members would end up having SR member signature rights, and the list goes on.

[ashmodeus]

i voted yes .
why ?

1. that a job for got payment , u know i mean. for example if u want got a payment , u must do to post 40 post , so u got ur payment. that simple

2. the really problem is not for participant i think , but for a manager , how they see the post of participant is constructive post or just a dust post.
    You know participants will try to get more and more posts to get paid, but sometimes they do not really think their post is useful or not
    so the sugestion for manager , i think u must really really selective to see ur signature participant are they work for real with Contribute constructive posts.
    for example if the signature requered 50 post to got payment and someone already do that , but the really constructive or on topic just 28 i think He should not be paid.
    may manager will rent a employe for that ,but that not a problem i think


edited , sorry for typo.

[botany]

It's alright suggesting these things but numerous rules/restrictions and ideas have been proposed to combat spam but theymos never responds to them so not much that can be done. Things like being harsher on poorly run campaigns can easily be implemented but then there's proposals like making users pay a fee to get a bigger signature which are more difficult/controversial but would stop people signing up purely to earn here without at least investing in bitcoin/their account.

Asking users to pay a fee for using signatures would indeed be controversial. Especially if they get banned for spamming after that, the users would cry themselves hoarse about how the forum is scamming them.