What do you think about minimum reviews. Pay the lowest amount - expect poor quality 25 character views. Pay a bit more get 100 Characters etc
I also think being able to dispute reviews is important, bland traffic is one thing but poorly constructed reviews just to get a bit of money is different.
One last thing, is it possible to view old campaigns?
It says they last 7 days (not long enough IMO) I think it should be 3 months minimum for each old campaign so the webmaster has time to react to the changes. My campaign has already been deleted
Having a character requirement or word requirement per amount of pay would work to a point, but it still needs to be on topic. This would be resolved by allowing a built-in dispute system, or even better an actual rating system the campaign owner could run. Sort of like this:
I start up my campaign
You review my site
The review goes in to a queue for me to look at. While it is in the queue, your funds are in a "pending" state
If I accept the review, your funds are released. If I dispute it, it goes to the site owner
Site owner has final say on what to do (I hope they are fair to both parties in this)
Now, a concern would be "what if the campaign owner doesn't accept or dispute the review?" This would be resolved by setting a timer, of say... a week? If there is no response from the campaign owner in that time, the review is then automatically accepted.
I think this is the most fair system to use, and it would help keep people from doing horrible reviews. If someone was disputed a certain number of times (like 3), they would be disabled from reviewing future sites. This, of course, only matters if the dispute went in favor of the campaign owner. If the reviewer won the disputes there would be no change.
As for your question about old campaigns, I would actually prefer an unlimited time one, or even better, the ability to have a PDF and XLS of all the data emailed when the campaign is over. This would allow for easier record keeping and analyzing.