Why not limiting the Signature Campaigns and posts per week?

[orkoso]

IMHO and in many peoples opinion, many one of the main sources of spams are Signatures Campaigns. I am not in favour of suppressing these because they do provided finance and develop the world of cryptocurrencies.

I do participate on these campaigns because I can support a project that I like or think is good for the community and get a few tokens along the way, even if sometimes they are worth nothing   

However, many of the campaigns set a minimum of posts that I have to make a week. Some of these ask for 20 posts a week, so I am faced with the dilemma of either having to say no to a campaign that I really like or having to post on low quality threads without much interest.

I know that many people here would say that I should not take the campaign,  but that is not a good solution as I do want to promote the projects I like.

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

Any new campaign on the forum would have to follow this rule or risk not being accepted / be banned / muted.

[1714190875]

1714190875

[1714190875]

1714190875

[Jet Cash]

Or just ban the signatures so that Bitcoiners can have Bitcoin Talk back to talk about Bitcoin.

[Zackgeno96]

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

This has been already implemented. There was a time, where minimum required post count was 100 in order to get paid. It was one of the reason for spamming but by the time it was reduced to 20 to 25 post per week. It would not be feasible to the projects who runs these campaign to promote their project; if you further reduce the post counts to 10 per week then it will affect their promotion.

[orkoso]

Or just ban the signatures so that Bitcoiners can have Bitcoin Talk back to talk about Bitcoin.

Following that route would be unwise for several reasons, but I will just mention a couple:

- Campaigns done properly bring funds to the crypto community and support the value of Bitcoin since it is paired with alts in markets. The main use of bitcoin today is trading,  not "hodling".

- You would be ignoring the real trend in crypto (see the dominance graph). Do you notice that Bitcoin is no more than 36% of the total value?

But above all, you would be harming the value of this forum. Alts are no longer "alts", they are as relevant to the cryptocommunity as Bitcoin if not more and you may get rid of some spam yes, but you will also be loosing talent, new blood and new ideas. If you make the forum and "old boys club" that is what you will get, old boys taking about old topics and eventually becoming irrelevant.

[orkoso]

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

This has been already implemented. There was a time, where minimum required post count was 100 in order to get paid. It was one of the reason for spamming but by the time it was reduced to 20 to 25 post per week. It would not be feasible to the projects who runs these campaign to promote their project; if you further reduce the post counts to 10 per week then it will affect their promotion.

I am not going to say names, but there are two campaigns right now that ask for 50 and 100 posts minimun. 20 posts is three a day (roughly) I honestly doubt that many members here have three relevant and well thought things to say a day. Even two.

[Adioliver]

IMHO and in many peoples opinion, many one of the main sources of spams are Signatures Campaigns. I am not in favour of suppressing these because they do provided finance and develop the world of cryptocurrencies.

I do participate on these campaigns because I can support a project that I like or think is good for the community and get a few tokens along the way, even if sometimes they are worth nothing  

However, many of the campaigns set a minimum of posts that I have to make a week. Some of these ask for 20 posts a week, so I am faced with the dilemma of either having to say no to a campaign that I really like or having to post on low quality threads without much interest.

I know that many people here would say that I should not take the campaign,  but that is not a good solution as I do want to promote the projects I like.

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

Any new campaign on the forum would have to follow this rule or risk not being accepted / be banned / muted.

Yeah your thought is good but won't the signature campaigns be at loss if they instruct their participants to post only 7-10 posts a week?. There are numerous signature campaign nowadays and in the fight of promoting themselves it is a necessity for them that each participant posts around 20-30 posts weekly.And this eventually leads to the increase in the number of spammers.But now i believe that we can rest this case as the new merit system has been introduced in bitcointalk.Now people won't be able to rank up unless and until they contribute some good and substantial posts to the forum.I guess even signature campaign participants would now be judged upon their merits.

[LTU_btc]

If you can't make 20 good quality posts per week, you shouldn't join that campaign. I don't see many reasons to limit max number of posts because there are enough users who can reach required number of posts without spamming. And if number of posts would be reduced, these campaigns will become not effective because with less posts they get much less visibility. 20-30 is not that much, because as said above some campaigns asking to make even 100 posts. To reach it, users have to posts absolute garbage.
But I think something has to be done to regulate bounty campaigns. If there are lot of spammers in campaign and campaign manager aren't doing hos job properly, then mods just delete campaign thread and project loise right to advertise on bitcointalk via signature campaigns.

[francojon]

IMHO and in many peoples opinion, many one of the main sources of spams are Signatures Campaigns. I am not in favour of suppressing these because they do provided finance and develop the world of cryptocurrencies.

I do participate on these campaigns because I can support a project that I like or think is good for the community and get a few tokens along the way, even if sometimes they are worth nothing  

However, many of the campaigns set a minimum of posts that I have to make a week. Some of these ask for 20 posts a week, so I am faced with the dilemma of either having to say no to a campaign that I really like or having to post on low quality threads without much interest.

I know that many people here would say that I should not take the campaign,  but that is not a good solution as I do want to promote the projects I like.

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

Any new campaign on the forum would have to follow this rule or risk not being accepted / be banned / muted.

Yeah your thought is good but won't the signature campaigns be at loss if they instruct their participants to post only 7-10 posts a week?. There are numerous signature campaign nowadays and in the fight of promoting themselves it is a necessity for them that each participant posts around 20-30 posts weekly.And this eventually leads to the increase in the number of spammers.But now i believe that we can rest this case as the new merit system has been introduced in bitcointalk.Now people won't be able to rank up unless and until they contribute some good and substantial posts to the forum.I guess even signature campaign participants would now be judged upon their merits.

If they all get the same rules the gaming field is levelled for every one.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

This has been already implemented. There was a time, where minimum required post count was 100 in order to get paid. It was one of the reason for spamming but by the time it was reduced to 20 to 25 post per week. It would not be feasible to the projects who runs these campaign to promote their project; if you further reduce the post counts to 10 per week then it will affect their promotion.

I am not going to say names, but there are two campaigns right now that ask for 50 and 100 posts minimun. 20 posts is three a day (roughly) I honestly doubt that many members here have three relevant and well thought things to say a day. Even two.

Dude, I used to belong to the old Yobit campaign, and not only could you make 20 posts/day max, but they paid out within hours of you making your posts.  It was fantastic!  And I don't recall there being a character minimum, either.  As you can imagine, Yobit attracted some of the shittiest posters on bitcointalk, and a lot of their output was one-line shitposts.  But damn, that was a fun campaign and it was my first.

The problem, OP, is the question of who is going to be requiring those maximums?  You sure as hell can't count on lousy campaign managers to do it, like the altcoin ones.  And Theymos is benefiting from this whole thing, so he isn't going to do it.  It's a good idea, but there's no way it's going to get implemented.

[orkoso]

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

This has been already implemented. There was a time, where minimum required post count was 100 in order to get paid. It was one of the reason for spamming but by the time it was reduced to 20 to 25 post per week. It would not be feasible to the projects who runs these campaign to promote their project; if you further reduce the post counts to 10 per week then it will affect their promotion.

I am not going to say names, but there are two campaigns right now that ask for 50 and 100 posts minimun. 20 posts is three a day (roughly) I honestly doubt that many members here have three relevant and well thought things to say a day. Even two.

Dude, I used to belong to the old Yobit campaign, and not only could you make 20 posts/day max, but they paid out within hours of you making your posts.  It was fantastic!  And I don't recall there being a character minimum, either.  As you can imagine, Yobit attracted some of the shittiest posters on bitcointalk, and a lot of their output was one-line shitposts.  But damn, that was a fun campaign and it was my first.

The problem, OP, is the question of who is going to be requiring those maximums?  You sure as hell can't count on lousy campaign managers to do it, like the altcoin ones.  And Theymos is benefiting from this whole thing, so he isn't going to do it.  It's a good idea, but there's no way it's going to get implemented.

I don´t see why theymos nor any other admin would have less benefit frankly, there would simply be less posts, but the balance would be the same. It would be very easy to setup a way of reporting non-compliance and the campaigns admins would be the first ones to name non-compliant competitors.

[minifrij]

- Campaigns done properly bring funds to the crypto community and support the value of Bitcoin since it is paired with alts in markets.

Correct. The issue comes when campaigns aren't done properly, which a significant amount of campaigns on this forum aren't.
If I open a ballpit and the majority of people that use it piss in it, I'm just going to close the ballpit. The 'get rid of signatures' argument is in the same vein.

- You would be ignoring the real trend in crypto (see the dominance graph). Do you notice that Bitcoin is no more than 36% of the total value?

Which is completely irrelevant on a forum called Bitcointalk. If a community is about something specific, it doesn't matter how much or little popularity that thing has.

But above all, you would be harming the value of this forum. Alts are no longer "alts", they are as relevant to the cryptocommunity as Bitcoin if not more and you may get rid of some spam yes, but you will also be loosing talent, new blood and new ideas. If you make the forum and "old boys club" that is what you will get, old boys taking about old topics and eventually becoming irrelevant.

I think you're taking what Jet Cash said too literally. From my interpretation he wasn't saying that anything that deviates from Bitcoin is wrong and should be left out, but that the huge amount of useless vapid shit being posted as a result of those abusing campaigns should stop. While Bitcointalk is about Bitcoin primarily, I don't think many would argue that having a section for alts is a particularly bad thing (providing it isn't abused).

[orkoso]

Which is completely irrelevant on a forum called Bitcointalk. If a community is about something specific, it doesn't matter how much or little popularity that thing has.

Bitcoin is not a separate entity any more, and the forum and the coin would only suffer by trying to pretend so. It seems that more than ever it is required to avoid living in the past and acknowledging that the competence is here to stay and is strong.

[iluvbitcoins]

Although all of this makes sense, it's probably not necessary anymore with the merit system implemented.
Also, this is the reason the campaign I'm leading doesn't pay for making more than 30 posts.
I will update some things this Thursday, I'll require that not more than 50% of the posts are made in 1 day (with exceptions, if the post count is low or the posts are generally constructive), so the premise remains the same.

[cho99]

I don't think that the limitation of post required for signature campaign is a good solution for limiting shit posting and improving the posts quality in the forum , the merit system should be a stimulator for people to start maybe doing a good work and high quality posts , spammers will get tired one way or another filling stuck in same rank for long time and they will start leaving the forum one by one , with this approach I believe the forum will be cleaned for real but this can take long time to be done but eventually this is the better option .

[vlom]

there are campaigns that demand more than 20 posts a week. 30 to 40 or even more.
and i too think that capping this would help.

pay per post and to maximum of x post a week.

[zlatan07]

IMHO and in many peoples opinion, many one of the main sources of spams are Signatures Campaigns. I am not in favour of suppressing these because they do provided finance and develop the world of cryptocurrencies.

I do participate on these campaigns because I can support a project that I like or think is good for the community and get a few tokens along the way, even if sometimes they are worth nothing  

However, many of the campaigns set a minimum of posts that I have to make a week. Some of these ask for 20 posts a week, so I am faced with the dilemma of either having to say no to a campaign that I really like or having to post on low quality threads without much interest.

I know that many people here would say that I should not take the campaign,  but that is not a good solution as I do want to promote the projects I like.

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

Any new campaign on the forum would have to follow this rule or risk not being accepted / be banned / muted.

That depends on campaign manager, some of them check every single post from users and they want to make sure, that user isn't shitposter. We have SMAS team and they do their job excellent and a lot of campaign managers are in coordination with them. In some hand restricting the amount of posts in sig. campaigns aren't bad but that is the decision which manager need to decide.
For me 25 to 30 max. p/week are ideal because I don't have plenty of time. I use this forum to inform myself about new updates in crypto world, but a lot of members use this forum to make some profit and they don't really care about what to post.

[bitcoin revo]

there are campaigns that demand more than 20 posts a week. 30 to 40 or even more.

That right there is what turns me wayyy off on joining standard signature campaigns. Pumping out mediocre, rushed quotas of posts just to avoid being cut on payment? No way, José. That's just encouraging the community to find more ways to have meaningless conversations to meet post quantifications. Some weeks naturally don't bring as much discussion as others.

[coolcoinz]

there are campaigns that demand more than 20 posts a week. 30 to 40 or even more.
and i too think that capping this would help.

pay per post and to maximum of x post a week.

I see no reason for that. Campaign managers are free to offer money for the amount of posts that they want to. If someone posts a sign saying $1000 to whoever jumps from my roof, will it be his fault they're jumping and breaking bones? You always have a choice!
I'm constantly in the same campaign for a year, even though it's not paying much. There were a much better ones and i chose to stay because I know that I don't have time to keep writing for 3 hours a day, every day, to meet the requirements.
If somebody joins a campaign that requires him to write 50 posts a week it's his choice, and it's his fault if he gets banned for it.

[orkoso]

IMHO and in many peoples opinion, many one of the main sources of spams are Signatures Campaigns. I am not in favour of suppressing these because they do provided finance and develop the world of cryptocurrencies.

I do participate on these campaigns because I can support a project that I like or think is good for the community and get a few tokens along the way, even if sometimes they are worth nothing  

However, many of the campaigns set a minimum of posts that I have to make a week. Some of these ask for 20 posts a week, so I am faced with the dilemma of either having to say no to a campaign that I really like or having to post on low quality threads without much interest.

I know that many people here would say that I should not take the campaign,  but that is not a good solution as I do want to promote the projects I like.

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

Any new campaign on the forum would have to follow this rule or risk not being accepted / be banned / muted.

Yeah your thought is good but won't the signature campaigns be at loss if they instruct their participants to post only 7-10 posts a week?. There are numerous signature campaign nowadays and in the fight of promoting themselves it is a necessity for them that each participant posts around 20-30 posts weekly.And this eventually leads to the increase in the number of spammers.But now i believe that we can rest this case as the new merit system has been introduced in bitcointalk.Now people won't be able to rank up unless and until they contribute some good and substantial posts to the forum.I guess even signature campaign participants would now be judged upon their merits.

If all the campaigns follow the same rules, they would all get the same level of attention and there would be less shitposting.

[orkoso]

I don't think that the limitation of post required for signature campaign is a good solution for limiting shit posting and improving the posts quality in the forum , the merit system should be a stimulator for people to start maybe doing a good work and high quality posts , spammers will get tired one way or another filling stuck in same rank for long time and they will start leaving the forum one by one , with this approach I believe the forum will be cleaned for real but this can take long time to be done but eventually this is the better option .

You have given no reason why you think that is not a good solution and furthermore you say that eventually bounty hunter will "get tired". Bet'ya wouldn't would'ya.