WHY COMPLAIN OF SHIT POSTING?

[gantez]

I don't think it is logical that the complain of shit posting should get to the roof. My candid reason is that we are the architect of it all. By "we" , I'm trying to be subtle and modest in my position.

The signature campaigns or maybe the managers are the first culprit because when requirement for post per week is placed high, what do you expect?

Some campaign require as much as 40 post per week to be eligible for payment while some have been running for months with 50/60 maximum post (per week) - I mean, even where you state 10/15 minimum and we will pay 60 maximum, it becomes a 'dog race without nor direction'.

I also think that 30 post  with 200 words is challenging. In other words, I have  observed that a certain manager keeps it 'moderate' at 25 post per week and that can work.

However, I don't intend to hype any manager (that was why I left out names and campaigns) but to profer and project an advise on how shit posting can be curtailed.

My advise therefore is that, 25 post can help especially with the merit regime.

[actmyname]

Then don't participate in signature campaigns at all.
Or alternatively, you can try to avoid signature campaigns with high post requirements (I prefer such campaigns, i.e. ChipMixer).If, however, you view signature campaigns as a sort of 'job' then you should be putting in the time to correspond to that ideology. As in, it shouldn't take you an hour to do all your posts for the week.

I don't see the problem with having a minimum post count of 10/15 and a capped one. Post counts can deviate each week and thus some weeks, a user may post more often than in other weeks. So long as the minimum is not excessively high, you avoid forcing users to post more often than they are comfortable with. (However, again, users are not forced to join campaigns [or even post while in one!])This thread should also belong in either Meta or Service Discussion. I don't think it should be in this section.

[krishnaverma]

The signature campaigns or maybe the managers are the first culprit because when requirement for post per week is placed high, what do you expect?

Some campaign require as much as 40 post per week to be eligible for payment while some have been running for months with 50/60 maximum post (per week) - I mean, even where you state 10/15 minimum and we will pay 60 maximum, it becomes a 'dog race without nor direction'.

They require you to make those number of posts, it does not mean that you can post anything you want to. Since you are being paid for all these posts (per post) or a fixed amount per week, you should not try to escape from the effort required to make some sense with those posts.

Edit: Also 60 is maximum, minimum is 15 for payment.

[hilariousetc]

As above, if you can't meet their terms in a sufficient and acceptable manner then don't join that campaign. This is like taking on a job that you aren't qualified or don't have the time and energy to do. My campaign is 50 posts per week but that's maximum. Sometimes I easily do it sometimes I don't even make the 50 but I don't force myself to shitpost just to hit the quota. Fifty a week isn't unreasonable either and some people could probably make 50 great posts in a day so limiting it will do no good and will likely just encourage multi accounters to use more of their alts to take advantage of the restrictions. I agree that more weight should be placed on campaigns who either don't do their job properly or make unreasonable demands but nobody is forcing you to join any campaign in the first place.

[gantez]

The signature campaigns or maybe the managers are the first culprit because when requirement for post per week is placed high, what do you expect?

Some campaign require as much as 40 post per week to be eligible for payment while some have been running for months with 50/60 maximum post (per week) - I mean, even where you state 10/15 minimum and we will pay 60 maximum, it becomes a 'dog race without nor direction'.

They require you to make those number of posts, it does not mean that you can post anything you want to. Since you are being paid for all these posts (per post) or a fixed amount per week, you should not try to escape from the effort required to make some sense with those posts.

Edit: Also 60 is maximum, minimum is 15 for payment.

I really appreciate your response and direction. I just made a liberal post which is suggestive of one of the reasons/issues of shit posting. I didn't exactly say that participants can't meet up with such volume post but what happens along the line to meeting up?

"Edit: Also 60 is maximum, minimum is 15 for payment".... Because of the option of 50/60 participants will stretch their capacity and make shit post. This is just my opinion.

[Tyrantt]

I would have go disagree. 60 posts per month are not that hard, that's like 3 posts per day and you can have 50% more posts than max, also unline weekly campaigns where you have 30 posts of a minimum it's much harder, also with 2 posts per day you can write really constructive and quality posts.

Second, I've started writing posts wthout even noticing the lenght and how much posts I've actually posted, don't try to chase the numbers of signature campaigns, try to find topics you know about and/or are interested in. You won't even notice the lenght and the number of posts.

[Thirio]

I don't think it is logical that the complain of shit posting should get to the roof. My candid reason is that we are the architect of it all. By "we" , I'm trying to be subtle and modest in my position.

The signature campaigns or maybe the managers are the first culprit because when requirement for post per week is placed high, what do you expect?

Some campaign require as much as 40 post per week to be eligible for payment while some have been running for months with 50/60 maximum post (per week) - I mean, even where you state 10/15 minimum and we will pay 60 maximum, it becomes a 'dog race without nor direction'.

I also think that 30 post  with 200 words is challenging. In other words, I have  observed that a certain manager keeps it 'moderate' at 25 post per week and that can work.

However, I don't intend to hype any manager (that was why I left out names and campaigns) but to profer and project an advise on how shit posting can be curtailed.

My advise therefore is that, 25 post can help especially with the merit regime.

I dont think why not. First off, this is a forum and what does a forum mean?  It is a place or opportunity for discussing a subject.

There will be no discussion of subject if every post is a shit post, if the majority of posts are made just to complete their signature campaigns. There's nothing wrong with 25+ posts per week if the posts are sensible, healthy and relevant to the topic. It would actually be better if that's the case.

[TMAN]

I don't think it is logical that the complain of shit posting should get to the roof. My candid reason is that we are the architect of it all. By "we" , I'm trying to be subtle and modest in my position.

The signature campaigns or maybe the managers are the first culprit because when requirement for post per week is placed high, what do you expect?

Some campaign require as much as 40 post per week to be eligible for payment while some have been running for months with 50/60 maximum post (per week) - I mean, even where you state 10/15 minimum and we will pay 60 maximum, it becomes a 'dog race without nor direction'.

I also think that 30 post  with 200 words is challenging. In other words, I have  observed that a certain manager keeps it 'moderate' at 25 post per week and that can work.

However, I don't intend to hype any manager (that was why I left out names and campaigns) but to profer and project an advise on how shit posting can be curtailed.

My advise therefore is that, 25 post can help especially with the merit regime.

you are a shitposter..

why? because your English is poor and you are here to only get money from campaigns.. you are the cancer of this forum and why the merit system has been integrated