The Disconnect Between Bounty Campaigns and the Goal to Improve Post Quality

[AshCoins]

Obviously with the new merit system, the site administrators are aiming to minimize spam and/or worthless posts and increase quality posts that encourage discussion.  Well as I was recently looking for a new bounty campaign to participate in, I noticed more and more of these programs have changed their requirements from the historical 10 posts/week to now 15 posts/week.  Obviously this encourages low quality posts as I think it’s near impossible for someone to come up with 15 thoughtful posts per week, in particular as the bounties require all posts to be in the Altcoins section.

If the goal of the site is to improve post quality, there really needs to be restrictions on these bounty programs.  A limit on weekly post requirements for one and perhaps also standardized minimum character requirements that are higher than the 50-70 character requirements of most bounties. 

I’m positive if bounty guidelines were set so that no campaign can require more than 5 posts per week and a minimum of say 100 characters, the quality of discussion in the growing alt boards would signicantly improve.

[1714674041]

1714674041

[1714674041]

1714674041

[Myrik_BY]

The idea is worthy of discussion.
But personally I have no problems with writing 15 quality posts.

[TryNinja]

Obviously with the new merit system, the site administrators are aiming to minimize spam and/or worthless posts and increase quality posts that encourage discussion.  Well as I was recently looking for a new bounty campaign to participate in, I noticed more and more of these programs have changed their requirements from the historical 10 posts/week to now 15 posts/week.  Obviously this encourages low quality posts as I think it’s near impossible for someone to come up with 15 thoughtful posts per week, in particular as the bounties require all posts to be in the Altcoins section.

You can easily do 15 or more thoughtful posts per week without spamming. IMO that's not the issue.

If the goal of the site is to improve post quality, there really needs to be restrictions on these bounty programs.  A limit on weekly post requirements for one and perhaps also standardized minimum character requirements that are higher than the 50-70 character requirements of most bounties.

I’m positive if bounty guidelines were set so that no campaign can require more than 5 posts per week and a minimum of say 100 characters, the quality of discussion in the growing alt boards would signicantly improve.

Quality =/= Quantity. Increasing the number of characters won't do anything. Spammers will start writing even more nonsense to make their text bigger. There are better ways of solving the spam caused by ICO/altcoins bounties, such as:

1. Only allow trusted and pre-approved campaign managers - who won't tolerate spam - to manage bounties/campaigns. There are way too many managers who don't give a shit about what their users are posting and will pay them anyway.
2. Only allow pre-approved campaigns.
3. Charge a fee if you want to create a campaign in the forum.

[Welsh]

15 quality posts is most definitely obtainable and a lot of users are already doing this and more. In fact I'm quite surprised that they don't require more posts.  The way the campaigns/bounties are structured isn't the issue in my opinion, besides the fact that they require a minimum character count there isn't too much wrong with the requirements that these normally set.

It's more that the managers don't mind if the posts are quality or not they only need to appear they are by being long, but quantity doesn't equal quality. The only way I see this being dealt with is if the campaign/bounty managers are held partly responsible for the spam, or like TryNinja stated above only approved managers are allowed to run campaigns.

[Mevz]

Obviously with the new merit system, the site administrators are aiming to minimize spam and/or worthless posts and increase quality posts that encourage discussion.  Well as I was recently looking for a new bounty campaign to participate in, I noticed more and more of these programs have changed their requirements from the historical 10 posts/week to now 15 posts/week.  Obviously this encourages low quality posts as I think it’s near impossible for someone to come up with 15 thoughtful posts per week, in particular as the bounties require all posts to be in the Altcoins section.

I think the managers should change this rule. 15 posts is not hard to make but make it only on a particular section like the altcoins section is not a good idea. Its really hard to find good topics on that board like the speculation, altcoin discussion, because that section is a full of spam and repeated replies and topics.

[btc-facebook]

That's true , the more post they made, the less quality post they can made *mostly
Let's take an example bitmixer, they have no minimal post and they offer quite high pay rate , with the great manager who can handle, the bitmixer's poster quality will increase !

Well if you talk about bounty section , there are ton of them and it's way to difficult to maintain, IMO

[Cobalt9317]

3. Charge a fee if you want to create a campaign in the forum.

This will be a good idea but hard to implement, if someone wants to run a campaign that person has to pay for a little contribution of the server memory, let's just say a minimum of 0.10Bitcoin per month duration of the said campaign would be a good idea.
But users who joined in that campaign would also need to post a 300 minimum of characters because the person behind the campaign want it that way which conflict every thought I knew about running a campaign the smart way.

[Jet Cash]

15 posts? I can do that over a coffee as long as there are enough interesting threads.

Who cares what these bounty programmes require as long as they restrict posting to the alt boards.

[Welsh]

3. Charge a fee if you want to create a campaign in the forum.

This will be a good idea but hard to implement, if someone wants to run a campaign that person has to pay for a little contribution of the server memory, let's just say a minimum of 0.10Bitcoin per month duration of the said campaign would be a good idea.
But users who joined in that campaign would also need to post a 300 minimum of characters because the person behind the campaign want it that way which conflict every thought I knew about running a campaign the smart way.

0.1 per month? That's a lot even for an established company, many altcoins and ICOs don't have this sort of pulling power. Yes, there will be a few which can afford it, and justify paying that amount but a lot of the projects out there are only just getting off the ground. I think payment for having a alt annoucement thread/bounty should be looked into but, certainly not 0.1 per month.

Believe it or not there's actually some interesting projects that are being launched, and restricting users by a very large amount per month would just mean that big projects are the only one's which will be noticed. There needs to be a middle ground to assure that both established and start ups can get their foot in the door, but a way to prevent the spam we are currently getting.

[fxstrike]

Just put some % of their coins/token distribution for bitcointalk upkeep, once their coins/token successfully launched they convert it to BTC and send to bitcointalk BTC contribution/donation address

[LogitechMouse]

I have no problem in the signature campaigns that requires us to post 15 posts per week and in fact, I can post 15 posts in just a few hours only if I want to.

There is no problem with it for me and 15 per week is too low for me only. Maybe the characters within the post is the one the campaign managers need to adjust not the number of posts.

[digaran]

Just put some % of their coins/token distribution for bitcointalk upkeep, once their coins/token successfully launched they convert it to BTC and send to bitcointalk BTC contribution/donation address

What if their project wasn't successful?
 

I have no problem in the signature campaigns that requires us to post 15 posts per week and in fact, I can post 15 posts in just a few hours only if I want to.

There is no problem with it for me and 15 per week is too low for me only. Maybe the characters within the post is the one the campaign managers need to adjust not the number of posts.

They have 15 posts requirement because they know that nobody is interested to participate other than alt accounts.

The only way I see this being dealt with is if the campaign/bounty managers are held partly responsible for the spam, or like TryNinja stated above only approved managers are allowed to run campaigns.

How would you hold managers responsible or approve them?
Nobody would join a bounty if they have to pay a small fee per post. if you are going to pay your participants at the end of your ICO. nobody would join if the forum is charging them a fee per post.

[alisafidel58]

1. Only allow trusted and pre-approved campaign managers - who won't tolerate spam - to manage bounties/campaigns. There are way too many managers who don't give a shit about what their users are posting and will pay them anyway.

How much do you think a "trusted" campaign manager is worth? There is a competition when it comes to fees. Even if you are "trusted" but you cost more than the other managers then the chances are, you wont get the project. The fact that there are hundreds of bounty campaign in the alt section, do you think "trusted" managers can handle them all?

2. Only allow pre-approved campaigns.

That is definitely a censorship. "Democracy".

3. Charge a fee if you want to create a campaign in the forum.

Not a viable solution. I think even "trusted" managers wont approve this.

[squatter]

15 quality posts is most definitely obtainable and a lot of users are already doing this and more. In fact I'm quite surprised that they don't require more posts.

At what point does it become unreasonable? Requiring 30 per week? 50? More? I do think these posting requirements fundamentally change the idea of "getting paid to post stuff you would have anyway."

These posting quotas remind me of the ticket quotas that American police have. At the end of the month, it's very easy to get a traffic ticket because the police are required to issue a certain number of tickets regardless of actual infractions.

The parallel here is that posters spam at the end of the week because they are required to...

1. Only allow trusted and pre-approved campaign managers - who won't tolerate spam - to manage bounties/campaigns. There are way too many managers who don't give a shit about what their users are posting and will pay them anyway.
2. Only allow pre-approved campaigns.

Whitelisting is a huge time suck for everyone involved and introduces all sorts of centralized trust. I think Default Trust is a horrible system already, riddled with conflicts of interest. Establishing "trusted" managers and "trusted" campaigns would just expand on that.

Free markets and forum guidelines/moderation that actually address spam: yes.
Centralized trust and gatekeeping in the marketplace: no.