RANK & MERIT-BASED Signature Campaigns (an attempt)

[gawer33]

it will be fair an excellent poster (the one getting a lot of merits)is a sign of good communicator and competency, they deserve more. anyways shitposter will be just ignored by the vast majority so a signature is useless. but the main problem here is more post will be created to increase their merit chance, perhaps should be:

 additional stakes= merit / number of post.

with that only competent individuals will get more stakes

new merits since campaign start / number of posts as an indicator
That was my first intuitive idea also. Then I thought about the method with which a Bounty Manager would verify this. He could check the initial Merit count when a participant applied but I didn't find an easy formula to calculate the stakes forin combination with the rank. My problem here is that if you only use Merit for the stake calculation, no one would apply for Signature Campaigns any longer (or not enough people) since right now, it's way too hard to earn Merit. Or am I too skeptical here? Did you have a look at the numbers if this could work out?

This is a great Idea in principle, but I think your numbers are a little off to start. Achieving the number of merits needed is a mighty task (I speak as someone who has a much greater number than needed so this isn't personal) working a number that starts at 5% above the base rate and then increases every month by a % or two would in my eyes work.

Managers all need to embrace a minimum standard level, and it may even be an Idea to get the managers to join a club? Where only the managers that employ a minimum standard can join - that would enable the advertisers to know that they are only employing the best standard of managers and therefore the best applicants

You are indeed a rogue result when it comes to statistics  
Do you think that the column 'ModifiedStakes' really is that off? I thought that it represents the added value for better postings pretty well. Could you maybe make an example with your percentage-based idea ?
Or do you think that it's too hard for higher ranks? It tends to favor the lower ranks a bit, true, but I didn't see this as problematic, this could be either additional motivation for lower ranks or you could easily change the BaseStakes accordingly, e.g. in a way so that lower ranks initially get only a few stakes and basically need Merit to be profitable.


The idea of a club is a good one. This would be much more require much more effort though and someone would need to coordinate this. In addition, many Bounty Managers already are in a group or a 'company' so I guess they wouldn't necessarily agree on the basics of running a campaign, or at least the would diverge in their rules/views.

My goal was (is) to find a fair approach and maybe have a spreadsheet at the end that only needs o be filled by the Bounty Manager. Maybe it's too ambitious -.-

 additional stake =  merit x A  / number of post
 the A is the amount of stake bounty managers willing to give to good posters.
they will still have the based stake based on rank.

this not related but good to reduce spam, the bounty managers must put the minimum requirement to get a stake in 1 post. if they can give 100 USD for 20 posts why not just make it 5 USD/post it's same
reward.it will help the poster to enjoy the forum without worrying about quota's and help the forum overall

[1714870310]

1714870310

[1714870310]

1714870310

[1714870310]

1714870310

[1714870310]

1714870310

[1714870310]

1714870310

[mithrim]

additional stake =  merit x A  / number of post
 the A is the amount of stake bounty managers willing to give to good posters.
they will still have the based stake based on rank.

Ah, ok, I get it now. I had a similar idea but didn't follow up on it as this method doesn't take into account that a Signature of a higher rank has more value than a lower-ranking one (ad space). So you basically would need an "A" for every rank in order to acknowledge this.
This might be too complicated though, hm, I need to think about this 

[Emilyearl]

In as much as this method could help bring some order in the forum, but it's hard to get by. It will be a lot more complicated for the managers to calculate or will it be judged on the note that one must be merited irrespective of how many merits gotten so far or will it be based on number of merit gotten?. When it's based on numbers of merits gotten, calculating the payout will be tedious.

[gawer33]

"This might be too complicated though, hm, I need to think about this  Grin"
then
modified version
 stake = ( (merit x B) / (number of post) )+ B

 B = to stake based on rank, only merit and number of post is not constant.

this was it can easily be done using spreadsheet/excel.

let say
B =
Jr. member - 2
member - 4
full member - 6
senior - 10
hero/legendary - 12

let say 1 merit and 5 post
Jr member
stake =  (1x2) /5 +2 = 2.4 stakes
hero
stake = (1x12)/5 +12 =14.4 stakes

the advantage of this post farmer will think twice to post again if they gain a merit.

[kazoubg1]

Your comments are good. But to do it they need to change their policy. They need to agree and put in place good policies to avoid sMERIT inflation. This becomes very important if it is inflationary.

[coin5haker]

It will be nice quality over quantity experiment. I think outcome won't be so bright as in advertisement quantity will win. Yes, we have examples when some funny and well-made advert getting so much attention, winning Cannes Lions and millions of views on Youtube. But the signature is not youtube and doesn't matter how interesting your post is, it won't make you ICO more successful. But having it in thousands of posts spread across the forum WILL. But let's check the results, too early to say anything.

[digaran]

What you are suggesting will only benefit account farmers more than the forum. nobody wants to pay you more money, all of the campaigns based on stakes are not paying you any thing from their own money, they are paying you with other people's money.

Expecting merits for doing a long post with graphic is not meritorious. if you really want to contribute, spam bounty managers with your OP, see what happens. paying less to members with no merits will create a market to buy merits to get more in a campaign.

[tranthidung]

What you are suggesting will only benefit account farmers more than the forum. nobody wants to pay you more money, all of the campaigns based on stakes are not paying you any thing from their own money, they are paying you with other people's money.

Expecting merits for doing a long post with graphic is not meritorious. if you really want to contribute, spam bounty managers with your OP, see what happens. paying less to members with no merits will create a market to buy merits to get more in a campaign.

Merit exchanges have occured (and it is not strange due to basic human instinct) regardless of campaigns required merits to get higher payments or not. Simply because lower ranked users need merits to rank up (particularly shit-posters who are unable to write high-quality posts and will never get merits by themselves). Merit exchanges are very popular in local boards (I saw lots of users pointed Russian out as the local board massively abused merit system).
I strongly support ideas of signature campaigns to pay higher rewards for users who meet their merit requirements.

[Pancheng]

I wish that bounty manager could also award merits for every member at the end of the campaign, base of course also in stakes like at least we could get one or two merit at the end of the ICO hahaha no need to modified the forum rules.

[motienvolam]

I wish that bounty manager could also award merits for every member at the end of the campaign, base of course also in stakes like at least we could get one or two merit at the end of the ICO hahaha no need to modified the forum rules.

NO! Definitely no campaigns will do it because there are scarce sMerits to give away. Furthermore, campaign managers mostly don't have too much sMerits to send and if they have abundant merits, doing this as bonus campaign rewards will violates future rules of the forum (if someone start a campaign like this, Theymos will do something to control for sure).
Only shit supporters hope that there will be merit-awarded campaigns in the forum. (of course, I do know that there is a campaign like this, but this one is really good with its original purposes which mainly motivates it supporters to contribute to the forum and forum users, not simply for money and merits).
Joe's Signatureless Challenge: Win $25 ($10 for 2nd) + 8 Merits every week!

[sitnikov]

I wish that bounty manager could also award merits for every member at the end of the campaign, base of course also in stakes like at least we could get one or two merit at the end of the ICO hahaha no need to modified the forum rules.

So far I had not got merits for my post from my campaign manager. But all members who are enrolled in signature campaigns have this advantage for sure. They have all their posts being read by a senior member here (who might be having good number of merits). There is definitely a strong possibility that he will give you a merit if you had made a very helpful post. Regarding giving merits to all applicants at the end of campaign, this will affect the forum. We will see a lot of new accounts applying in hope of getting those free merits.

[mithrim]

paying less to members with no merits will create a market to buy merits to get more in a campaign.

You are aware that this already is the case, right? You only rank up with enough Merit and the higher the rank the more stakes.

My suggestion aims towards a more constant reward for continuously posting quality, as this is something that now isn't rewarded directly and creates the situation that members see no benefit* in posting really good posts as the gap between ranks (in terms of Merit) can be so high that they might never rank up. It's all about incentive.
(*I'm aware some will argue that those members shouldn't be here in the first place, but that's not the point here)

I wish that bounty manager could also award merits for every member at the end of the campaign, base of course also in stakes like at least we could get one or two merit at the end of the ICO hahaha no need to modified the forum rules.

This would totally defeat the purpose of Merit

modified version
 stake = ( (merit x B) / (number of post) )+ B

 B = to stake based on rank, only merit and number of post is not constant.

this was it can easily be done using spreadsheet/excel.

let say
B =
Jr. member - 2
member - 4
full member - 6
senior - 10
hero/legendary - 12

let say 1 merit and 5 post
Jr member
stake =  (1x2) /5 +2 = 2.4 stakes
hero
stake = (1x12)/5 +12 =14.4 stakes

That sounds interesting. So you'd also use the Merit earned since the start of the campaign in order to calculate it?
The problem I see with this is that a Member could 'easily' get more stakes than a Hero Member:

B =
Member - 4
Hero/Legendary - 12

let say:

Member: 15 Merit and 5 posts
Hero: 1 Merit and 5 posts

Member stake =  (15x4) /5 +4 = 16 stakes
Hero stake = (1x12)/5 +12 =14.4 stakes


The problem here is that a Hero/Legendary Signature is much more worth in terms of ad space, even if he never even gets Merit but makes his posts.
I think that getting more stakes as someone 1 rank higher than you should be doable, but 2 ranks higher should be only possible in the rarest of cases as their Signature is much more worth for a campaign.

[MagicSmoker]

Like @TMAN, I also think your numbers are a little off, but in a different direction. It takes 10 merit to be a member and that gets you 15 base stakes, while it takes 100 merit to be a full member but that only gets you 30 base stakes. If the idea is to not unduly reward people who attained their rank by merely registering earlier and (shit or not) posting frequently then a better approach would be to increase the bonus from awarded merit as you go up in rank.

NB - I was contemplating a similar idea, but you beat me to the punch and, well, I can admit you did a better job of presenting your idea than I would have done. So you win by default, without even knowing there was a match on! 

[mithrim]

Like @TMAN, I also think your numbers are a little off, but in a different direction. It takes 10 merit to be a member and that gets you 15 base stakes, while it takes 100 merit to be a full member but that only gets you 30 base stakes. If the idea is to not unduly reward people who attained their rank by merely registering earlier and (shit or not) posting frequently then a better approach would be to increase the bonus from awarded merit as you go up in rank.

NB - I was contemplating a similar idea, but you beat me to the punch and, well, I can admit you did a better job of presenting your idea than I would have done. So you win by default, without even knowing there was a match on!  

The distribution of BaseStakes per Rank is just an example. You could also do something like:

Jr. Members: 2 Stakes
Members: 5 Stakes
Full Members: 10 Stakes
Sr. Members: 20 Stakes
Hero/Legendary: 30 Stakes

Taken from a campaign that is running right now. It's only to illustrate the way Rank & Merit can go hand in hand when it comes to the calculation of stakes.
I'm looking for an easy way to incorporate the use of Merit while no completely changing the way campaigns work as it's not that easy to change things that are established. Another reason is that the current system is the reference for bounty managers, meaning if you change it too drastically they have no data to rely on and it's harder for them to plan the campaign.

If your idea is similar, maybe they complement each other as mine is just a suggestion and I don't know if it works until someone tries it