Is a campaign manager responsible for preventing low quality posting?

[paxmao]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the answer is yes. However there are campaigns out there in which the managers only look at the number of posts in the profiles, so it is clear that they are not bothering to read any of the posts. Should those campaigns be allowed? Does anyone know any of those campaigns?

[bigmelons25]

Those campaign managers aren't going to waste their time reading every post.  Most of them are lazy and will just look at the post count.  The people with signatures always have the worst posts. They don't even contribute to the conversation they just post for their sig campaign.

[yahoo62278]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the answer is yes. However there are campaigns out there in which the managers only look at the number of posts in the profiles, so it is clear that they are not bothering to read any of the posts. Should those campaigns be allowed? Does anyone know any of those campaigns?

If the campaign manager is only looking at the number of posts a user has when they go to grade the campaign and subtracting it from the number they had the previous week, then that manager is severely screwing over campaign participants.

The moderators have been doing an excellent job lately and deleting or locking a bunch of the mega spam threads making users posts counts change drastically throughout each week. So the managers, if they're doing their jobs correctly, should be opening each and every users profile and getting the post counts correct for each week. This also will allow them to take a glance at what a user is or has been posting.

[InvoKing]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the answer is yes. However there are campaigns out there in which the managers only look at the number of posts in the profiles, so it is clear that they are not bothering to read any of the posts. Should those campaigns be allowed? Does anyone know any of those campaigns?

99% of it? Just take a look and tell us which one wisely select its users.
Solutions :
 - enforcing SMAS or something similar or
 - banning joining applications in bitcointalk, use Google or external service or
 - manager should create a separate self moderated topic for applications (if he didn't want to use Google ofc) and manage it accordingly. First post contains links to the ANN topic and the bounty one, in addition to the inclusion criteria. Second post for the accepted ones, third post for the rejected ones. The rest of the posts have to be deleted regularly.
(selecting and regularly watching users behaviour is a must)

[hilariousetc]

Well yeah, they should be, but if there's no repercussions for those that don't do anything then why would they bother doing any work? Most are just happy collecting a pay-check for doing the minimum amount of work and all that essentially includes is paying the users as long as they've made the minimum amount of shitposts. Until there's repercussions for those that do little to nothing about their campaigns  then nothing will change.

[Welsh]

I think they should be held responsible. But, frankly giving them neutral/negative feedback isn't going to hurt them as evidenced by a few campaign managers still running campaigns even if they've pulled off something shady.

- banning joining applications in bitcointalk, use Google or external service or
 - manager should create a separate self moderated topic for applications (if he didn't want to use Google ofc) and manage it accordingly.

That only addresses signing up for campaigns though, and doesn't address the problem that some campaign managers are encouraging spam by allowing anyone to join up, and not review their posts at the end of each period.

Having said that I think it's about time that all applications are done off forum, and make that a requirement.

[seoincorporation]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the answer is yes. However there are campaigns out there in which the managers only look at the number of posts in the profiles, so it is clear that they are not bothering to read any of the posts. Should those campaigns be allowed? Does anyone know any of those campaigns?

They must, yes, and, besides, it should be far more easy to mod the campaign managers than the posters, for obvious reasons.
But, sadly, this is not happening in every campaign, at least for the moment. Anyway, most of the shitposters are related to bounties instead of signatures, but, still, there are shitposters related to signatures due to the number of posts you have to write weekly.
Notice that not all the people wearing a signature is a shitposter, as well as not all the people without any signature is a good poster.

Nevertheless, I agree with you. Campaign managers should be dedicated to mod the posts of their people in order to help to clean-up the forum.  But, for the moment, there's not such a requirement, I'm afraid.

[mu_enrico]

For 10 posts a week (or less), I don't find it significantly impact junk post because we will get 10 posts anyway except really busy IRL. The real danger is when the campaign demand more posts and/or stakes based on post counts.

Notice that not all the people wearing a signature is a shitposter, as well as not all the people without any signature is a good poster.

This!

[Welsh]

For 10 posts a week (or less), I don't find it significantly impact junk post because we will get 10 posts anyway except really busy IRL. The real danger is when the campaign demand more posts and/or stakes based on post counts.

You would think that people getting paid to post would at least take some time in their replies and make a thoughtful post. But, it's just too easy. The criteria is way too low, and I do understand that the more people, and more posts the better advertising. But, if it were me who brought out something worth advertising I would want to best quality posters rather than hiring a bunch of Jr Members who have only ever posted in off topic and spam megathreads.

[suchmoon]

For 10 posts a week (or less), I don't find it significantly impact junk post because we will get 10 posts anyway except really busy IRL. The real danger is when the campaign demand more posts and/or stakes based on post counts.

You would think that people getting paid to post would at least take some time in their replies and make a thoughtful post. But, it's just too easy. The criteria is way too low, and I do understand that the more people, and more posts the better advertising. But, if it were me who brought out something worth advertising I would want to best quality posters rather than hiring a bunch of Jr Members who have only ever posted in off topic and spam megathreads.

Seeing the stuff that gets advertised here - they probably want the opposite. It's the same reason why Nigerian scam e-mails are written in horribly broken English. Someone dumb enough to fall for such e-mails is a perfect mark. Someone dumb enough to click on some shitcoining ICO ad under an incomprehensible Google-translated word salad is a perfect "investor" for said ICO.

I wouldn't mind if theymos strong-armed the campaign managers into some sort of responsibility. Probably not gonna happen though.

[Emilyp]

Most mangers check the post itself not only the number. For example in AmaZix signature campaigns, there is always a comment for low post quality and also people are always advised to improve on their post quality. If you've noticed, not all who register for signature campaign actually get rewarded due to post quality check.

[Tynovten_]

Thing that really waste of time, even i've ever reportedo people that used my account wrong but i got no respon at all from the bounty manager. But it just 1 bounty manager that did it from many more that i following. Mr. Sylon is one of the bounty manager that active in finishing the problem of the bounty hunters.

[TheHas]

Yes they should be - but I doubt much will change since the incentives aren't aligned.

The current incentive structure supports both the 'bad' poster side, and the campaign manager side. The campaign manager wants to get maximum payment for 'managing' a bounty campaign with minimal effort. This means skimming through posts or not reviewing at all, and causing as little fuss as possible.

The poster wants to get their minimum 'constructive' post count up, which usually means lots of words with not much substance.

The people who are actually missing out are the ICO's providing the bounty, who probably want to be affiliated with high quality posts instead of low quality. So perhaps the solution is to support those active bounty campaign managers who do their job properly and filter out spam posters.

[r1s2g3]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the answer is yes. However there are campaigns out there in which the managers only look at the number of posts in the profiles, so it is clear that they are not bothering to read any of the posts. Should those campaigns be allowed? Does anyone know any of those campaigns?

When 90% of coins are scam and every token/coin has no monetary value until it hits an exchange, it is free promotion for the company.  If there ICO is success then you don't mind in giving 2% of token as advertisement budget, if it is failure, company is still giving its own worthless token.

Manager can help in preventing spam but I think the exact requirement of companies is to get as much advertisement as possible, so they will allow anybody (whether that person spam) because its cost to company is still  0.

I think if it  become rule that all bounties will be paid in bitcoins only (or any established list of Altcoins.) , I assure you then you find these managers more proactive, most stringent and will be automatically dropping the spammers from their campaigns.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Well yeah, they should be, but if there's no repercussions for those that don't do anything then why would they bother doing any work? Most are just happy collecting a pay-check for doing the minimum amount of work and all that essentially includes is paying the users as long as they've made the minimum amount of shitposts. Until there's repercussions for those that do little to nothing about their campaigns  then nothing will change.

I don’t understand why Theymos hasn’t wanted to punish bad managers. First he came up with the serious discussion boards, then, the merit system, and he finally said that if the merit system didn’t work out, he could even remove signatures completely, but he was never considering what would be for me the most direct and easy way to deal with the problem.

[demonic098]

They should ensure the post quality made by their participants. Because participants represents the ICOs name. Who will invest on an ICO promoted by a spammer .
Even if it hits the number of characters it should be still meaningful if it's not then it shouldn't be counted .

PS:
Is there anyone reading a megaspam thread from page 1 to last? Do a member still reads after reading a 2 page rephrased replies? No right? Posts from a megaspam thread shouldn't be counted it's just a waste of money because very few members saw it's ad.

[vlad230]

Unfortunately there are a lot of shit campaign managers on this forum that don't have a clue on what they're doing and don't care to invest time for quality to increase.

I would avoid such campaigns and go for campaigns that encourage quality.

[Zackgeno96]

Yes, if they are running away from from their responsibilities. It is their task to check the post quality and if it is not up to the mark then that user should be kicked out of the campaign and should not receive the payment. This will help to create the awareness among such users and they will be forced to post quality post.

[Welsh]

They should ensure the post quality made by their participants. Because participants represents the ICOs name. Who will invest on an ICO promoted by a spammer .
Even if it hits the number of characters it should be still meaningful if it's not then it shouldn't be counted .

PS:
Is there anyone reading a megaspam thread from page 1 to last? Do a member still reads after reading a 2 page rephrased replies? No right? Posts from a megaspam thread shouldn't be counted it's just a waste of money because very few members saw it's ad.

Take a look at suchmoon's reply above to get an idea why it does work, and why they aren't too bothered by quality only quantity.

PS:
Is there anyone reading a megaspam thread from page 1 to last? Do a member still reads after reading a 2 page rephrased replies? No right? Posts from a megaspam thread shouldn't be counted it's just a waste of money because very few members saw it's ad.

No, I highly doubt that anyone posting in spam megathreads have read even half of the pages let alone the whole thing. AFAIK most campaign managers have it in their terms that posting in such threads will not count towards post count. Although,  whether that's enforced or not is another thing. Especially, when looking at the bounty managers as they seem to have zero rules, and zero moderation over their campaigns.

[mu_enrico]

You would think that people getting paid to post would at least take some time in their replies and make a thoughtful post. But, it's just too easy. The criteria is way too low, and I do understand that the more people, and more posts the better advertising. But, if it were me who brought out something worth advertising I would want to best quality posters rather than hiring a bunch of Jr Members who have only ever posted in off topic and spam megathreads.

Probably I'm just too naive to assume that 10 posts are easy for everyone with limited English and limited understanding about bitcoin. I found that many generic threads, such as: bitcoin price, altcoin price, my portfolio, etc. are the culprits. Maybe campaign managers should look at this issue.

Seeing the stuff that gets advertised here - they probably want the opposite. It's the same reason why Nigerian scam e-mails are written in horribly broken English. Someone dumb enough to fall for such e-mails is a perfect mark. Someone dumb enough to click on some shitcoining ICO ad under an incomprehensible Google-translated word salad is a perfect "investor" for said ICO.

I wouldn't mind if theymos strong-armed the campaign managers into some sort of responsibility. Probably not gonna happen though.

Indeed, campaign managers should be punished for promoting scam ICOs. I still remember Benebit was promoted in this forum. I have this hunch that maybe seniors here already designed new rules, we're just not being informed yet.