sig campaign- what about "1merited post per week" instead of"25 post per week"

[DdmrDdmr]

How about a harder task of 30 posts per week yet gain 2 merits from bounty managers and moderators? Just a suggestion yet managers do reviews post before giving rewards and stakes right?

Bounty Managers and Moderators do not have sMerits to award unless they are Merit Sources or have earned the merit themselves. Therefore, regardless of the idea, most of them would not even have a bucket load of sMerit to deploy the suggested option.
Even so, Moderators are not there to be complicit with Campaign Managers in helping out with their Campaigns (it should actually be the other way around; Campaign Managers should control the spamming on their Campaigns in order to help Moderators – and the forum overall).
Currently, very few Campaign Managers are leaning towards anti-spamming campaigns, although I have seen some and let’s hope it becomes a trend.

And how about adding a rule that a single shitpost would lead to no stakes? For campaign participants to take posting sriously.

That may be in the minds of anti-spamming managers, but is certainly not a general practice. I doubt that it will be an enforced Forum Campaign rule, although those Campaign Managers that align with it should have some sort of benefit (and I don’t just mean that the Campaign will be better off due to a better bearing of the ICO’s name, but something more in the line of visibility as we have discussed on another thread just this week in Meta ( The core of Bitcointalk's spam problem).

[brotherwood12]

good idea , but IMO i  think its hard to implementation , there are good post but still didnt have get merit because the limited of merit source ,also the merit source didnt always check all post

[Mind Control]

The prime purpose of signature campaign is to advertise whatever website or ICO it is. If the metric for payment is Merited post then the purpose of advertisement will be destroyed. Advertising is disseminating information about the website/ICO and the number of post is crucial. So at the end the number of post will still be counted and not the merit.

[mobilazy]

I like the idea, but probably the ICO team won't be happy with it and would fire the bounty manager. For them, quantity over quality wins. I start questioning the effectiveness of signature campaigns. Nothing caught my eye recently, I trust more some experts and do my own research later rather than clicking on some member's signature. And I can see sig campaign stakes allocation dropped significantly. So I'm not alone who think the same.

[Darth0ne]

The idea isn't bad. But I am afraid that this will make more merit abusement. People can easily merit them by alt account or friends account. Perhaps, I like the rules of Yahoo. You need a certain amount of merit to join or get a higher pay. But our manager definitely can take your idea and do an experiment once. 

[greeklogos]

Profy managers of signature campaigns do not pay for 25 shitposts at all, they mark it in their spreadsheets as usual. But as I see, your suppose about 1merited post per week, can become our future here on the forum. If we started from 5-10 earned merits to join to some of signature campaigns now we need to have from 30 to 50 earned merits to join the newest signature campaign. Who knows what is going to be in the future?!

[[As]]

good idea , but IMO i  think its hard to implementation , there are good post but still didnt have get merit because the limited of merit source ,also the merit source didnt always check all post

Sir, I agree with you, the idea is really good, it will save the forum from a "heap of garbage"! But then the bounty campaign in the Russian locale will die. To get an Merit for the posted messages in Russia locale quality of the message is not enough. =( You need a lot of luck to get Merit  in Russia locale .

[The Cryptovator]

Not bad idea. But there will some thing happen if managers implement this policy. First thing will be happen, any company will not interest for signeture campaign. Next thing even some company will agree but it will increase merit abusing. Every one will try to buy or trade merit. Sure it will happen.

I think it's best option to prevent spam is earn merit requirement for signeture campaign. I have noticed many managers already enquired that.
I hope it's very good example on LoyceV thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4675126.msg42289619#msg42289619

It's best policy for me to avoid spam.

[Squishy01]

I believe that would benefit experienced and high rank members, but I think it would be hard for full members below. Given that there are only a few sources of smerits and that they are very valuable and rare, it would be really difficult for others. However, I think that would make participants of signature campaigns more credible. It's a double-edged sword 

[taguig]

A few ideas cropped up in my mind.

1. A rule like - those who dont receive at least 5 merits during their posting period of the entire campaign will not eligible for payment - for those which are paying in bulk once campaign end.

2. Some campaign are having a minimum number of merits in order to enter them. It would be great if these people are also evaluated in future about their post quality by looking at the number of merits gained while participating in that campaign.

That would be a good idea but these Ico's will have a free campaign because we all know how hard getting a merit so if you have 20 bounty hunters in a signature and only two get a merit for entire campaign, they will just transfer to a signature campaign that does not implement this kind of rule