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

[figmentofmyass]

the bottom line is that merit is highly subjective. it's the prerogative of the advertisers how they want to incentivize posters, but i'd personally avoid any campaign that used merit instead of post quality to deny payment.

Nobody read those shitposters in megathreads

Google reads them.

indeed. i get the impression that some campaigns are mostly intended for google results, not forum impressions or clicks. dealing with that kind of motive is a whole different can of worms.

So kill the root of the problem, instead of adding some other rule. I don't count any megathread posts, guitarplinker didn't when Rollin.io's campaign was running, and I'm guessing some other managers do as well. If all managers do this, then things would be fine, without needing to heavily change up how campaigns work, and open up new avenues of abuse.

but how do you get all managers to do this?

[DarkStar_]

So kill the root of the problem, instead of adding some other rule. I don't count any megathread posts, guitarplinker didn't when Rollin.io's campaign was running, and I'm guessing some other managers do as well. If all managers do this, then things would be fine, without needing to heavily change up how campaigns work, and open up new avenues of abuse.

but how do you get all managers to do this?

The same way you get all managers to require 1 merited post per week. You don't, without theymos making some changes.

[Silent26]

Nobody read those shitposters in megathreads

So kill the root of the problem, instead of adding some other rule.

The only solution that I can see to avoid these "shitposting" in Megathreads is, Delete all Megathreads. As we can see, these Megathreads are already worthless, they're just like a trashcan full of garbage and the only solution to clean up all the mess is to dispose it.

Some people really hates spams usually to Megathreads, some people are just using it/posting on it in order to increase their activity and not worrying about the quality of the posts. But why don't we kill the root? Which is these existing spam flooded threads.

[figmentofmyass]

Nobody read those shitposters in megathreads

So kill the root of the problem, instead of adding some other rule.

The only solution that I can see to avoid these "shitposting" in Megathreads is, Delete all Megathreads. As we can see, these Megathreads are already worthless, they're just like a trashcan full of garbage and the only solution to clean up all the mess is to dispose it.

you can lock/delete them, but that doesn't solve the problem. many more similar threads will pop up in their place the next day. and it's a lot of work for mods to stay on top of.

these bounty spamming farms are quite mechanical; i think some of them are even employing bots now. i think they'll immediately build new megathreads in short order.

Some people really hates spams usually to Megathreads, some people are just using it/posting tonit in order to increase their activity and not worrying about the quality of the posts. But why don't we kill the root? Which is these existing spam flooded threads.

the only scalable (read: automated) solution i see here is self-locking threads after a certain number of pages. but it's probably a bad idea, as it will arbitrarily cut off ongoing discussion in the case of non-spam threads. otherwise moderators need to address it manually, which probably isn't sustainable for any real length of time.

[HabBear]

If all managers do this, then things would be fine, without needing to heavily change up how campaigns work, and open up new avenues of abuse.

Only thing : Bounty managers don't give a rat's ass about it. And half or probably even more of the bounty managers are new to the forum and don't even care to check out the post quality.

More reason to hold them accountable for their campaign participant's actions, or kick them the fuck out! Those bounties are shit opportunities for people anyway, literally peddling rubbish.

But going as extreme as getting per merit doesn't help the companies trying to do the advertising and will lead to other cheating activities. Let's not try to complicate the system, let's just do a better job calling out and eliminating those that abuse it.

I like what Yahoo62278 is doing better, which is to require a minimum amount of merits before even being accepted.  That weeds out a lot of shitposters.

Not necessarily.

Yahoo's campaign participants [/url]were caught sending merits to one another just so that they could enter the campaign. Hilariousandco found a few of them but that's not the end.

As long as Yahoo and others are policing their campaign's people. Yahoo's been around a long time, I don't expect anything less from him.

[Tyrantt]

I think that if it were MY company, I would prefer to see my ad (signature) in one merited post per week instead of 25 shitposts per week.

I would like to hear campaign Managers and more veterans members here. Probably it's not possible for now, but maybe something similar in future?

Look at it as from the youtube ad system. They might not want their ads on racist youtubers, the ones who spread hatred,etc.. but they still want a larger viewer base. Advertisement is meant to be seen by as many people as it can.

If I were to own a business I'd probably prefer 20+ quality posts and a bonus for merited posts as a motivation.

[TheUltraElite]

1- Very bad idea, the merit abusing is already from 20-40% weekly in this way you will increase even more(March)

2- Again you can't envaluate the merit gain while people are abusing without penalities, I'm not talking about 50+ merit (still unpunished) abuses but people even abuse/tradeback for 5-10 merits.

The only thing you can think about is merit abuse. Just accept the fact that merit trading if happening underground it cannot be prevented. But such cases if identified will be tagged accordingly. If you are not happy with this then please leave the forum rather than taking this tone/attitude or suggest some better method to weed out such sales.

I wonder if the sig campaign managers get worried about not having many participants for their campaigns.

Sarcastically speaking the 99.99% of the forum population is here for the signature campaigns and bounty hunting. Who cares about the forum or its discussions any more?
It is important that bounty managers apply strict merit rules on signature campaign participants.

[hilariousetc]

In a perfect world this would be great, but we don't live in a perfect world.

Exactly. Having merit requirements doesn't really work and I'm kinda against it, because people will just start buying merits, meriting their alts or just trading merit between themselves. What happens if you're making excellent posts but you just don't manage to receive any merits, whereas a generic shitposter has his friend merit one of his shitposts or he buys it or promises them he will merit them back and bingo he's getting paid. Campaign managers should just start doing their job properly and only accept quality posters in the first place.

[mdayonliner]

Haha, no. You could probably offer some people a pack of freddos (25p!) and they would join all jelly legged. As long as there's money to be earned for both parties signature campaigns shall remain. Even, with heavier restrictions I still think they would exist, and not be such a burden to the general forum user.

I am running a campaign for self promotion (It's actually a bit different than the regular campaigns)

Even-though...
# I have escrowed my fund
# Transparent with the data I am receiving
# Responding the community whenever they are asking for anything
# Offering min 0.002BTC and maximum 0.0036 BTC for one time task. 

I am not receiving much response from the community.

The reason I can identify is... It's not a guaranteed payment. One will win the bounty price. So, the hunters are not much motivated.

If the scenario was like this...

# Create a eye catching website
# Create a useless ERC20 token

and then create a twitter bounty to award these useless ERC20 token to people who will spam it on twitter then we would see these people will join the party.

People actually follow the crowd knowing nothing about the reason.

[Taki]

Interesting suggestion, but as a member who didn't get a merit last two months for sure I do not support it  I do not know what is the reason, my poor English or poor ideas or both, but merit doesn't going well to me.
Backing to the OP I can say that the forum is the place where a user can stay his opinion openly and if you do not agree with that it doesn't mean that it is a shitpost. The problem is in bots which are counting the number of posts and characters without watching the post how it is. I am sure if managers would check every commentator the situation would became much better.

[TianaStam]

Interesting suggestion, but as a member who didn't get a merit last two months for sure I do not support it  I do not know what is the reason, my poor English or poor ideas or both, but merit doesn't going well to me.

Obviously both.
Probably the reason why people stay less merit now is that they spent all of they had in the most beginning. How many people on the forum? As I see here there are much more low raked users who got few merits to share, so they simply spent it all in first few days.

[TheHas]

The awarding of merit is not consistent. One week you could get 6 and then for a month nothing, even if your posts are of the same subjective 'quality'.

So perhaps merit is used as more of an entry requirement for the bounty. Such as 'must have at least 10 merit awarded since merit started to join bounty'.

[Mpamaegbu]

I like what Yahoo62278 is doing better, which is to require a minimum amount of merits before even being accepted.  That weeds out a lot of shitposters.

Yah, Yahoo actually initiated that method but for some time he too has stopped using that criterion. On the overall, this world is such a horrible place. People (dissidents) will always find loopholes in everything good and circumvent it. Merit trading became the order of the day while the Yahoo method lasted. Although many accounts were surprisingly nuked for that.

On the 1merited post "bill", I don't think advertisers will like it. Publicity is advertising and advertising is publicity. You don't get the needed spread and publicity with people writing just a post. You get that with numerous posts.

[LoyceV]

This would be the ideal solution, to somehow force bounty managers to 1) set some rules for quality 2) force enrolled members to post according to the rules.
But nobody can tell how we could force those bounty managers...

Bounty managers don't have an incentive to stop spammers: they pay a fixed amount of made-up Tokens. If ten times more people join, they just all get a smaller part of the pie, but the campaign gets more exposure.
I really dislike Tokens: it's Ethereum's way of taking market share from Bitcoin by spamming social media for their own financial gain.
I'd love to see all campaigns with payment in Tokens banned from the forum. If campaigns are only allowed to pay an actual amount of Bitcoin per post, they'll be forced to start caring about quality.

[hilariousetc]

Bounty managers don't have an incentive to stop spammers: they pay a fixed amount of made-up Tokens. If ten times more people join, they just all get a smaller part of the pie, but the campaign gets more exposure.

This is is the issue here really. A select few of the best campaign managers can run their campaigns excellently with zero spammers on there like Darkstar and Chipmixer for example, but when you've got dozens of crapcoin campaigns which pop up and accept hundreds of users each it's useless and they just dwarf everybody else by the thousands. You have to remember the crapcoin campaigns don't care about the quality of posts or how it effects this forum, and the more people shitposting with their signature the better. Running a campaign is probably at least a part-time job if not a full one but when people can get away with doing nothing they will. Would you turn up to work everyday if you were still going to get paid regardless of whether you got out of bed or not? Same situation here. Crapcoin campaign managers aren't going to do any work when they don't need to and this is the source of the problem.

[Mpamaegbu]

Bounty managers don't have an incentive to stop spammers: they pay a fixed amount of made-up Tokens. If ten times more people join, they just all get a smaller part of the pie, but the campaign gets more exposure.

This is is the issue here really. A select few of the best campaign managers can run their campaigns excellently with zero spammers on there like Darkstar and Chipmixer for example, but when you've got dozens of crapcoin campaigns which pop up and accept hundreds of users each it's useless and they just dwarf everybody else by the thousands.

Would it then be out of place to suggest to CM by way of regulation not to accept more than, let's say, 30-50 participants per campaign? That won't be a bad idea, would it? This should go a long way in controlling spamming and shitposting, I should believe as the managers will have roving eyes on participants posts.

[ArkiCrypto]

So far the Idea was good I've seen the positive side of it because in signature campaigns your post should be constructive yet highly content in order to achieve the exposure needed by the project but there are 2 results it's either be horrible or not.

1. The Shitposters will improve their posts as well as the quality of their contents.
2. Since most of them likes to take advantage, It's either they will buy merit to others or they will user their alts to give merit to their own posts.

But if I'm going to guess most of them would do the number 2.

[simonova]

This suggestion is good for the forum but will not  help the advertisers. Advertisers need more visibility to their signature or project and that comes in the second case. If a member makes one post and gets merit for it, he will not make further posts. This will reduce the exposure the campaign will get.

Even if posts are low quality, they will get some traffic from search engines based on various factors. Thus, I am not in support of this. Having additional merit requirement after those post requirements may be a better idea.

[DarkStar_]

Bounty managers don't have an incentive to stop spammers: they pay a fixed amount of made-up Tokens. If ten times more people join, they just all get a smaller part of the pie, but the campaign gets more exposure.

This is is the issue here really. A select few of the best campaign managers can run their campaigns excellently with zero spammers on there like Darkstar and Chipmixer for example, but when you've got dozens of crapcoin campaigns which pop up and accept hundreds of users each it's useless and they just dwarf everybody else by the thousands.

Would it then be out of place to suggest to CM by way of regulation not to accept more than, let's say, 30-50 participants per campaign? That won't be a bad idea, would it? This should go a long way in controlling spamming and shitposting, I should believe as the managers will have roving eyes on participants posts.

I'm running the ChipMixer campaign with currently 59 participants just fine 

[KevinHD]

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?

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