The biggest evidence that Stake has no interest in weeding out the spammers from their campaign is their pay rates.
The highest quality posters you can find are those who post for free and aren't part of a signature campaign because they're genuinely posting and not for money. Can you imagine the amount of spam on this forum if I made a huge pay rate? Everyone would be having a field day spamming Bitcointalk as fast as possible. I believe people are unhappy with these pay rates because it proves the value of a post is far far less than we make it out to be. It's simple supply and demand, if I make this offer and so many people are still trying to join then it's obvious the pay rates could be lower and still have new members wanting to join.
Right now, the vast majority of the people in your campaign are posting garbage. Your participants have a median of 3 merit, nearly 40% have zero or 1 merit, and nearly 2/3 have 5 or less merit. There are
51 accounts that posted in your signature campaign thread that are perma banned, and although they all might not have been participating in your campaign when they were banned, I suspect the majority of them probably were.
One might be able to argue that you have a lot of shitty posters because of poor planning, poor screening of potential participants or a lack of supervision of participants, all of which I believe to be true. However the root cause is that you are paying garbage rates, and are attracting garbage posters. No one capable of making good posts that contributes to the community would have any interest in advertising for you based on what you are paying. There are many other advertising campaigns that pay 10x per post higher than what you pay, and the majority of those participating in these campaigns do not make the maximum number of posts.
You are correct in saying that increasing your pay rate would increase the number of people wanting to participate in your campaign. However your standards for accepting participants is currently zero, and if you were to increase your standards, the increase in those wanting to participate who qualify will not be as high, or perhaps will even decline if your standards are high enough. As it stands now, less than 3% of your campaign participants have over 50 earned merit, and less than 9% have greater than 30 merit. The people you are hiring are doing an objectively bad job at posting.
I don't care what you do, but you need to do something to remove the spammers from your signature campaign. If you want to attract good posters in anything except sporadic numbers, you will need to increase your pay rates, by a lot. I somewhat suspect that you are paying people on your platform next to nothing, and are accepting everyone who asks to join because you want to get these people to deposit their own money into your platform and gamble away that additional money, and accepting any and everyone is a way to attract additional customers.
Could you post a public spreadsheet or at least PM me a link to one so that I can see who's actually still in the campaign and who is removed but just inactive and still wearing the signature? Thanks.
I think it might finally be time to release the most iconic spreadsheet member list ever known to Bitcointalk. I've kept it private because I didn't want people abusing it since it had Telegram names, Bitcointalk names and Stake names all in one place.
I have no idea why you would think your spreadsheet would be iconic. It is essentially a list of spammers.
Except for telegram names, all of this information is already in your thread because you asked people to post it in your thread.
If you do not have time to personally manage your campaign, which I do not think you do (or at least you are unwilling to personally invest a lot of time into your campaign), I would strongly suggest hiring someone to help manage it. I would suggest talking to either DarkStar_ or yahoo62278 about this. Both have experience managing fairly large advertising campaigns, and to my knowledge do not have any problems with nepotism in choosing who they accept into their campaigns.
