i just thought something about campaign

[Zener Diode]

I'm new here and just check some advantages on being here in bitcointalk.org. I've noticed that earning here was one of the major goal of other people that registered in here. I don't know any issue about earning here so I can say that it's very beneficial. Another thing that I noticed is the participants of the campaign(where people earn money), how do the organizer or manager of a campaign chose the participants? so i assumed that participants are being chose by their way of posting (correct me if there are mistakes). I check a campaign and the participants, i noticed that some aren't good at posting and still earning btc. I concluded that ranks doesn't define your ideas because when it comes to campaign it is just define the amount of your payment and still lacks ideas on posting. any thoughts?

[tbct_mt2]

13 posts and 7 merits. Your posts are too high quality (it seems because I don't know your local language, I guess based on what you wrote in English and length of your posts in local board). Length of post does not guarentee post quality, but it seems you made quality posts, too higher than other newbies.
I don't think you are new here.  
Some things managers likely consider when screening applicants to choose participants:
- Post history to check post quality
- Trust Flag history
- Language: mixture between English and local; or purely English
- Average posts per day/ week
- Inactive or active posting in recent weeks

[The Sceptical Chymist]

i assumed that participants are being chose by their way of posting (correct me if there are mistakes).

There's no general answer to that, because each campaign manager has his own standards.  Basically if the manager cares one whit about this forum's quality, he won't choose people who consistently make garbage posts.  Unfortunately there are managers who don't care, and they have to fill up the campaign with participants--the result is that you get very low-quality posters making a huge amount of nonsensical crap posts. 

The bitcoin-paying campaigns are generally run by good managers like Yahoo62278 and DarkStar_ (though they aren't the only good ones), while altcoin/token-paying bounties tend to be run by managers with low standards.  At least that's my observation.

Rank does matter a lot, because higher ranked members have more of a signature space to advertise in.  The good thing is that Theymos created the merit system, which made it very hard to rank up.  That doesn't discourage Jr. Members and the like from participating in campaigns, but it does limit their earnings if they suck at post quality.

[Zener Diode]

13 posts and 7 merits. Your posts are too high quality (it seems because I don't know your local language, I guess based on what you wrote in English and length of your posts in local board). Length of post does not guarentee post quality, but it seems you made quality posts, too higher than other newbies.
I don't think you are new here.  

they always assumed that i'm not new on this forum. the truth is, i'm new in this kind forum but i already engaged in other kind of forum like educational/academe so i knew a lot of basics.

Some things managers likely consider when screening applicants to choose participants:
- Post history to check post quality
- Trust Flag history
- Language: mixture between English and local; or purely English
- Average posts per day/ week
- Inactive or active posting in recent weeks

since merits are hard to acquired, so assuming that managers are also looking for people that contains merits.

i assumed that participants are being chose by their way of posting (correct me if there are mistakes).

There's no general answer to that, because each campaign manager has his own standards.  Basically if the manager cares one whit about this forum's quality, he won't choose people who consistently make garbage posts.  Unfortunately there are managers who don't care, and they have to fill up the campaign with participants--the result is that you get very low-quality posters making a huge amount of nonsensical crap posts. 

The bitcoin-paying campaigns are generally run by good managers like Yahoo62278 and DarkStar_ (though they aren't the only good ones), while altcoin/token-paying bounties tend to be run by managers with low standards.  At least that's my observation.

The campaign that i checked was managed by a person that you mentioned and noticed that some participants are not good at posting. Then if they knew that their participants are filled by not good participants, why do they still keep them as a participant of a campaign.

[Mastery]

I'm new here and just check some advantages on being here in bitcointalk.org. I've noticed that earning here was one of the major goal of other people that registered in here.

Though the forum is not intended to be a source of income, it's the fact that a vast number of people come here for that purpose. As far as I know, there're some even "bounty companies". Check this bounty review channel that I've discovered recently as an example: Bonanza Kreep. It's not a man's work to build such professional channel. Besides, they have one more Russian channel.

I concluded that ranks doesn't define your ideas because when it comes to campaign it is just define the amount of your payment and still lacks ideas on posting. any thoughts?

Somehow this holds true. If you take a look on Altcoin Discussions, you can see a lot of Heroes or Legends spam all around. Yes you barely can find any valuable idea in their posts because they're just for filling up bounties' post requirements. But anyway, the ultimate purpose of bounties is to do the marketing, as long as the project name spreads out, it's fine. This may answer the question that why even in some high standard managers' campaigns, there're still some low quality posters.

[finaleshot2016]

About the OP, I know what you mean, there are different kind of managers and preferences on picking a participant of a signature campaign. So we don't have a choice to accept that some of them are gaining income even they're not good at posting. So it's a matter of chance on being a campaign, it's not a big deal in here so we shouldn't care about them. Let the campaign managers handle that thing.

Ranks have an important goal, the real thing about ranks is how we will interact with other people by having a high rank. If they respect you every discussion you'll engage, then you've done a good thing being a respectable member of this forum. If not, then maybe you've done something that the others don't want to see, or you've disrespected someone.

I also have a suggestion for you, report them if you find their posts as low-quality. 

Some things managers likely consider when screening applicants to choose participants:
- Post history to check post quality
- Trust Flag history
- Language: mixture between English and local; or purely English
- Average posts per day/ week
- Inactive or active posting in recent weeks

since merits are hard to acquired, so assuming that managers are also looking for people that contains merits.

Merits should be included there, most of the managers are looking for merits because it serves as proof that you've done quality posts or something good in this forum.

[Upgrade00]

Somehow this holds true. If you take a look on Altcoin Discussions, you can see a lot of Heroes or Legends spam all around.

Not all members achieved their rank by 'earning' merits, some acquired them through airdrops when the merit system was newly introduced and it was on the basis of their activity and not the value of their content, and ironically some have not been able to earn even a single merit despite owning legendary/Hero member accounts.

[actmyname]

Somehow this holds true. If you take a look on Altcoin Discussions, you can see a lot of Heroes or Legends spam all around.

Not all members achieved their rank by 'earning' merits, some acquired them through airdrops when the merit system was newly introduced and it was on the basis of their activity and not the value of their content, and ironically some have not been able to earn even a single merit despite owning legendary/Hero member accounts

https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=postsdeleted

21% of users on that list are Sr. Members and above.Considering the fact that users with a higher rank have higher signature campaign pay, it makes sense that you would see just as much spam from them as you would lower ranks. Barring Newbies and Brand New members, it's about 50-50 between Sr.+ and Jr, to Full.

[finaleshot2016]

Somehow this holds true. If you take a look on Altcoin Discussions, you can see a lot of Heroes or Legends spam all around.

Not all members achieved their rank by 'earning' merits, some acquired them through airdrops when the merit system was newly introduced and it was on the basis of their activity and not the value of their content, and ironically some have not been able to earn even a single merit despite owning legendary/Hero member accounts

fix your quotation.
--
No one ranked up through airdropped merits because they already received the respective merits equivalent to their rank. For example, if you're a full member before the merit system implementation, you'll receive 100 airdropped merits. So it means if they achieved the rank, it's through earning merits since the introduction of the merit system. I'm one of those people who are close to being a Sr. Member and the merit system serve as the barricade for me to rank up.

It's true that there are some of the legendary/hero members who didn't receive any single merit and you can see them spamming on the Bitcoin or Altcoin Discussion. Even I'm a Sr. Member, we can prove that we're better than them through merit counts. It's been one year already since the merit system so it's possible for us to receive even 1 merit.

[rhomelmabini]

how do the organizer or manager of a campaign chose the participants?

Base on the campaign manager's preferences but likely to fall only on one category; not a shitposter, or not just making low-value contents or one-liner posts if you are only talking about a signature campaign.

i noticed that some aren't good at posting and still earning btc.

Those are handled by an incompetent campaign manager, to be honest, they are not earning directly with bitcoin rather on the company/projects tokens. If you examine participants paid with bitcoin most of them are handled by good managers and more likely strict to the quality of contents (posts) of his/her participants.

I concluded that ranks doesn't define your ideas because when it comes to campaign it is just define the amount of your payment and still lacks ideas on posting. any thoughts?

Exactly! You may have five shiny coins below your name but your idea is for a newbie or just want to reach the number of posts over the week because you got a paid signature wears on your profile, that doesn't really define it.

[Thirdspace]

I've noticed that earning here was one of the major goal of other people that registered in here. I don't know any issue about earning here so I can say that it's very beneficial.

so, is earning also your reason joining this forum?
or you just accidentally found this forum when looking information about bitcoin?

I check a campaign and the participants, i noticed that some aren't good at posting and still earning btc. I concluded that ranks doesn't define your ideas because when it comes to campaign it is just define the amount of your payment and still lacks ideas on posting. any thoughts?

it's a harsh way of judging other people abilities and campaign as a whole
some of us are coming from non-native English speaking countries, and not even ESL (English as Second Language)
so we have some difficulties with grammar and articulation of words in expressing our thoughts

[tbct_mt2]

Merits should be included there, most of the managers are looking for merits because it serves as proof that you've done quality posts or something good in this forum.

Merits are inclusive components, that campaign managers will take into consideration, but merits and merit history are not determinant ones. People can abuse (buy, exchange merits for their shitposts).
Hence, it always makes sense to glance at post history. With or without merit history, just take a glance at post history will help managers to have good overview on average post quality of applicants. I am sure experienced and professional managers will do this step.
Tools for managers to check quality of posts (both merited & unmerited posts)

since merits are hard to acquired, so assuming that managers are also looking for people that contains merits.

Here you go, it is your merit bar chart!

[YOSHIE]

I check a campaign and the participants, i noticed that some aren't good at posting and still earning btc.

Earnings Broadly speaking btc/coins are obtained not from a good post basis and not.



participants in the campaign or Bounty hunter, all participants participate in helping to market to investors, for participants will receive incentives in the form of btc/coins, according to the number of posts determined by campaign management, for signatures.
Of course the count is based on posts that meet the requirements, there are campaigns/bounties that do not prioritize posts but the bounties/campaigns provide social media platforms such as: (Facebook, YouTube, Telegram, Twitter, and blogs). Not just from post and sig.

The problem with the campaign is that if participants do, copy/paste other people's belongings, spam is most likely not getting btc / coins and it is likely to be disqualified.

There is also payment for BTC and Coins, very high besides the signature campaign.
If you understand and understand the language translator session, you will receive a substantial amount of payment.

If you want to get it all do the best for the Forum and other people, you easily get it.

The purpose of the campaign/bounty is to expand the reach of the campaign/bounty so that the public can participate as investors in each campaign/bounty.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Somehow this holds true. If you take a look on Altcoin Discussions, you can see a lot of Heroes or Legends spam all around. Yes you barely can find any valuable idea in their posts because they're just for filling up bounties' post requirements.

It was because of these type of posters the merit system was introduced. Most time, these high ranked accounts were bought just for the purpose of joining bounties or they are the alts which ranked up through spamming back when only activity determined your rank. When you see such cases, you simply report their spam post and move on as the moderators take care of that. There's nothing much you can do.

I was off the suggestion, when users having just airdrop merit have been reported for a certain amount of time as spammers, they get a reduction of airdropped merit (50 per 10 good report against them) demoting their rank. This will be the perfect punishment and might motivate them to change their posting habbit as they try to earned themselves some merit to rank up.

[Jet Cash]

fix your quotation.

I think he is saying that there is an airdrop component in the merits gained by some senior members when they increased rank. I was a Hero when the system was introduced, so I received 500 merits, and thus, I only needed an additional 500 "earned" merit to gain Legendary status.

[hilariousetc]

I'm new here and just check some advantages on being here in bitcointalk.org. I've noticed that earning here was one of the major goal of other people that registered in here. I don't know any issue about earning here so I can say that it's very beneficial. Another thing that I noticed is the participants of the campaign(where people earn money), how do the organizer or manager of a campaign chose the participants? so i assumed that participants are being chose by their way of posting (correct me if there are mistakes). I check a campaign and the participants, i noticed that some aren't good at posting and still earning btc. I concluded that ranks doesn't define your ideas because when it comes to campaign it is just define the amount of your payment and still lacks ideas on posting. any thoughts?

Well you've highlighted the issue with campaigns here. If everyone of them had a very good campaign manager running them then we'd see no spam. The problem is, it doesn't matter how many great managers we have when all it takes is one lousy campaign to can come here and do nothing and they immediately dwarf all the other good campaigns by accepting everyone and everyone. It's obviously not in their interests to select good participants, but just to get as much bang for their buck and unfortunately spam pays for them in this regard because the more people posting baring their signature equals more exposure they get and that's all they want at the end of the day. All we need to do is put some restrictions on how campaigns can operate here and we certainly shouldn't be tolerating those campaigns that are doing most of the damage.

[Pmalek]

When you say that you found members from a Bitcoin campaign that are not good posters can you explain what exactly is wrong with their posts?
Saying that someone is not good at posting doesn't really hit the spot, it is not specific enough.

Are they giving wrong advice?
Are they not good because they make grammatical or others structural errors in their posts?
Do they spam and create meaningless posts?

[actmyname]

fix your quotation.

I think he is saying that there is an airdrop component in the merits gained by some senior members when they increased rank. I was a Hero when the system was introduced, so I received 500 merits, and thus, I only needed an additional 500 "earned" merit to gain Legendary status.

The quote was surrounding his reply, because he did not terminate the previous quote with the [/quote] tag.

[finaleshot2016]

fix your quotation.

I think he is saying that there is an airdrop component in the merits gained by some senior members when they increased rank. I was a Hero when the system was introduced, so I received 500 merits, and thus, I only needed an additional 500 "earned" merit to gain Legendary status.

I'm referring to his/her quotation, not the statement.  
and regarding that statement, I already knew that.

That's what I also said in here;

No one ranked up through airdropped merits because they already received the respective merits equivalent to their rank. For example, if you're a full member before the merit system implementation, you'll receive 100 airdropped merits. So it means if they achieved the rank, it's through earning merits since the introduction of the merit system. I'm one of those people who are close to being a Sr. Member and the merit system serve as the barricade for me to rank up.

He's saying that some members get ranked up after receiving the airdropped merits so I'm trying to debunk it.

[tranthidung]

When you say that you found members from a Bitcoin campaign that are not good posters can you explain what exactly is wrong with their posts?

They don't do those things, but they actually take all slots of good campaigns, and old-era members (from Member to Legendary ranks) who are shit-posting users are unable to compete with them for those slots.
Failed applicants think that they habitually make good posts, and deserve slots in good campaigns, as accepted applicants; but in fact they don't deserve those slots.

Are they giving wrong advice?
Are they not good because they make grammatical or others structural errors in their posts?
Do they spam and create meaningless posts?

They can blame on managers: I failed to apply in campaign of project A, because manager A is a shit one; then blame to manager B, and so on. I do think if they failed to apply in a bunches of good campaigns, it is enough to go to a conclusion that those users failed because their intrinsic values are low, much lower than other applicants - whom successful applied and got slots. That's all.