It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns.

[mu_enrico]

A lot of interesting ideas, and I start to feel this thread is like the miniature of the real-world economy. The authority complaining about the externalities (junk posts), the labors want salary raise, business owners want profits, etc.

Anyway,

I see a few incentive problems here:
- More post count = more links = more traffic;
- Rewards are given based on post count; and
- More post count generally lowers post quality. << externalities

Since it is highly improbable that we change the reward based on post quality, not quantity. And because of this issue:

50 members per campaign posting 25 posts each (minimum) equals 1250 posts per week. Not to mention that sometimes only parts of the post are plagiarized so during the initial checking he could think everything is ok when in fact 2 out of the total 20 sentences are copy/pasted.

My question to campaign managers, would you really go through all this hassle?

Maybe managers should hire one or two qualified post reviewer (similar to peer review) as a quality controller. Hence, even with the 20-25 post per week, no one will complain about the quality.

[1714323397]

1714323397

[1714323397]

1714323397

[1714323397]

1714323397

[1714323397]

1714323397

[actmyname]

50 members per campaign posting 25 posts each (minimum) equals 1250 posts per week. Not to mention that sometimes only parts of the post are plagiarized so during the initial checking he could think everything is ok when in fact 2 out of the total 20 sentences are copy/pasted.

My question to campaign managers, would you really go through all this hassle?

Maybe managers should hire one or two qualified post reviewer (similar to peer review) as a quality controller. Hence, even with the 20-25 post per week, no one will complain about the quality.

Stop. We don't need 'post reviewers'. People report posts, yes? I've actually smashed through hundreds of posts in the 777Coin and Bitvest campaigns.

And regarding the plagiarism issue: it's simple enough to automate the process. We already have some people who have checked entire post histories for plagiarism, so I don't see why the same cannot be done for a campaign cycle across a few dozen users.I see a lot of people here taking the piss. We already know, "signatures are a privilege, not a right," yet I see absurd suggestions... under the expectation that signatures will be around for a long time.

[mu_enrico]

Stop.

Yes master.

People report posts, yes? I've actually smashed through hundreds of posts in the 777Coin and Bitvest campaigns.

And regarding the plagiarism issue: it's simple enough to automate the process. We already have some people who have checked entire post histories for plagiarism, so I don't see why the same cannot be done for a campaign cycle across a few dozen users.

It's all based on Voluntaryism...
I see what is the direction of this discussion, You and I have different view about a few basic principles.

But yeah, Voluntarysim is the core value of this forum.

Thanks for the input.

[tranthidung]

- Rewards are given based on post count; and
- More post count generally lowers post quality. << externalities

Since it is highly improbable that we change the reward based on post quality, not quantity. And because of this issue:

There are some campaigns which pay bonus of best posters each week based on their post quality. Criteria to judge best participants simply based on earned merits each week and it probably does not reflect quality of participants correctly. Campaigns I've known are: Bustadice, and ChipMixer. Bustadice has still paid bonus, but I am not sure about ChipMixer (it likely stopped bonus payments).

Posts will be counted by managers, and depend on each manager, there are minimum quality level at which manager will accept (from that level and above) or will reject (below that level) posts made by participants. There are no issues and correlations between more postcounts and lower post quality (in good campaigns managed by good managers).

There are risks for companies and managers if they don't manage their campaigns well, and don't warn to stop spamming from their participants. As a result of that, good managers will definitely do their works well to protect themselves.

Campaign Operators:

Signature Campaigns are a great way to introduce your business and advertise your services to the bitcoin ecosystem but this cannot be abused by you paying people to make poor contributions en masse. As a signature campaign operator you will ultimately be held responsible for the quality of posts of users bearing your signature advertisement and you will need to monitor your users closely or it will be quickly abused. If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way. The Staff and Admins do not want to have to do this but it's a last resort in an attempt to clean up the forum as signature campaigns cannot continue to operate here in such a lazy way as it is not fair that others have to go through pages of drivel to find anything of substance nor should Staff be left to clean up the mess you are paying people to make.

< ... >
Types of campaigns:

There are generally two types of campaigns: 'Fixed' campaigns which offer a fixed amount of bitcoins for a minimum of X amount of posts and 'Pay Per Post' which is pretty self-explanatory. Pay Per Post campaigns pay for every post that a user makes and thus tend to be the most abused whilst fixed campaigns tend to limit the amount of spam generated. It's up to you which campaign you choose and both are fine just as long as you have someone monitoring them. If you don't then either form of campaign will be abused. If you want to check out or compare other signature campaigns an overview of all the currently active ones can be found here.

< ... >
Please note: You as a campaign will not be warned or have your signatures removed for having a handful of low quality posters on your campaign especially if they're quickly dealt with. We accept that no campaign will be able to stop spam 100% of the time but these guidelines are there for the campaigns where it becomes blatantly obvious they are doing little to nothing at all to try prevent spam and are happily paying people to post rubbish continually even after a warning. Please monitor your users closely and there should be no issues.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

It all comes down to the campaign managers and the companies being responsible for their participants..

I think if a paid poster gets banned for spamming then whoever is paying them to do so should recieve a stern warning, meaning the campaign manager and the representetives of the company..

I don't buy into this, it'll be putting too much pressure on the managers, they aren't no AI (LoyceV 😁) to be reviewing every participants post for Plagiarism. Even moderators don't go around the forum searching for plagiarism post and spam for them to review, they work on reported cases. Unless there's an automated system like a bot set in place to handle this, it'll just be a waste of time.

About managers getting punished for the participants posting habit, i think that's fair if the managers are intentionally paying the spammers for their spamming (like Yobit signature campaign). Plagiarism can't be notice that quickly although an offtopic, irrelevant or spam reply can be spotted without any effort so the managers have no excuse in paying for those post, they were employed to manage the campaigns therefore should be responsible in overseeing the affair of the campaign operation on the forum. Unlike the yobit scenario that only the signature ads was affected maybe introducing a punishment for not so serious managers will make a difference.

[UmerIdrees]

I know I'm not in a position to give you any suggestions on this but how about punishing the offenders so they learn from their mistakes, there are far more individual willing to give in their best for the successful of the project. An extra amount of post isn't much of a deal irrespective of you not been paid for them.

PS: No personal attacks please lets keep the conversation professional.

There really aren't that many people willing to give their best though. Each campaign(the 1s that I manage) only has so many open spots per rank. No matter who is in the spot in most cases, users are only willing to post enough to get paid. They are not posting because they like a topic, they are not posting because they want to inform others about a subject in most cases, they are posting to be paid. If they're being paid for 20 posts, then they do 20 posts. Every now and then I get a guy who is paid for 20-25 posts per week and they do 40-50 posts a week.

It is easy to determine who is posting only to complete his paid post counts and who is actually involved in the discussion.

Those who actually involved in discussion are real posters, they will always review , what others have said about their point of view and care to reply them.
If you see a person posting 20 different posts each in different thread every week, you should believe he is only filling the shoes to get paid and do not care about the forum discussions.