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.