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

[eddie13]

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..

If the campaign manager gets a warning about his employee being banned, strike 1, Warn them one more time strike 2, if they keep paying employees that are getting banned for spamming then strike 3 permaban that manager..

Something like if you are a manager and 3 accounts you are paying get banned for the spam that you are paying for in a rolling month - Permaban that manager.
Same for plagiarism, you have been paying accounts to plagerise? Permaban..

Ha ha, by by shit manager.. Better not ban evade and come back with another account to shitmanage with either..
That would put a fire under the asses of managers to make darn sure they aren't incentivising spammers..

If you want to ban users for spamming I think it is perfectly logical to ban whoever is paying them to spam right along with them..


What needs to happen is the companies representatives are the ones that need to be held accountable for the actions of their employees..

I have lowered the minimum weekly post count to 20 posts in most campaigns depending on the payrate, but at the same time companies want as much bang for their buck as they can get.

You negotiate this with the companies don't you? Why don't you refuse to implement minimum weekly posts yourself? You can also refuse to accept low posting standards too..

Not you in specific Yahoo because you do a good job, but you would probably keep a lot closer eye on your employees post quality if you yourself risked a permaban by paying for spam wouldn't you?


Maybe not 3 banned employees a month, maybe 5, maybe 2, but I advocate putting the pressure directly on those who are supposed to be responsible for it in the first place..

[1713872508]

1713872508

[1713872508]

1713872508

[1713872508]

1713872508

[1713872508]

1713872508

[suchmoon]

~

Assuming you know who's responsible for the campaign.

Any forum rules regarding campaigns - whether it's the OP's "minimum wage" or what you're suggesting - can work only if the forum controls all signatures, i.e. instead of being able to enter custom bbcode users would have to choose from a list of "approved" campaigns and that way you can tie them to managers etc. That obviously creates problems for everyone who just wants a personal unpaid signature.

Perhaps some hybrid solution is possible where signature campaigns have to register with the forum voluntarily and anyone non-compliant can be reported to moderators. Perhaps some clever incentive can be created to encourage compliance. But TBH I can't see that happening given the strong financial incentives to the contrary. If you put any pressure on garbage campaigns they'll just move the management off site.

Absent proper enforcement any good ideas will remain "guidelines" and garbage campaigns will continue to do what they think benefits them most, i.e. spam the forum.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Any forum rules regarding campaigns - whether it's the OP's "minimum wage" or what you're suggesting - can work only if the forum controls all signatures

Not necessarily. When theymos stepped in and dealt with the Yobit spammers, he simply wiped all Yobit signatures and banned them for 60 days. He wasn't able to ban the signature campaign itself, since it is run off-site on the Yobit exchange, and there was no manager to ban as far as I am aware. However, you can't argue that what he did didn't work - the spam was horrendous and disappeared instantly.

I don't think it's a huge issue if these campaigns move their management off-site. If we start banning campaigns and their participants which are largely spamming, future campaigns will very quickly learn to employ a manager who actually pays attention to post quality.

[Theb]

Lets be real pay rates shouldn't be moderated in the forum it's like forcing out a budget for any willing projects wanting to promote here in the forum. High payments does not equate to higher quality post because the two things are totally irrelevant so what if someone is paying .01 BTCs for Legendaries and .05 BTCs on another project? Does it gives assurance that the ones being paid double will give twice the quality of posts in the forum? It doesn't. If you want a realistic approach then you should request that the campaign managers here in the forum has a commitment on moderating each members part of their campaign and monitor the quality of their post each time they count it, its the best thing to see if the members part of their campaign are actually worth it of what they are paying for.

[Coyster]

If we start banning campaigns and their participants which are largely spamming, future campaigns will very quickly learn to employ a manager who actually pays attention to post quality.

And they should, you cannot simply start a campaign and employ just anybody to run it, neglecting one of  the most important role the CM plays in the campaign by checkmating users posts quality, and only top managers do that.
Other campaign managers should either try to improve on how they do their job, making their campaign participants pay more attention to what they write that gets them paid. Or the campaigns should only choose the very best managers in the forum.

As for the BTC rate, I think every campaign would pay it's participants based on the effect the advertisement is having on their company, if they are actually getting traffic, they wouldn't mind paying a little more than others, I doubt if the forum can impose anything on them.

[yahoo62278]

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.

Look at suchmoons small sample Effect of Signature Bans. Even though it's a small sample size, it is a correct view of what happens when users are banned from wearing signatures. Users just fade away into nothing in most cases.

I'm not against users making money obviously, and I would love for everyone to make more money. Users need to stop thinking only about themselves though. When they join campaigns, their first thought isn't how can I help this company. Their first thought isn't to log in to the website and check out the platform. All they are thinking is please accept me so i can make some money.

I'm not trying to personally attack you, my answers in most cases are directed towards everyone but you are the one who posted the topic and the 1 I am responding to. Everyone has an opinion and I feel they should be free to post their opinion, whether I agree or not.

[suchmoon]

I don't think it's a huge issue if these campaigns move their management off-site. If we start banning campaigns and their participants which are largely spamming, future campaigns will very quickly learn to employ a manager who actually pays attention to post quality.

IMO Stake campaign was sufficiently bad but it didn't get the same treatment as Yobit, and its manager and participants didn't seem to be concerned about the spam or the Yobit precedent. Not every such campaign is going to have someone like Stunna to pull the plug. So I'm not certain if it's a good deterrent to ban a URL and everyone carrying it when some unknown arbitrary spam threshold is breached. Shitty offsite campaigns would just roll the dice (pun intended) - it's mostly their participants at risk anyway, not the "management".

[DaveF]

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.

Look at suchmoons small sample Effect of Signature Bans. Even though it's a small sample size, it is a correct view of what happens when users are banned from wearing signatures. Users just fade away into nothing in most cases.

I'm not against users making money obviously, and I would love for everyone to make more money. Users need to stop thinking only about themselves though. When they join campaigns, their first thought isn't how can I help this company. Their first thought isn't to log in to the website and check out the platform. All they are thinking is please accept me so i can make some money.

I'm not trying to personally attack you, my answers in most cases are directed towards everyone but you are the one who posted the topic and the 1 I am responding to. Everyone has an opinion and I feel they should be free to post their opinion, whether I agree or not.

The problem I feel is the you must make "X" posts to get paid "Y" (like mintdice turned into) campaigns as opposed to pay per post  There is life outside the forum, and it can change and things can come up. Looking at the raw numbers of the sheet I have done

Week 1 = 39 posts
Week 2 = 35 posts
Week 3 = 36 posts
Week 4 = 34 posts
Week 5 = 32 posts

Some of those are in the excluded boards but all in all I have been above 30 every week.

As of today 1/2 way though the posting week I figure I am at about 16 posts.

If something happened today that would cause me to go offline for 5 days I would not make the number for this week.
AND since I would lose a day or 2 of posting into the next week I would feel that I would have to "post for the sake of posting" to make my numbers.

In the old way, with some bare requirements to post at least 5 in the gambling forum and and a lower number of required posts overall it took the pressure off so if something came up, it came up and you just made a bit less those weeks.

This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently.

-Dave

[yahoo62278]

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.

Look at suchmoons small sample Effect of Signature Bans. Even though it's a small sample size, it is a correct view of what happens when users are banned from wearing signatures. Users just fade away into nothing in most cases.

I'm not against users making money obviously, and I would love for everyone to make more money. Users need to stop thinking only about themselves though. When they join campaigns, their first thought isn't how can I help this company. Their first thought isn't to log in to the website and check out the platform. All they are thinking is please accept me so i can make some money.

I'm not trying to personally attack you, my answers in most cases are directed towards everyone but you are the one who posted the topic and the 1 I am responding to. Everyone has an opinion and I feel they should be free to post their opinion, whether I agree or not.

The problem I feel is the you must make "X" posts to get paid "Y" (like mintdice turned into) campaigns as opposed to pay per post  There is life outside the forum, and it can change and things can come up. Looking at the raw numbers of the sheet I have done

Week 1 = 39 posts
Week 2 = 35 posts
Week 3 = 36 posts
Week 4 = 34 posts
Week 5 = 32 posts

Some of those are in the excluded boards but all in all I have been above 30 every week.

As of today 1/2 way though the posting week I figure I am at about 16 posts.

If something happened today that would cause me to go offline for 5 days I would not make the number for this week.
AND since I would lose a day or 2 of posting into the next week I would feel that I would have to "post for the sake of posting" to make my numbers.

In the old way, with some bare requirements to post at least 5 in the gambling forum and and a lower number of required posts overall it took the pressure off so if something came up, it came up and you just made a bit less those weeks.

This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently.

-Dave

Unfortunately when it was pay per post pay, there were a lot of accounts only posting 5 posts in order to get paid and show activity for the next campaign they join. If a person is making a whole 5 posts per week, how much are they actually helping a company?

Let's do the math here for a sec. A campaign has a requirement of 20 posts in a week. You have 7 days in that week to get your posts in. That's an average of 2.85 posts per day. Technology is a wonderful thing as well. Users can login to this forum via mobile phones, laptops, desktops, ipads, tablets, and who knows what ever else they may have. Most people are not going to run into the problem of going offline for 5 days and not being paid. Maybe users who live in an area where mandatory brownouts or electricity being restricted, but other then those specific cases most users have 1 of the devices mentioned above and would be able to access the forum daily.

Yes, some have a life outside this forum. I do as well, but I login every day. I even have to take a laptop with me on vacations with my family to ensure that campaigns are paid out even if I am out of town. God forbid I'm late paying everyone. Everyone is not me, I get that but you cannot tell me that making 3 or less posts in a day is a rough task to do. Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so.

If users cannot make 2.85 posts per day or whatever be the case, then maybe the forum campaigns are not for them.

Dave I have never had an issue with your posting habits. You do a fine job and are obviously 1 that comes to mind when I say only a few do over the minimum. Your posts are spread out in a few sections as well which is great.

I have other people I have skipped but want to reply to and will do so later tonight. I just refreshed the page and seen this reply and wanted to get my thoughts in before they left my head.

[ahmadakbari]

This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently.

Requiring users to make a specific number of posts is really needed. A user making only 5 posts per week is not helpful. Usually, even if you don't make the required posts for 1 week, you won't be removed from the campaign.
For avoiding spams managers usually check the posts history before accepting participants and that's why the person who has made low number of posts before applying for the campaign is not accpeted.

Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so.

Then the participant will be likely removed due to burst posting. 

[actmyname]

Requiring users to make a specific number of posts is really needed. A user making only 5 posts per week is not helpful.

I would argue the contrary. 5 posts per week spread over 5 weeks will garner far more clicks than 25 posts spread over one week, especially if those posts are within a (relatively) short duration of one another.

Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so.

Then the participant will be likely removed due to burst posting. 

If the posts are useful then it should not matter how long you wait before posting. See: On Post Bursting and Other Facets of the Term

If you want a better example, take a look at the amount of time between this post and my next post.

[eddie13]

Yes, some have a life outside this forum. I do as well, but I login every day. I even have to take a laptop with me on vacations with my family to ensure that campaigns are paid out even if I am out of town. God forbid I'm late paying everyone. Everyone is not me, I get that but you cannot tell me that making 3 or less posts in a day is a rough task to do. Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so.

Not me..
I just went on 2 small vacations and didn't touch my laptop for 3 days each.. No way I am posting from the Holiday Inn when I could be enjoying a drink with fine company, to make my quota of posts, to make only a few dollars a week..

I don't want to feel pressure to post when I don't want to.. Why can't I not post at all for a week or 2?
If I don't post what you want, don't pay me, fine.. But why should I get booted out of the gig for not meeting some spam quota?
It's like I'm discriminated against because I don't make sure I post for money..

You make a heck of a lot more than a signature payment doing what you do, and for that money I would stay on top of my commitments too for sure, but such a commitment to only make some dust?


These companies are missing out big not having their name under my posts because of their stupid rules..
My posts are more valuable than many in my rank payrate that are maxing out but no company is getting anything out of them, or me getting some dust out of them, because it simply has not been worth it to me to commit to some quota..
I can't even remember the last sig I got paid for.. The last many have been free.. I have done all my posting long since before the merit system absolutely for free for no other reason than I wanted to say whatever I had to say..

I want something for a signature deal but haven't found one yet.. (Maybe I have long advocated for strong action against poor campaign managers?)
Oh well..
I have been looking lately but haven't found anything.. PM if anyone has a sig for me..



Another though.. Maybe posters shouldn't be getting paid to post if you can easily tell that they are only posting to get paid..
Hmmm...

I don't see how half of them provide any valuable advertising at all.. I can hardly believe anyone is clicking signatures on page 47 of that spam megathread..
I only ever really look at a users signature if They come across as very smart and I am interested in what they have to say and want to know more..

I think companies should want their signatures under the best most viewed posts rather than the most posts everyone just skipps over because they aren't worth the time to read..
If I was a company I'd not like wasting my money paying for my advertisment to be posted under trash, it makes their company look like trash.. I would want my advertisement only under quality, because I wouldn't be trying to advertise anything that wasn't a quality product..
I just don't see how companies think they are getting anything from hiring poor quality posters at all other than hurting their reputation by doing so..

[malevolent]

Isn't it better to just hire more people? Enforcing minimum weekly post counts probably has a negative effect on post quality if people know they *have* to post enough or they'll be kicked out of the campaign.

If there's concern about transaction fees (especially if fees increase), people could always create accounts on whatever service they advertise and get paid there.

[TECSHARE]

Isn't it better to just hire more people? Enforcing minimum weekly post counts probably has a negative effect on post quality if people know they *have* to post enough or they'll be kicked out of the campaign.

If there's concern about transaction fees (especially if fees increase), people could always create accounts on whatever service they advertise and get paid there.

Or just set a minimum payout rate to accumulate to before sent.

[DooMAD]

I definitely support the notion of scrapping the minimum number of posts per week.  There might be the occasional week where I hit 20 posts, but it's certainly not common for me.  Sometimes I don't even hit 10 posts in a week.  My inclination is to post only when I have something to say, so I'm fairly sure the quality of my contributions would suffer if I was forced to post more than I naturally do. 

[Coyster]

Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so.

Then the participant will be likely removed due to burst posting.  

It mustn't also be 20 minutes at a stretch, a user can log in, get to threads that interest him or her, air their views and log out, one can do this all through out the day, making close to 3 posts without actively being online for 20-30 minutes.

I am a student, and there are times, such as this in the semester when it's difficult to stay online for so long, but I enjoy reading threads on this forum and expressing my own opinions, I still come in at intervals and go straight to threads i like, such as this one, and write out my ideas. Though I'll be making less posts than i would/do when the semester ends.

[The Cryptovator]

This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently

A good manager will exclude spam post from weekly count. They might have some demenad who is paying you for posting on this forum. If someone isn't capable to fulfil weekly requirements then he shouldn't apply for campaign. I believe those managers asking for a minimum number of post, their minimum requirement 25/30 weekly. And I believe this is really not too much. I think paying per post would encourage spam more than fixed post, for example If paying per post and there is maximum post 100 then users will try to get maximum payment. All users are not same but most likely 90% users will try their best.

I there there is life out of forum for everyone. But if you like freedom then no one forcing you to join any campaign. Like I am working abroad and my company always forcing work fast and there is daily fixed working time. So I have to follow them in order to get payment. Same like for signature campaign. And I don't it would be wrong if company/manager ask for minimum post count since they are paying for that.

[hilariousetc]

We already have a pretty comprehensive set of rules for both campaign managers and participants here: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign).

This sticky gives very clear guidelines for what is considered spam, and what bans will be handed out to signature spammers.

They were never really enforced so it's largely useless until they are.

~

Assuming you know who's responsible for the campaign.

Any forum rules regarding campaigns - whether it's the OP's "minimum wage" or what you're suggesting - can work only if the forum controls all signatures, i.e. instead of being able to enter custom bbcode users would have to choose from a list of "approved" campaigns and that way you can tie them to managers etc. That obviously creates problems for everyone who just wants a personal unpaid signature.

The best way would just be to blacklist the problem signatures like they were in Yobit's case.

Yes, some have a life outside this forum. I do as well, but I login every day. I even have to take a laptop with me on vacations with my family to ensure that campaigns are paid out even if I am out of town. God forbid I'm late paying everyone. Everyone is not me, I get that but you cannot tell me that making 3 or less posts in a day is a rough task to do. Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so.

Not me..
I just went on 2 small vacations and didn't touch my laptop for 3 days each.. No way I am posting from the Holiday Inn when I could be enjoying a drink with fine company, to make my quota of posts, to make only a few dollars a week..

Being a signature campaign manager is different. You can't stop paying users just because you go on vacation. On the flipside, you can also look at it as being something you can get paid for from anywhere in the world. I know I'd much rather be sat next to a beach/pool and earning money than sit in front on my PC at home doing the same.

Isn't it better to just hire more people? Enforcing minimum weekly post counts probably has a negative effect on post quality if people know they *have* to post enough or they'll be kicked out of the campaign.

But who does the hiring? The board hires more people or the campaigns? With the latter the issue is they're greedy and/or lazy and they are usually always understaffed or overworked here (if they even have a dedicated manager here in the first place) and want to get the 'hob' done with minimal work or expense to them and hiring more people is often an expense they can avoid, but that's why there needs to be repercussions for the problem campaigns that do little to nothing.

[stompix]

Like I said payrate are only subjected to minimum payment, projects that's are capable of paying more are free to increase their payrate pay rank. These too has to be match with a reasonable amount of maximum post count per week (haven't come to a conclusion of any number that would be suitable).

I think I'm going to order a few hundred bags of popcorn for this....
So, let's see the trend here, first, there was somebody suggesting that signature participants should form a union.....Detroit..cough..

Then...
- minimum payment per post
- maximum working posting hours per week

Pretty interesting, wonder what will pop next? I have some ideas if you don't mind!
- put in place a maximum pay rate per post
- cut the payment gap between Legendaries and Full Members or tax the Legendary members!
- introduce a minimum payment that will be sent to all members/full members no matter their activity on the forum, the funds will come from the taxed Legendaries!
- create a code of antimonopoly rules which will not allow a campaign that promotes casinos for examples to have more than 10% of all the participants running a casino signature
- if a campaign closes before time and doesn't pay, the participants should still get paid from reserve funds, don't make me repeat who will pay for it

[Pmalek]

Same for plagiarism, you have been paying accounts to plagerise? Permaban..

A campaign manager would have to work full time to do such in depth checks for every single post and to run them through a plagiarism checker. After that he would have to filter out posts that he suspects are plagiarized and compare them further with found sources... That is an awful lot of work.

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?