Maximum number of posts eligible for payment

[hosseinimr93]

The Maximum amount of money can be earned by signature campaign participants depends on 1. the amount they are paid for every post and 2. the maximum number of posts eligible for payment.

Campaign owners can pay for every post as much as they want. No one can force them. It's their own money. They can pay 1 bitcoin for every post or 1 Satoshi. Then users decide whether participate in the campaign or not. If they pay more than others, they can attract the best users like what ChipMixer is doing.
Campaign owners can increase the pay rate for attracting users to their campaign. There is no problem with this. But they shouldn't be allowed to consider the maximum posts as much as they want. Because it will lead to spam.
Yobit is now paying the users for maximum 20 posts per day. I don't think there are more than 10 users in the forum that can make 20 constructive posts per day without spamming. I know Yahoo is doing his best and bans every user that spams. But there are still many useless posts made by Cryptotalk signature campaign participants.
If a campaign wants to attract better users, they should increase the rates and if a campaign wants more posts contain their signature should hire more users. They shouldn't be allowed to increase the total number of posts eligible for the payment.
ChipMixer is now paying 0.00075 bitcoin for every post. They can decrease the rates to 0.00012 per post and increase the number of eligible posts. In this way they can advertise their websites more and spend less money. But they don't do this. Thanks to them.
What if Yobit change the maximum posts to 40 per day? I think there should be a rule regarding maximum number of eligible posts.

[1714173949]

1714173949

[1714173949]

1714173949

[1714173949]

1714173949

[1714173949]

1714173949

[1714173949]

1714173949

[1714173949]

1714173949

[goinmerry]

I think there should be a rule regarding maximum number of eligible posts.

Just follow the forum rules, follow campaign rules, obey anyone, don't shit around, don't make a non-sense post, post constructively and all will be fine.

For me, no need to create a special rule because of a single campaign because anyone can spam with or without a signature. Help reports those spammers and let our precious moderators/admins/staffs to handle them.

[hosseinimr93]

I think there should be a rule regarding maximum number of eligible posts.

Just follow the forum rules, follow campaign rules, obey anyone, don't shit around, don't make a non-sense post, post constructively and all will be fine.

For me, no need to create a special rule because of a single campaign because anyone can spam with or without a signature. Help reports those spammers and let our precious moderators/admins/staffs to handle them.

There are many posts in the forum that are not spam and if you report them will be marked as bad. But it's better if they don't exist like what is going on in some spam mega threads. These kind of posts are only made to be paid.
We don't know if another campaign like yobit will appear tomorrow.

[goinmerry]

There are many posts in the forum that are not spam and if you report them will be marked as bad.

Only report those you think is spam according to your own criteria. Why reports those good post?

These kind of posts are only made to be paid.

In every campaign, not just in Yobit, that was the purpose of the majority.

That's why:

Just follow the forum rules, follow campaign rules, obey anyone, don't shit around, don't make a non-sense post, post constructively and all will be fine.

We don't know if another campaign like yobit will appear tomorrow.

Right on the very first day, if that campaign doesn't comply with the forum rules nor encourage spam, it will be tagged by our DT's including those who will continue to advertise them after a warning period.

[abel1337]

I think there should be a rule regarding maximum number of eligible posts.

Just follow the forum rules, follow campaign rules, obey anyone, don't shit around, don't make a non-sense post, post constructively and all will be fine.

For me, no need to create a special rule because of a single campaign because anyone can spam with or without a signature. Help reports those spammers and let our precious moderators/admins/staffs to handle them.

There are many posts in the forum that are not spam and if you report them will be marked as bad. But it's better if they don't exist like what is going on in some spam mega threads. These kind of posts are only made to be paid.
We don't know if another campaign like yobit will appear tomorrow.

I get your point, but moderators are doing it as a critic as they can. Judging someone's post if it is a scam or not. Even a full member rank in this forum can judge someone's post if it is considered as scam or not. Higher-ups are not labelling them as a spammer if they don't spam here in the forum, of course, they have a basis as well or criteria maybe.

[suchmoon]

This, just like the "minimum wage" suggestion a while ago, is unenforceable without some seriously Orwellian policing and I don't think there is any interest among forum administration to get involved in that.

Likely it wouldn't even solve the problem. Campaigns that pay pennies for shitposts could still pay pennies for shitposts, just hire more shitposters / account farmers / etc.

[hosseinimr93]

This, just like the "minimum wage" suggestion a while ago, is unenforceable without some seriously Orwellian policing and I don't think there is any interest among forum administration to get involved in that.

Likely it wouldn't even solve the problem. Campaigns that pay pennies for shitposts could still pay pennies for shitposts, just hire more shitposters / account farmers / etc.

Yes, This has already been discussed in this topic. and I was one of the people who disagreed with forcing campaign owners to pay a minimum amount per post. Campaign mangers should have the right to pay as much as they want. But they didn't have the right to attract the users with increasing number of eligible posts.
Assume that there are two campaigns.

A: 0.0001 BTC/post, Maximum eligible posts: 100/week, Number of participants: 50
B: 0.0001 BTC/post, Maximum eligible posts: 50/week, Number of participants: 100

Which one is better? Both are paying equal money for every post.
In my opinion the second one is better. It's more helpful to the campaign owner as I expect more posts will be made with their signature. It's also better for the forum as no one will spam to reach 100 posts per week.

[suchmoon]

Which one is better? Both are paying equal money for every post.
In my opinion the second one is better. It's more helpful to the campaign owner as I expect more posts will be made with their signature. It's also better for the forum as no one will spam to reach 100 posts per week.

Yeah but if the campaign allows shitposts and pays for them, then many of those 100 spots will be taken up by account farmers like we're seeing a bunch of dormant accounts joining the Cryptotalk campaign. Once yahoo62278 cleans it up I would guess that most users will not make the maximum allowed quota of posts.

Given that limitations like this are not easily enforceable at the forum level I'd say it would be far better to focus on making (encouraging, incentivizing, enticing, coercing, threatening, whatever) the campaigns to not pay for spam and leaving it up to managers how they want to manage their internal structure - caps on users, posts, ranks, merits etc.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

You guys don't get, just as the altcoin board is left to drown in spam and all we do is complain upon complain with very few users doing the needful to sanitised the board, same fate is what signature campaign has on the forum. Something has to be done, maybe the suggestion been aired by forum users aren't the best (but in our defense we're just trying to help). The adminstrators should give the sector some attention. Leaving it unsanitised isn't helping matters.

Concerning your suggestion, although I don't buy into the idea of restricting any individual to a maximum number of post he/she can make on the forum daily. Still, those abusing the privilege should be severally punish that's the kind of sanitation I'm referring to. Deleting of spam isn't making much of an impact instead it's just increasing the number of posts made by spammers to meet up post count incase previous spams are deleted.

[hosseinimr93]

Concerning your suggestion, although I don't buy into the idea of restricting any individual to a maximum number of post he/she can make on the forum daily.

I didn't say the users should be restricted to a maximum number of posts. The users should be able to make 100+ posts as long as they don't spam. But the number of posts that they are paid for should be restricted, so they are not encouraged to spam to reach the maximum earning.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If they pay more than others, they can attract the best users like what ChipMixer is doing.

This is not the reason why Chipmixer has some of the best posters on the forum--it's because DarkStar_ runs a very tight and mechanically sound ship.  He's extremely selective when looking at applicants and even goes for the most trusted members in addition to a history of quality posts.  If everyone ran their campaign like him, there wouldn't be any issues (and there probably wouldn't be enough members to fill all the slots, either).  Nothing against good managers like Yahoo62278 and Hhampuz and a handful of others, but there's a reason why the Chipmixer campaign is considered elite.

What if Yobit change the maximum posts to 40 per day? I think there should be a rule regarding maximum number of eligible posts.

I'll agree with you there, but I don't think Theymos would implement any regulations like that.  If Yobit actually pulled some crap like that, however, he would probably nuke the campaign just like he did the last time.  With hundreds of members making 40 posts per day, you know the forum would turn into a snake's nest within hours.

This, just like the "minimum wage" suggestion a while ago, is unenforceable without some seriously Orwellian policing and I don't think there is any interest among forum administration to get involved in that.

I don't think so either--and as supporting evidence, Theymos has never put into effect any such rules for signature campaigns (that I'm aware of).  Him halting the Yobit campaign last time and temp-banning some of the shitposters in it was actually a surprise to me.

Likely it wouldn't even solve the problem. Campaigns that pay pennies for shitposts could still pay pennies for shitposts, just hire more shitposters / account farmers / etc.

That "pennies" thing just isn't true, though.  Even if a campaign pays a few thousand sats per post, it adds up pretty quickly.  These things are extremely lucrative, especially if a participant is living in a poor country with high unemployment.  It's no wonder there are so many applicants as soon as a new campaign pops up.

[DarkStar_]

If they pay more than others, they can attract the best users like what ChipMixer is doing.

This is not the reason why Chipmixer has some of the best posters on the forum

Yes it is. Part of it is management but the fact is that the more you pay, the better people you can get.

[khaled0111]

Yes it is. Part of it is management but the fact is that the more you pay, the better people you can get.

Sorry, but no.
It is all about management. Yobit is one of the best paying campaigns but does it have the best membres! I don't think so.

[DarkStar_]

Yes it is. Part of it is management but the fact is that the more you pay, the better people you can get.

Sorry, but no.
It is all about management. Yobit is one of the best paying campaigns but does it have the best membres! I don't think so.

ChipMixer pays 34% more with 36% of the post requirement, assuming max pay. For pay/post, there are quite a few campaigns that beat Yobit as well, not to mention that they aren't shady exchanges with various scam accusations.

You can remove all the spammers you want, but the best members can generally join whatever campaign they want and they'll pick the highest paying ones.

[khaled0111]

...

Still.. It is up to the manager to choose the best.

I agree with you, if a campaign is paying high rates then all members (including the greatest posters) will apply.

[josephdd1]

Yobit campaign max is 20 but everyone is frowning on this. So I think anywhere between 14 - 16 should be max. If someone posts 2 posts per hour. Then 16 max for a 8 hour work shift of normal office time.
Seems fair to me. But the lower end could be around 7  or 8.. just my thinking..

[masulum]

Maximum is just a target, this number is about how the participant manages it. I am choosing to post if I find something to make a post, even just 7 posts for one day, it's no problem for me. I see people on the banned list (Yobit), trying to get a maximum post target, but they forget, if he wants to get paid, don't break the rules.

[tranthidung]

Yobit campaign max is 20 but everyone is frowning on this. So I think anywhere between 14 - 16 should be max. If someone posts 2 posts per hour. Then 16 max for a 8 hour work shift of normal office time.
Seems fair to me. But the lower end could be around 7  or 8.. just my thinking..

It is obviously that 20 posts as max paid posts per day is high cap, but if managers do their works (post quality checking) fine and don't tolerate bad posts, especially spam ones in their campaigns, there is nothing wrong for the forum.

Some days, I make more than 14-16 posts (that what you suggested) per day, but most of time, I make less than 14 posts per day. I believe others usually make less than 14 posts per day. 10 posts and below are average daily posts.

In some campaigns, there are some fixed requirements:
- Time (minutes) between two consecutive posts, that I don't agree with because good posters can see where they want to discuss, open different windows, think of ideas, and compose their posts, finally click to post. There is disadvantage for them to wait for 15 or 30 minutes to click to post. Or they will have to save their post draft and come back to that topic and make post later. In my opinion, this rule does not make sense.
- Max posts per day will be accepted to pay.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Yobit campaign max is 20 but everyone is frowning on this. So I think anywhere between 14 - 16 should be max.

I think the main anger of many users is that, yobit was employing spammers to spam the forum all in the name of promoting their exchange and as a result of poor campaign management or lack of total campaign management, this spammers were been paid for their spam but all that is going to change hopeful due to the appointment of @Yahoo as a campaign manager.

If those 20 maximum daily post were very quality or somehow reasonable post that added valued to the discussion the users were contributing to then, there won't be a problem. There isn't a limit to how many post you can post per day but when you abuse that privileges by spamming worthlessly that's when there's a problem.

[joniboini]

Still.. It is up to the manager to choose the best.

I think the point is, with a campaign like Chipmixer you get a lot of good participants from the beginning. On the other hand, Yobit won't attract the interest of those members simply because their pay per post rate is way too low. You can't expect people with more than 500 hundred merits to be happy with it if they can choose another campaign.

Seems fair to me. But the lower end could be around 7  or 8.. just my thinking..

That means 50+ post a week. Damn.

I didn't say the users should be restricted to a maximum number of posts. The users should be able to make 100+ posts as long as they don't spam. But the number of posts that they are paid for should be restricted, so they are not encouraged to spam to reach the maximum earning.

They can still do something else to get the best of this campaign, for example, using their alts accounts. This is hard to prevent because there is no 'approval requirement' before a user can earn from Yobit, and we can't expect yahoo to catch him an hour later. A better scenario would be to increase the pay per post rate, require approval before they can earn, and need at least ten earned merits  to join the campaign. That would kick most low-quality posters that suddenly show up after ten months of hibernating.