A new lower standard on max post quota for weekly paid campaigns

[joniboini]

Looking at the 200 character question, should a quality post be 200 characters long? I mean the person should write a letter? should one actually write 15 letters?

It's 200 chars, not 200 words. It's not that difficult to achieve with a target of 15 posts a week.

-snip-

The issue with the automatic enrollment was discussed multiple times, and Yobit should know about it already if they read or visit this forum. It's not going to solve anything if they don't want to change it, which could be one of the reasons why they lower the paid post per day quota because there's a lot of users on the campaign that should give them enough publicity.

[figmentofmyass]

lower quotas is better than nothing. it's a step in the right direction.

there shouldn't be any weekly quotas at all since it literally gives people financial incentive to post when they don't want to. so of course it's gonna create spam---participants are gonna make sure they get paid.

The thing is that these campaigns (specifically these two) have a fixed payment amount. So, if they always pay $45 for everyone, then how are them not supposed to have a minimum number of posts? I make 0 posts and get $45?

my point was that all campaigns should be paid per post---ie getting paid for what you would normally post anyway.

fixed payments incentivize people to post > the quota amount, no matter what. that's good for the campaign managers and their clients, but it's bad for the forum. it's hard to gauge the exact effects vs pay per post/no minimum, but it's pretty obvious logically that a required quota will cause more spam.

[Swordsoffreedom]

lower quotas is better than nothing. it's a step in the right direction.

there shouldn't be any weekly quotas at all since it literally gives people financial incentive to post when they don't want to. so of course it's gonna create spam---participants are gonna make sure they get paid.

The thing is that these campaigns (specifically these two) have a fixed payment amount. So, if they always pay $45 for everyone, then how are them not supposed to have a minimum number of posts? I make 0 posts and get $45?

my point was that all campaigns should be paid per post---ie getting paid for what you would normally post anyway.

fixed payments incentivize people to post > the quota amount, no matter what. that's good for the campaign managers and their clients, but it's bad for the forum. it's hard to gauge the exact effects vs pay per post/no minimum, but it's pretty obvious logically that a required quota will cause more spam.

I partly agree here. Yes, fixed payment with minimum post amount will cause spam especially if the amount is rather high (20 or more per week). However payment per post results in even more spam because people try to write as many posts as possible. Just look at CryptoTalk signature campaign. They limited maximum number of payed posts to 35 per week but that is still too many in my opinion.

[figmentofmyass]

my point was that all campaigns should be paid per post---ie getting paid for what you would normally post anyway.

fixed payments incentivize people to post > the quota amount, no matter what. that's good for the campaign managers and their clients, but it's bad for the forum. it's hard to gauge the exact effects vs pay per post/no minimum, but it's pretty obvious logically that a required quota will cause more spam.

I partly agree here. Yes, fixed payment with minimum post amount will cause spam especially if the amount is rather high (20 or more per week). However payment per post results in even more spam because people try to write as many posts as possible. Just look at CryptoTalk signature campaign. They limited maximum number of payed posts to 35 per week but that is still too many in my opinion.

that's because the standards are way too low in that campaign. paying per post doesn't remove the need for other standards of quality.

my point was that fixed-term payments create additional incentives to spam that don't exist with per-post payments. so they are decidedly worse for the forum, period.

even if the quota is only 10 or 15 posts a week (and quotas this low are very rare), it forces people to post when they otherwise wouldn't. in other words, post padding. what's even worse is that most of these campaigns remove people who don't meet their quotas. this makes the spam incentive even stronger.

[1Referee]

However payment per post results in even more spam because people try to write as many posts as possible. Just look at CryptoTalk signature campaign. They limited maximum number of payed posts to 35 per week but that is still too many in my opinion.

It's not fair to compare cryptotalk's semi no-rule signature campaign to those managed by proven campaign managers. In most pay-per-post campaigns managed by proven managers there are a bunch of participants who never reach any serious number of weekly posts. Simply for the fact that they don't have to post x number of times to claim payment.

Is there still an incentive to post for the sake of collecting payments? Surely is, but that's something you can't avoid and technically shouldn't be an issue as long as the posts are of decent enough quality to not conflict the manager's quality standards. If the posts seem forced and lose quality the manager will kick you out. It's a self regulating system that works well.