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.
