Are there needed general (common sense) rules for signature campaigns?

[GazetaBitcoin]

Recently, I had this thought of opening a thread related to necessary, but also common sense rules for signature campaigns. I started writing it, but I never finished it from various reasons; however, recently something happened and determined me to finish this post.

So why would we need common sense rules for signature campaigns? For reducing the spam, for improving the posting quality and also for having a common sense and a consensus (similar to other common sense / consensus rules applied here - for example, the rules for ads, the rules for DT election, the rules for becoming a merit source etc.).

What determined me to finish writing this topic? I was part of the 777Coin campaign for the last 6 weeks - 5 under Hhampuz and 1 under CryptopreneurBrainBoss. In 5 weeks with Hhampuz, I had only 1 post denied. In one week under CryptopreneurbrainBoss I had 15 posts denied by him. Edit: apparently, that was a mistake of the manager and he solved it later.

The topic is not about CryptopreneurbrainBoss, nor about Hhampuz. It is about the fact that each campaign manager has his own standards and views, which are based on his subjectivism. As it can be seen from above, this subjectivism may vary a lot. Thus, maybe if we would have a consensus about campaigns too, several problems / questions / spams would be avoided.


And all these lead me to ask some suggestions / questions about common sense campaigns and participants rules, as it follows:

[1] All managers ask (or should ask) for "constructive posts". What are "constructive posts"? How can we define constructive posts? Should they be defined as "replies on the subject, no matter their length" (including one liners)? Or should they be considered constructive only if they meet a minimum character length? I saw that some managers accept small posts as being valid for their campaigns, while others don't. No matter if the posts are on subject and usefull; they just deny them. We need a consensus here.

[2] Should some boards be banned from any campaign? I saw that some managers say that posts in some sections are not accepted; other say that posts from other boards are not accepted. Can be a general rule for boards not accepted in any campaign? Example: ban all posts from Politic&Society and Off-topic boards.

[3] Should participants be accepted only if they meet a certain amount of merits in the past 1-2 months prior applying to the campaign (and also prior being accepted inside the campaign)? And another suggestion here, the merit number could be fixed for each kind of rank, but lower for low rank users and bigger for higher rank users. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only 4 or 5 have a merit requirement; can such requirement be implemented for all campaigns? But I'm not talking about a trivial minimum threshold as the actual one is (5 merits); I'm talking about a serious threshold, such as 20-30 merits.

[4] Should participants be excluded from campaigns if they don't earn a minimum amount of merits per week? Furthermore, similar to (3): could this minimum threshold be a fixed number for a low rank, a bigger number for a higher rank and so on?

[5] Should be accepted inside any campaign only members of certain ranks (eg. minimum Senior users)? Several campaigns are oriented only to high rank users; why wouldn't be applied here a general rule to be accepted in all the campaigns only these kind of users?

[6] All campaigns have a minimum and a maximum posts number per week. Could these limits be fixed for all the campaigns? Example: have a minimum of 10 posts/week and a maximum number of 25 posts/week.

[7] All managers ask that participants don't have a negative trust; what if this rule would be improved to high rank users, meaning to be required to have a positive trust in order to be accepted?

 [8] Can there be set a common sense rule for maximum number of posts accepted per day? Example: only 5 posts per day to be taken into account. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only one states clearly that it accepts maximum 7 posts per day, four state they accept maximum 8 posts per day, while 15 mention only that burst posting is not allowed, without giving any definition of burst posting. So what is "burst posting" then? In order to eliminate spam even more, can it be defined as a certain number of posts per day?

I'll update later the topic if other questions / suggestions come into my mind.

Edit -- two more questions / suggestions came into my mind:
[9] Should humor be accepted (should the posts involving humor be counted as eligible) if it is on topic, as a general rule, or should it be denied, also as a general rule?

[10] If there is a minimum rank required for being accepted, should be accepted in any campaign the users who have the merits neccesary for the respective rank, but which don't have yet the necessary activity?

Edit 2:
[11] Should it be a general rule to not be counted posts in topics older than a predetermined amount of time? Example: deny all posts in topic older than 12 months. This rule would be also for reducing spam. I remember that in Yobit's last day a user posted in a 9 years old topic (!!!) in order to earn a few cents more.

Edit 3:
[12] Should it be a general rule to not be allowed campaigns requiring participants to have a certain number of topics created in a week or requiring participants to have a certain number of posts in the first page(s) of a topic? Such a campaign is BlockZone and, apparently, many people blamed its requirements, as they may raise the amount of spam.

[1715394379]

1715394379

[1715394379]

1715394379

[1715394379]

1715394379

[1715394379]

1715394379

[1715394379]

1715394379

[1715394379]

1715394379

[rosezionjohn]

[1] All managers ask (or should ask) for "constructive posts". What are "constructive posts"? How can we define constructive posts? Should they be defined as "replies on the subject, no matter their length" (including one liners)? Or should they be considered constructive only if they meet a minimum character length? I saw that some managers accept small posts as being valid for their campaigns, while others don't. No matter if the posts are on subject and usefull; they just deny them. We need a consensus here.

The standard is not off-topic or answer should be related to the OP. Theymos already said something about off-topic replies and I think that's what managers also use as reference.

All replies must respond to the topic's original post in some way, even if they are replying to an on-topic reply. If your reply has nothing to do with the topic post, either add some content that is relevant or create a new topic.

For me, being constructive has nothing to do with length but if you are in a campaign that pays for your post, then you have no choice but to meet the minimum characters while being constructive.

Every manager and every campaign have their own set of standards so I'm not sure about having a consensus. They are free to dictate the length of post required. When it comes to allowing post quality though, I think some managers here, especially those managing signature bounties, should be more strict.   

[2] Should some boards be banned from any campaign? I saw that some managers say that posts in some sections are not accepted; other say that posts from other boards are not accepted. Can be a general rule for boards not accepted in any campaign? Example: ban all posts from Politic&Society and Off-topic boards.

I believe so. The main goal is better exposure of their project to their target markets which are crypto enthusiasts. Topics in Off-topic and politics & society boards aren't really related to crypto so why pay for posts made there?

[3] Should participants be accepted only if they meet a certain amount of merits in the past 1-2 months prior applying to the campaign (and also prior being accepted inside the campaign)? And another suggestion here, the merit number could be fixed for each kind of rank, but lower for low rank users and bigger for higher rank users. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only 4 or 5 have a merit requirement; can such requirement be implemented for all campaigns? But I'm not talking about a trivial minimum threshold as the actual one is (5 merits); I'm talking about a serious threshold, such as 20-30 merits.

[4] Should participants be excluded from campaigns if they don't earn a minimum amount of merits per week? Furthermore, similar to (3): could this minimum threshold be a fixed number for a low rank, a bigger number for a higher rank and so on?

Merit is just an added requirement to gauge if the applicant is a quality poster or not. The number could be raised or be reduced but the main basis is the user's post history. I've seen some managers say they're going to make an exception even if the min. merit isn't met and also seen some reject applicants even though they met the minimum requirement.

[5] Should be accepted inside any campaign only members of certain ranks (eg. minimum Senior users)? Several campaigns are oriented only to high rank users; why wouldn't be applied here a general rule to be accepted in all the campaigns only these kind of users?

The thinking is that most higher rank members are more experienced and have better post quality. We know that is not always the case but the number of good posters that are high ranked accounts are probably higher than lower ranks. We can also add the characters allowed in the signature space of higher rank accounts as another reason.

Given that there are fewer high rank accounts, I think company's should also be given the option to choose lower rank accounts if they want to have more promoters.

[6] All campaigns have a minimum and a maximum posts number per week. Could these limits be fixed for all the campaigns? Example: have a minimum of 10 posts/week and a maximum number of 25 posts/week.

It's possible but that is entirely up to the company. There are cases when the community would stepped in if they think the number of posts required is too many and it's causing a lot of spam like in the case of yobit or cryptotalk.

[7] All managers ask that participants don't have a negative trust; what if this rule would be improved to high rank users, meaning to be required to have a positive trust in order to be accepted?

Neutral should be enough. Requiring positive trusted applicants only could cause more forum drama and maybe even trust trading.

[8] Can there be set a common sense rule for maximum number of posts accepted per day? Example: only 5 posts per day to be taken into account. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only one states clearly that it accepts maximum 7 posts per day, four state they accept maximum 8 posts per day, while 15 mention only that burst posting is not allowed, without giving any definition of burst posting. So what is "burst posting" then? In order to eliminate spam even more, can it be defined as a certain number of posts per day?

The limit per day is only to discourage posters from completing their task in a short period of time. Companies also wants maximum exposure and given how fast topics or posts are buried here, they would want their signature to be seen daily if possible. But again, posts per day is not up to the forum.

[philipma1957]

So I read both posts.

To op if all your rules are followed it will allow spam signature farms to make template that will enable them to write a shit ton of posts .

So it is not feasible to do that.

rule 8 burst posting needs a definition yeah it does needs one.

The other seven need to be more random.

Just my opinion.

I do think you have some valid points and gave a merit. Making you a senior member. You will need to keep posting to make senior but you now have the merits needed.

[GazetaBitcoin]

Thank you both for sharing your opinions here!
Let's hear more!

After all, with group debating, with constructive discussion, greater benefit can be brought to the entire forum!

Don't forget that all of the above were just my suggestions / questions, not decisions

I do think you have some valid points and gave a merit. Making you a senior member. You will need to keep posting to make senior but you now have the merits needed.

Thank you very much philipma, this is a historic event in my career here! I will always remember, as I also remember who gave me my first merits.

[Lucius]

[1] All managers ask (or should ask) for "constructive posts". What are "constructive posts"? How can we define constructive posts? Should they be defined as "replies on the subject, no matter their length" (including one liners)? Or should they be considered constructive only if they meet a minimum character length? I saw that some managers accept small posts as being valid for their campaigns, while others don't. No matter if the posts are on subject and usefull; they just deny them. We need a consensus here.

I think it's hard to expect consensus to be reached on this issue, because every manager has his own vision of what a constructive post is. I think it is not realistic that this can be reduced to one universal rule that everyone will respect. Sometimes one line makes more sense then wall of text.

[2] Should some boards be banned from any campaign? I saw that some managers say that posts in some sections are not accepted; other say that posts from other boards are not accepted. Can be a general rule for boards not accepted in any campaign? Example: ban all posts from Politic&Society and Off-topic boards.

We have some boards/topics where signature is not displayed, and in my opinion general rule that some boards should be banned from signature is not good. Any campaign/manager has to decide for himself what he wants to pay and what doesn't, what is good for campaign, and what is not.

[3] Should participants be accepted only if they meet a certain amount of merits in the past 1-2 months prior applying to the campaign (and also prior being accepted inside the campaign)? And another suggestion here, the merit number could be fixed for each kind of rank, but lower for low rank users and bigger for higher rank users. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only 4 or 5 have a merit requirement; can such requirement be implemented for all campaigns? But I'm not talking about a trivial minimum threshold as the actual one is (5 merits); I'm talking about a serious threshold, such as 20-30 merits.

Merits are only one of the criteria by which the candidate can be evaluated, but should not be a decisive factor. Given that there is many merits abuse, looking only on merits and not post history can lead to the choice of a bad participant. I agree that rule about 5 earned merits in 120 days is pretty frivolous, and that should be much bigger number.

[5] Should be accepted inside any campaign only members of certain ranks (eg. minimum Senior users)? Several campaigns are oriented only to high rank users; why wouldn't be applied here a general rule to be accepted in all the campaigns only these kind of users?

I think this is a manager decision, some campaigns simply want to be represented by members with higher ranks, others target lower rank users just because they in general accepts lower pay rates. It would be wrong to exclude all member under Senior rank.

[6] All campaigns have a minimum and a maximum posts number per week. Could these limits be fixed for all the campaigns? Example: have a minimum of 10 posts/week and a maximum number of 25 posts/week.

This is not true, ChipMixer is not had min number of post, or max number you need to post - only limit is max post per week which can be paid. A general rule would be bad, because each campaign is specific and does not have the same resources.

[7] All managers ask that participants don't have a negative trust; what if this rule would be improved to high rank users, meaning to be required to have a positive trust in order to be accepted?

Not true gain, you can have negative trust from DT member and still be in CM campaign, the manager decides whether that feedback is relevant or not. Positive trust is something that in most cases come from trading on forum, some members are not involved is such activities, but that does not mean that they should take precedence in signature campaigns.

I skip few of your points, because I think I have already answered the most important questions. I think any of such rules would be very difficult to enforce in forum, but that doesn't mean they can't be guidelines.

hilariousandco is written great guidelines regarding signature campaigns back in 2016, and I think they give some answers to the questions asked. How many adhere to them is another question, but that is why they are called guidelines, not rules.

Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)

[UserU]

In 5 weeks with Hhampuz, I had only 1 post denied. In one week under CryptopreneurbrainBoss I had 15 posts denied by him.

Frankly speaking, our campaign hasn't listed any rules which warrant a post denial (spam obviously an exception) but I did plan to send CB a PM on the conditions so we could be more aware of the above.

Previously nakamura mentioned that short posts/ one-liners might have contributed to this.

Thanks for the update. Just wondering, what kind of posts are rejected?

I noticed I have 10 but have no clue why.

You should have PM the CM to ask that questions or complaints.. What I think of your rejected post maybe it's too short or as I have short replies too and rejected. Some of the cases of rejected post are 1 liner post which I know for sure. I have one liner post in round 59 so it's more likely to be rejected and the post quality needed too. Check the spreadsheet in round 60 which the cm telling to increase quality first.

[The Cryptovator]

First I want to clarify you that signature campaign isn't moderated by forum, so there won't be specific official rules for signature campaign out of forum rules. But campaign managers should comply with forum rules and currently I think all managers are complying as well. And you should noticed that before join a campaign managers are saying "we reserve all the rights to accept/deny any post, change campaign rules at any time and so on". So if someone don't want to moderate by manager they should avoid such as campaign.

Let's come to the merits point, it's good process to pick perfect participants. But if you are paying very low amount of reward then you won't found high quality poster. This is the normal behaviour. High quality poster will never join with low payment. In that case likely you will not able to pick participants if you make limits of merits.


Regarding brust posting, if a users make TEN post within half hours then for me it would consider as brust posting. For example if a participants posting gap at least below TEN minutes that means they do not even read the post (IMO). They just make reply after reading topic title. So such as post should not count for paid.

For daily limits, I think even a quality poster could make more than 20 post if necessary and if they have free time. This won't a problem. But in order to spread post whole week there should limits per day, and I have been asking 7-8 for my participants maximum per day. So at least participants have to active 4 days minimum for fill weekly requirements.

Rank requirements totally depend on the platform team (IMO). Because each ranks have specific signature design. So which one will choose by team that should be ranks requirements. Manager only suggest them but can't force because they are paying. If they like to pay only higher ranks then they should free to do. Remember, beggar can't be a chooser.

Just want to clarify again, positive feedback doesn't mean quality poster. Posting would get for different reason. So asking only positive trusted people isn't appropriate.

[YOSHIE]

Are there needed general (common sense) rules for signature campaigns.

I draw one conclusion from this problem "campaign and common sense rules".

So, the sig campaign is managed by the manager / company and several teams, they have permanent rules in developing their projects to move forward, general reasons.

Participants are hired and chosen by managers based on the rules they apply, they have their own rules that were legislated before and when the campaign was held.

Every company / manager has its own rules for fostering wholeness and success for the campaign, participants have 0% to regulate and overhaul, their current rules which have been in effect for years.

If campaign participants are not able to obey the rules they apply, of course "leave" no need to register, there are still many participants who are able to obey the rules developed by companies and campaign managers sig.

Participants do not spend and give one cent of money to managers and companies that are promoted, those who pay to participants sig.

I think that participants do not have the full right to change or add new rules that come out of the participants' mind.

For that, if participants object to the current form of rules by the manager / company then just leave the campaign, do not have the right for participants to overhaul and add to the existing rules.

Except: the participant is a campaign manager, company manager, and Admin / mod or who has full authority in the Bitcointalk Forum, it is possible that new rules are applied.

What are the rights of participants in the campaign only to promote one or two weeks, finished.

[yahoo62278]

[1] All managers ask (or should ask) for "constructive posts". What are "constructive posts"? How can we define constructive posts? Should they be defined as "replies on the subject, no matter their length" (including one liners)? Or should they be considered constructive only if they meet a minimum character length? I saw that some managers accept small posts as being valid for their campaigns, while others don't. No matter if the posts are on subject and usefull; they just deny them. We need a consensus here.

To start, constructive posts are determined by the manager of the campaign. Their decision is their decision and all managers do not think the same. That's like asking all DT members to share the same opinion or all forum mods to do their jobs the same way. It's just not gonna happen. If you don't like a managers rules, leave the campaign and go elsewhere, if you can find another campaign.

There are xxx campaigns and 100x more users looking for spots in those campaigns, so getting accepted isn't always easy. Adapt to the managers rules or don't be in a campaign.

[2] Should some boards be banned from any campaign? I saw that some managers say that posts in some sections are not accepted; other say that posts from other boards are not accepted. Can be a general rule for boards not accepted in any campaign? Example: ban all posts from Politic&Society and Off-topic boards.

Boards are banned due to the quality of posts usually found on banned boards. For example, Games&rounds, noone should be paid for claiming a few satoshis from a site by posting their username and btc address. That's just a shit post. Users can still post on boards that aren't paid, but they won't be paid for said post.

I doubt all managers will unify and only ban certain boards as a whole. Some managers think boards that I find posts unconstructive on are constructive.

[3] Should participants be accepted only if they meet a certain amount of merits in the past 1-2 months prior applying to the campaign (and also prior being accepted inside the campaign)? And another suggestion here, the merit number could be fixed for each kind of rank, but lower for low rank users and bigger for higher rank users. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only 4 or 5 have a merit requirement; can such requirement be implemented for all campaigns? But I'm not talking about a trivial minimum threshold as the actual one is (5 merits); I'm talking about a serious threshold, such as 20-30 merits.

Again, this is a managers discretion issue. Some managers feel that if they make users earn merits throughout the week, then they are doing their part in getting constructive posters for the campaign.

I tried this approach once and found out that users can buy merits, so it's really kind of a waste of time. Not to mention the fact that there is no general rules on what type of post merits can be sent to. It's not always easy to see merit abuse.

A guy can be earning 20$ a week in a campaign and spending 5$ of that per week to buy merits and keep himself earning 15$ per week. It's a sacrifice but it guarantees them money.

[4] Should participants be excluded from campaigns if they don't earn a minimum amount of merits per week? Furthermore, similar to (3): could this minimum threshold be a fixed number for a low rank, a bigger number for a higher rank and so on?

Same answer as above. It's at the managers discretion. Not much users can say or do about it.

[5] Should be accepted inside any campaign only members of certain ranks (eg. minimum Senior users)? Several campaigns are oriented only to high rank users; why wouldn't be applied here a general rule to be accepted in all the campaigns only these kind of users?

This is really up to the company that's paying for the campaign. If they have a small budget weekly, then they likely want to look at hiring jr members or members vs only hiring sr or above. Users can post constructively at all ranks, even newbie, but to hire all sr member or above you need a larger weekly budget.

[6] All campaigns have a minimum and a maximum posts number per week. Could these limits be fixed for all the campaigns? Example: have a minimum of 10 posts/week and a maximum number of 25 posts/week.

This is actually something that I think all managers could get together on. Companies want their name seen as much as possible all over the forum so that they can get business driven to their site, but regular forum users want spammers to stop spamming. So if the weekly requirement is lower, in theory it should reduce the spam. No guarantees though. Some people come in for 2 days and punch out their weekly requirement and hop on to another account.

For me personally, I would like to see 15 posts weekly be the standard, but companies may not be willing to pay a decent rate for fewer posts.

[7] All managers ask that participants don't have a negative trust; what if this rule would be improved to high rank users, meaning to be required to have a positive trust in order to be accepted?

I have been accepting some users with negative trust at times. Depends on the reason for the trust. Getting positive trust can be kinda hard for some people. Getting a negative is as easy as waking up in the morning.

[8] Can there be set a common sense rule for maximum number of posts accepted per day? Example: only 5 posts per day to be taken into account. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only one states clearly that it accepts maximum 7 posts per day, four state they accept maximum 8 posts per day, while 15 mention only that burst posting is not allowed, without giving any definition of burst posting. So what is "burst posting" then? In order to eliminate spam even more, can it be defined as a certain number of posts per day?

It does not matter what you set the limit to. Users still spam. Users still do not care about the forum. Users are greedy as hell. Users will log in, make their daily post cap and log out. Not caring 1 bit about where they posted or what they posted about. Not all users, but a good portion.

Look at the mess of shit that happened with yobit. I had to look at 600 profiles+ multiple times a week. I seen the same shit over and over from a good load of users. Log in, do 5 posts, log out. Rinse and repeat daily.

Now with all your concerns answered, I am going to speak my opinion on some matters concerning signature campaigns and managers.

1. Some of these managers should not be managers. There are a shit load of managers now and they do NOT even come close to doing a good job. They don't even grade a campaign correctly. They open a spreadsheet see what number post a user had ended the previous week with, then see the number they have for the current week and just subtract giving the user a total for the current week. They don't even take the time to read users replies for the week. Just do a little math and move on.

Users have posts deleted every week(not all but alot do), so a manager needs to actually open a profile and count the posts for the week. Then, they need to check the posts and sections posted in. Check to make sure they're on topic. Then subtract the junk posts and end up with a total for the week.

I'm all for people trying to start a career, but if you cannot do the job, don't try.

I will edit with a little more later

[20kevin20]

Posts being considered constructive only if they meet a minimum character length would be a bad idea. I think we all know that, although some of us don't post just for the campaign, we're subconsciously putting more effort when writing a post so it would be considered a constructive one by the sig campaign manager.

However, adding a minimum character limit to the posts would turn into everyone writing all the crap possible in their posts while staying on-topic as much as possible, so they could touch that minimum limit. Constructive posts, imo, are posts that have some sense and are not just repetitive ideas to fill a wall of text. Constructive means for me writing my own thoughts when answering someone, so it would clearly be my idea, not others'. If you're really interested in the answer to a topic, you'd write constructive posts without even thinking about it.

Banning boards is subjective. A company willing to promote their website might not be looking for it to be promoted in a certain board. Example: if the website is banned in Romania, they could ban the respective board in order to make users post more on the other boards, because it makes no sense to promote a website and pay members for writing in an area your platform isn't available in.

I think the minimum merit in the past months should be required. It allows the more active and deserving users on the forum to get the spots they deserve. There should be a little bit of competition imo, or we'd have spammers and shitposters occupy some places they don't deserve. But they shouldn't be kicked out if they do not acquire a certain amount of merits per week. Merit earning is subjective to each user, hence you might not receive any merit even if your post is very useful.

The minimum rank limit should stay as it is. Let the websites set a minimum rank for their own campaign. Some campaigns are looking only for very deserving users (ChipMixer) and lowering the limits would only make the campaign threads fill up with hundreds of participation posts (ChipMixer already gets a ton of participation posts from hundreds of users every time there's a spot open - imagine what the board would look like if they had Member accounts the minimum requirement).

Min/max posts/week. They should be up to the promoted platform's owners. If they are willing to pay 100 maximum posts, why would they not do it?

Positive trust requirement would be a mistake imo. Most users I've seen with positive trust have earned it from trades or because they've done something extraordinary for the forum. It would not be fair to other members because I have seen some with 0 positive trust doing more effort for the forum than those with postitive trust above 0.

I've done burstposting before. It's basically writing as many posts as you can to just to hit that max counted posts per day or week and replying to lots of threads (especially megathreads or replying to the last few posts because it's the fastest way to do it) in a short amount of time repeating your same ideas. When it becomes spam, it's easy to notice.

[hilariousetc]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0

Yes, there should be some minimum standards required and that's what we tried to achieve with the signature campaign guidelines linked above but when they're not enforced it is going to lead to abuse. Without ramifications for those that don't meet some sort of minimum standards there's going to be little reason for them to start strictly enforcing their campaigns as it's a hell of a lot of work so they just won't do it and then the forum obviously suffers. You can already see the stark difference between campaigns that run them well and the others not so much. When they do nothing we get yobit and wall to wall spam. When there's high standards you get chipmixer where there's close to zero shitposts.

[1] All managers ask (or should ask) for "constructive posts". What are "constructive posts"? How can we define constructive posts? Should they be defined as "replies on the subject, no matter their length" (including one liners)? Or should they be considered constructive only if they meet a minimum character length? I saw that some managers accept small posts as being valid for their campaigns, while others don't. No matter if the posts are on subject and usefull; they just deny them. We need a consensus here.

Asking what is constructive is like asking what is good art or music. Completely subjective, but it's usually pretty easy to spot constructive posters from spammers or lazy shitposters. Sometimes a one word answer is all that is required and other times sentences or paragraphs of garbled drivel from people who don't know what they're talking about is far worse and that's why you take things on a case by case basis and weigh up the context of the post.

[Philipma1957cellphone]

I am on my cell I don't use it often. But two people gave definitions for burst posting. I tend to agree with 20kevin20. Making 10 posts in ten minutes to reach max
.  Is most likely burst posting.


Coolcryptovater
Also tried to define burst posting.  Yeah I think 10 in 30 minutes is very close to or is burst posting.  But he talks about taking at least 10 minutes before you make a reply to a post. Not so sure that is correct.  I can give a 150 word solid answer in under 2 minutes in some cases.  Some one may ask what parts do I need for a low end ryzen 9 3900x build to mine Monero. Since I have three builds I can list and answer the question really fast.  Maybe I misread what he was trying to say. In the case of some longer threds

[TheAndy500]

Many of your suggestions sound interesting and well argued. I would gladly support them, if the fact that it is not the managers that all these rules depend on. Of course, each of the managers can set the rules that he require, but it is up to the owner of the campaign to decide what rules they will set. Even if managers set a general list of rules among themselves, the campaign owner can find his manager (often they are already working for the project - thats why, for exaample, was created a Cooper member rank) and he will set his own rules. In short, I'm afraid that despite good intentions, your proposals will not work in practice.

[RevealJS]

Are there needed general (common sense) rules for signature campaigns?
Don't we only need one rule for sigs? 1) Everyone in your campaign is required to follow the rules of the forum.

[gentlemand]

I'm pretty content with things as they are overall. It's very much down to the operator's discretion and you don't become a successful one without showing plenty of common sense.

These days the decent campaigns have so many applications they can choose clear non assholes who don't need reining in. The piece of shit campaigns are leapt on instantly and given a kicking.

There's more diligence at the top end and less tolerance at the bottom end than there has been at any other point as far as I can see. And that arose pretty organically without the need for ironclad rules.

[Jawhead999]

No offense but I think your question have been answered by @hilariousandco Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)

Suggested guidelines:

• You should only start a campaign if you have someone willing to keep a very close eye on your participants posts. If you do not then a signature campaign is not for you.

• Do not just automatically accept any user that signs up to your campaign. Check their posts first. If they're all short sentences or unsubstantial or in very poor English then they're likely not going to change their habits. If every campaign only accepts and pays for users who have made fairly constructive posts then this will instantly clean up the forum as any poor posters will have to improve if they want to earn anything from a campaign.

• Consider only accepting higher-ranked accounts. Not only do lower-ranked members tend to make the most spam, they also have limited signature space for your advertisement. Full Members and above would be recommended, but if you want to pay Newbies then that's entirely up to you, just remember that you are responsible for the posts they make.

• You cannot rely on a bot to run your campaign for you. Bots are great for counting and tallying up valid posts and even for paying users but they are useless in determining actual post quality and you need someone to be monitoring users along side it.

• Do not take on more users than you can handle. It is almost impossible for one campaign manager to monitor hundreds of users making thousands of posts a day. Instead of paying as many users as possible, limit it to a manageable amount as having a handful of quality posters is better than hundreds of spammers who will only give your company a bad name/image on the forum.

• Consider only paying for certain sections/sub boards. Do you really want to pay people to post in Off Topic or Games and Rounds? If you do then that's entirely up to you but don't be surprised when users exploit these sections with unsubstantial posts.

• Consider not accepting users with negative feedback. It never looks good when users have negative feedback and 99% of the time the feedback is there for a good reason, but if you want to take this on a case by case basis then that's down to you.

Maybe this is why many of Campaign manager do that rules for the campaign, it has been announced to make more good and selective users from joining the signature campaign. Moreover, they are Campaign Manager it's why they have own subjective to assess for the campaign participants. They're work for managing the users, and where the users work for him. When I saw the old signature campaign, they have more limit maximum post about each week such as : 500,100 and accepting newbie and jr. member https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=665860.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759542.0 . While look at this many case, it's the reason Signature campaign have more many rules and requirement to prevent the spam/bad post users

[Krislaw]

And all these lead me to ask some suggestions / questions about common sense campaigns and participants rules, as it follows:

[1] All managers ask (or should ask) for "constructive posts". What are "constructive posts"? How can we define constructive posts? Should they be defined as "replies on the subject, no matter their length" (including one liners)? Or should they be considered constructive only if they meet a minimum character length? I saw that some managers accept small posts as being valid for their campaigns, while others don't. No matter if the posts are on subject and usefull; they just deny them. We need a consensus here.

From what I understand, a constructive post is a post that's on-topic not off-topic. Making a constructive post on a spam mega thread will make the post close to less constructive.

[2] Should some boards be banned from any campaign? I saw that some managers say that posts in some sections are not accepted; other say that posts from other boards are not accepted. Can be a general rule for boards not accepted in any campaign? Example: ban all posts from Politic&Society and Off-topic boards.

This is already like a general rules here. Technically, posts in off-topic won't really get the campaign what they need. It's just like running  a Facebook ad, targeting Males for a female product.

[3] Should participants be accepted only if they meet a certain amount of merits in the past 1-2 months prior applying to the campaign (and also prior being accepted inside the campaign)? And another suggestion here, the merit number could be fixed for each kind of rank, but lower for low rank users and bigger for higher rank users. Currently, out of 21 signature campaigns, only 4 or 5 have a merit requirement; can such requirement be implemented for all campaigns? But I'm not talking about a trivial minimum threshold as the actual one is (5 merits); I'm talking about a serious threshold, such as 20-30 merits.

Making merit requirements for each ranks doesn't really make a lot of sense. And having 20-30 merit in the last 120 days won't work out because sometimes, it's somehow hard to meet that.

[Findingnemo]

This forum doesn't stop you from posting one liners or even a word so campaign rules are not related with forum rules so it doesn't seems to be fit in META.

Better have this thread on service discussion.

Only simple rule for campaigns,it doesn't have to generate spams and this should be only handled by the campaign managers by checking the quality of the posts.

Merit requirement is just for an idea but that should not be implemented in a strict way like you mentioned because merits are not distributed equally even if the quality of same between two posts.

[GazetaBitcoin]

Thank you all for sharing your opinions! Much appreciated!

It is interesting to see so many people having so may opinions about each suggestion / question.

I updated the topic today, as two more questions came up my mind - one regarding humor and one regarding users which have enough merits to meet a minimum rank but don't have yet the activity required.

Besides, I'm also looking forward for yahoo's update, as he said he intends to add some more. Also regarding the statement regarding the campaign managers competences - can be done anything about that? Maybe have an election list for them similar to the DT system? What yahoo said was a truth, a truth hard to be digested but still a truth.

[Lucius]

No offense but I think your question have been answered by @hilariousandco

No offense, but why are you posting a link already posted by two members before you?

hilariousandco is written great guidelines regarding signature campaigns back in 2016, and I think they give some answers to the questions asked. How many adhere to them is another question, but that is why they are called guidelines, not rules.
Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0

Not reading previous posts and only responding based on the title or OP, is also something that campaign managers should pay attention. A post may look very good and constructive, but what is the point of it if it is merely a repetition of what has already been written?

It is interesting to see so many people having so may opinions about each suggestion / question.

This is the reason why any rules of this type are very likely never to be introduced into the forum, not only because it is impossible to reach a consensus, but also that it would be impossible to control them.