Can you create a signature campaign for OP posts?

[crypto1010]

What I mean is, can you have a sig campaign that asks participants to create threads instead of just posts on threads?

[1714490810]

1714490810

[1714490810]

1714490810

[1714490810]

1714490810

[1714490810]

1714490810

[ChuckBuck]

No, it cannot be a fixed rule, because this can create spam threads instead of spam posts, the spam topics are even worse than the spam posts. However, you can encourage participants on this matter, but to be honest, I do not support your idea 

[Findingnemo]

Never seen any campaign which asks members to create threads and get paid for it. But I guess it is allowed as long as you are not encouraging spams here (correct me if I am wrong).

[TryNinja]

There are no rules against doing that, but is this the best idea? Only paying for threads would probably encourage people to create spam mega-threads asking dumb questions that end up with pages of repetitive spam.

Paying an extra for threads *could* be fine tho.

[logfiles]

It would discourage the intended discussion and instead encourage Topic spam in different boards accross the forum. I wouldn't advice you to start it.

[crypto1010]

It would discourage the intended discussion and instead encourage Topic spam in different boards accross the forum. I wouldn't advice you to start it.

I understand but that can be said about any signature campaign, I'm asking about rules. It would be monitored very closely anyways to ensure the quality is good.

[RapTarX]

You can but you are going to generate most of the garbages here.

Never seen any campaign which asks members to create threads and get paid for it.

There was a campaign from stake.com and they had a weekly competition of creating threads beside the sig campaign. Eventually, it genearted spam.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Not for nothing, but that would be a disaster--probably worse than letting Yobit form a campaign with thousands of members and no standards for post quality. 

I've taken a look at cryptotalk.org, and that forum is an absolute mess.  From what I've seen, some sections don't get a lot of new threads being created, so members there step it up and start making new ones.  The problem is that nearly all of them are either incomprehensible or downright stupid.  I'd love to give examples of that, but I'm not going back there.  Ever again. 

I also don't think we need more threads than we already have.  One of the good things about bitcointalk is that there's a lot of "liquidity" in terms of new topics and relevant ones getting bumped.  If you were to pay people to just start threads, it wouldn't take long for members to run out of ideas--and of course they're still getting paid for thread creation, so they'll start making nonsense ones. 

Not a good idea.

[LoyceMobile]

Yes you can.
No you shouldn't.

It's going to be fun though: if OP creates spam, the whole thread including all replies can be trashed at once.

[electronicash]

if you can make it a rule for your participants and they agree why not.

its very strategic for companies doing the signature camapigns. the title of the threads can be seen more by the google crawlers and index it, i think this is meant for getting more traffic not just to the forum but also visibility to the links in the OP. the first post is usually what is being read the most the 2nd page are almost not read when users already sees the answers to the question but if the original post is an article the better it is for page to appear in google searches.

[Welsh]

if you can make it a rule for your participants and they agree why not.

its very strategic for companies doing the signature camapigns. the title of the threads can be seen more by the google crawlers and index it, i think this is meant for getting more traffic not just to the forum but also visibility to the links in the OP. the first post is usually what is being read the most the 2nd page are almost not read when users already sees the answers to the question but if the original post is an article the better it is for page to appear in google searches.

If its an article it better be constructive, and something related to the thread. I can see this sort of signature campaign generating not only a lot of low quality threads, but users trying to advertise for the service they're getting paid by which would be against the rules. Therefore, if users were sharing links of articles from the service they're advertising for that is likely to be low quality as well as advertising spam. An alternative way of going about this is to look at your applicants, and see which ones are more likely to create informative threads, and have been doing so for a long time. Otherwise, hiring someone who's normal behaviour doesn't involve creating threads would likely promote spam, and if not spam genuinely low quality forced posts.

[20kevin20]

This most likely leads to an insane boost in new created threads and nobody will participate in others' threads because their only interest is to create new ones themselves.

I don't want this to become the next CryptoShit forum. We're already having enough members leaving their crap to dry everywhere on the forum. Not to mention newbies will start creating threads instead of posts, thinking the campaign managers will accept them only if they have some long-ass useless threads hanging around the forum.

Moreover, I believe there's a difference between creating a thread and writing a reply. Creating a thread needs a pretty good structure (I have some shitty threads myself). How will one qualify for a campaign (or how will a manager accept someone) without the participant spamming with new threads?

[mindrust]

If a campaign asks something like this, people will create a thread for every news headline there is.

Creating threads is not against the rules but creating spam is.

A normal person doesn't create 5+ threads every day. Creating threads is not like posting. You create a new thread for something you think it is worth a discussion and unique and interesting or it is somewhat big news.

Whoever agrees to do something like you described in your post will look like a spam bot in no time.

[20kevin20]

If a campaign asks something like this, people will create a thread for every news headline there is.
~

We have enough members already doing that. Take a look over the Bitcoin Discussion board and you'll get an idea. I think more than 70% of the topics there are articles.

[bones261]

I certainly would hope that if some signature campaign decided to implement this plan that their quota and maximum is really low, like 5 or less a week. I can't imagine the quota being a high number such as 25 or more. I'm sure the staff would not be pleased with their increased workload of placing even more worthless threads into the trashcan. I can also see many threads being created in meta asking why their beloved threads have been deleted. Would they get credit for creating that thread too?

[malevolent]

The only positive thing about this is that it could help Global Mods with identifying who to ban or temp ban.

[pugman]

I am usually all in for interesting topics and conversations, so I wouldn't mind this concept being introduced but only with conditions added to it, like if a reputed campaign with good posters have this rule, I wouldn't mind at all. Also the creating post requirement could be a monthly requirement instead of a weekly one to avoid all the nonsensical forced posts.

[hilariousetc]

Whilst I think it might not be technically against the rules, this is just a recipe for disaster and I don't think it should be permitted (though maybe it would fall under advertising spam if people are creating threads just for the sig exposure). It's already a nightmare with users forcing themselves to post about things they know nothing about, and doing the same but for threads would be even worse. They won't even be interested in discussing anything as they'll only create a thread then move on to creating a new one as that's all they're going to be interested in.

[The Cryptovator]

Force to create new topic for signature campaign definently will encourage spam. It wouldn't mandatory due to over spam. As a campaign manager I believe any managers will not accept such as offer if the team ask create new topics. Although it's not against forum rules yet, but if incase any campaign ask something similar then likely moderators would forced to implement rules as well. Because it would be extra work for them to trash spam mega thread. Because I have seen some users even didn't made single topic in their lifetime. So asking them create new topic means asking to create spam topic.

[Coyster]

Imagine a situation were, let's say about 30 participants in a campaign have to create close to 25 threads threads weekly, that's over 750 threads created by participants of that campaign alone in just one week, it's so much and a lot of them will be LQ threads.

And another thing is that it would encourage users to just make threads and not add anything to the discussion in the thread since it won't count in their weekly requirements, they'll just make 25 threads and allow others to do the "talking" in them.