The signature campaign “syndrome”

[BlackHatCoiner]

I have been in this forum for 1 year and I've noticed that the main motivation for making high quality posts is the fact that you can get paid out of it. While I'm a strong believer that signature campaigns enrich this forum's quality and that “it keeps it alive”, it is advisable to mention a downside of this procedure and specifically:  The “syndrome” of signature campaigns.

I'll speak out my personal view about this, it may not be true for everyone. Once I read the replies of a thread, I'll ignore most of the users that participate on a low-paying signature campaign, by the thought that they are shit posters. But, that may not be true. I observe a form of prejudice. I'll actually take a closer look to a post made by a high-quality signature campaign participant rather than a newbie.

A user may have thousands of merits, but he/she may create low quality posts. Someone with 4-digits post count and 2-digits merit count would be quickly rejected into your mind, either because he/she may have promoted failed/scam tokens or made shitty posts for pennies. But it's much more different with avatars/signatures. Most of the times, when I scroll a thread I'll skip those replies, without even looking at the merit/post count ratio. It just makes a splash! And that's because along with the avatars/signatures, I will have formed a bad picture of the ones that advertise it.

I wonder if this happens to you too, and if it does, do you hide avatars and signatures to prevent it? This poll may be a great feedback for the campaigns' owners too.

[Upgrade00]

I've noticed that the main motivation for making high quality posts is the fact that you can get paid out of it.

Imo, quality contribution cannot be forced or faked, those who try to do this will run into trouble eventually with the forum rules, and those who do contribute qualitatively have to be genuinely interested in discussions about Bitcoin. Signature campaigns help keep the forum active, but doesn't raise the quality.

do you hide avatars and signatures to prevent it? This poll may be a great feedback for the campaigns' owners too.

No, I do not hide avatars or signatures. The company being advertised and the users profile details could slightly influence how I read a post, but I try to remain as open minded as possible.

[nutildah]

I have been in this forum for 1 year and I've noticed that the main motivation for making high quality posts is the fact that you can get paid out of it. While I'm a strong believer that signature campaigns enrich this forum's quality and that “it keeps it alive”, it is advisable to mention a downside of this procedure and specifically:  The “syndrome” of signature campaigns.

I'll speak out my personal view about this, it may not be true for everyone. Once I read the replies of a thread, I'll ignore most of the users that participate on a low-paying signature campaign, by the thought that they are shit posters. But, that may not be true. I observe a form of prejudice. I'll actually take a closer look to a post made by a high-quality signature campaign participant rather than a newbie.

You're right about what the "main motivation" for the majority of all posters is. Believe it or not there was actually a time when people used to sign up for the forum just to learn about Bitcoin, and some still do -- i see them in the Development & Tech section. But nowadays it's about getting as much coin for as little effort as possible. People don't think about using the forum to learn more about cryptocurrency, thereby using it to fundamentally better their own lives. They just read a thread title and post away. It's sad because a prosperous future is staring them in the face and they don't even realize it.

In this way the forum is largely over-run by mindless postbots, who may be human but whose function mirrors that of a bot. Occasionally there are some interesting or at least entertaining nuggets here or there.

[Welsh]

Signature campaigns help keep the forum active, but doesn't raise the quality.

I would actually disagree with this. Signature campaigns likely do raise the amount of quality posts being posted. Money is a motivating factor for most of the world. I've only ever met a few individuals who aren't motivated by money. We've all probably wanted to get a promotion or a better paid job at some point in our lives, usually to either feed our families, or simply to keep yourself running. Signature campaigns are similar in that they offer an incentive for users to take time with their posts, and actually put in the effort.

Which, to be honest I don't see a particular problem with. If they are taking the time, and making constructive posts, then I don't really care what their motivating factor is. I think we are focusing on the motivation, rather that the actual problem. The actual problem is; there's a number of low quality posts with or without signature campaigns. However, there's a certain demographic which participate in campaigns, which have a low quality threshold, and therefore get paid for spouting low quality posts.

[notblox1]

I don't hide signatures and avatars but I do ignore other members if I see them repeat similar low quality posts and this can be members from all campaigns including higher paid.
My observation is there people sometimes fight who will answer first some stupid fake questions and that is not really helping forum in any way, and there are good topics that are dead and inactive.
More shallow and stupid topic are it produces more replies and shitposts, and that is the signature syndrome.

[Charles-Tim]

I do not hide signature or avatar
I do not ignor users
I like reading posts of high-paid campaign members
I have lists of some quality-posting users

I report shit posters but gain from good posters.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I have avatars and signatures blocked simply because I can't stand looking at them--and that's true for every forum I've ever been a part of.  They just take up space and are distracting to me.  It isn't because I've formed a prejudice against members of any particular signature campaign.  I've been here long enough that I'm well aware that some of the best posters might participate in some of the lousiest campaigns--and pretty much everyone here has some form of advertising in their sig space or avatar, so I don't hold that against anyone.

Generally I can tell whether a post is a shitpost within the first sentence or two, because they have a very similar "style" so to speak and it's easily detectable if you've read enough posts here. 

I do not ignor users
I like reading posts of high-paid campaign members
I have lists of some quality-posting users

Why don't you ignore users?  Man, my ignore list runs a mile long and I could probably add at least 50 new members to it if I were of the mind to do so.  What do you do with your list of "quality-posting users"?  Just curious.

[nutildah]

Signature campaigns help keep the forum active, but doesn't raise the quality.

I would actually disagree with this. Signature campaigns likely do raise the amount of quality posts being posted. Money is a motivating factor for most of the world. I've only ever met a few individuals who aren't motivated by money.

It feels weird wearing a signature and saying this, but sig campaigns definitely contribute to the forum's overall  spam problem. People wouldn't post meaningless nothing here that's already been said a thousand times on a daily basis if they didn't have the financial incentive to do so.

It is easy to spot posters are purely motivated by money because their posts generally suck. If someone can't even pretend to be the least bit interested in contributing something original, yet they post anyway, it can only be because they are being paid for it.

Furthermore, I've witnessed a few genuinely original thinkers / positive contributors join sig campaigns and then watch their posts turn to lifeless dronings because they fear not fitting the mold and being kicked out of their campaign.

[shahzadafzal]

The only problem I feel with signature campaigns is “must post xx number of posts in a week”. I wish if this limit was not there. This is the only reason that kills the quality. I haven’t found any campaign which have a soft corner on this and gives a choice to the user if he want to post 1, 10 or 50 posts in a week. But not forcing on certain number of “must have” posts.

We can see this on other social media platforms almost every other YouTube video includes a paid promotion or sponsored content but since the sponsors are not forcing the creators to post x number of videos in week. The quality of videos doesn’t drop significantly.

If we can some how convince the sponsors and campaign manager to don’t force this “x number of posts rules” or at least keep it bare minimum. I believe quality of posts may increase.

[tranthidung]

While I'm a strong believer that signature campaigns enrich this forum's quality and that “it keeps it alive”

Signature campaigns are part of promotions, advertisements of companies in the forum. They together help to bring more traffics for the forum but without them, the forum won't be a dead one. There are times the forum does not have signature and/ or avatar and it still survives so well.

Once I read the replies of a thread, I'll ignore most of the users that participate on a low-paying signature campaign, by the thought that they are shit posters. But, that may not be true. I observe a form of prejudice. I'll actually take a closer look to a post made by a high-quality signature campaign participant rather than a newbie.

It is your bias and any of us can have too (at somewhat extent).

I disagree if you say the quality of specific posts is decided by the campaigns they are participating in. A user who are in low-paid signature campaign or bounty can still make good or outstanding posts. It can be expanded to ranks, a newbie can make outstanding post as same as or even better than a Legendary member.

Generally, the average quality of post would be different (significantly) between participants of high-paid and low-paid signature campaigns. It would be more accurate if you generalize it from a total sample size of participants.

A user may have thousands of merits, but he/she may create low quality posts. Someone with 4-digits post count and 2-digits merit count would be quickly rejected into your mind, either because he/she may have promoted failed/scam tokens or made shitty posts for pennies.

It is related to posting style. If you spend 2 or 4 years to rank up, with due diligent efforts for your posts, your writing skills should be sharpened and better. Over years, it will become your habit to make good contributions with above-average quality posts. However, you always can make shit posts.

[Findingnemo]

I have the habit of looking at the avatars more than the signatures, and I remember some of the members in that way.

I don't hide anything and I don't ignore anyone's post unless they are trolling continuously, I just let them to be on my ignore list. Money os everything in this world and everyone is trying to get merit because they can join in better paying signature campaign which is really a bad thing in my opinion but in general its accepted by the community as long as it benefits the forum with good quality of posts compared to the past.

[rosenbauer02]

50/50.

I think that signature campaign is one of the highlights here in bounty hunting except for those who have great talent in programming that could do something else aside from joining signature bounty.There are still many things to consider whether to look signature bounty positively or negatively.

I had agree in your case OP, there are many high paying signature as I check in the services section and most of the hired members are actually good or quality posters but not all.

Few reasons why members now turning to quality posting rather than shitposting.

First, is that bounty manager wanted to run all projects handled to become successful. These mean that a good bounty manager will hired quality posters by checking member's merits and posting habits. Good bounty manager can identify fake merits earn which are some likely earn it by their alt accounts or some friends supporting them that made immediate rank up even at low activity.

Second, A member itself wanting to earn strive to get some merits by sharing quality, informative posts that will someday help him to get hired in a high paying bounty projects.

Third, that members itself has high intellectual capacity in the field of cryptocurrency or any related activities that help him showcase in his posts.Some are related to their educational attainment that we can even called them an expert. I have seen some concrete presentation from the statitician here showing graph with gathered data and their analysis that could be a reference someday or to someone that might be needing it in the future.

Fourth, members wanting a change in the forum by reporting, busting and help stop fraud activities. These stop other members to do shitposting to avoid getting reported and getting ban temp or permanently.

Well, having a good forum is ideal but we can't take out those fraud members here and they are always coming back even after gets busted. For now, I enjoyed the stay here in the forum and would most likely to enjoy if fraud and  other related activities will be lessen.

[mk4]

The way I look at it:

I personally truly love communicating in forums such as Bitcointalk, and I have no problem doing it all day. But would I do it if I wasn't getting paid? No. Not because money is the main motivation, but simply because I need to cut a lot of my Bitcointalk time into doing other stuff. Just like even though I love gaming so much that I could do it all day, playing DOTA2/CSGO 24/7 won't be able to pay my bills.

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>

I barely notice the signatures, since I’m used to visually skipping them when reading (I’d rather not use the hide feature though). The avatar is noticeable to me if unique to a user, by association over time, but are otherwise of no significance when reading a post.

What may happen is that I pay closer attention to some posts because of who wrote it, and that is probably based on the opinion one makes on the poster through having read a whole bunch of prior posts that I’ve considered interesting.

[NeuroticFish]

I'll speak out my personal view about this, it may not be true for everyone. Once I read the replies of a thread, I'll ignore most of the users that participate on a low-paying signature campaign, by the thought that they are shit posters. But, that may not be true. I observe a form of prejudice. I'll actually take a closer look to a post made by a high-quality signature campaign participant rather than a newbie.

Woah. I'm here since 2014 and I've never done that!
I do ignore the badly formatted posts, I do ignore the posts that make no sense or they're badly translated, but I don't ignore/skip based on the signature campaign.

You imagine that if I would have done that I wold have ignored most of your posts?
Newer people may have potential. Newer people may do great posts before getting into the best signature campaigns?
An I'm sure you also don't do this 100%. Because that wold mean that you ignore the posts of gmaxwell or achow101     (sorry guys if I've triggered notification)

[Charles-Tim]

Why don't you ignore users?  Man,
Why don't you ignore users?  Man, my ignore list runs a mile long and I could probably add at least 50 new members to it if I were of the mind to do so.

I like reporting poor posts, and most or nearly all the reported posts are posts of newbies and poor posters. Also because I do not read all posts during many replies, I focus most on reading the ones that people in high-paying campaigns do post.

Why don't you ignore users?  Man,
What do you do with your list of "quality-posting users"?  Just curious.

A little mistake for not completing that accurately, not a list on a book that I meant, I do not write down usernames. I meant active members on this forum that will be very difficult for me to forget, I have their names off hand, which I like reading their post.

[UserU]

The only problem I feel with signature campaigns is “must post xx number of posts in a week”. I wish if this limit was not there. This is the only reason that kills the quality. I haven’t found any campaign which have a soft corner on this and gives a choice to the user if he want to post 1, 10 or 50 posts in a week. But not forcing on certain number of “must have” posts.

We can see this on other social media platforms almost every other YouTube video includes a paid promotion or sponsored content but since the sponsors are not forcing the creators to post x number of videos in week. The quality of videos doesn’t drop significantly.

If we can some how convince the sponsors and campaign manager to don’t force this “x number of posts rules” or at least keep it bare minimum. I believe quality of posts may increase.

Can't blame the advertisers for setting such criteria. Having paying the participants on a weekly basis, surely they'd want to make the best of their budget. That's how business works.

I find that 25 a week is a sweet spot. Divided by 7 days, that averages to 3.5 a day. Not too demanding if you ask me.

If everyone simply posts like a few times per week, it's unfair for other participants due to the lack of rotation.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Woah. I'm here since 2014 and I've never done that!

Even if signature campaign was a thing 7 years ago, it wasn't the same as it is today. It's much more intense in the last 3 years, it's been seen as a real business. Judging the marketplace section, I can gently concede that the majority of the participants of the low-paying signature campaigns/bounty programs/<anything_else> are lacking on the quality part.

An I'm sure you also don't do this 100%. Because that wold mean that you ignore the posts of gmaxwell or achow101

As I said, I'll ignore most of those users, not all of them. I don't understand how these folks are related with the discussion. They aren't participants on any signature campaign last time I checked.

I haven’t found any campaign which have a soft corner on this and gives a choice to the user if he want to post 1, 10 or 50 posts in a week. But not forcing on certain number of “must have” posts.

If you search a little bit more, you'll find them.

[NeuroticFish]

Even if signature campaign was a thing 7 years ago, it wasn't the same as it is today. It's much more intense in the last 3 years, it's been seen as a real business. Judging the marketplace section, I can gently concede that the majority of the participants of the low-paying signature campaigns/bounty programs/<anything_else> are lacking on the quality part.

True, it's an ever growing business. And true, there are a lot of low quality posts, unfortunately.
But my point is that if you do this kind of ignore, you can easily miss out good (or great) posts just because somebody is not yet in a good/top campaign.
I prefer to put on ignore the 100% unrecoverable shitposters, for example, and just go on and read the rest.

As I said, I'll ignore most of those users, not all of them. I don't understand how these folks are related with the discussion. They aren't participants on any signature campaign last time I checked.

My bad. I somehow thought that the classification could put those without signature even lower than those with cheap signatures, by the logic that the worse shitposters may not get accepted even in the most worthless bounties.


However, the overall situation is imho quite complicated and "generalizing" by the signature one wears can give "incorrect results".

[Pmalek]

I don't put signatures on ignore because I find it to be deceptive to participate in a signature campaign, and at the same time have those signatures on ignore. I don't mind seeing them. I don't have prejudices against participants, based on the signature campaigns they take part in. The campaigns are limited and sometimes you are just late or a decision has to be made between two equally good posters. What I don't like is looking at ads of scams and questionable exchanges like Yobit or HitBTC.

I haven’t found any campaign which have a soft corner on this and gives a choice to the user if he want to post 1, 10 or 50 posts in a week. But not forcing on certain number of “must have” posts.

That's exactly how the ChipMixer campaign has been set up. There is no weekly minimum to get paid. You can make 1 post that qualifies for payment, and you will be paid for it. In fact, if you take a look at the spreadsheet for CM, you will notice plenty of users who haven't been active several weeks in a row, but they still remain participants in the campaign. Others post just a few posts per week and ask the manager to hold their payments until they gather something significant to withdraw to their wallets.