Bounty managers and newbie bounty hunters

[yahoo62278]

I'd like to start a discussion on Bounty managers allowing Newbies to join in bounties. How does everyone feel about that? A good number of you really could care less, I know that, but those who care about the forum might care and join in on the discussion.

Let's start with I personally am guilty of allowing Newbies in bounties myself. It doesn't matter that I barely manage bounties, what matters is when I do, I have allowed Newbies. I kind of looked at it as they aren't hurting anyone and may live in poorer areas of the world. They need money too.

Then I see THIS TOPIC by lovemayfamilis and it really kind of pissed me off. Not because lovemayfamilis was catching cheaters, but because every single account out of 67 was a fucking Newbie. I hate to start a controversial topic that might take away a Newbies ability to earn money, but if a good number of you are going to cheat then fuck off.

We make it so easy for Newbies too because what's going to happen if they're caught? Not a damn thing! They get tagged and create a new account as if nothing has changed. On top of that, managers are kind of being dishonest too because we are allowing these accounts to join. Companies contact us and we give them an idea of the participation we might get them in a bounty campaign, but the numbers are way off since we are allowing these cheaters to join. Essentially, we are no better than the bounty cheaters because we are unknowingly lying. Well most are unknowingly lying. Others just down right don't give a damn long as they get paid.

So what's the solution? Here's my thoughts on Newbies and what can be done.

1. No more allowing Newbies in campaigns. Make newbies rank up and have something to lose if they're gonna cheat.
2. No neg trusted accounts can join period

Now, what about managers? Should we tag managers who are outright being dishonest by allowing Newbies? Or tag managers who really aren't caring about the forum? Should we just hope they will try to make a change? Or does anything really matter?

I don't know the answers, but I think together we can all make some good suggestions to try and slow these cheaters down. Maybe also change managers ways. Thoughts?




 

[_BlackStar]

First, your campaign is your rules. If you don't want to allow newbie to participate in your campaign at any section because probably most of them are alts ^{[as you described in the OP],} then you have the right to apply that rule to your campaign.

Second, I have asked or suggested the same question in the past about limiting the participation of newbie in the campaign, but look at the reaction community.

Should every newbie have a limit in the bounty of social media?

Then I'll have to think twice about this post even though I've suggested the same a few times about newbie when some cheaters hunter catches big farms.

Limiting newbie participation is very harmful for a community. Newbie jail will never return: I consider the newbie-jail period to have been extremely damaging to the forum. When barriers to participation are too high, then the best people often just won't go to the trouble of joining, and the people who are willing to jump through the hoops are often people who aren't good for the community: people with nothing better to do, scammers, get-rick-quickers, etc. Having a permanent newbie jail policy would improve things a lot in the short-term, but would end up being a fatal poison to the community.

[yahoo62278]

First, your campaign is your rules. If you don't want to allow newbie to participate in your campaign at any section because probably most of them are alts ^{[as you described in the OP],} then you have the right to apply that rule to your campaign.

Second, I have asked or suggested the same question in the past about limiting the participation of newbie in the campaign, but look at the reaction community.

Should every newbie have a limit in the bounty of social media?

Then I'll have to think twice about this post even though I've suggested the same a few times about newbie when some cheaters hunter catches big farms.

Limiting newbie participation is very harmful for a community. Newbie jail will never return: I consider the newbie-jail period to have been extremely damaging to the forum. When barriers to participation are too high, then the best people often just won't go to the trouble of joining, and the people who are willing to jump through the hoops are often people who aren't good for the community: people with nothing better to do, scammers, get-rick-quickers, etc. Having a permanent newbie jail policy would improve things a lot in the short-term, but would end up being a fatal poison to the community.

I don't mind a newbie participating in conversations on the forum, which is what I believe theymos is referring to in your quoted post. I have an issue with a Newbies participating in bounties making money. 2 totally different things IMO.

I welcome Newbies to post and interact on the forum. We were all Newbies at some point.

[LeGaulois]

In the days when users were giving negative feedback to shitposters, I said the bounties managers should receive too because the spam is somehow generated by them. Why not? if we would have tagged these managers, for sure the others would have paid much more attention to the people they accept in their campaign, because red tags=no more campaigns to manage.

Of course, the majority of the forum was afraid to do it.

Let's face the reality, when a manager accepts a bag of newbies, he knows what will be the result. Why keep doing it? Because the manager needs to provide results, and the project behind needs to hit a return on investment.
It's all about the hype, and sometimes, managers are ready for everything to create this hype and to make the project happy!

[_BlackStar]

I don't mind a newbie participating in conversations on the forum, which is what I believe theymos is referring to in your quoted post. I have an issue with a Newbies participating in bounties making money. 2 totally different things IMO.

I welcome Newbies to post and interact on the forum. We were all Newbies at some point.

You may need to read the full excerpt from that post, but I'm willing to quote it again for you.

Based on the fact that I now felt that the driving force behind theymos' decisions was not $

Right, I don't care about making money from the forum personally. (I've actually thought about getting rid of the forum ads, since it's often a big headache and the forum has enough reserves for a long time, but operating at a significant loss while there's money basically just sitting on the table feels wrong, even if the level of loss is sustainable for quite a while.)

The things on the forum which encourage spam are allowed mainly because it's part of the forum's mission to be as free as possible. Eg. banning bounties would undoubtedly reduce spam, but that'd be destroying an entire economy/population/culture which has been able to develop due to the forum's freedom. I am willing to take this sort of action, but only as an absolute last resort. It's always preferable to handle these problems by reshaping the environment to make them non-problems, rather than removing some freedom.

It's wonderful when someone is able to constructively do something on the forum instead of continuing with whatever they were expected to do under the status quo. Enabling that sort of thing is exactly why Bitcoin and this forum were created. Though bitcointalk.org is not a worldwide welfare organization, and people are not entitled to make money.

Limiting newbie participation is very harmful for a community. Newbie jail will never return: I consider the newbie-jail period to have been extremely damaging to the forum. When barriers to participation are too high, then the best people often just won't go to the trouble of joining, and the people who are willing to jump through the hoops are often people who aren't good for the community: people with nothing better to do, scammers, get-rick-quickers, etc. Having a permanent newbie jail policy would improve things a lot in the short-term, but would end up being a fatal poison to the community.

The low signal-to-noise is a real issue which seriously annoys me and is often on my mind. But as you mention, fixing it non-destructively is difficult.

About the question in your thread, I totally support the idea of ​​limiting or eliminating newbie from bounty participation. Of course I don't want that to be done by the forum because maybe the admin doesn't want any restrictions on newbie participating regardless of whether they want to make money or something. In my first post in this thread, it's clear that managers can apply that rule to any campaign/bounty they manage ^{[I support it],} of course.

[dkbit98]

I'd like to start a discussion on Bounty managers allowing Newbies to join in bounties. How does everyone feel about that?

If I was a manager I honestly would never accept newbies in my campaigns, unless not until I investigate their post history and establish they are worth including.
This would be in very rear occasions, and I would wait until they rank up and show some real effort for improving.

1. No more allowing Newbies in campaigns. Make newbies rank up and have something to lose if they're gonna cheat.

Yeah, it's probably best to stop accepting all newbies in bounty campaigns, but this rule should be accepted by all managers.
I think this is impossible to implement, and someone could always become new manager and play outside this rules.
This would mean that moderators would have to make this a new unofficial forum rule, if possible.

2. No neg trusted accounts can join period

This is tricky.
You can't look all negative trust feedbacks equally, and we know there are some people who enjoy tagging everyone, and they are still in DT
Maybe think about not allowing anyone who has more than one negative trust feedback would be better, but not perfect.

Now, what about managers? Should we tag managers who are outright being dishonest by allowing Newbies? Or tag managers who really aren't caring about the forum? Should we just hope they will try to make a change? Or does anything really matter?

I would create some kind of ratting system for managers, and managers with lower ratings could have limited amount of campaigns they can create.
Highest ratings would have everything unlocked, but ratings can be changed anytime.
However, this idea needs to discussed and checked for all the pros and cons.

[decodx]

So what's the solution? Here's my thoughts on Newbies and what can be done.

1. No more allowing Newbies in campaigns. Make newbies rank up and have something to lose if they're gonna cheat.
2. No neg trusted accounts can join period

I generally support both suggestions. Newbies should really be active in the community before they can apply for bounty campaigns. This would significantly reduce cheating and bounty farming. Regarding the second suggestion, I agree with dkbit98. Each case should be looked at individually because some negative tags may be unfounded.

Now, what about managers? Should we tag managers who are outright being dishonest by allowing Newbies? Or tag managers who really aren't caring about the forum? Should we just hope they will try to make a change? Or does anything really matter?

This is the tricky part. Even if all existing bounty managers agreed to this, what's to stop new bounty managers who don't want to follow these community rules? Tagging them may be a solution, although I'm not sure everyone will agree on this. But even after that, they can still continue with bad practices. Case in point: 1xbit campaigns.

[Igebotz]

^^
You have a good idea. I've considered this before while bursting alt and discovered that it's very easy to farm newbie accounts and nearly impossible to farm Members+ accounts because most bounty spammers are shitposters who can't rank up his farm accounts to a member rank, which would automatically reduce bounty cheating. Sometimes I wonder why a manager would accept a bunch of newbies accounts with less than 30 activity or less into their campaigns; if they truly cared about the company they are promoting, they would not accept a bunch of alts into their campaign, but since the majority of them don't give a fuck as long as they get paid, I don't mind..

If we're being honest, bounty hunters farm the most accounts because they want to take all of the tokens from the project they're managing. If I ever host a bounty campaign, my minimum acceptable rank would be Member +; it's the only way to eliminate a slew of newbie farms.

About the question in your thread, I totally support the idea of ​​limiting or eliminating newbie from bounty participation. Of course I don't want that to be done by the forum because maybe the admin doesn't want any restrictions on newbie participating regardless of whether they want to make money or something. In my first post in this thread, it's clear that managers can apply that rule to any campaign/bounty they manage ^{[I support it],} of course.

His suggestions is for bounty and potential bounty managers and not for the admin.

[meser#]

I recently saw that a signature campaign has a merit requirement. If you want to be eligible for that round you must acquire at least 1 merit. Lets say its 6 week campaign and the bounty hunters must acquire 6 merit during the campaign if they want to be eligible. Probably you will say they will make circle on merits but those are only posting their report it will make easier to find them. My idea might be nonsense but there is many people trying to scam projects and managers. If no action is taken, they will continue in the same way.

[bakasabo]

What about decreasing bounty reward allocation for social media campaigns? Will it decrease the amount of newbie cheaters, because it will be unprofitable to join even with multiple accounts? It is hard to tell which newbie account is used for cheating, and who is a real newbie that is trying to earn a bit. And for a project - is it huge difference if his project is promoted by one person with lots of accounts or by many people? Project is getting his promotion anyway (but the quality of it is low, I agree with that, but that is a different question).

But, I suggest to accept only accounts starting with Jr.Member rank. Those who are cheating, will get caught during merit distribution most likely. And with time it will be hard to get merit for new accounts to cheat. Or, maybe accepting accounts, that have registration date more than half of a year and some posts (not spam)(lets say 100 posts is enough) are the key to success? During this half year a person could rank up, or at least show that he is not here just to post bounty reposts. I think it will be hard for cheaters to generate some good posts, and one-liners/shit posters will be spotted quick.

[meser#]

What about decreasing bounty reward allocation for social media campaigns? Will it decrease the amount of newbie cheaters, because it will be unprofitable to join even with multiple accounts? It is hard to tell which newbie account is used for cheating, and who is a real newbie that is trying to earn a bit. And for a project - is it huge difference if his project is promoted by one person with lots of accounts or by many people? Project is getting his promotion anyway (but the quality of it is low, I agree with that, but that is a different question).

But, I suggest to accept only accounts starting with Jr.Member rank. Those who are cheating, will get caught during merit distribution most likely. And with time it will be hard to get merit for new accounts to cheat.

One is always higher than zero mate. In my opinion it wont decrease the cheater number unlike it will be reason to increase. If amount of the reward is lower than their rivals qualificated members dont want to attend it. This forum is allowing to earn money by campaigns but this cheater is only using for it. They dont contribute to forum i think this is one of the major scale to reveal cheater. 

[yahoo62278]

I'd like to start a discussion on Bounty managers allowing Newbies to join in bounties. How does everyone feel about that?

If I was a manager I honestly would never accept newbies in my campaigns, unless not until I investigate their post history and establish they are worth including.
This would be in very rear occasions, and I would wait until they rank up and show some real effort for improving.

Ideally this would be a good requirement, but it will be a very controversial topic.

1. No more allowing Newbies in campaigns. Make newbies rank up and have something to lose if they're gonna cheat.

Yeah, it's probably best to stop accepting all newbies in bounty campaigns, but this rule should be accepted by all managers.
I think this is impossible to implement, and someone could always become new manager and play outside this rules.
This would mean that moderators would have to make this a new unofficial forum rule, if possible.

The forum has rules that are not official rules, for example selling accounts is allowed, but look how many get tagged for it. So I think if the forum decided we should not allow newbies and see a manager doing so, DT could tag said manager. Or they could say fuck off we aren't tagging anyone over bounty shit.

2. No neg trusted accounts can join period

This is tricky.
You can't look all negative trust feedbacks equally, and we know there are some people who enjoy tagging everyone, and they are still in DT
Maybe think about not allowing anyone who has more than one negative trust feedback would be better, but not perfect.

This is a rule that could be left up to each individual manager, but I would sway towards not allowing personally.

Now, what about managers? Should we tag managers who are outright being dishonest by allowing Newbies? Or tag managers who really aren't caring about the forum? Should we just hope they will try to make a change? Or does anything really matter?

I would create some kind of ratting system for managers, and managers with lower ratings could have limited amount of campaigns they can create.
Highest ratings would have everything unlocked, but ratings can be changed anytime.
However, this idea needs to discussed and checked for all the pros and cons.

The admin isn't gonna step in and limit a manager and how many campaign he can do unless the manager is banned, but if DT was tagging managers for legit rule infractions( or unofficial infractions) then companies may look for a better reputed manager. Companies may also not care and go with the cheapest option available, trust be damned.

I generally support both suggestions. Newbies should really be active in the community before they can apply for bounty campaigns. This would significantly reduce cheating and bounty farming. Regarding the second suggestion, I agree with dkbit98. Each case should be looked at individually because some negative tags may be unfounded.

Agreed with newbies needing to participate in the community before coming here trying to earn a load.

I recently saw that a signature campaign has a merit requirement. If you want to be eligible for that round you must acquire at least 1 merit. Lets say its 6 week campaign and the bounty hunters must acquire 6 merit during the campaign if they want to be eligible. Probably you will say they will make circle on merits but those are only posting their report it will make easier to find them. My idea might be nonsense but there is many people trying to scam projects and managers. If no action is taken, they will continue in the same way.

Not a bad idea either, even if the users start trading merits between each other they would run out pretty quick.

What about decreasing bounty reward allocation for social media campaigns? Will it decrease the amount of newbie cheaters, because it will be unprofitable to join even with multiple accounts? It is hard to tell which newbie account is used for cheating, and who is a real newbie that is trying to earn a bit. And for a project - is it huge difference if his project is promoted by one person with lots of accounts or by many people? Project is getting his promotion anyway (but the quality of it is low, I agree with that, but that is a different question).

But, I suggest to accept only accounts starting with Jr.Member rank. Those who are cheating, will get caught during merit distribution most likely. And with time it will be hard to get merit for new accounts to cheat.

One is always higher than zero mate. In my opinion it wont decrease the cheater number unlike it will be reason to increase. If amount of the reward is lower than their rivals qualificated members dont want to attend it. This forum is allowing to earn money by campaigns but this cheater is only using for it. They dont contribute to forum i think this is one of the major scale to reveal cheater.  

I think meser# is right man. This would just make bounty hunters double the amount of cheating accounts they have in a campaign.



Let's be honest for a second. If you are a bounty hunter in 1 campaign and that campaign has Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Instagram, and telegram in it, you will spend a total of 5 minutes on that campaign in a week. It's not very time consuming to retweet or share a post on all these platforms, and if original content and hashtags needs to be added the users post some bullshit as their original comment and copy/paste the hashtags. This is why bounty hunters can join 1000 bounties a week per account. It's simple work.

[meser#]

Let's be honest for a second. If you are a bounty hunter in 1 campaign and that campaign has Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Instagram, and telegram in it, you will spend a total of 5 minutes on that campaign in a week. It's not very time consuming to retweet or share a post on all these platforms, and if original content and hashtags needs to be added the users post some bullshit as their original comment and copy/paste the hashtags. This is why bounty hunters can join 1000 bounties a week per account. It's simple work.

Probably most of them already automated the procedure. They just checked their account get the link and post it. When you check those scammers accounts you'll noticed one common thing. More than 30 activity and there isn't any merit. Why? Isn't it obvious they don't care the forum. At least with their multi accounts Most of the project (those who want to get easy money or the project dev which absence of vision) probably wont care this situation because advertise is advertise. But if I were a project manager i would care it. And if there is a campaign manager who be careful about this situation I prefer him/her.

[decodx]

I recently saw that a signature campaign has a merit requirement. If you want to be eligible for that round you must acquire at least 1 merit. Lets say its 6 week campaign and the bounty hunters must acquire 6 merit during the campaign if they want to be eligible. Probably you will say they will make circle on merits but those are only posting their report it will make easier to find them. My idea might be nonsense but there is many people trying to scam projects and managers. If no action is taken, they will continue in the same way.

I think this is a good suggestion as well. Bounty managers should give merit points more meaning in their campaign conditions. Merits should be used for other purposes than just requirement for ranking up.

[sheenshane]

I thought newbies won't allow any bounty campaign, it must be a jr. member rank, AFAIK.

minimum acceptable rank would be Member +; it's the only way to eliminate a slew of newbie farms.

..this and

I recently saw that a signature campaign has a merit requirement. If you want to be eligible for that round you must acquire at least 1 merit. Lets say its 6 week campaign and the bounty hunters must acquire 6 merit during the campaign if they want to be eligible. Probably you will say they will make circle on merits but those are only posting their report it will make easier to find them. My idea might be nonsense but there is many people trying to scam projects and managers. If no action is taken, they will continue in the same way.

this...
I tend to agree with them.
The only way to eliminate those bounty hunters but I don't think if, all those bounty managers will follow this rule, especially newbies.

This isn't a new problem, it has been discussed here so many times about irresponsible bounty managers, and yet, even tagging them they can still run bounty campaigns by using newbie rank, as long they get paid they continue doing the same.  What do you think if there's a new rule that newbies won't allow to run bounty campaigns and also there are merit and rank requirements the same as the bounty participants?

[Little Mouse]

If you exclude newbies, you will be ended up with less than 50 participants in your campaign. Wait, actually, I should lower the number. I can't remember if I have seen a few Jr Member or above in a social media bounty. Will this rule be applied for every bounty managers? Actually, will it be a forum rule? No. Then any bounty manager who will allow newbies participation will be picked by the project. You of course know how bounty management is working these days. Most of campaign managers are newbies or Jr member with no history of managing bounty but still getting campaign because of their charge.

What do you think if there's a new rule that newbies won't allow to run bounty campaigns and also there are merit and rank requirements the same as the bounty participants?

Rule from the forum? I don't think it's going to happen. Also, management doesn't necessarily depend on rank though I agree that having a high rank CM is advantage for the project in numerous ways.

[yahoo62278]

If you exclude newbies, you will be ended up with less than 50 participants in your campaign. Wait, actually, I should lower the number. I can't remember if I have seen a few Jr Member or above in a social media bounty. Will this rule be applied for every bounty managers? Actually, will it be a forum rule? No. Then any bounty manager who will allow newbies participation will be picked by the project. You of course know how bounty management is working these days. Most of campaign managers are newbies or Jr member with no history of managing bounty but still getting campaign because of their charge.

What do you think if there's a new rule that newbies won't allow to run bounty campaigns and also there are merit and rank requirements the same as the bounty participants?

Rule from the forum? I don't think it's going to happen. Also, management doesn't necessarily depend on rank though I agree that having a high rank CM is advantage for the project in numerous ways.

If there are seriously that few that join a bounty and 95% of the rest are multis, then what the hell are companies wasting money running a bounty on here then? Kind of proving my point as well, managers are being dishonest to companies by saying they will get you loads of participants if they know its all alts.

I know what you mean on pricing and companies hiring the cheapest guy out there. Heres a message I got on telegram this morning.

Hello Mate

Iam Jason and I'm from lithe beautifull country of the England

1 humbly offer my campaign management service to any project for company that is in need of someone who will handle their bounty campaign here on.

I am a very skilled and experienced spreadsheet manager. I provide two types of services at the same time. Spreadsheet Management and Telegram Admin Services Friendly community managers. I am active 24 hours a day and service 8 to 12 hours a day.

If you want to hire me. Then definitely contact me.

Requisites Fees
Fees are negotiable I charge $50 per month.

Please feel free to inquire about my services. I'll be glad to help with no obligations or pressure until you are comfortable. Thanks for looking. thanks again have a great day

Yours Sincerely,
M. Jason

Not sure why the person messaged me about it, but I def don't believe the name or where they're from. Well I guess it could be a 15 year old living at home wanting to work a month for $50, but I highly doubt $50 a month is anything for an Englishman.

[Little Mouse]

If there are seriously that few that join a bounty and 95% of the rest are multis, then what the hell are companies wasting money running a bounty on here then? Kind of proving my point as well, managers are being dishonest to companies by saying they will get you loads of participants if they know its all alts.

Not every newbies are alt of course. As you said, managers are intentionally/unintentionally being dishonest though I can guarantee not every manager is. Anyway, if someone participates from 30 account in a single bounty and there are 10 different such farm participating in a bounty, it will be almost half of the total participants.

but I highly doubt $50 a month is anything for an Englishman.

Of course he is not an Englishman, nor someone who will honestly work for you. I can't trust anyone to work 100% when they charge this lower amount.

[Issa56]

So what's the solution? Here's my thoughts on Newbies and what can be done.

1. No more allowing Newbies in campaigns. Make newbies rank up and have something to lose if they're gonna cheat.

Some bounty managers are also newbies so they won't even care, but I think if the reputable bounty managers set high standards for hunter's then am sure it will reduce the way newbies just create new accounts and join bounties again after their previous account have been tagged. Let's assume managers set standards that they only accept member rank upward in their campaign, then am sure any bounty hunters that can rank their account up to member rank then they won't want to go against the bounty rules so that they won't lose the account, and if they are caught cheating and their accounts are tagged, it won't be easy for them to create new accounts and rank all up. I notice @CryptopreneurBrainboss managed a bounty campaign recently, it was stated in the rules that account with less than 100 actives won't be accepted, and I noticed lot's of hunters were rejected, am sure most of those accounts that he rejected are people that their previous accounts was tagged and they created new accounts.
The way hunters are cheating in bounty, I don't think their task will have impact on the project because most of them are just spamming.

2. No neg trusted accounts can join period

I think that will be better but some managers don't care, their are some managers that even encourage ban invation, I was going through some messages in a bounty Telegram group few months ago and a user complained that his account got ban, he then asked the manager if he can create another forum account and countinue with the task and the manager asked the user to send him private message, which I was suprised because I was expecting the manager to say No and not to request for the user to send him private message.

[lovesmayfamilis]

 I kind of looked at it as they aren't hurting anyone and may live in poorer areas of the world. They need money too.

Here I agree entirely with you. And precisely because many are poor, I would like everything to look at least not so bold. , they are just as disrespectful to other hunters who are just as poor. I can assume that others have alternate accounts as well, but this is done very carefully. No one will ever catch alts if they don't have matches.
But because the people from this farm are very greedy, they continuously create even more accounts, thereby getting confused in them.
But in addition, no one will forbid beginners to create and subsequently participate in subscription companies. This is much more profitable than wasting time on incomprehensible tokens. At the same time, seeing that the newcomer has the first post in the bounty section, it becomes clear that this is not a newbie but someone else's alt. And then the "catch me if you can" game begins.