Signature campaign post quota

[Rikafip]

Some companies want to see 30+ posts per week( I've had many discussions about the number) but if we ask for 30+ posts per week there will be a bigger load of low quality posts than is seen now.

Are they willing to pay more for that amount of posts, or they expect to pay the same as those who ask for ~25 posts, which kinda became a forum standard?

Requirements on sections are managers trying to help a company. For example, gambling sites are going to get the most from users posting in the gambling section. Problem is, half the people posting in that section these days do not have a clue about gambling. They joined a campaign and are just trying to get paid at any cost.

If managers know that 50% (I think that percentage is much higher btw) of those who write in gambling board have no idea what they are talking about, why force it then? Isn't it better to check their post history and if you see they write in places where you want to advertise more, then you hire them? That way you eliminate the need for certain board posting quota.

[bakasabo]

I think 20-25 posts per week is a perfect balance between spamming and making signature noticed for users. But I would increase number of minimum characters used in post. Because common "150 characters" is just one sentence, one line. User completes campaigns task, so it is no good to blame him for one liner, but one liner does not look good and useful. Setting amount of daily accepted posts is also a good addition to campaign rule, that prevents spamming weekly quota in few days.

I think it will be good to add a bonus, that will stimulate to post more than 20-25 posts, but dont make posting a torture and reward spamming. Sort of a "make each week extra 10 posts, and get $5". Reward isnt that huge to go crazy and make always more posts, but a nice tiny reward for extra efforts.

[yahoo62278]

Some companies want to see 30+ posts per week( I've had many discussions about the number) but if we ask for 30+ posts per week there will be a bigger load of low quality posts than is seen now.

Are they willing to pay more for that amount of posts, or they expect to pay the same as those who ask for ~25 posts, which kinda became a forum standard?

I doubt it, least not most. I think the managers have done a decent job lately of getting users fair rates.

Requirements on sections are managers trying to help a company. For example, gambling sites are going to get the most from users posting in the gambling section. Problem is, half the people posting in that section these days do not have a clue about gambling. They joined a campaign and are just trying to get paid at any cost.

If managers know that 50% (I think that percentage is much higher btw) of those who write in gambling board have no idea what they are talking about, why force it then? Isn't it better to check their post history and if you see they write in places where you want to advertise more, then you hire them? That way you eliminate the need for certain board posting quota.

Just because a user posts in the gambling section doesn't mean the manager counts the post. Most managers have a different view of what quality is as well.

[Rikafip]

I think the managers have done a decent job lately of getting users fair rates.

True, rates went up significantly in the last few years. I remember when I was looking for my first signature campaign, an average rate was $50 for Legendary member and now it doubled. Hopefully this trend continues.

Just because a user posts in the gambling section doesn't mean the manager counts the post. Most managers have a different view of what quality is as well.

That's probably the best way to force members to increase their post quality, not to count their shitposts and I do hope that managers are strict in that way.

What I like is that managers started removing below average posters from their campaigns on the regular basis, which wasn't so common in the past. If members know that they won't be kicked out of campaign unless they leave it by themsleves, their post qualiy will eventually deteriorate.

[Solosanz]

I think 20-25 posts per week is a perfect balance between spamming and making signature noticed for users. But I would increase number of minimum characters used in post. Because common "150 characters" is just one sentence, one line. User completes campaigns task, so it is no good to blame him for one liner, but one liner does not look good and useful.

You're just like saying if high amount and long posts are better than 20-25 posts and one liners.

There's a former Chipmixer campaign who's tend to post one liners, but almost all of his posts are counted, this is because of his quality. It was a biggest campaign before and only the top users can participate. Actually there are many users post 2-3 paragraphs, but when you read his post, you will see if he's just repeating what he said before.

I think it will be good to add a bonus, that will stimulate to post more than 20-25 posts, but dont make posting a torture and reward spamming. Sort of a "make each week extra 10 posts, and get $5". Reward isnt that huge to go crazy and make always more posts, but a nice tiny reward for extra efforts.

Assuming the campaign have a minimum 20 posts and there's a bonus for extra 10 posts, I wouldn't surprised if someone will say, look this user creating 30 posts/week only to get the bonus

[Agbe]

Post requirements are not compulsory, nor is it mandatory; it's not a force to be on a campaign if you can't cope with their minimum post requirements. Most managers are not looking for those who are just posting because they want to get paid; they want participants who derive joy from posting. When a campaign's minimum requirement is 25, at the end of the week you are ending with either just 25 posts or about 27 posts, which clearly shows that all the participants are after is the paid post and nothing else. Every manager wants what's best for their clients, and as such, any member they notice is not productive will be removed and replaced with some other active member who can deliver the task.

I view your point as a wrong articulation. If a manager set 25 as a minimum post for the week to get paid then they should stick on that point. Even at that. 25 set by the manager is forcing the participants to meet up that demand. Normally 99% of the users of the forum any number of post they want a day or a week on their own. Nwada001 you are making your argument from the Capitalist point of view which is fully supporting the idealism of the managers in the forum, but if you look it from the opposite point of view then you will discovered that what you are saying is even contradicting your own self. I don't why a manager set a specific number of post quota and still a participants from the campaign when he meet up the quota to 100%.

In the realist school of thought , those managers are not qualified to manage any campaign because they are violating their own rules. If a manager set 25 as minimum and the participants post 80, the manager will still count the 25 and kept the remaining 55 as uncounted so if a participant post 28 in a week, the manager would still take 25 and leave the rest or in sometime the system would delete 2 or 3 from the post so because of that every participant post more that the weekly post quota.

Well the socialist scholars have not become managers in the forum so we are going along with the exploitative managers for their own benefits and not even the company benefits, it is few managers that are good that I know in the forum. It is only Capitalist managers that are found in the forum which alienating the participants and still want them with heavy load. If participants post more than the post estimated or stipulated number by the manager he should be paid high which some manager are doing now.  What OP is trying to portray is the truth. Why managers set a number of post to get paid in the week and still remove participants even though they meet up the number and even more?

[dunfida]

I think 20-25 posts per week is a perfect balance between spamming and making signature noticed for users. But I would increase number of minimum characters used in post. Because common "150 characters" is just one sentence, one line. User completes campaigns task, so it is no good to blame him for one liner, but one liner does not look good and useful.

You're just like saying if high amount and long posts are better than 20-25 posts and one liners.

There's a former Chipmixer campaign who's tend to post one liners, but almost all of his posts are counted, this is because of his quality. It was a biggest campaign before and only the top users can participate. Actually there are many users post 2-3 paragraphs, but when you read his post, you will see if he's just repeating what he said before.

Its managers job and it would really be their criteria on how to determine a good quality post or not, even if its one liner then it wouldnt really be an issue as long it would be on point or directly to the topic.

If we do speak about Chipmixer which is known to be the highest paying campaign wayback and now its been completely stopped due to some legal issues.It would be understandable that criteria and
qualifications on getting in on the said campaign would really be tough. Most of them are known or popular on this forum or something that has the reputation plus having that
tons of merits.Therefore, getting in would be impossible for those who arent making merits at all.

Although we do have some campaigns todays which pays decent but the competition is really that high because qualifications becomes even more tighter.It all depends on the
manager on how he would be choosing his participants and in speaking about post counts then its neither on personal choice of CM or by the company but most
likely it would really be on the manager itself on making such numbers.

[PowerGlove]

I've never understood the rationale behind post quotas, maybe someone can explain the thinking behind them? (After digesting the rest of this post, obviously.)

I don't know why all campaigns don't just follow the pay-per-post model: instead of asking for 25 posts per week for $50 (let's say) why not just offer $2 per post with a 25 post cap?

The only real problem I can see is that people might not post enough (for the company's needs), but because a lack of posting corresponds directly to money saved, why not respond to that situation (if and when it becomes a problem) by opening more slots?

[Little Mouse]

I've never understood the rationale behind post quotas, maybe someone can explain the thinking behind them? (After digesting the rest of this post, obviously.)

I don't know why all campaigns don't just follow the pay-per-post model: instead of asking for 25 posts per week for $50 (let's say) why not just offer $2 per post with a 25 post cap?

The only real problem I can see is that people might not post enough (for the company's needs), but because a lack of posting corresponds directly to money saved, why not respond to that situation (if and when it becomes a problem) by opening more slots?

I can't talk for other campaign managers but I always try to run pay per post campaign. However, it's not only your (I mean the campaign manager's) decision. The team plays a great role here. Because they want more reach, they would try to get the maximum exposure with the budget. Pay per post is great for getting quality posts to be honest but it sometimes doesn't bring the maximum post per week like you said above. But the campaign wants the maximum every week.

If you want to open more slots, you need an increment in the budget too. You just can't expect that everyone won't reach the post quota so with the previous budget, you can cover all of them. You have to increase the budget on paper. The team will see the budget every week in the invoice.

Regardless, I encourage all the projects to run pay-per-post but it's not on me all the time. The same applies to all the other campaign managers too, maybe.

[noorman0]

-snip-
If you want to open more slots, you need an increment in the budget too. You just can't expect that everyone won't reach the post quota so with the previous budget, you can cover all of them. You have to increase the budget on paper. The team will see the budget every week in the invoice.

Are my calculations wrong because I don't think that adding slots always means increasing the budget?

Weekly budget: $1k
Target posts: 500 posts ($2 per post).
I can open 25 slots where each participant must reach min. 20 posts weekly;
or I can open 50 slots for min. 10 weekly posts per participant.

It's just up to the manager how to vary the campaign model without compromising the overall target post.

[Little Mouse]

Weekly budget: $1k
Target posts: 500 posts ($2 per post).
I can open 25 slots where each participant must reach min. 20 posts weekly;
or I can open 50 slots for min. 10 weekly posts per participant.

You won't only have min 10 weekly posts per participant, there will be a max quota too. With min 10 posts, you will get 50*10=500*2= $1000 spent. What about the max quota? If the max quota is 15 posts per week, you need more $500. I don't think anyone would be interested to join for max 10 post per week. You would barely get more than a few members with max 10 post per week and thus again, a very shortage of campaign participants at the end.

[Poker Player]

Are they willing to pay more for that amount of posts, or they expect to pay the same as those who ask for ~25 posts, which kinda became a forum standard?

With the current competition for the highest paying campaigns I have seen in the Services section people being removed from the campaigns, having written just the 25 posts of the quota or maybe up to couple more, as an indication of little effort. The competition between campaigns has changed since CM is not here, where there was a clear difference between the top 50 paid and the rest. The maximum total payout for a campaign has been socialized let's say, but at the same time there is a lot of competition from forum members to access the $100-$150 weekly payout campaigns for Hero/Legendary.

[palle11]

Regardless, I encourage all the projects to run pay-per-post but it's not on me all the time. The same applies to all the other campaign managers too, maybe.

I think there is a positive side to this regards to pay-pay-post system for participants because some week may be different from other week in the life and activities of the poster especially health issues. If a participants is running under campaign with maximum post per week (maybe 25 ) and he or see is not able to complete the post for that week because of being hospitalised and stopping at 20, they get denied of the weekly payment. I think this is a disadvantage of maximum post against a participant.

[Rikafip]

With the current competition for the highest paying campaigns I have seen in the Services section people being removed from the campaigns, having written just the 25 posts of the quota or maybe up to couple more, as an indication of little effort.

You mean people got removed because they wrote only the required amount of posts? Thats strange tbh. I might be wrong here, but my guess is that them getting removed has to do more with their post quality rather than amount of posts written.

The maximum total payout for a campaign has been socialized let's say, but at the same time there is a lot of competition from forum members to access the $100-$150 weekly payout campaigns for Hero/Legendary.

I think that current situation is diametrically opposite, its sellers market and its never been easier (at least not since I started applying for signature campaigns) for a shitposter to get into $100 per week signature campaign.

[Eternad]

With the current competition for the highest paying campaigns I have seen in the Services section people being removed from the campaigns, having written just the 25 posts of the quota or maybe up to couple more, as an indication of little effort.

You mean people got removed because they wrote only the required amount of posts? Thats strange tbh. Imight be wrong here, but my guess is that they getting removed has to do more with their post quality rather than amount of posts written.

I saw a scenario like this before during the time when a lot of Chipmixer campaign participants was vacant. The existing signature campaign forced to reshuffle and now posting within the requirements is being discouraged by some managers.

The post that I quoted below is from the campaign that have a per post rate. I personally post within the margin because 25 post is not my normal post count when I don’t have any campaigns. Forcing user to make above the requirements while the campaign is on per post rate is bit contradicting to each other.

There are many users who are barely filling up their weekly signature campaign quota. It's obvious you are chasing your numbers when your total post counts are not more than 25, 26, 27 or even 28. We don't need such users in the campaign. If you are not having fun in making posts,

Filling the weekly quota with OK quality post is not bad in my opinion. Correction me on this one if I’m wrong.

[yahoo62278]

Filling the weekly quota with OK quality post is not bad in my opinion. Correction me on this one if I’m wrong.

You think it's OK to barely get by in life, or would you rather live a good life? Posting on this forum is the same IMO. If you are just an OK poster and never really strive to be a great quality writer/poster, you will likely never be able to command a custom deal for a casino and will always have to worry that you'll be kicked from a campaign. Why would you want to be in fear every week?

[Woodie]

What do you think the right post quota per week?

Perfect quota doesn't  exist, find something that works for you, btw some campaigns are flexible enough such that they pay based on each post!

I read some campaign manager sentiment about this issue. Forcing their participants post above the minimum post requirements they set by themselves. If they want a higher post quota participants, They should increase the minimum post requirements or make the campaign rate per post without any consequences for posting low but quality post.

It's not a forcing matter when post quota comes naturally and btw every manager has their own style of running a campaign and its their way of running things by choosing
participants that can give extra ..and sadly their rules  won't bend to what you want.

I'm confused on the minimum post requirements rules. I saw many users being remove on the campaign by posting within the quota.

_{Without rules we are nothing but animals. -Socrates}

If you are going to post on the forum to meet your quota requirements then clearly this shows that you are on the forum to get paid and nothing else! Try be part of the forum and post naturally!!!

[Eternad]

Filling the weekly quota with OK quality post is not bad in my opinion. Correction me on this one if I’m wrong.

You think it's OK to barely get by in life, or would you rather live a good life? Posting on this forum is the same IMO. If you are just an OK poster and never really strive to be a great quality writer/poster, you will likely never be able to command a custom deal for a casino and will always have to worry that you'll be kicked from a campaign. Why would you want to be in fear every week?

The meaning of my OK quality is an acceptable or constructive. I'm describing a scenario which a user post prioritized quality and not not quantity since the pay rate is per post. I might use the OK quality wrong here but that's actually what I'm trying to imply on my post.

A user posting within the range with good quality compared to user that posting bunch of shit post above the max post count. This the case that I'm thinking but I'm not sure if that's the real case on my example.

Anyway, I agree with that campaign participants should do their best every week since they are being paid. This should be customary for every signature campaign participants when they are enrolled on the campaign.

[LTU_btc]

My current campaign have optimal post quota - 15. I can reach it easily without forcing myself to post in order just to get paid. I usually make about 20 posts per week, sometimes up to 25. But sometimes when I have busy week, reaching even 20 posts would be difficult.
Why I'm posting above required quota? Because I just don't count my posts, signature campaign don't change my posting habbits. Just on last day of week I check how many oosts I have made to be sure that have enough to get paid. Now I can't imagine myself in campaign which would require 25-30 posts.

[KingsDen]

My current campaign have optimal post quota - 15. I can reach it easily without forcing myself to post in order just to get paid. I usually make about 20 posts per week, sometimes up to 25. But sometimes when I have busy week, reaching even 20 posts would be difficult.
Why I'm posting above required quota? Because I just don't count my posts, signature campaign don't change my posting habbits. Just on last day of week I check how many oosts I have made to be sure that have enough to get paid.

I am just knowing that there is another campaign that has optimal post quota of 15 posts per week apart from Roobet. Honestly 15 posts is the fairest deal anyone can get in the forum. There are many people who makes more than 15posts each day even without being signature quota conscious.
You do not belong in this conversation because your quota not only small, but you also have a manager who doesn't stress his participants @Hhampuz.  He is my first employer in this forum and he is so cool and experienced in the business

Now I can't imagine myself in campaign which would require 25-30 posts.

I want to involve in your imagination. Can you imagine yourself in a  campaign that requires 100+ posts per week? Just think about stake