Signature campaign post quota

[yhiaali3]

It is a pity that I did not notice this thread until now, I enjoyed reading almost all the responses here, there were a lot of good opinions that enriched the topic.

For my part, I prefer campaigns in which the minimum weekly quota for publication is small, because this gives me a very comfortable writing space and does not make me restricted to the number of posts that I have to write to get the weekly payment.

Many of the members here have other businesses or family circumstances that sometimes prevent them from reaching the minimum payment sometimes and they may be expelled if this is repeated, so I prefer campaigns that pay Per Post. I do not prefer fixed-paying campaigns with a rather high weekly quota.

But in all cases, as long as the subscribers, have read the campaign rules and agreed to them, then they have no right to object, and they have to abide by all the campaign rules and exert their efforts to make the campaign a success and to receive payment.

[carlfebz2]

It is a pity that I did not notice this thread until now, I enjoyed reading almost all the responses here, there were a lot of good opinions that enriched the topic.

For my part, I prefer campaigns in which the minimum weekly quota for publication is small, because this gives me a very comfortable writing space and does not make me restricted to the number of posts that I have to write to get the weekly payment.

Many of the members here have other businesses or family circumstances that sometimes prevent them from reaching the minimum payment sometimes and they may be expelled if this is repeated, so I prefer campaigns that pay Per Post. I do not prefer fixed-paying campaigns with a rather high weekly quota.

But in all cases, as long as the subscribers, have read the campaign rules and agreed to them, then they have no right to object, and they have to abide by all the campaign rules and exert their efforts to make the campaign a success and to receive payment.

We do have our own preference but i do believe that most members of this forum would definitely deal up on whatever terms and conditions on which a certain campaign would be having specially if it does have a good payrate per week then it wouldnt really be a problem at all but its true that i do prefer on having that kind of having no restriction on how much you would be posting on a particular week on which you would be simply be paid up on what you had posted which it wouldnt really be that stressful or really that get pressured just because there's no such rule about being kicked or what but we know that only few
campaigns does have this rule.

Usually they would be having that 10 post minimum and 25 maximum or having that 25 post for eligibility on getting paid, but actually its not really that hard to have this kind of rule.
Ex. in my campaign which it does ask out 15 post per week which this is something that you cant see this kind of campaign where usually ask 25-30 or something like
on this level.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

What do you think the right post quota per week?

It depends on the campaign rules, if you're in a campaign that requires a minimum post for the week then you're left with no choice than to comply and it's because you've gone through their rules and regulations for that campaign and understand them makes you apply for it, there are some campaigns that do not require minimum post, but joining a campaign is by choice.

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

I must correct you of this that you're wrong in saying campaign managers forces their participants, what i expect from you is to ask wether if posting more than the required posts for the week is what gives access to receiving their bonus or by the quality of what each participant produce and not the quantity.

[YOSHIE]

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

My understanding is that there are many factors for eliminating participants in paid campaigns, managers have their own reasons apart from achieving quotas and others, only managers understand that, in essence: different campaign managers have different ways of thinking about their participants.

I've seen participants removed in campaigns with full weekly quotas and even more, but they're still being removed, it's only the manager who knows the reason behind it all, if you ask about the rules, of course every campaign writes that, 100% of the campaign cannot be separated from the rules set by the campaign manager.

My assessment, if you are in a campaign, do tasks according to the rules set by the manager and improve the quality of your posts instead of chasing quotas, I think you will be fine in the assessment of the manager of the campaign you are advertising.

[KingsDen]

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

My understanding is that there are many factors for eliminating participants in paid campaigns, managers have their own reasons apart from achieving quotas and others, only managers understand that, in essence: different campaign managers have different ways of thinking about their participants.

There are some campaign managers who pressure their participants to give their lives and souls to posting. They forget that the success of any project does not depend on whatever things (cool or rubbish) we post here.
Why we crave for quality posts is to avoid spam and give prestige to the company as per high quality posters are wearing their signature.

If I consider to leave Best_Change anyday, it should be to a campaign that has no minimum requirement or atleast whose minimum requirement is 10. I cannot imagine making 25 posts to earn reward, before manager counts my post, 1 is deleted or off topiced by a moderator and in the end I am denied payment.
Neither will I like to be kicked out of a campaign because my quality dropped for a week.

[coupable]

What do you think the right post quota per week?

I believe that there should be no minimum post quota to be eligible for payment, or that the minimum should be 1 post. However, we must not forget that the manager is always looking for active posters to ensure the success of the campaign, and for this they set a minimum quota that can reach 25 posts per week. I have been in a signature campaign that Royce has been running for several months, and the minimum number of posts eligible for payment is 5, which, in my estimation, is a very acceptable limit.

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

This is subject to the discretion of the campaign manager, and we do not forget that most, if not all, of the managers do not forget to set a rule in all their campaigns that allows them to make any decision regarding the removal/cancel-payment of any participating member as it deems appropriate for the progress and success of the campaign and the project that it is promoting.

[LoyceV]

I believe that there should be no minimum post quota to be eligible for payment, or that the minimum should be 1 post. However, we must not forget that the manager is always looking for active posters to ensure the success of the campaign, and for this they set a minimum quota that can reach 25 posts per week. I have been in a signature campaign that Royce has been running for several months, and the minimum number of posts eligible for payment is 5, which, in my estimation, is a very acceptable limit.

I have a different view: users with many old posts who rarely make any new posts are cheap for advertising! You don't have to pay for the thousands of posts with signature they have already, and you'll only pay for a few new ones per week.
This reminds me: I think a small payment per existing post could even make sense, instead of only paying for new posts.

[KingsDen]

I have a different view: users with many old posts who rarely make any new posts are cheap for advertising! You don't have to pay for the thousands of posts with signature they have already, and you'll only pay for a few new ones per week.
This reminds me: I think a small payment per existing post could even make sense, instead of only paying for new posts.

+5,
Really thinking out of the box.
LoyceV's post count is 23k+
KingsDen's post count is 2k+
This already means that LoyceV had made 21k+ more posts than KingsDen and these 21k+ posts are still in the forum. So LoyceV deserves higher pay than me. Maybe it is the reason legendary members earn more than Snr members and so on.
But on a second thought, it could also mean that ChipMixer had already paid for those 21k+ posts. So, posts in the past are already paid. I am just reasoning from the both sides of my brain

[LTU_btc]

But on a second thought, it could also mean that ChipMixer had already paid for those 21k+ posts. So, posts in the past are already paid. I am just reasoning from the both sides of my brain

They already paid for these 21k posts, but these old posts continue to get visibility. Let's take one of popular topics that LoyceV made as example. You can try to imagine how many people visit such topics and see sginature ad in opening post. Or people who come to Bitcointalk from Google search results, they also see advertisment. So, advertiser for these posts once, but he get benefits from it in long term.

[KingsDen]

But on a second thought, it could also mean that ChipMixer had already paid for those 21k+ posts. So, posts in the past are already paid. I am just reasoning from the both sides of my brain

They already paid for these 21k posts, but these old posts continue to get visibility. Let's take one of popular topics that LoyceV made as example. You can try to imagine how many people visit such topics and see sginature ad in opening post. Or people who come to Bitcointalk from Google search results, they also see advertisment. So, advertiser for these posts once, but he get benefits from it in long term.

That is why it is advisable to promote one project for a very long time, such as the chipmixer I referenced and the company I am wearing her signature. But then, it is not every company that has the financial will to embark on a long term signature campaign.
However, LoyceV's idea is not out of place but I doubt that any manager will implement that because on the long run it could encourage laziness on the side of the significantly higher numbered posters.
Then, there’s a clause in the project I'm promoting where less than 5% of the posts are permitted to be made on a thread more than 5 pages. This simply shows that Best_Change believes that posts in more than 5 pages doesn't get good visibility. Is he right?

[LoyceV]

LoyceV's post count is 23k+
KingsDen's post count is 2k+
This already means that LoyceV had made 21k+ more posts than KingsDen and these 21k+ posts are still in the forum. So LoyceV deserves higher pay than me. Maybe it is the reason legendary members earn more than Snr members and so on.
But on a second thought, it could also mean that ChipMixer had already paid for those 21k+ posts. So, posts in the past are already paid. I am just reasoning from the both sides of my brain

It's just like in real life: your previous job already paid for the experience you gained, and yet, you'd expect your new job to pay more because now you have more experience

They already paid for these 21k posts, but these old posts continue to get visibility. Let's take one of popular topics that LoyceV made as example. You can try to imagine how many people visit such topics and see sginature ad in opening post. Or people who come to Bitcointalk from Google search results, they also see advertisment. So, advertiser for these posts once, but he get benefits from it in long term.

Exactly. Instead of $4 per post, a campaign could for instance pay $2 per new post and $0.01 per existing post per week. Of course, not all old posts are on boards that show signatures, and some will be on irrelevant boards, so rates can be adjusted accordingly. It would be interesting to see the click-through rate of old vs new posts, but only the companies advertising campaigns have this data.

However, LoyceV's idea is not out of place but I doubt that any manager will implement that because on the long run it could encourage laziness on the side of the significantly higher numbered posters.

If the payment per old post is proportional to the clicks they receive, it shouldn't even matter. Even in existing campaigns, members sometimes become inactive. Usually they get removed after a few weeks, but I never got the logic. It's free advertising, so let them!

Then, there’s a clause in the project I'm promoting where less than 5% of the posts are permitted to be made on a thread more than 5 pages. This simply shows that Best_Change believes that posts in more than 5 pages doesn't get good visibility. Is he right?

This will largely depend on the thread. Spam Mega threads are pointless from the start, while serious technical threads can still be very interesting even after many pages.