Signature campaign post quota

[Xiestar]

What do you think the right post quota per week?


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.

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}

[1714855657]

1714855657

[1714855657]

1714855657

[Nwada001]

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.

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.

[Xiestar]

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.

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 understand the premise of your logic. What I'm asking it does user here normally make 25 post per week without any subscription on signature campaign?

If being natural is what the campaign manager wants. Removing the post quota is the answer.

Can you keep posting above 25 post per week without signature campaign to give joy in the forum?

[Asuspawer09]

What do you think the right post quota per week?


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.

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}

I mean the quota for sure will depend on the campaign or manager that you join, there are some minimum post requirements on some campaigns since it wouldn't make sense to join a campaign if you would not post at least.

They are the ones who join the campaign so it was surely not forced plus they are getting paid as well, In my observation most of the participants were removed because of the low-quality post, they have the right to remove someone anytime whenever they want to since its already written on the rules so you can't complain about that and as a manager they will do their job to make the campaign at its best by picker the best participants, I see it reasonable for some users getting remove since most of them have a low-quality post, there are a still members that only have a few posts in a week but doesnt get removed because they have a quality post and I guess already a trusted member.

[Jawhead999]

First this is not the right section, this thread is fit in service discussion section.

This is really a subjective matter and you can't generalize all the campaign manager need to agree with your opinion.

Burst post matter is an example, there are different definition for them:
1. Creating many posts in a short time, this make some users need to wait for a hour to post from his previous post.
2. Creating 10+ posts in a day, only post for 2 days to hit the 25 week posts requirements.
3. Creating post in one thread only, he keep replying with the same user over and over, to avoid multiple posting/post in a row.

Which is right for you? maybe you will say the number 1,I could say number 2, the other will say all of them, etc.

[Xiestar]

First this is not the right section, this thread is fit in service discussion section.
~

Done

My concern is not burst posting but minimum post requirements. I don't want to quote managers announcement to pay respect but some of them are requiring user to post above minimum post requirements.

I'm not convincing managers to believe me. I'm trying to determine the exact logic for obligating user to post above minimum requirements.

[Fiatless]

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.

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.

Let's be truthful, you might not post up to 25 posts in a week if you are not in a paid campaign. You might decide to use your time on something else that might bring financial benefit. A signature campaign should not be seen as a full-time job but having a post quota gives participants the responsibility of performing the task they are been paid for. If you allow participants to post naturally some might just do a few posts and relax which affects the main focus of the promotional campaign. Every firm that runs a campaign program wants their products to be promoted around the forum so having a bunch of unserious posters will negate their objectives.

It is also important to state that joining a campaign is not by force and different campaigns have their requirements so you should choose the one that suits you. Most campaign managers don't just pay attention to post quota but post quality. Some quality posters/members will never be removed from a campaign because they didn't complete their post quota.

In summary, post quotas are important because the campaign manager and the firm have plans and targets. Post quality is more important than just completing post quota. And if you are not comfortable with the rules of a campaign, don't join.

[hugeblack]

What do you think the right post quota per week?

If you are not satisfied with the rules of the campaign in which you participate, it is better to look for another campaign or to stop using signature campaigns. It is just a bonus and not a daily job that you need to strive to develop your certificates in order to preserve them.

BTW you are only newbie with only 60 posts, How did you know all these details? When I was in your rank, I could not distinguish between posting in some boards, or even knowing that there were paid signature campaigns in the forum. is this an ALT account?

[examplens]

BTW you are only newbie with only 60 posts, How did you know all these details? When I was in your rank, I could not distinguish between posting in some boards, or even knowing that there were paid signature campaigns in the forum. is this an ALT account?

It is an alt account, he confirmed it himself in this topic
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5451642.0

[robelneo]

What do you think the right post quota per week?

If you're in a campaign you agreed to the campaign manager's rule on the number of posts that you need to reach the maximum you can post in a day that is counted so it's not about what I think it's about what the manager set up so he can maximize the visibility of the project he is managing

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.

I don't see anything wrong with it, being in a campaign is a privilege and the manager picked you because of your posting habit which is posting not for quota but posting because you are posting normally as a forum member not as a paid worker, you should not be looking on numbers but quality.

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

If I'm a bounty manager I love to see my participants go the extra mile not because they are forced but because they are committed and they have passion as contributors to this forum.

[mindrust]

Tbh I don't like the minimum post requirements neither. The campaign I am in only requires me to post 15 posts in a week and that's one of the lowest I've seen out there but years ago, bitmixer.io (to me it was the best ever signature campaign this forum has ever seen) had none of these requirements. If you made 4 posts for example last week, the campaign would pay for your 4 posts... It is a bit frustrating to be having to make posts while you are on vacation you know. It is not that you can take a break from posting. At best you will get a warning for your first offense and then you will get booted if you repeat the same mistake.

[T3PR00T]

I'm not convincing managers to believe me. I'm trying to determine the exact logic for obligating user to post above minimum requirements.

Every manage have their own rules, own uniqueness. If you want your own then start giving your own service. This discussion does not make any sense at all.

[spiker777]

What do you think the right post quota per week?


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.

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 a campaign manager disqualifies someone because he didn't write more than required post count. then it is very wrong and weird thing by a campaign manager.. but as a campaign participant I would say it is safer to write 2, 3 extra post just in case one or two post did not count due to low quality or less word count or any other reason.
I like those campaigns which don't have minimum post rerquirements and payment is based per post (having maximum post requirement is better). so if I want I can write 5 posts and get paid for 5 posts or if I want I can write 20 posts and get paid for 20 posts that way we don't have to worry to get disqualified if we don't complete required post count.

[crwth]

The campaign may want to have that effect of being spread in the forum, and that's why there are quotas in the specific campaign. That's not going to be your problem to bear. That's their choice as well. That's why there are posts about having campaign discretion that they can impose or remove participants not performing to their expectations.

[rby]

What do you think the right post quota per week?

BTW you are only newbie with only 60 posts, How did you know all these details? When I was in your rank, I could not distinguish between posting in some boards, or even knowing that there were paid signature campaigns in the forum. is this an ALT account?

This is clearly an alt account and I have the feeling that the main account is in Little Mouse campaign (Flush.com). This is an issue that was raised in the signature campaign thread of Flush. Although the manager tried to clarify the issue but I purposely stopped replying because that is a signature thread of Flush while I wear Mixero to post there.

It is surprising that some persons are misunderstanding the OP while he was straight forward.
What the OP meant is that, if a campaign manager requires that you make 25 posts per week, he shouldn't at the same time be expecting you to make 5 or more posts above 25 posts. If the minimum posts is reached with quality, both parties should be satisfied.
Then, my stake is that if the minimum requirement is reached with quality, there shouldn't be any problems. I will personally prefer a campaign which doesn't have minimum requirement or one whose minimum requirement is 10 like Best Change to another which will deny you payment if eventually 1 out of the 24 posts that will complete your post is eventually deleted by a mod or moved to off topic.

[Rikafip]

What I'm asking it does user here normally make 25 post per week without any subscription on signature campaign?

Some do write 25+ posts even without being part of a signature campaign, while majority don't.

 

If being natural is what the campaign manager wants.

Problem is that there are more spots in signature campaigns than there are natural posters so only the best paid campaigns can afford to attract them. This is best noticeable in gambling signature campaigns so managers are then forced to set up a requirement to write certain amount of posts in gambling board.

Removing the post quota is the answer.

Few years ago only one campaign (CM) had no post quota at all, while now we have at least 7 of those so things are already changing for the better.

Every manage have their own rules, own uniqueness. If you want your own then start giving your own service. This discussion does not make any sense at all.

I see no reason why we shouldn't discuss it.

[Little Mouse]

What the OP meant is that, if a campaign manager requires that you make 25 posts per week, he shouldn't at the same time be expecting you to make 5 or more posts above 25 posts. If the minimum posts is reached with quality, both parties should be satisfied.

Since I'm mentioned here, I think I should add what I meant in my campaign thread post.
If someone is posting 20 times (eligible) a week, they will get paid. Did someone not pay them? I can't remember if I have seen such an issue. However, since they post the exact number as required, they are following the rules. They are providing nothing extra to the campaign. In return, I will be strict with them as per the rules set in the campaign thread. If they even post 19, I'm very much unlikely to pay them^[1]. On the other hand, for those who post more than the required number of posts, I will apply flexible rules to them. Lucius missed 10 posts on the gambling section one week, I didn't even write any comments. In fact, I told him not to worry about posts in the gambling section. I don't have a problem if he posts less in the gambling section.
I thought I mentioned them clearly in the thread but seems you didn't get my point. Thank you for the mention.

1. When people only follow the campaign rules, they don't deserve any mercy in my opinion. When they post 19/week, they don't deserve payment but I paid half pay for them.

What I'm asking it does user here normally make 25 post per week without any subscription on signature campaign?

There are people who post almost 100 per week regardless of they are in a campaign or not.

This is best noticeable in gambling signature campaigns so managers are then forced to set up a requirement to write certain amount of posts in gambling board.

Managers want to give the best output to the project, at the same time with rules for participants, as flexible as possible but the team behind the projects also plays a role here. They want the maximum exposure with the budget and of course, they have the right.

[T3PR00T]

Every manage have their own rules, own uniqueness. If you want your own then start giving your own service. This discussion does not make any sense at all.

I see no reason why we shouldn't discuss it.

Your discussion is not going to change anything. Project pays money to get best out of their advertisement, managers job is to execute it. They will go for the best instead of members who are happy to consider it a day job. Signature campaigns are the rewards for the loyalty you show to the Bitcoin ecosystem, not to your own wallet.

[rby]

What the OP meant is that, if a campaign manager requires that you make 25 posts per week, he shouldn't at the same time be expecting you to make 5 or more posts above 25 posts. If the minimum posts is reached with quality, both parties should be satisfied.

1. When people only follow the campaign rules, they don't deserve any mercy in my opinion. When they post 19/week, they don't deserve payment but I paid half pay for them.

Your opinion is great and fair. When one decides to follow rules strictly, the implementation becomes non flexible from the end of the enforcer.
Thanks for the absolute clarification here!

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

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.

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

First, I noticed that their is more of competition among memebers participating in campaigns and signature campaign managers always select the memeber who they think is best, normally some memeber go above the required post count and seems the managers prefer them more to those that only do less the required post or those that only do just the required post. Normally for me, I think that doing only the required post means that the person is only posting for the SATs, but that aside (I might be wrong about that), some of those that even do just the required post, may end up having some of their post rejected due to low quality and I think that's why some managers remove memeber from campaign, apart from that, managers specifically use to specify "a read before joining" which sometimes says "campaign manager have the right to remove you without any explanation."  So it might not also really be that the reason managers remove members is because of the lower required post count.

Also, for some campaigns, there used to be an extra bonus that required much posting to win, but that's not really any reason why campaign managers remove members. Sometimes, reason is best known to them.

If I gues correctly, some reasons why some members get removed from campaigns are due to competition; some members are doing lots of posts normally without putting on any signatures, so probably the manager removes such people that do less post and employees those that usually do more posts. Perhaps all they also want in the best exposure for project they manage their campaigns.