Signature campaign post quota

[Rikafip]

Your discussion is not going to change anything

Even if what you are saying was true, that still doesn't mean that members shoulnd't discuss it. This is a discussion forum after all and if I was a manager, I would be very interested to hear what other members have to say about signature campaign rules.

Why do you think that managers started launching campaigns with less strict rules when it comes to post quota? Things are changing, its sellers market and managers are trying to do whatever they can to attract quality members and one of the ways to do that is to have as relax rules as possible.

[1714606172]

1714606172

[1714606172]

1714606172

[1714606172]

1714606172

[1714606172]

1714606172

[Xiestar]

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.

I'm not trying to single out Little mouse here. I didn’t mention any name of the campaign for the sake of discussion. Even Royse777 campaigns have this kind of rules about discouraging the minimum post quota behaviour. You can check it for yourself as you are already with his campaign.

Ignore my credibility and focus on the subject matter. I'm not active Bitcointalk user but I usually check services board for signature campaign news. If I'm an active user here hence I will notice immediately my issue on my trust feedback.

I only noticed this quirk rules starting to enforce by some campaign manager.

@little mouse this topic is not about you. It's about the general discussion of services. You are not the only one enforced this kind of rules.

[smyslov]

I only noticed this quirk rules starting to enforce by some campaign manager.

Some members are not aware of this rule and some are taken by surprise when they are removed without warning although managers do not have to issue warnings because when you joined you know the rules when you joined the campaign, but is still better to have a comment on the spreadsheet so you can gauge yourself on your standing on the campaign.
I know one manager who does this, he may be strict but he is fair when he imposes his rules

[noorman0]

-snip-
What do you think the right post quota per week?

I'm remember yahoo rule on any casino campaign, like "don't apply if you're not familiar with the gambling board".
All post minimum requirements are fine. This consideration should come from potential campaign participants, whether they should apply if it becomes a burden. Some people argue that sigcamp should not be considered as a job.

[Slow death]

I only noticed this quirk rules starting to enforce by some campaign manager.

well, the truth is that each manager has the right to put the rules he thinks will be productive, in the past I also had the opportunity to be a ignature campaign manager, it seems an easy job, but it is not easy. when I counted the participants' posts I noticed that most of them were posting in the same sections, so one of the challenges is to make the participants post in several sections of the forum but at the same time as when you have a ignature campaign a casino so you have to put requirements that direct participants to post in the gambling section, there is nothing wrong with setting a minimum post value as long as it does not break the forum rules

I particularly see no reason to complain about the rules of private companies and how managers should or should not do their work, if you become a ignature campaign manager, put your rules in place and then you'll see if you'll get good results, with so you will have the answer to your question, as you have not yet been a ignature campaign manager it will be very difficult for you to understand the reasons that lead to these minimum post values, but you can also create a thread in which you would post interviews with everyone ignature campaign managers, it would be good to hear from them what they think about this topic

[coin-investor]

Those who complain about post quota are not well informed of the campaign goal, it is clearly stated on some of the signature managers' campaign threads, I don't believe it has something to do with just numbers but it's more on quality and motivation and posting habits of the participants.
I doubt if a manager will take out a participant who has good contribution to the forum even though he is just hitting the minimum quota.

[Nwada001]

~snip~

~snip~

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?

The answer is yes/no. When I was still a junior member, I did not wear a single signature. There are times when I make more than 10 posts per day. It all depends on the kind of topics I come across that very day and how conversant I am with those topics. Sometimes it all depends on how many times I am quoted and mentioned by other users. I always make sure I reply to 3/5 of the times I am mentioned. I sometimes limit the number of times I make a post.

This is because of a time I came across a thread where there was a list of users mentioned on that thread for bust posting, and the user who mentioned them was like, "Let me see how long this enthusiasm will last." This is because those mentioned users were always making posts on the forum with their rank; it all looked kind of spammy to others, which I would not want to get myself into since I was not that familiar with the forum rules.

But during my stay on campaign, if my previous campaign ends, I will still maintain my minimum posting limit. There is no week that I post below 30 posts; some weeks I drop above 35–60 posts, which is always above what any campaign that I'm on demands.

Yes, the joy of coming into this forum and dropping posts on a daily basis will reduce; I might even not post for an entire day, but wearing a signature campaign reminds me that I have a daily or weekly task to perform, and once I am in this forum, I forget about having a weekly target or not. It's just me trying to be me around the forum and nothing else's.

[Accardo]

-snip-
What do you think the right post quota per week?

Some people argue that sigcamp should not be considered as a job.

A good point, sigcamp is not a job or shouldn't be seen as one, the manager I'm currently with, Icopress, in his campaign thread made a statement which defines signature campaign, he said that posting in the forum is a hobby and the reward we get it's a compensation. If a person sees signature campaign as a job, then that makes it a wrong view, regardless of the number of accounts they use in working here or amount of money they make per week, it remains a way of saying thank you for being productive in the forum and channeling traffic to the brand we wear their banner. As for post quotas, every week can't be predicted, some weeks appear more busier in a participant's life. They could be more engaged in real life activities that they may not post more in the forum, but such users are expected to at least bypass the minimum number of post to be eligible for payment. If they don't that means the few posts they made in the week won't count, as it's a deal.

[Darker45]

~snip~

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?

Frankly speaking, I doubt it. Even good posters, even those coming from the prestigious Chipmixer campaign who used to produce high numbers of posts when the maximum paid posts were 50 are now apparently adjusting to the maximum of their new campaigns. That, to me, however, is completely understandable. Those who claim otherwise, those who think that a user's posting habit and level of activity should be the same whether he/she is on a campaign or not are probably saying one thing and doing another. Although I believe that is true to a handful of respectable members here, probably the great majority aren't like that.

That your posts are paid entails responsibility. It may not stop you from taking a break and go on a vacation, but it is enough to actually compel you to make a post. But that doesn't mean you end up producing shit posts. That each of your valid post costs $5 means you are prodded to make one. Again, not necessarily a useless one written for the sake of compliance. But without that payment, it could be possible that such a constructive post wouldn't have been written. I think paid posts encourage and incentivize knowledgeable users here to participate in discussions, make valuable contributions.

Hypocrisy aside, I think that many of us here are counting posts, but that only happens because they are paid. If they weren't, we wouldn't have cared at all. If we are short 1 post, we go, "hey, that's a waste of $4, why shouldn't I start reading interesting threads and contribute my couple of Sats?"

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I don't see any problem with that. The quota is set because in order to get paid for wearing the signature you have to offer a minimum of value to the advertiser. I usually offer more, writing above what I get paid. Some weeks many more posts.

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

As far as I have seen in the campaign I am currently participating in, the manager has removed participants for writing just the right amount of posts for the quota or maybe even more because it is an indication that you are writing exclusively to get paid. I think what they are looking for is someone who enjoys the forum in general and takes the payment of the campaigns as an incentive for good posting, but who is not on the forum exclusively for the payment.

Frankly speaking, I doubt it. Even good posters, even those coming from the prestigious Chipmixer campaign who used to produce high numbers of posts when the maximum paid posts were 50 are now apparently adjusting to the maximum of their new campaigns. That, to me, however, is completely understandable. Those who claim otherwise, those who think that a user's posting habit and level of activity should be the same whether he/she is on a campaign or not are probably saying one thing and doing another.

It is clear that payment is a motivation to write, but as I said before, there is a difference between taking the payment as an extra for your general enjoyment of the forum and being seen to be only interested in payment, which I think is what happens to those who are removed even if they have met the weekly quota.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

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.

There's no right post quota per week, each campaign is unique and the manager decide what the post quota is, if you're not comfortable with the rules then don't participate in the campaign. As a signature participate, you're an employee of the campaign manager and his rules are his for you to follow or you get removed from the campaign. The minimum quota rules are there to give the campaign some amount of weekly works but you shouldn't be making just the minimum, if you're doing so then you're indirectly telling the manager that you're just there to make money and such users aren't useful to the forum because their posts aren't usually quality but just there to make up the weekly quota.

There are so many campaigns on the forum therefore you're free to join those that suits your posting styles and habit. I did a thread on that few years ago titled; [Guide] Factors to consider before joining paid signature campaigns but many people just join any campaign available and then begin adjusting their posting habits or style to fit the campaign and this usually drops their quality. For example, some campaign requires you to be active for some specific amount of days (judging from their maximum daily post count) so if you're not very active on the forum, you shouldn't be joining such campaign. Every campaign manager wants the best for the projects that they're managing as such users that aren't promoting the project effectively to their tastes can be removed at any moment.

[Oilacris]

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.

There's no such fixed post quota per week which it would be basing up on neither on the team or the campaign manager on how many post they would really be requiring for you to be eligible for weeks payout but for sure it would really be playing around these numbers; 15-25 post per week and some of them doesnt really have minimum post count.

It does really vary on managers rules and conditions yet most of them is really just that the same but there are some few alterations which i do believe that it is really that basing up according
into their standards on which they would really be adding up some rules like posting a x/on a certain board and this would be basing on what kind of project/company
you are really that promoting. If ever it was a gambling or casino then its common sense that it would be asking on gambling boards.

When it comes to removal, then it would be usually into those people who do missed out few weeks on not on posting. Some are being kicked just because the manager do sees
that a certain member do really just made out post for the sake of money and quality is much been that mediocre. Its really that according on managers standards
whether a member would stay on the campaign or would be kicked out.

[sheenshane]

It's very simple logic that didn't need to argue if you think you didn't reach the commitment of minimum post quota post per week then, don't participate signature campaign.  The post requirements vary for each manager who managed the signature campaign and their agreement with the company that they manage to promote here.

I tend to agree with other's opinions, the signature campaign isn't a job and yet we're lucky that we incentivized making such quality post.  If your posting habit per week ranges around 15-20 posts then don't join a signature campaign that has a requirement of more than that and yet you're lucky if there's a low minimum requirement post quota per week.  So don't ask it will be generalized this rule to all managers who managed signature campaigns. 

[libert19]

IMO, minimum 2 posts a day (14/week). There are members who post quantity with quality, they should be paid accordingly up to max posts.

As far as I have seen in the campaign I am currently participating in, the manager has removed participants for writing just the right amount of posts for the quota or maybe even more because it is an indication that you are writing exclusively to get paid. I think what they are looking for is someone who enjoys the forum in general and takes the payment of the campaigns as an incentive for good posting, but who is not on the forum exclusively for the payment.

I'm active on Reddit, I love being there for sake of it. However, here it's hard to shake of feeling that you are getting paid to post and this feeling makes your post feel phony, may be it's just me.

[PX-Z]

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

Don't get confused, it's just there to become one of the rules, the most important is always the right of the manager to add/remove or/and pay a user or not in the campaign.

It's very simple logic that didn't need to argue if you think you didn't reach the commitment of minimum post quota post per week then, don't participate signature campaign.  The post requirements vary for each manager who managed the signature campaign and their agreement with the company that they manage to promote here.

I guess you don't get what OP is trying to tell. What you said is right  that's obvious. What OP is trying to imply is, say the minimum post of the campaign is 25, the user make 25-28 post in the last 2 weeks which is good for the campaign rules and s/he get paid but was removed for the 3rd week because s/he just made bare minimum.  On the other hand, the manager expects its participants to make 30 posts above besides the minimum posts, sounds like confusing right? Like i said it's only there to complete the set of campaign rules ^{(e.g. you wont get paid if weekly quota is not reached)} but the last call will always be from the manager whether you are going to proceed the next round/week or not.

[uchegod-21]

I guess you don't get what OP is trying to tell. What you said is right  that's obvious. What OP is trying to imply is, say the minimum post of the campaign is 25, the user make 25-28 post in the last 2 weeks which is good for the campaign rules and s/he get paid but was removed for the 3rd week because s/he just made bare minimum.  On the other hand, the manager expects its participants to make 30 posts above besides the minimum posts, sounds like confusing right?

You understood Op very much well. It varies from manager to manager. I can tell of my own manager Hhampuz because I have worked with him for a long time.
He doesn't have problems if you make the exact 15 posts per week that is required in my campaign. His concern is that the 15 posts should be spread and you use the forum like a normal forum user and not to login and drop random number of posts in order to earn the week's pay without involving and engaging in discussion with others.
This is among the reasons he removed some users in 2 of the campaigns he managers.

A campaign participant should be able to re-examine himself and be true to one's self if the junk he drops is worthy of the pay he receives weekly.
The payment in the campaign is a major determinant. For instant if I am opportune to be in Whirlwind campaign. I will have to add additional energy and time to be sure I sincerely earn the 150/week.

[Bitstar_coin]

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.

Saying post requirement is not compulsory nor mandatory is very false, i don't know if you understand what you are saying, it is like you participating in a campaign that the post requirement per week to get stake is 15 and you make 10 post or less and then telling the bm it is not mandatory, 
If you say not compulsory for a participant to participate if they feel the post requirement is too much for them, yeah that is very clear, nobody is forcing anyone to be in a campaign where the post requirement is too much for them to handle. It is individual choices.

[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.

Saying post requirement is not compulsory nor mandatory is very false, i don't know if you understand what you are saying, it is like you participating in a campaign that the post requirement per week to get stake is 15 and you make 10 post or less and then telling the bm it is not mandatory, 
If you say not compulsory for a participant to participate if they feel the post requirement is too much for them, yeah that is very clear, nobody is forcing anyone to be in a campaign where the post requirement is too much for them to handle. It is individual choices.

It's not Mandatory is an aspect of those participating in campaigns in which their pay is calculated per post up to a limit, for instance, minimum 5 posts a week and maximum 25–30 posts a week. If you make 10 posts, you will get paid, but it's not mandatory to make up to the maximum.

But under the bounty section, just like the one you are wearing right now, if you don't get your maximum post count, you won't get paid, so in an aspect like that, it's mandatory.

[jrrsparkles]

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.

I'm not trying to single out Little mouse here. I didn’t mention any name of the campaign for the sake of discussion. Even Royse777 campaigns have this kind of rules about discouraging the minimum post quota behaviour. You can check it for yourself as you are already with his campaign.

Ignore my credibility and focus on the subject matter. I'm not active Bitcointalk user but I usually check services board for signature campaign news. If I'm an active user here hence I will notice immediately my issue on my trust feedback.

I only noticed this quirk rules starting to enforce by some campaign manager.

@little mouse this topic is not about you. It's about the general discussion of services. You are not the only one enforced this kind of rules.

I don't know which campaign manager you're pointing out but generally from my assumption campaign managers don't want their participants just make a post on bitcointalk to get payment, managers do check the posting habits of users and if they feel someone is not fitting in their criteria then they have all the rights to remove them from campaign. From the poster point of view it's okay to post whatever you want without violating the forum rules is okay.

[yahoo62278]

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.

I have used this same system in the past. Ideally users should be doing 3-5 posts beyond the quota  to avoid not being paid. Never know when a post will be deleted by a mod for being off topic, thread got moved to a section that doesn't count, or reported for multiple other reasons.

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.

Let's expand on this a little. Little Mouse is correct, you have to balance the company and the forum. 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. If the company doesn't feel they are getting any value from the campaign, they will just end it and move on. This is why I feel it is important for participants to make a post here and there in the companies thread that hired you.

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 you are the type of person that doesn't post very often, try to find a pay per post campaign. If you don't like a campaigns rules, noone forces you to join.