Thread banners (SMF idea)

[PowerGlove]

Hey, everyone!

I've noticed that on campaign threads, the manager often leaves important bits of information in a post that's sometimes a few pages back. For example, in my current campaign there are things worth knowing about, before applying:

If I catch you "bumping" your application or if you re-apply (while having left your application here some time in the last 2 weeks), you'll be put on ignore and forfeit any chance of joining this campaign in the future.

For now you can continue to apply if you are a prominent member/previous CM participant.

A lot of applicants are just flat-out ignoring those requests (more the second than the first), either because they find them inconvenient, or because they're not aware of them.

Instead of forging ahead on my own and making a patch, like I usually would, I thought this time around I'd try getting some feedback from the community before sitting down to code.

What do you guys think of a feature that would let the OP of a topic specify some "banner" text that would appear at the top and bottom of every page of that thread (maybe in a colored box, or something)?

My thinking is that that would help with problems like the above, and would (over time) likely find a bunch of other use cases, too.

[JeromeTash]

Some signature campaign applicants are just too dumb, hehehe.

Even with the clear thread banners, you will be shocked to see them continue to go against what the campaign manager said. I think you have already seen cases of some members making signature campaign applications even when the topic of the thread is saying CFNP or FULL

On the flip side, it helps the manager to know who is worthy picking and who is not based on how they don't even take a little time to read through the campaign OP or thread. I support your idea, but I doubt it will make much change when it comes to dumb applicants.

[dzungmobile]

A lot of applicants are just flat-out ignoring those requests (more the second than the first), either because they find them inconvenient, or because they're not aware of them.

What do you guys think of a feature that would let the OP of a topic specify some "banner" text that would appear at the top and bottom of every page of that thread (maybe in a colored box, or something)?

I don't actually catch your solution in your minds, my bad English perhaps.  

I got the problem you described and if I was you, I would go with a solution as follows

• Whenever a poster make a post in a signature campaign thread, they will get a pop-up or red notification like the forum does sometimes like: "Pay attention on the last message from the manager: [quoted message of manager]"
• If you only filter the last message from manager, I believe the notification will sometimes be right, sometimes be wrong. Because the last manager message can be about term changes, application approvals, payment announcement, joke etc.
• If you can something to filter it further, it will be better but I am unsure it is possible to code.
• Your patch should allow a manager to add texts they want to get in the filter

You can code a filter to ignore any message from manager with these words that is for application approvals.

Code:

Bitcointalk Profile Link: 
Current amount of posts (including this one): 
SegWit (preferably bech32) BTC Address for Payouts: 
EARNED merit in the last 120 days: 

My dumb idea.  

[John Abraham]

What do you guys think of a feature that would let the OP of a topic specify some "banner" text that would appear at the top and bottom of every page of that thread (maybe in a colored box, or something)?

Like this one?



The idea is not bad. It will help Campaign managers or the thread creators to write something important like an announcement/news header. But, Whoever never read replies before they apply in a thread won't read that either.

See this, for example. The Campaign Manager said;

If you are prominent Sr., Hero or Legendary Member feel free to apply. You do not need to have earned 500 merit in the last 120 days but please look within and be honest with yourselves about your standing in this forum and the content you produce.

Now Look at the application of a potential participant and what he wrote;

~Hi, I saw in the title that the campaign is open but I'm not sure for which slot, I'm posting my application just in case, thanks!

He wants to participate in a campaign but did not bother to check the thread if any spots are available for him. This is how people ignore most of warnings! People were talking about giving warnings on a page, and look what theymos said;

Honestly, I think that someone that naïve can't be protected. Even if every inch of the page had been full of warnings, he still might've fallen for it,

[Upgrade00]

A lot of applicants are just flat-out ignoring those requests (more the second than the first), either because they find them inconvenient, or because they're not aware of them.

The second request can be taken differently by different people. I can consider myself to be a prominent member on the forum, but that's relative to me, the campaign manager or someone else might not consider me to be based 😏 n their perception.

What do you guys think of a feature that would let the OP of a topic specify some "banner" text that would appear at the top and bottom of every page of that thread (maybe in a colored box, or something)?

Would be useful for important announcements to not be missed, particularly when there's a wave of applications which can bury the update. It would be great if it can have an expiry time, let's say the bump should dstay you for 24 hours or any specific amount of time.

[FatFork]

A lot of applicants are just flat-out ignoring those requests (more the second than the first), either because they find them inconvenient, or because they're not aware of them.

Is it possible that the manager is intentionally employing this strategy as a test?

While I don't want to make any assumptions specific to this case, it's not uncommon for managers to adopt various methods to differentiate between exceptional individuals and those who may not meet the desired criteria. After all, managers have the ability to modify the initial post and introduce new requests or rule changes if they wish to do so.

[LoyceV]

If I catch you "bumping" your application or if you re-apply (while having left your application here some time in the last 2 weeks), you'll be put on ignore and forfeit any chance of joining this campaign in the future.

A lot of applicants are just flat-out ignoring those requests

It's a feature, not a bug! (source unknown) A simple "reading test" makes it easy to reject the first batch of participants:

Not reading the rules of a campaign is a very good indication that those people don't care what they post on the forum. Reading the rules is also part of my selection procedure, if someone applies without reading, that means he's just wasting my time and gets rejected.

What do you guys think of a feature that would let the OP of a topic specify some "banner" text that would appear at the top and bottom of every page of that thread (maybe in a colored box, or something)?

My main concern is (as always): please don't break my 10,000 different scrapers
Other than that, I can think of a few potential pitfalls: What if there's spam in the banner, can we report it? Can we Merit it? Can we quote it?

Like this one?

This would be good, it doesn't interfere with any of my scraping.

[paid2]

This may sound silly, but wouldn't it be easier to make updates in the first post of the topic?

Generally everyone expects to see all the necessary informations about the said campaign (at least for those users who care to read it lol). If the campaign managers have something to tell us which is important to know about the campaign, in my opinion, it should just be noted or edited in the first post of the topic.

[Accardo]

The idea is clear and sound, but the point is, the thread could be hard to find, the current method of updating members helps to bump the signature thread to first page where members can easily click on the last page number and read the new update. If you implement such a feature, the manager will as well update their weekly payment ID there. So in a situation where the thread is on the no.3 page how would people get notified that there is a new update, unless the manager “bumps" the thread which is similar to what is happening now.

[Findingnemo]

This may sound silly, but wouldn't it be easier to make updates in the first post of the topic?

Usually the campaign manager will edit the title to [Open/CFNP/Closed] which itself enough to identify the status of the campaign at any moment. But there are some exceptions like even if there is no slot left still manager would like to hire highly recognised member of the forum which may be available in the first post of the topic generally but the proposed idea is also good but not really necessary though cause if someone isn't reading the requirements before posting theit application then they are not fit to take a slot.

[Eh Moo Nah]

Hey, everyone!

I've noticed that on campaign threads, the manager often leaves important bits of information in a post that's sometimes a few pages back. For example, in my current campaign there are things worth knowing about, before applying:

-------------------------------
What do you guys think of a feature that would let the OP of a topic specify some "banner" text that would appear at the top and bottom of every page of that thread (maybe in a colored box, or something)?

-------------------------------

I don't think if this would be Possible or there is an option like this.  but this is the Idea that I can Think of.


- Freeze the First Post (campaign Information) so even if the Post like has 3 Pages and when someone applies they can see the First Post.

I really  don't know if this applicable or available. lol.

Please take a look at the information below for the details.




me tried to include a picture using talkimg.com but I think I did it wrong.

[RickDeckard]

This may sound silly, but wouldn't it be easier to make updates in the first post of the topic?

Usually the campaign manager will edit the title to [Open/CFNP/Closed] which itself enough to identify the status of the campaign at any moment. But there are some exceptions like even if there is no slot left still manager would like to hire highly recognised member of the forum which may be available in the first post of the topic generally(...)

But wouldn't it be in the best interest of the campaign manager to also edit the OP with that information?

This may sound silly, but wouldn't it be easier to make updates in the first post of the topic?

(...) but the proposed idea is also good but not really necessary though cause if someone isn't reading the requirements before posting theit application then they are not fit to take a slot.

If someone doesn't even care to read the requirements, why wouldn't they even deserve to be in the campaign in the first place? Why should the forum accommodate their options to simplify the work of users (most of them) that only see the forum has a way to get some more money at the end of the month and not as a community that they could learn/take part into?
@PowerGlove: Don't take my words in a bad way. I really like what you've made for the forum so far (and what you may do in the future), but as you can see my opinion on this particular subject is to not support this suggestion. My argument for that is that a simple edit by the campaign manager on the OP should be enough for users to be aware of the rules and it is of the best interest for the campaign manager to update the OP with the rules that she/he sees that it would benefit their campaign (like the one you gave an example of).

[PowerGlove]

I don't actually catch your solution in your minds, my bad English perhaps.  

Hehe, yeah, don't feel bad, I suppose I didn't explain myself very clearly. I'm saying that campaign managers would be able to use these "thread banners" to keep important information in a very difficult-to-miss spot. Obviously, people are still going to be stupid, but I think having the option to put some kind of editable "notice" on certain threads would be a useful feature.

Like this one?

Yup, something like that. Probably with different colors, though (maybe white-on-blue, to keep with the forum's theme).

Is it possible that the manager is intentionally employing this strategy as a test?

Haha, yeah, I like the way you think.

Campaign managers that are doing this intentionally would have the option to ignore this feature, though. If some managers started using it, and some didn't, it might actually make the trap more effective, by lulling potential participants into thinking: "No banner? It must be safe to apply then..."

My main concern is (as always): please don't break my 10,000 different scrapers

Yeah, I'll be careful. If I proceed with this one, then I'll PM you when I'm close to finishing and we can hammer out the details. (By the way, if you don't see any merit from me for a while, that's because I'm still maxed out with you after the Imgur thing.)

Other than that, I can think of a few potential pitfalls: What if there's spam in the banner, can we report it? Can we Merit it? Can we quote it?

Based on the way I'm currently thinking of implementing it, answers would be: Yes, No, Yes.

This may sound silly, but wouldn't it be easier to make updates in the first post of the topic?

Yup, I feel you, but these days, I don't think you can even rely on people to properly read the first post before responding (pitiful, I know, but it is what it is).

@PowerGlove: Don't take my words in a bad way. I really like what you've made for the forum so far (and what you may do in the future), but as you can see my opinion on this particular subject is to not support this suggestion. My argument for that is that a simple edit by the campaign manager on the OP should be enough for users to be aware of the rules and it is of the best interest for the campaign manager to update the OP with the rules that she/he sees that it would benefit their campaign (like the one you gave an example of).

Thanks for the kind words. See the above response to iwantmyhomepaidwithbtc2.

Also, although I didn't do a very good job of explaining this (only one vague sentence at the end of the OP), I think a feature like the one I'm proposing would end up being useful for quite a few things. The problem I outlined in the OP is what gave me the idea, but when pondering new features, I like to avoid specific solutions and try to come up with things that would be generally useful (and I think this one would be, for auctions, competitions, etc.)

[GeorgeJohn]

The fact is that so many users who apply in a signature campaign doesn't care to read the instructions of signature campaign before get applied, they only concentrate to know the specific rate campaign is to pay participants and the board to post, majority participants that's not been selected in same campaign is bumping and reapplying in same signature campaign, another thing is that some has seen the instructions but they keep on trying to see if they will be lucky to be select. But cm state it categorically that one that bump it's application will be ignore, you will see that no
user or  application that will be reapply or bumped

[John Abraham]

Campaign managers that are doing this intentionally would have the option to ignore this feature, though. If some managers started using it, and some didn't, it might actually make the trap more effective, by lulling potential participants into thinking: "No banner? It must be safe to apply then..."

You may not want to use the word trap here. You may want to use better wording   We don't want anyone to fall in the trap. Right? Your patch will help them to see if there is any important announcement. So, it will help them to notice important things. It would be awesome if managers could use this feature in their old threads. For example, We cannot turn our self-moderated threads into normal threads. Also, We cannot turn our normal threads into self-moderated threads. If the new banner system works the same, I don't think managers would create a new campaign thread to use this feature.

The fact is that so many users who apply in a signature campaign doesn't care to read the instructions of signature campaign before get applied, they only concentrate to know the specific rate campaign is to pay participants and the board to post, majority participants that's not been selected in same campaign is bumping and reapplying in same signature campaign, another thing is that some has seen the instructions but they keep on trying to see if they will be lucky to be select. But cm state it categorically that one that bump it's application will be ignore, you will see that no user or  application that will be reapply or bumped

Look at the signature Campaign I and PowerGlove are in. The Campaign manager said Apply if you are a prominent forum member or an ex-ChipMixer participant. People started applying there with one merit earned in the last 120 days. Unless inactive, I don't think any prominent forum members earn less than 100 Merits in the previous 120 days. The campaign manager said reapplying is not allowed, and they will be put on the ignore list. But who cares?

[GeorgeJohn]

Look at the signature Campaign I and PowerGlove are in. The Campaign manager said Apply if you are a prominent forum member or an ex-ChipMixer participant. People started applying there with one merit earned in the last 120 days. Unless inactive, I don't think any prominent forum members earn less than 100 Merits in the previous 120 days. The campaign manager said reapplying is not allowed, and they will be put on the ignore list. But who cares?

That's what i tried to ironed out, the reason why they kept reapplying, I made it clear that two things are involve for them to continue reapply for same signature campaign, I said some people don't read the rules and regulations of a signature campaign, and some people have known the rules but want to still give it a trial, and secondly do you know that before now some if they are rejected in first and second selection in a campaign they will keep reapplying, so it's has be their norms. ignore or blacklisting those users who don't want to obey the instructions of CM is the best thing to do. Now it's obvious that CM has categorized it, that he needs ex Chipmixers participants to join the campaign. And if CM blacklist those users because of this campaign, it will affect them to participate in some other of his campaigns.
 

[LoyceV]

Campaign managers that are doing this intentionally would have the option to ignore this feature, though. If some managers started using it, and some didn't, it might actually make the trap more effective, by lulling potential participants into thinking: "No banner? It must be safe to apply then..."

You may not want to use the word trap here. You may want to use better wording   We don't want anyone to fall in the trap. Right?

When I'm managing a campaign: I do! If you have to select participants out of 100+ applications, it's very nice to be able to weed out the first few without spending much time on them.