If you were a campaign manager would you select these members for campaigns?

[JollyGood]

self-moderated to keep this thread clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammers

I would like to start this thread to discuss what possible logic could be applied by campaign managers when they select certain members to participate in campaigns they manage.

Some of us would have great difficulty in understanding the reason why certain members with certain types of feedback (including negative and neutral trust) along with their posting habits would be selected in any campaign at all.

You can all contribute names, in fact I request it. Having said that, I would recommend a maximum of two per post and then allow ample time for comments to discuss those names before other names are posted.

edit: As an example, here is a name to get the conversation started. If you were a campaign manager, would you select this member to participate in any of your campaigns?:

The second post in the thread is where collated names will be listed. You can post the names of any member you have seen wearing a signature that you deem to have enough dubious posts that should really warrant exclusion from enrolling in campaigns and then we can discuss
 

[1714491301]

1714491301

[1714491301]

1714491301

[1714491301]

1714491301

[1714491301]

1714491301

[1714491301]

1714491301

[JollyGood]

Some names to consider:

==========
Campaign: Stake
Member: arimamib
Trust:    # +0 / =3 / -0
Reason: Using AI generated posts.
==========

==========
Campaign: Bitvest
Member: Zanab247
Trust:    # +0 / =2 / -0
Reason: Ban evasion and account farming.
==========

==========
Campaign: Bitcasino
Member: mich
Trust:    # +0 / =1 / -4
Reason: Account changed hands. Previous low quality posts/news spammer.
==========




Deleted posts:

so let me please repeat my question  a week ago and if I get an answer I will add the name(s) or not according to the answer.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5491802.msg63913589#msg63913589

My serious question is whether I am allowed to post here one or the other @member who is participating in a signature campaign and who is using foul language such as

You are one of the biggest pieces of shit...............
you illiterate moron
Remember, when you were kissing his (Signature Manger) ass,............
.............. for being a massive dick.

[Vod]

I would like to start this thread to discuss what possible logic could be applied by campaign managers when they select certain members to participate in campaigns they manage.

The campaign managers only see the money, and the websites (who are not here) only see the traffic.

[_act_]

If I am a campaign manager, what I will use to select people into any campaign that I am managing is merit and reputation. They are both important. I may not totally consider reputation but I will strongly not select people with negative reputation which is very valid. As for merit, I will not only consider 120 days merits only but also consider the people that send the merit to them. Lastly is that I will check some of the posts of the user. But I noticed that some campaign managers are not totally considering merits because some people are posting good but have little merits in 120 days. If I bring a campaign right now, I can not take arimamib becuase he lacks in many areas, both merit and reputation.

[JollyGood]

I would like to start this thread to discuss what possible logic could be applied by campaign managers when they select certain members to participate in campaigns they manage.

The campaign managers only see the money, and the websites (who are not here) only see the traffic.

You raise a valid point but I know of cases where managers have refused to take up jobs because of either the reputation of the company involved or their previous interactions. When it comes to campaign managers, it is not always about money.

Having said that, there is one in particular that did not stop promoting the Sinbad mixer even though around 5 months prior I created a thread outlining it would be seized because it was operated by a criminal enterprise. I would conclude your words are completely appropriate for that individual and maybe some others but definitely not all.

If I bring a campaign right now, I can not taken arimamib becuase he lacks in many areas, both merit ans reputation.

He clearly does lack in many area yet he is enrolled on the Stake campaign like a huge number of participants in that campaign are.

I guess the criteria required to wear a Stake signature is extremely low therefore if spammers and super- spammers (several that use AI) are accepted on the Stake campaign, the primary person to blame is their campaign manager Carollzinha

[Upgrade00]

I will assume each manager will have their criteria for selecting participants into their campaign. Could be the board they post in, merits they have, consistency of their posting across several boards, reputation, longevity on the forum. It will be a can of worms to debate the rationale behind the selection of users by a manager.
The amount the campaign pays also affects the quality of participants they can attract.

If I were managing a campaign today, I'll most likely not take that user, but no manager has to share my sentiments

[stompix]

Let's assume I would have to select a few people for a campaign, the first thing I would look at is not merits, it's not the boards he's active and to be honest not even the reputation if it's not something screaming -2/-15 but the way his last post page looks!
Now in the case mentioned above here is that page archived:
https://archive.ph/PyAad

So, 20 posts, all made out of two paragraphs, depending on the resolution I get only 3 and 4 rows for each paragraph, so basically a machine!
852,732,755,893,927,925,824,882,1068,1023,853,943,912,1069,1188,1040,1033,940,856,1122 characters.

I would not hire a single person whose post-history looks like this, the moment I see all your posts have the same size and not even once, for god's sake at least once you don't break out of that habit of yours it's clear you're not even remotely interested even in what you're typing!

[DaveF]

It depends on what the customer wants.

If you are hired as a manger to get the people with the most posts in a varied bunch of boards and the customer does not care about quality just quantity then you are talking about a certain group / type of poster.

If you are hired to get a fewer number of posts but want better quality ones then you are going after another group of users.

It also comes down to pay. If you pay very little per post you are (in general) going to get lower quality posters.

Also, some people for whatever personal reasons not advertise certain things. Some will not want to have casinos, others (before the ban) did not want mixers, and so on. So as a manger you loose some of those people. So although there seem to be a ton of users trying to get on campaigns. There is a limited amount of 'really good' ones and then you as a manger are picking thought the 'good enough' and you might have to take some people that are not great but workable.

-Dave

[decodx]

No, I would never personally hire such a member for my campaign.  Unfortunately, some campaign managers have such low standards and prioritize quantity over quality.  Stake's manager is one example of this, as evidenced by the "borovichok" case.  Despite multiple warnings, he was only removed after a strong backlash from the community and negative publicity.

[Wapfika]

If I’m a campaign manager, I will focus on post quality and not on the merit counts etc because this is what I’m checking when I’m counting post for weekly payment. Some users post a quality post yet doesn’t receive enough merit due to the low merit circulation on the board he or she was posting frequently.

There’s a lot of questionable merit sharing on this topic Get 201 merits in 2 months from a farm

Checking the post quality alone can guarantee you that the user that you will hire will post with your standards.

[pakhitheboss]

This topic will let another forum become more powerful than us. Please think before you come up with such a topic as a lot of traffic and intellectuals of this forum are going to that forum because someone comes up with such an argument

The forum mods or the admin have not developed any AI policy. Do you think such a topic would be welcomed when we know the majority of traffic that the forum gets is because of the signature campaign? Does not make any sense to me at least and not sure about others.

[SmartGold01]

Posting differs from between users because they are of different educational standard and their merits counts is also one thing to be considered, when a campaign is launched or let me say for example I launched a campaign what to consider is locality. Yes locality matters, because some of the users here might not be an English speaking users or who is seeing their English communication skill to be very poor (using translator to post here), and for that I won't accept much of those localities rather focused on those that are passing meaningful messages.

The reason I brought it up was because of reputable users here who says my post are not of good quality, and I asked him how he evaluates his post yet there is no good reason than pointing hands at punctuation, comas, full-stop and whatever.., that is byegone.
As a manager, looking at what they are posting and reading their post from end to ends also matter to know whether these users are passing real messages or not, if they aren't passing reasonable messages then there is no need accepting those users.

Trust ratings is also one important thing to be considered which most of us here calls it reputation. There are lots of people who writes good quality post but lack merits, it could be that they don't always post in a visible boards where some users can merits their post therefore making them not to earn enough merits for the last 120 days. Although if they earned the required merits for the last 120 days duration then I will have to accept them without considering how copious their merits are, since I think merits are cyclic (revolving) between some reputable members, maybe as they think other doesn't meet their standards hence they won't give merits to them. But seeing a reputable member with just no meaningful post you would see lot of merits flowing over there as if it was raining.

[Saint-loup]

No, I would never personally hire such a member for my campaign.  Unfortunately, some campaign managers have such low standards and prioritize quantity over quality.  Stake's manager is one example of this, as evidenced by the "borovichok" case.  Despite multiple warnings, he was only removed after a strong backlash from the community and negative publicity.

It's a shame. There are already too many spammers/shitposters in some sections like the Gambling one but not only, posting random off-topic, nonsense, low value or irrelevant content, or just repeating what they've read in the previous pages of the thread from other posters. So the forum doesn't need users posting AI generated posts on top of that. In my opinion, campaigns enrolling or maintaining such spammers should be banned or restricted to a very limited number of participants. Otherwise campaign managers accepting this shouldn't be allowed to manage a campaign here anymore, at least.

[SatoPrincess]

The reason I brought it up was because of reputable users here who says my post are not of good quality, and I asked him how he evaluates his post yet there is no good reason than pointing hands at punctuation, comas, full-stop and whatever.., that is byegone.

You’re not a bad poster and shouldn’t take what LoyceV said to heart (at least not in a negative way). It was his merit thread after all and he has the right to spend smerits on posts he considers top quality. A large proportion of your posts are in your local board and in the gambling board, I don’t believe LoyceV visits those areas of the forum often, that could also be a reason why you were not considered for the merit thread.

[JollyGood]

It is good to see the community engage with their views in this thread.

Overall, we know campaign managers do not have an easy job and can on occasions overlook signs that demonstrate why particular participants should not be enrol on campaigns but Carollzinha (campaign manager for Stake) has enrolled several highly dubious characters that seem to defy logic.

Keeping that aside, as nobody has added any member names of their own to raise discussion and comments on, I will put another name out there for there to be discussion on:


==========
Campaign: Bitvest
Member: Zanab247
Trust:    # +0 / =2 / -0
Reason: Ban evasion and account farming.
==========

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

The campaign managers only see the money, and the websites (who are not here) only see the traffic.

The campaign mangers work for their clients. It's a job for them and I think they need to show results to continue their clients impressed. Since you and me are not qualified yet, never managed a campaign, discussing about who to have in a campaign and who not to, is not a good use of time. If anyone have a different idea then isn't it better to have their own campaign management?

You don't have a PhD [Where is that PhD member LOL], you are not qualified to understand a PhD holder and his papers. The knowledge is out of your reach.

[KingsDen]

==========
Campaign: Stake
Member: arimamib
Trust:    # +0 / =3 / -0
Reason: Using AI generated posts.
==========

I believe there was a time the Stake manager Carollzinha updated Stake campaign rules and included a rule that prohibits Stake participants from using AI. If such a rule is still being recognised by her, she should therefore remove anyone proven to use the forum with AI.

As of neutral tags or negative tags, it is at the manager's discretion to choose who will promote her project, especially if the tags are not related to scam. Sometimes inaccurate ratings are given, so the manager should decide the severity of each tag and act to the best interest of the project.

[JollyGood]

The bar seems to have fallen extremely low when it comes to getting enrolled in the Stake campaign but I completely understand your views on the subject about managers implementing their own rules and interpretations. Having said that, what would you do? If you were a campaign manager would you select these two members for campaigns?

I believe there was a time the Stake manager Carollzinha updated Stake campaign rules and included a rule that prohibits Stake participants from using AI. If such a rule is still being recognised by her, she should therefore remove anyone proven to use the forum with AI.

As of neutral tags or negative tags, it is at the manager's discretion to choose who will promote her project, especially if the tags are not related to scam. Sometimes inaccurate ratings are given, so the manager should decide the severity of each tag and act to the best interest of the project.

[KingsDen]

The bar seems to have fallen extremely low when it comes to getting enrolled in the Stake campaign but I completely understand your views on the subject about managers implementing their own rules and interpretations. Having said that, what would you do? If you were a campaign manager would you select these two members for campaigns?

I believe there was a time the Stake manager Carollzinha updated Stake campaign rules and included a rule that prohibits Stake participants from using AI. If such a rule is still being recognised by her, she should therefore remove anyone proven to use the forum with AI.

As of neutral tags or negative tags, it is at the manager's discretion to choose who will promote her project, especially if the tags are not related to scam. Sometimes inaccurate ratings are given, so the manager should decide the severity of each tag and act to the best interest of the project.

If I were to be a campaign manager, I would accept the above two users only if these conditions are met;

• I have large number of participants to hire.
• More credible users are not showing interest in my campaign.

However, I think for you to have a more organised response, you could just add a poll to this thread.

[SamReomo]

If you were a campaign manager, would you select this member to participate in any of your campaigns?:

If I ever manage a campaign then I won't consider such users in my campaigns. If the member in my managed campaign use AI content in a mistaken way then I may give that member a second chance with a warning that if he/she found to be using AI generated content again then I'll blacklist him/her and he/she won't be able to participate in campaigns that I may manage in future.

If I become a campaign manager then my focus will be to select those members who are active members of the forum and who make post themselves not copy/paste AI generated content and consider it as their own. I would look for each post of the participants that I accept in my campaign and if any of those contain AI generated content then I will personally send that user a private message with warning that if he/she continue positing such content then I will remove him/her from the campaign.

At initial stage of my management career I would only consider those members who actively contribute to the forum and are some of the known names of the forum. But, overtime I may select all those members that make quality posts and contribute to the forum in one way or other. I would give main priority to the quality/contribution of the member that I accept in my campaign. I may look for merits, reputation, trust ratings, and some other details of that user, but again my main priority should be quality of the posts and contribution of that member.