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

[The Sceptical Chymist]

OMG, I would absolutely reject that member (arimamib).  I took a look at the first page of his post history, and he's writing long, bloated posts that usually mention words of the thread title in the first sentence but that contain very little of interest.  The paranoid little devil that lives on my shoulder suspects he might be getting some AI help, but even if that isn't the case, arimamib is a complete shitposter.

I could list dozens, probably a hundred examples for the community to analyze--but why bother?  The only opinion that matters as far as whether any shitposting moron gets into a campaign is the manager, not the rest of us who don't manage campaigns. 

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

That's certainly true, but it didn't seem to be as bad a few years ago aside from oddball campaigns like Yobit and secondstrade, who would accept anybody and probably didn't even have managers monitoring the campaign participants.  I don't think either of those accepted members with negative feedback, however.  That should be a rule for any campaign, if only out of self-interest on the part of the project.  Who'd want members with red trust advertising for them?

Give 'em hell, JollyGood!

[1714695526]

1714695526

[1714695526]

1714695526

[1714695526]

1714695526

[LoyceV]

I assume the question in the topic title is rhetorical, right? Just in case: I wouldn't hire (chatbot) spammers.

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

We've had Signature Campaign Guidelines since 2016, but they're not really enforced.

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).

SmartGold01 is misinterpreting my post (again):

Read A Quick Guide to Punctuation. Even better if you read back your own text before posting. That's step 1 towards earning more Merit.

Haven seen what you shared makes me to understand how you do justify post qualities

You're misinterpreting my post. Proper punctuation doesn't make a quality post, but it helps in wanting to read it. If you just post a wall of text that's not nice to read, I won't read it. There's far too much data on the internet to waste time on bad writers. I just checked your Merit history, and I've never sent you anything. I recognize your nickname, and you're not on my Ignore list. I've Merited 3050 unique users and I'm always trying to get rid of sMerits so I'm not very picky.

The result is this:

Hello LoyceV I don't have this idea you review post history as well, maybe it might skip my memory so I decided to utilize the chance you posted on that topic to report some of my post as you said.
 

If you need/want 50 Merit, just make a good post and make me or other Merit sources see it.

You and I have different definitions of good posts. I tried all 6 posts, but couldn't get past the first 2 lines.

It would probably help if he would proofread his own text before posting. Use the Preview button and edit a few times.

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.

Since we're in a topic about who to hire, I'll address this: I noticed in this post that you're just repeating what has been said already, and then say the same thing again with different words. In this post you type a lot, but you don't say much. This comes to mind:

If you can post a constructive post in 12 words, you don't need to make it longer.

[JollyGood]

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

A poll cannot be added because this thread is designed for other members to post the names of accounts they deem to have a dubious enough background to not be enrolled on campaigns and then to question why any manager would bother enrolling them in the first place. That was discussion could take place but adding a poll would limit the narrative to just the name (or names) in the OP.

If I ever manage a campaign then I won't consider such users in my campaigns.

Personally, I would do the same as you but it would be interesting to see how many back that view.

OMG, I would absolutely reject that member (arimamib).  I took a look at the first page of his post history, and he's writing long, bloated posts that usually mention words of the thread title in the first sentence but that contain very little of interest.  The paranoid little devil that lives on my shoulder suspects he might be getting some AI help, but even if that isn't the case, arimamib is a complete shitposter.

Well, the aim has to be Hero/Legendary rank and the reason for that is obvious. That arimamib account like a huge number of accounts is trying to increase rank as soon as possible in order to join campaigns. Generally speaking, it might not be an issue but when it comes to account farming and using AI, it probably is changing the way the forum operates.

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

That's certainly true, but it didn't seem to be as bad a few years ago aside from oddball campaigns like Yobit and secondstrade, who would accept anybody and probably didn't even have managers monitoring the campaign participants.  I don't think either of those accepted members with negative feedback, however.  That should be a rule for any campaign, if only out of self-interest on the part of the project.  Who'd want members with red trust advertising for them?

There were are/only two campaign managers that enrolled an unnecessary number of members with negative tags (or highly critical neutral tags). It does make you question theie mindset.

Give 'em hell, JollyGood!

Yee Haa! You sound like one of those tobacco-chewing baddies from a western. I am on it Sheriff  

I assume the question in the topic title is rhetorical, right? Just in case: I wouldn't hire (chatbot) spammers.

If was not supposed to come across as rhetorical, I was inviting discussion and/or debate.

As for chatbot spammers, clearly this will get worse over time. If Carollzinha were to take action on many of those enrolled in the Stake campaign, I think it would have a profound effect in helping to clean up the forum.

What it cannot do is stop AI being used by account farmers because before those accounts can apply for campaigns they need to be of a certain rank but at least Carollzinha would be sending out a signal to those hoping to spam their way to Hero/Legendary rank before applying to join the Stake campaign.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

That arimamib account like a huge number of accounts is trying to increase rank as soon as possible in order to join campaigns. Generally speaking, it might not be an issue but when it comes to account farming and using AI, it probably is changing the way the forum operates.

I have no doubt AI is already starting to really fuck things up here, and it's only going to get worse.  The big problem I have personally as a merit source is that I don't have any way of knowing if a member is using an AI tool or not.  The last thing I want to do is help some pants-pissed shitposting account farmer rank up his stable of cookie-cutter alts.  Has it come to the point where I need to start using an AI detection tool before handing out merits to members I'm not familiar with?

There were are/only two campaign managers that enrolled an unnecessary number of members with negative tags (or highly critical neutral tags). It does make you question theie mindset.

I don't know the managers of which you speak, but I surmise that their mindset is "I don't give a fuck".  That's how this forum gets polluted, and it's sad.

[JackpotRacer]

Very interesting Thread idea

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.

[lovesmayfamilis]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3573400

The speed of reading posts is simply Olympic. Especially jumping from date to date.

I would also like to draw attention to two accounts whose merits are transferred at high speed. This behavior very loudly indicates that one account is brazenly raising the rank of another account, taking advantage of the fact that we still do not have a mark in the rules for the overflow of merits.

But if I were a manager, I would certainly notice such behavior and would not accept both accounts, only because the forum is not two people but a whole community, and besides my friend, or alternative account, dad, mom, or dog, there are other people whose posts are much better that should also be appreciated.
If these people, of course, understand what a community is.

I would note that a post that contains copy-paste with a link is rated three merits, which indicates that the sender and recipient are clearly not playing fairly on the forum.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5491624.msg63902838#msg63902838

And if a person is deceived once, then a second deception will not be far off.

[SatoPrincess]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3573400

The speed of reading posts is simply Olympic. Especially jumping from date to date.

I would also like to draw attention to two accounts whose merits are transferred at high speed. This behavior very loudly indicates that one account is brazenly raising the rank of another account, taking advantage of the fact that we still do not have a mark in the rules for the overflow of merits.

But if I were a manager, I would certainly notice such behavior and would not accept both accounts, only because the forum is not two people but a whole community, and besides my friend, or alternative account, dad, mom, or dog, there are other people whose posts are much better that should also be appreciated.
If these people, of course, understand what a community is.

I would note that a post that contains copy-paste with a link is rated three merits, which indicates that the sender and recipient are clearly not playing fairly on the forum.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5491624.msg63902838#msg63902838

And if a person is deceived once, then a second deception will not be far off.

I saw this on the other thread and had to see for myself. Though we cannot indisputably prove merit sales, some cases are very difficult to prove I believe these accounts are connected. I doubt the accounts will reply to this as they have nothing to say in their defense. I think it’s time we have a set of points to prove merit sales and abuse, so if we can get 2/3 points the accounts involved should be tagged accordingly.

Campaign managers may not always have the time to check the merit history of applicants. I believe they make their assessment from the recent post history and merit count. A neutral tag referencing the accusation would help the manager make a more informed decision.

[Jay Johanson]

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

Perhaps you are right, but from my own example I can say that sometimes it seems to us that we are not paying enough to the manager who runs our campaign.

[JollyGood]

One of them is running the Stake campaign. There is no logical reason one can think of that would provide any explanation as to why certain members have been selected to participate in that campaign.

The other, he was affected when mixers were banned. Eventually several of those participants I referred to were dropped because the pool to select participants became larger. It is still did not negate the fact he used far too many members with tags during that period but that is a different matter.

Here is another account. The previous spamming, news spamming and low quality posts have improved but nevertheless it being included in a high paying campaign raises questions:

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

There were are/only two campaign managers that enrolled an unnecessary number of members with negative tags (or highly critical neutral tags). It does make you question theie mindset.

I don't know the managers of which you speak, but I surmise that their mindset is "I don't give a fuck".  That's how this forum gets polluted, and it's sad.

[Lucius]

What is very easy to notice is that over time there are fewer and fewer members who can be considered quality posters, and we have more and more campaigns that have their own requirements. Every manager therefore has to face the problem of whether he will fill the spots with someone or he will turn out to be incompetent and, accordingly, he will not get the opportunity to manage other campaigns in the future.

~snip~
Here is another account. The previous spamming, news spamming and low quality posts have improved but nevertheless it being included in a high paying campaign raises questions:

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

He has been spamming with that account for years and there have already been discussions about how it is possible that someone pays him to be in campaigns that pay above average. The only logical explanation is that the account belongs to the company it promotes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148657

[EarnOnVictor]

I took my time to read almost all replies on this thread, and as for me, I believe that some campaign managers have more to do, and also, no single campaign has it all. Truly, I see a whole lot of shitposters, and you will hardly exonerate a single campaign out of this. Some would apply to a campaign like an angel but would become bad over time due to too much freedom or whatever reason. I think the overwhelmingness of the campaign managers makes it go unchecked for too long.

Contrary to what a user said, in my opinion, it's not only a matter of traffic to be generated for the company, most of the CMs care genuinely about the forum and their integrity too. However, the inability of CMs to detect flaws most times may be linked to posts being checked randomly. They are also humans, they can't check everything all the time. And the more the campaign they are managing and the people thereof, the more work they have to do.

Some like Little Mouse and icopress are really trying, I hardly see nonsense posters in their campaigns despite Little Mouse not being so particular about the merits for selection. This is why I would like those who suggested merits as criteria here to perish the idea. We've seen many shitposters having more merits and less-merited users talking the most sense.

Proactive reading and effective verifications by CMs are key here. Doing this, naturally, they can detect the shit posters all by themselves.

[Rikafip]

I took my time to read almost all replies on this thread

You are talking like this thread is 20 pages long and not page and a half lol.

I think the overwhelmingness of the campaign managers makes it go unchecked for too long.

I don't think that's the main problem, or not even one of the main ones. Its a simple fact that there are more spots in the campaigns than there are quality members, meaning managers have to fill the remaining spots with shitposters (at least those campaigns with lower payrates) so we get what we have at the moment.

[target]

I took my time to read almost all replies on this thread

You are talking like this thread is 20 pages long and not page and a half lol.

The reality is that 2nd page up to the 20th page isn't always read by organic visitors from the internet.
I think campaign managers should consider users who always post on the first page because they are the first to be noticed.

[SatoPrincess]

The reality is that 2nd page up to the 20th page isn't always read by organic visitors from the internet.
I think campaign managers should consider users who always post on the first page because they are the first to be noticed.

How did you come to that conclusion? If campaign managers decide to go with what you have suggested, I fear it will do more harm than good because we would have signature participants starting new threads everyday just to meet up with campaign standards. Many forum members use TryNinja’s telegram bot to get notifications about new topics, if it becomes a necessity for posters to get paid for making posts in the first page, they would take advantage of the bot without improving their post quality.

[nutildah]

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.

I just can't believe how low the standards are for getting into a decent-paying campaign these days. It seems like a lot of campaigns are simply in the business of generating spam.

The Gambling section is nearly unreadable. Its 90% text-spun news bytes about cricket and soccer -- nobody is saying anything interesting. They are just regurgitating something they read online and presenting it in a way that isn't quite plagiarism. A LOT of it is AI generated -- I think most of the unreported/undetected AI posts are in the Gambling section. Who bothers to read these posts except for other Gambling board spammers? Is it really cost effective for campaigns?

But the solution for me is easy: just don't read those topics. I really only read and participate in a handful of topics in the Gambling section: those where I am joined by high-quality posters who actually know what TF they're talking about, or if they don't, they can admit it, and at least articulate themselves using original thought.

[robelneo]

I took my time to read almost all replies on this thread

You are talking like this thread is 20 pages long and not page and a half lol.

The reality is that 2nd page up to the 20th page isn't always read by organic visitors from the internet.
I think campaign managers should consider users who always post on the first page because they are the first to be noticed.

Can you prove that? checking one topic on the internet where there is the topic here on Bitcointalk
I checked the keywords Bitcoin becoming Legal tender discussion

I landed on this page https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5488939.140, I also researched three topics and some of them landed on the 5th page out of the 9th, it has something to do with the relevancy and substance of the keywords so it's not the fist poster but who created the most relevant answer on the topic that usually show up in the internet.

This is another topic to discuss but all I know as a blogger Google will always index the most relevant based on the keywords so it's not about who comments first but who has the most substance, if I were a campaign manager I would still go for quality poster regardless when he placed his comment.

[EarnOnVictor]

I think the overwhelmingness of the campaign managers makes it go unchecked for too long.

I don't think that's the main problem, or not even one of the main ones. Its a simple fact that there are more spots in the campaigns than there are quality members, meaning managers have to fill the remaining spots with shitposters (at least those campaigns with lower payrates) so we get what we have at the moment.

Well, I thought it carefully before concluding on that and it's not what I just concluded, I've been thinking about it for a long. I believe that campaign managers need more hands to be effective in this regard, but if they can't pay more hands, they will have to do this randomly, they are not robots, even as they have their personal lives too. They are really trying, especially those who would have to handle more than 100 users in all of their campaigns. That's a whole lot of work to do.

Nevertheless, what I notice is that, the more the number of users to deal with, the more the shitposters that slip through the radar of the CMs. Doesn't that speak volumes already? And if we go by your view, fine, they need to deliver as promised the sponsored company, for this, a shitposter might find his way in when there was no better one in the beginning. But over time after several warnings, if such can't change, he should be kicked out, and by then, a better poster could be available to take his position.

If truly some CMs had seen what some posters wrote, they would have evicted them a long time ago, but they remain in the campaign.

[Rikafip]

The reality is that 2nd page up to the 20th page isn't always read by organic visitors from the internet.
I think campaign managers should consider users who always post on the first page because they are the first to be noticed.

It's not that it isn't always read, its almost never read but that doesn't mean that only the posts written on the first page should count as there are "megathreads" that are more worth reafing than many brand new topics.

If truly some CMs had seen what some posters wrote, they would have evicted them a long time ago, but they remain in the campaign.

Or they know that they won't be able to attract better posters than the ones they want to kick, therefore letting shitposters stay in the campaign.

[target]

The reality is that 2nd page up to the 20th page isn't always read by organic visitors from the internet.
I think campaign managers should consider users who always post on the first page because they are the first to be noticed.

It's not that it isn't always read, its almost never read but that doesn't mean that only the posts written on the first page should count as there are "megathreads" that are more worth reafing than many brand new topics.

Usually, the visitor will go to the first page and then read the first page comments and if they landed on the 5th or 10th because there are more keywords to that 5th or 10th page, they back read for some time but if they didn't find the answer, they'd skip and go to the first page again.

A user would notice that even the 50th-page-answers are quoting the OP in the first-page post. For a campaign to be successful, I think hiring users who usually reply on the first page has higher chance.

[EarnOnVictor]

If truly some CMs had seen what some posters wrote, they would have evicted them a long time ago, but they remain in the campaign.

Or they know that they won't be able to attract better posters than the ones they want to kick, therefore letting shitposters stay in the campaign.

I don't think so, at least most of the time. Since I joined the forum, there have been a few times that the available campaigns will be more than the qualified users wanting to join. Ever since M!xers were expelled, some good and average posters are still looking for the campaign to join, while some have but want to switch for the better.

But what I noticed is that when there are new openings by the campaigns with some shitposters in which more qualified users applied, the CMs only take the needed number of users at that time and CFNP the campaign again. This is despite better posters applied and shitposter are many in such campaigns. So they are not always short of better posters but are overwhelmed with the high number of users to manage. It's obvious they do not know the nonsense many users are writing because some are worse to the point that what they wrote should have naturally angered the CM to send them out.