Do low-paying signature campaigns encourage spam?

[Kasabus]

I’ve been thinking about this for a while. When you look around the forum, there are both high-paying and low-paying signature campaigns. Obviously, the decent-paying ones attract better posters because who would say no to a higher rate, right? The main reason we join campaigns is to earn.

What I’ve noticed is that many users keep switching from one campaign to another because of the pay rate. And here’s the thing, if someone isn’t hired in a campaign, they usually don’t bother to post much. But if they see an opening in a campaign with lower pay, some would still join out of desperation, just to keep earning something.

Now imagine a low-paying campaign hiring 100 users compared to just 10 in a well-paying one, that’s 100 people possibly posting anything just to meet quotas. So I think low-paying campaigns might actually be one of the main sources of spam in the forum.

Maybe reputable managers should start setting a standard rate and avoid accepting campaigns that go below it. Because if this keeps going, we’ll continue seeing more low-quality posts flooding the forum.

What do you guys think? Does the pay rate affect post quality, or is it more about the kind of users the manager chooses?

[Hazink]

I don't agree with you, the low-paying campaigns mostly have less post count required for campaigners to do before they can get paid. For example ( Vave Crypto Casino & Sportsbook ) If there is anything or a system to encourage spamming, it should be campaigns with a higher number of post requirements, either by default or by choice. As long as the member knows if they make up a certain number of posts, they get paid for it, they will push themselves to reach that number.

Campaign settings might create room for spamming, but the spammer is the member itself and not the campaign itself. Let's take stake. For example, their rules are 25 posts as the minimum posts. Every other post gets a certain amount as an extra or bonus whatever they label it, as a member you are not forced to make all the post unless you decide yourself that you can do it even when you know, you don't have enough to offer the struggle to force yourself to finish could equally lead to spamming.

[_act_]

Best posters will apply on campaigns that are high paying and they will be selected, while less best posters will go for available low paying campaign. This is something that is normal just like best football players are paid more than those that are not better than them.

I don't agree with you, the low-paying campaigns mostly have less post count required for campaigners to do before they can get paid.

What he posted is true but there are some people in high paying campaigns that spam. They spam especially if there is less new topics, they will post on very long threads.

[rat03gopoh]

This has nothing to do with the forum's problems.

Low budgets are simply part of the company's marketing strategy. Managers often send out the same draft requirements for the same type of campaign. The issue isn't whether the salary is high or low, but rather the number of participants required. The higher the number of participants, the more lenient the manager typically is in selecting applicants (written campaign rules are no longer the basis for selection).

[cryptoaddictchie]

I think not. If it's a low campaign signature then even at low the company can choose only those quality posters to participate and not a spammer who just spread the signature somewhere else. Plus I believe those quality posters wouldn't applied in a very low payment considering their status.

If its me I'd wait for a better one. That's responsibility lies on the manager of the campaign even at low fund budget

[Ruttoshi]

A spammer is a spammer whether he is in a high pay signature campaign or not, he will still spam. No CM will love to accept a spammer to participate in his campaign irrespective of the pay rate. It's only in a situation like this especially, on the last quarter of the year when the forum is flooded with campaigns when CM can accept the available applicants because all the quality posters are already participating in signature campaigns.

However, some forum members are after the longevity of the campaign and not the pay rate. If it's a situation whereby, there are few campaigns in the forum, there will be no room for spammers even if the pay is low.

[Plaguedeath]

My answer is still same.

Well.

What you said above an user without campaign will post less than when they're in paid campaign is very normal, what's wrong for someone want to take a break or spend their time for other thing? is there a rule each user must make 5 posts per day?

@OP do you know what? if a participant spamming 25 posts to meet the campaign requirement, a campaign manager can denied all of his posts and kick him without payment. No one want to pay spammers (definition of spammer to each person is different).

[Joy- maker]

I disagree with you on this one OP, because low paying signature campaign doesn't encourage spam, and the last time  I checked signature campaign with low paying rate that have ever existed since the day I joined the forum or that are currently existing in the forum have lesser post quarter that is required in other for their participants to get paid for the week, just know that a spammer will always be a spammer,  wether the user is in low paying signature campaign with higher or lower post quarter required to get paid or in a higher paying signature campaign with lower or higher post quarter required to get for the week, the user will still spam, because spamming is part of the user and you should know that by now OP.

[Pmalek]

Compare a signature campaign to a sports team. If you fill your team with mediocre players, you will get bad results and underperform. If you have spammers advertising your brand, they can reach the target in terms of post count, but the quality won't be as high as if you had better posters in the campaign.

It's normal to want to work with those who pay the most if you can. The best users will occupy the best-paying campaign positions. After that, managers will need to decide who to select from 2nd-grade or 3rd-grade accounts. Of course, if a campaign isn't willing to offer top payment rates, they can't expect to attract the best participants. 

[Finebone]

Compare a signature campaign to a sports team. If you fill your team with mediocre players, you will get bad results and underperform. If you have spammers advertising your brand, they can reach the target in terms of post count, but the quality won't be as high as if you had better posters in the campaign.

This is just the actual point sir, most people will think that it's because of the pay they are not putting in enough effort, without putting into consideration that they are only giving what they have.

So it's because that's their level, and we all know that you can only give what you have, and if an account is known as a serial spammer, that shows that, it is what he knows best to do, not that the person is purposely spamming or talking out of point, he is just giving out what he got in him.

[Rikafip]

Maybe reputable managers should start setting a standard rate and avoid accepting campaigns that go below it.

And if they refuse the campaign due low budget, that business will simply find someone else to manage their campaign (which is probably happening anyway).

My answer is still same.

Well.

If only it was that simple. For example, go to gambling board and start reproing shitposts and let me know how it went. 

[Kasabus]

Maybe reputable managers should start setting a standard rate and avoid accepting campaigns that go below it.

And if they refuse the campaign due low budget, that business will simply find someone else to manage their campaign (which is probably happening anyway).

I guess in that case, there’s really nothing we can do. But like I mentioned, I think this company will be looking for a reputable manager. They know that if it’s handled by the wrong person, it’s bound to fail. Paying less might save money short-term, but without results, it’s just wasted spending.

[Lucius]

Maybe reputable managers should start setting a standard rate and avoid accepting campaigns that go below it.

And if they refuse the campaign due low budget, that business will simply find someone else to manage their campaign (which is probably happening anyway).
~snip~

That's right, there will always be those who will agree to low pay rates, which doesn't really matter to them as managers as long as they agree on satisfactory compensation for their work. In the past, there was a lot of competition between campaigns/managers for the best possible visibility and the best possible members, but today that simply doesn't exist anymore.

There are campaigns that pay max $100 per week and those that pay less than that up to $50 per week for Legendary/Hero members. It's not that the payrates couldn't be higher considering the profits made by these companies, but it's obvious that no one wants to stand out from the rest and attract the best posters to their campaign.

[TheUltraElite]

Individual users have their personal choices in posting habits. Whether they join a campaign or they dont would make no difference to that. However a poor quality poster will probably not get merited much and not be able to rank up to join a campaign at all.

But posting habits usually remain same, it can be somewhat like a digital fingerprint, because a sudden change of that means that account would have changed ownership.

I personally would not want to join a campaign that encourages too much posts every week. 25/week is like a cap for me.

[Perfectbaby]

You can't actually detect projects how much they should use for market or running a signature campaign neither does a manager has that right to detects how much projects should pay. What a manager can only do is to suggest to the project that for them to get higher visibility it would be better they spread across the community where they needs many people to have them advertised.

Now, if a project maps out weekly $600 it's better for the manager on his or her own description know how many people he should hire and how much they should pay each participant ranging from the rank of S,H and L. Where as the main goal of the project is to get populated and known, so, manager has to set limits and choose those he thinks that suits the work and they don't hire those whom they think that are actually spamming.

From my observation, spam have greatly reduced in the forum especially in the beginner and helps sections the new mode over there is doing the best Job to wiped off irrelevant topics and also moving them to offtopic section or to trashscan.

Again, to reduce spam pay post will be more better so that anyone can post little or even meet the minimal requirements of post and they get paid for their tasks instead of posting excessive to meet their post quota.

[BIT-BENDER]

Everyone can't be enrolled into the high paying signature campaign, their is a always a number of accounts that a signature campaign open space for and some high paying campaigns are most times going for higher ranks, you can see a campaign that has space from snr member and above and still they take hero or legendary members that did not make their original rank into snr member positions.
Not everyone who does not make it to high paying campaigns are spammers and not everyone in high paying campaign are spam free posters.

[Mahiyammahi]

Ranks and influence matter of this kind of things. If you pay attention those who active in forum and have a bit of influence , good poster always attract more consumer with their signature. But those who joins low budget signature usually end up no one taling them in their signature campaign due to their lack of quality.

So it's always quality vs Quantity. I won't disagree with also this , that some high paying signature campaign member also do spam posts to meet their quota.

[Peanutswar]

Its their marketing strategy if they will low offer rates and accumulate several participants, now of course with the lower rates there's a post requirement such as low post count needed or lets say less post needed or even no minimum post requirement, but of course they are seeking a high valuable participants even its a low rate that will bring their signature _{(which is the manager's task)}. If you see them spamming, it seems it's noticeable to the manager, and they make a warning and notes in their spreadsheet. Also even though they spam there's a post max requirement which is just only paid its up to them if they will exceed their post.

[JollyGood]

I had never noticed a post by your account before finding this thread. I know nothing about your account and I have not even taken a deeper look at your post history but just by looking at your current trust, I found the following:



Who knows what else will be discovered if/when members start taking a deeper look at your account.

What do you guys think? Does the pay rate affect post quality, or is it more about the kind of users the manager chooses?

[BitBakerr1]

You are very wrong, and again how will you say managers should stop accepting campaigns with low pay, do you think it is easy to start a company and then run a signature campaign with high pay do you know the amount of money that this companies are spending in running this campaigns here in the forum, who told you this companies don't want reputable members to be in there signature campaign but because they are not financially capable that is why they are paying low.
And again haven't you seen members in a well paying signature campaign that are spamming, it's not about the pay it's about the member who just wants to spam.
And again if you check very well you will discover that those high paying signature campaigns requires you to post more than the low paying campaign so who is encouraging spamming. So you are totally wrong.