Do low-paying signature campaigns encourage spam?

[PX-Z]

Regardless the pay rate, the posts quality checking always depends on the campaign manager, a participant won't stay more than 2 weeks if the user make low quality posts.

On a side note, what you are saying is, managers promote spams, accepting spammers on their campaigns.

If you ever have issues of  how the users posts, better report the post or just report them on the manager.

[Rikafip]

But like I mentioned, I think this company will be looking for a reputable manager.

Assuming that those who want to advertise here actually now thing or two about bitcointalk, which I don't think often the case.  Because if they do know how things work around here, none of them would start campaign and then few weeks later put the campaign on pause to evaluate the effect. Running campaign for anything shorter than a couple of months is money wasted.

[Zoomic]

Low paying campaign does not encourage spam but some criteria of the signature campaign encourages spam;
For instance, setting rule to make 30 posts a week and puting good number of bonuses depending on how much a user a post encourages spam. You will understand that a user will be posting close to 100 and if that user has an alt account they will be posting in their other accounts which is spamming already.

[Pmalek]

Low paying campaign does not encourage spam but some criteria of the signature campaign encourages spam;

Low-paying signature campaigns attract users willing to accept rates lower than they are elsewhere. A high-value member, who is also a good poster, will most probably not apply to a low-paying campaign unless he really needed to. What you are left with aren't necessarily spammers, but a group of people where there is a greater chance that some of them are spammers.   

[Obim34]

Low-paying signature campaigns attract users willing to accept rates lower than they are elsewhere. A high-value member, who is also a good poster, will most probably not apply to a low-paying campaign unless he really needed to. What you are left with aren't necessarily spammers, but a group of people where there is a greater chance that some of them are spammers.   

Yes, i can agree with you. I have witnessed members refusing to apply for newly served campaigns or campaigns in general even for one with higher pay, although some do move whenever slots are open. There are personal interest to why people don't move to campaigns with higher pay, not everything revolves around payouts, this is my own view on how representing a brand should be.

Availability of campaigns is also a concern for reputed members joining low paying campaigns, managers don't just higher participants, they select participants out of many applications based on what they accept as posting standard.

[yahoo62278]

But like I mentioned, I think this company will be looking for a reputable manager.

Assuming that those who want to advertise here actually now thing or two about bitcointalk, which I don't think often the case.  Because if they do know how things work around here, none of them would start campaign and then few weeks later put the campaign on pause to evaluate the effect. Running campaign for anything shorter than a couple of months is money wasted.

Not only that but also opening an announcement thread, hiring a campaign manager for sig campaign, then never being online is also a waste of money. Shows they don't really care about the forum and might say a thing or 2 about their support IMO.

[Zoomic]

Low paying campaign does not encourage spam but some criteria of the signature campaign encourages spam;

Low-paying signature campaigns attract users willing to accept rates lower than they are elsewhere. A high-value member, who is also a good poster, will most probably not apply to a low-paying campaign unless he really needed to. What you are left with aren't necessarily spammers, but a group of people where there is a greater chance that some of them are spammers.   

I understand you very well, but it seems you are taking it literally. It works for high paying campaigns but not always so for low paying campaign. What I mean is this; it is very obvious that high paying campaigns attracts quality posters. There's no chance for a spammer to be in the high paying campaigns. But it is not always so for low paying campaigns as you noted above. Due to scarcity of campaign, it is possible to see a quality poster applying for a low paying campaign and even beg for a full member rank. That's my point here.

[DYING_S0UL]

Low paying campaign does not encourage spam but some criteria of the signature campaign encourages spam;

Low-paying signature campaigns attract users willing to accept rates lower than they are elsewhere. A high-value member, who is also a good poster, will most probably not apply to a low-paying campaign unless he really needed to. What you are left with aren't necessarily spammers, but a group of people where there is a greater chance that some of them are spammers.   

I understand you very well, but it seems you are taking it literally. It works for high paying campaigns but not always so for low paying campaign. What I mean is this; it is very obvious that high paying campaigns attracts quality posters. There's no chance for a spammer to be in the high paying campaigns. But it is not always so for low paying campaigns as you noted above. Due to scarcity of campaign, it is possible to see a quality poster applying for a low paying campaign and even beg for a full member rank. That's my point here.

In any cases, it's the campaign manager's responsibility to check and ensure that the participants are making posts properly, following the rules and maintaining optimal quality and warn those who fail to meet the standard quality or the requirements set by the CM.  And as a last resort, remove them from the campaign. I'm not exactly sure how each CMs monitors this, but I'm certain all of them checks it and don't just pay participants blindly. One of the recent example can be found with yahoo62278, where he removed some users who were burst posting at Altcointalk forum!

[Odusko]

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.

Sometimes I get confused with this statement of those that posts on mega thread as spammers regardless of the content post they make there, we have some lively mega threads like the premier threads and the other football speculation threads in the gambling discussion board, alot of them have several pages and we still see reputable members making contributions on those threads, we can say they are spamming because of that reason are we?

[Donneski]

Op, I understand your point, however, I also disagree with your idea that low-paying campaigns are the main cause of spam. Spam comes from lazy posters not low payments. If someone is a spammer at $5 a week, they’ll still spam at $50 a week.

Instead of setting a standard rate, I think the better approach is for campaign managers to set a standard of quality. There should be strict rules, post audits and quick bans for spammers. When forum members know they’ll automatically be dropped from campaigns for poor posts, they’ll automatically step up their game regardless of how much they’re earning.

[nutildah]

Seems like most campaigns already pay pretty low compared to days past, and I do blame the spammers for that... mainly people who run multiple accounts and each account says nothing. The bar for what is considered spam is very low, and it comes from all types of campaigns... Why try to run just 1 account as a normal forum participant for $80 a week when you can run 3 for $40 each, just by churning out summaries of cricket matches all day, every single day. So yes spammers are being incentivized so long as there are campaign managers willing to hire them.

[Smartvirus]

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).

That’s the bottom line of it, the idea of campaigns being low paying or high paying to have encouraged spam isn’t exactly true. Most times, you fined managers trying to work with the project budget, especially when they are new in the market. You must try to win their trust and ensure they get value for the much they could afford before thinking of expanding the campaign and budget.

Spamming is moderated on like a few other behaviors on the forum and there is a reason why every post made on the forum has a “report to the moderator” button. Do that and have the spam deleted if the call is valid. Other than that, it falls to the managers to truly moderate these spams and see that campaign participants doesn’t maintain these kind of behaviors within their projects.

[FinneysTrueVision]

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.

I can think of several campaigns that fit this description. Low pay, high maximum quota and accepting many users is usually a recipe for creating spam. These campaigns tend to prioritize quantity over quality. There are spammers in just about every campaign, but there’s been a few notable ones that almost seem to encourage this behavior.

The pay rate alone isn’t the cause of spam. It is incumbent on managers to select decent posters and have a level of quality control so that their campaign doesn’t earn a bad reputation, which will have the effect of reducing visibility of the advertiser’s brand.

[Doan9269]

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

Pay rate has to do with the company budget towards making a signature promotion, but decision to onboard who and who to be selected for the promotion lies on the campaign managers to decide for themselves who is eligible, that is why they can't afford to accept na spammer to be paid for what he does, instead they have their own criteria as well, then check through the user post history and see how far they have been a quality poster or spammer to have an idea of whether to accept or decline their application for a signature campaign promotion.

[Pmalek]

Seems like most campaigns already pay pretty low compared to days past, and I do blame the spammers for that...

It's not only their fault. When quality campaigns paid $200-300, people stood in line and you would get several pages of applications. When the pay rates dropped to $150-200, people again turned up in big numbers. Then it went down to $100, and the pay rate now is, in many cases, below $100. And you know what? People still turn up in big numbers and apply. Taking that into consideration, where do you think we will go from here? Up or down? I am sure we both know the answer to that question.

[Lucius]

Seems like most campaigns already pay pretty low compared to days past, and I do blame the spammers for that...

It's not only their fault. When quality campaigns paid $200-300, people stood in line and you would get several pages of applications. When the pay rates dropped to $150-200, people again turned up in big numbers. Then it went down to $100, and the pay rate now is, in many cases, below $100. And you know what? People still turn up in big numbers and apply. Taking that into consideration, where do you think we will go from here? Up or down? I am sure we both know the answer to that question.

This is where we get to the point where no one complains that campaigns are paying less than before, because such people could easily be accused of being on the forum only for profit. When you look at things from that angle, it's clear why companies don't want to pay more or why managers don't demand higher pay rates.

However, we have to be honest and say that the mixers were the ones who paid the most and that online casinos are not nearly as generous as the mixers, even though we all know that they make exceptional profits.

What I also want to mention is that some campaigns also have so-called VIP slots in which the pay rates are twice as high as the public ones, but I assume that there are not too many such slots and that they are reserved for extra special members.

[Richbased]

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

I wouldn't say that pay rates in campaigns affect post quality. A good poster will always remain a good poster while a bad poster will always be a bad poster except he improves. Of course, high paying campaigns requires more of quality posters in order to equate with the amount they are being paid because you can't be earning high in a campaign whereas you make generic posts full of gabbages. I also want to let you know that campaign payments does not have anything to do with post quality, campaign managers have their individual preferences as to how they hire participants. It's just like the casino campaigns that requires more of people that make posts in the gambling section so if you are not a gambler or if you can't be able to make posts in the gambling board then you are unlikely to be hired in a gambling campaign even if you are a quality poster.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Seems like most campaigns already pay pretty low compared to days past, and I do blame the spammers for that...

It's not only their fault. When quality campaigns paid $200-300, people stood in line and you would get several pages of applications. When the pay rates dropped to $150-200, people again turned up in big numbers. Then it went down to $100, and the pay rate now is, in many cases, below $100. And you know what? People still turn up in big numbers and apply. Taking that into consideration, where do you think we will go from here? Up or down? I am sure we both know the answer to that question.

People come in large numbers, but if you check their posts, you'll see a lot of similar content and many threads where the same accounts regularly post the same thing. What conclusion can we draw? Low-paying companies will also be in demand, but in a very different way. These companies have many people who know how to manage their accounts so they don't overlap with their other accounts. The result for the owner will be good in terms of revenue, but it will be bad for the forum. Where one thoughtful post could have been written, the owners of alternative accounts will write two or three, which ultimately results in a lot of spam.

[Rikafip]

There's no chance for a spammer to be in the high paying campaigns.

I've seen shitposters in some of the best campaigns on the forum and some of them were so bad that I even had them on ignore as I couldn't read their incoherent drivel.

For years now there are more spots in campaigns that there are quality members, meaning that even shitposters can find spots in high paying campaigns.

[7juju]

What I’ve noticed is that many users keep switching from one campaign to another because of the pay rate.

You might be wrong here, sometimes users switch from one campaign to another because of the working conditions. Let's assume you have two different campaigns that are paying same amount of money but they are good pay. but one is restricting you in posting in some boards, and threads that has exceeded certain numbers of pages, and the manager stating you should earn certain merits in a month to continue in that campaign. While the other one gives you the liberty to post in every boards and threads and no conditions of earning certain merits in a month to continue in the campaign. People will switch to the other one that gives them more posting freedom.

Longevity of of a signature campaign is also another reason why people switch to other campaigns, when they perceived that the ones they are might not last long. When they see opening elsewhere that they believe will last longer they will switch there.