Do low-paying signature campaigns encourage spam?

[LTU_btc]

OP, I'm not going to repeat what others already said, just want want to say few words about setting standards for managers. Such things doesn't works in open market. Offcourse, manager A or B can set standards that they don't accept campaigns with little budget. But if they won't accept offer from such campaign, it simply will be taken by manager C.

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.

But it's very likely that spammer won't get accepted into campaign that pays $50, so, he will continue spamming for $50.
Things that you wrote sounds nice on paper, but in reality it doesn't works unfortunately, especially in lower paying campaigns.

[dkbit98]

Spammer can spam for few sats or for billion sats, so campaign payment rate doesn't really matter that much.
If you notice spam post you should report it, and not look at his profile rank or his signature space.
Good campaign managers should also try to remove or at least reduce number if members who write low quality content.

[nutildah]

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.

I think its the same number of people applying, its just that they have more alt accounts now than before, and more and more managers are turning a blind eye to this practice.

Good campaign managers should also try to remove or at least reduce number if members who write low quality content.

Yes, this is what it comes down to. But as I've often said, the bar for what passes as "not spam" is extremely low. I could spend all day reporting posts that nobody in their right mind would actually bother reading. Maybe 3/4 of them would be marked as "Good" at a maximum, but then nothing really changes as a result. Its up to the campaign managers to not actively encourage shitposts by monitoring the quality of the accounts they hire.

Spammer can spam for few sats or for billion sats, so campaign payment rate doesn't really matter that much.

The problem is most campaigns don't pay very much these days because they know they can hire 3 spammers for the price of 1 decent poster.

[God Of Thunder]

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?

You are aware that the number of quality users is limited. They mostly get enrolled in high-paying campaigns, custom rates, ETC. So, the low-paying campaigns are left with average forum users. There are dozens of active signature campaigns, and we do not have that many quality users. I currently manage three campaigns, and all of them had openings last week. Still, I have some open positions in two of my campaigns, but most of the applications are low quality, as they do not even meet the requirements. So, I had to avoid these applications. Some other managers pay pick the same user.

As for setting a standard, this won't work. While I tell my potential clients that they need a budget of at least $500 to $ 1,000 weekly for a campaign, some of my competitors offer them a $100 weekly budget and run a signature campaign. Of course, the client gets confused. I had to run this campaign because another forum member offered to run a campaign with this budget for this client. Still, I managed to run two campaigns for these clients, one in the bounty section and another on the Service board, with a better pay rate.

[Russlenat]

Coming from a campaign manager himself, his point actually makes a lot of sense.

If a manager truly cares about the success of the project he’s promoting, then it’s only logical that he won’t pick participants who bring no value to the campaign. Budget also plays a big role here, quality users naturally go for higher-paying campaigns, so balancing cost and quality becomes a real challenge for any manager.

As for the spam issue, it’s not really that complicated. The forum already has clear rules against spamming, so if someone’s doing it, they can simply be reported. Once proven, they’ll get banned - not just from the campaign, but from the forum itself.

[JollyGood]

The OP never addressed my post therefore am asking for his input.

It is ironic for someone himself that has a history of making low quality posts to keep account activity active and campaign quotas, he would create a thread to ask a question about low paying campaigns encouraging spam.

The irony

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?

[uchegod-21]

The pay rate is not the problem, even those in high paying campaigns also spam. The problem arises when some campaign managers in both low paying  and high paying campaigns set very high weekly post quotas. When campaign participants are expected to make over twenty posts and even more in a week, many focus will shift from quality to the urge to just meet up with the target for the week so they'll be paid and retained in the campaign too. Some  quality posters too are guilty of this. When campaign participants write under pressure, the post might lose quality.


If post quotas will be reduced to a reasonable number, pressure on participants will reduce too and ofcourse there will be a clear difference in the post quality because participants will now be focused and intentional.

[UserU]

The pay rate is not the problem, even those in high paying campaigns also spam. The problem arises when some campaign managers in both low paying  and high paying campaigns set very high weekly post quotas. When campaign participants are expected to make over twenty posts and even more in a week, many focus will shift from quality to the urge to just meet up with the target for the week so they'll be paid and retained in the campaign too. Some  quality posters too are guilty of this. When campaign participants write under pressure, the post might lose quality.


If post quotas will be reduced to a reasonable number, pressure on participants will reduce too and ofcourse there will be a clear difference in the post quality because participants will now be focused and intentional.

Mainly because in almost every thread, the answer gets posted within the first 3 replies and there are like posters from different campaigns trying to find somewhere to "release". And I doubt everyone's willing to read each reply when there are multiple pages although the decent ones would try engaging in conversations rather than regurgitating.

Not to mention the rules imposed tend to narrow the scope even more.