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.

[dkbit98]

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.

Maybe, but let's be honest and say that quality posters are not easy to find in forum this days, and we gained a bunch of new users who are mostly writing boring generic posts.
If I was a manager I would probably do things in my own way and hire small number of quality members for long term deal, instead of quantity, but that is just me.

[GeorgeJohn]

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.

Both low payable campaign and high payable can't determine the high or low ratios of spam in Bitcointalk...The payment rate don't have anything to do with your posting style..The following is what I consider that may caused spamming

1. If weekly posting quota of campaign is higher than what you can post a day
2. If one person is controlling more than one account..because they're signature campaign weekly quota is 30 post in a week...it will Leads for spam 
3. If you're tired and forcing yourself to post to meet weekly quota.

I disagree to the fact that pay rate might cause low quality posting.

[Danydee]

IMO some campaigns rules should be reviewed ..

Campaigns with high count requirements are pushing people to spam. When there is nothing to do, it means that there is nothing.. and people on campaigns with high requirements should therefore find any reason to post, or even invent some! ...
Either you are a good poster or not, posting without a VALID reason could be considered spam, no matter how eloquent your post is!

I think maybe forum moderators should make rules and limits for the campaign's rulings.. So there will be no way for the advertiser to ask for any kind of abusive method!

[JollyGood]

The OP stopped posting here after I raised concerns about his own feedback and how it fits in a wider context related to the debate he wanted within this thread.

I am not surprised he abandoned the thread as a result but I am a little disappointed that other members did not confront him about it.

[GeorgeJohn]

IMO some campaigns rules should be reviewed ..

Yeah..you're right, I said it partially in my  comment above, and if campaigns with high task of post is been reduced, the numbers of spammers will reduce

Campaigns with high count requirements are pushing people to spam. When there is nothing to do, it means that there is nothing.. and people on campaigns with high requirements should therefore find any reason to post, or even invent some! ...

Sometimes I don't  blame some campaigns because it's what the requirements they need to get traffic in their brand, the fault is from participants...how can someone have 7 farm accounts and you expect the person to post what's reasonable..so it's greediness that causes spam in bitcointalk...if there's no signatures campaigns today, you will see that many accounts will not be active and accounts that's active will post intelligently.

[Danydee]

Sometimes I don't  blame some campaigns because it's what the requirements they need to get traffic in their brand, the fault is from participants...how can someone have 7 farm accounts and you expect the person to post what's reasonable..so it's greediness that causes spam in bitcointalk...if there's no signatures campaigns today, you will see that many accounts will not be active and accounts that's active will post intelligently.

But in the other direction, if there are not enough users, or(accounts)!  What are these brands going to do, will they still be able to get enough traffic?

[Asuspawer09]

I dont think the pay rate affects the quality of the post, probably the quota is, since ifyou need to post like for example around 50 posts that's going to be a lot of for, if you're not really posting a lot on the forum, it's going to be a lot for you to post and could be a reason to a low quality post overall. The signature campaign has the standard, the pay for sure is not going to matter for sure because even though it is a low-paying signature, low-quality posters are still more likely not going to be accepted on a signature campaign here in the forum. I mean, campaigns surely could increase the number of posts here in the forum but it doesnt really matter if the post is a high-quality one.

I'm gonna say that managers here in the forum have a standard, they dont really accept someone that has low quality posts in a campaign, I mean its not even easy just to have the requirements to join the campaign, this is only going to be an issue if a campaign manager is accepting low quality poster on his campaign, but in my experience they are very strict on the quality post, just to get accepted on a campaign is already difficult. Members need to have a decent posting to show first, just to get qualified.

[Z_MBFM]

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.

Companies that can afford it want to spend as much money as they can on marketing here. And campaigns that pay less have less referrals. And campaigns that pay much higher accept reputable members. Low-paying campaigns are not spam, they are not capable of running campaigns with big payments every week, which is why they continue their promotion with small payments. I also appreciate the campaigns that pay less because at least they believe in this forum despite their lack of ability and consider this forum as potential and conduct their marketing here.

[Fiasem20]

I don't really have full knowledge about low-paying campaigns encouraging spam posts,but from my little stay here I don't think that opinion is 100% correct, speaking individually not everyone who participate on low paying campaigns are spammers, I've participated on a low paying campaign and my posts then weren't low quality posts,so in essence not everyone who participate on a low paying campaign change their perspective of posting quality into low quality posts.Even in most high paying campaigns they're still users who spam the forum.Some users might decide not to post garbage despite the fact that they're on low paying campaign.