The Stake campaign is filled with frauds & questionable accounts

[tygeade]

what if you sig banned every signature campaign participant that joined a campaign that required their participants to post more than 20 posts every week?

You may end up with sigbanning an elite poster (who belongs to top 10% of active posters category) for the reason of participating in a campaign which allows more than 20 posts/week. Do you still find your suggestion fair enough?

[Free Market Capitalist]

what if you sig banned every signature campaign participant that joined a campaign that required their participants to post more than 20 posts every week?

LOL. Considering the idea will you say 15 posts per week and a high per post rate is a good idea and guarantee that no participants will be banned? I am going to experiment it with Zeto signature campaign.

If that became widespread, having more than one account would also become widespread. If people are used to getting paid for 25 posts—keeping in mind that most write more than that, say about 30—and campaigns pay for 15, all you have to do is create a new account, wait at least half a year to start monetizing it, and get paid for two campaigns of 15.

The CM campaign paid up to 50 posts per week, having the best quality posters on the forum. The problem is not the number of posts.

[AB de Royse777]

The CM campaign paid up to 50 posts per week, having the best quality posters on the forum. The problem is not the number of posts.

I think on Sinbad I also had up to 50 posts per week to pay. Problem is never in the number of posts. Problem is in the intention of the person who is posting.

Update: In the last 10 hours I made 10 posts, I slept around 5 to 6 hours in between which means I made those 10 posts in 4 to 5 hours. There are some with not even two words. Do I look like I am posting for displaying signature?

When a poster's sole intention is to display his signature and earn from it then they are going to spam no matter if that's 15 posts per week or 50 posts per week. I see members to make exactly 15 posts per week when the requirement is 15, and the same user also can make exactly 50 posts per week when the requirement increase to 50.

[FinneysTrueVision]

LOL. Considering the idea will you say 15 posts per week and a high per post rate is a good idea and guarantee that no participants will be banned? I am going to experiment it with Zeto signature campaign.

If it was a maximum of 20 posts per week, you would probably get much higher quality applicants than the current ones so far. With 15 posts, you are only paying $60-$75 per week. There are already plenty of campaigns paying this much or higher. You are going to get a fair amount of account farmers and spammers. They aren’t going to put any more effort into writing better posts because they have a reduced quota in one campaign if they are already in 4 or 5 other campaigns that have higher requirements.

[Woodie]

I think getting ALL the managers together and making a change for a max number of posts in every campaign would be a solution worth having a discussion about.

Managers coming together is the only remedy that will help the forum raise the bar as you speak with one voice & set the standard! Just hope stake will play along  

Btw you guys did it with SMAS and it was a success ,maybe consider revamping this.. as CMs have that kind of influence which the forum can benefit from..

[Lucius]

~snip~
The CM campaign paid up to 50 posts per week, having the best quality posters on the forum. The problem is not the number of posts.

That was probably one of the most successful and generous campaigns on the forum and to this day none of the managers have tried anything similar, and when I say "similar" I mean that there is a sig campaign that will gather the best posters and which will of course reward them with the best pay rates.

Obviously, that model doesn't suit anyone (I mean managers), because if one such campaign appeared, all other campaigns would suffer because of it. A win-win situation is to keep the pay rates uniform and thus spread the best posters between as many campaigns as possible.

Besides, a question for all managers that many would like to ask - why don't you fight for better pay rates considering that nothing has changed for years, and we all know that $50 or $100 today is not worth even half of what it was worth 4-5 years ago?

Those who advertise on the forum should appreciate the members who promote them a little more, especially those who fall into the category of good, very good and excellent posters.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Obviously, that model doesn't suit anyone (I mean managers), because if one such campaign appeared, all other campaigns would suffer because of it. A win-win situation is to keep the pay rates uniform and thus spread the best posters between as many campaigns as possible.

That sounds quite socialist to me, and I know we are not going to agree on that.

Besides, a question for all managers that many would like to ask - why don't you fight for better pay rates considering that nothing has changed for years, and we all know that $50 or $100 today is not worth even half of what it was worth 4-5 years ago?

Whatever the managers may say, I believe that the price of Bitcoin hasn’t kept pace. If we were in a bear market at $280K after having reached a price of almost $400K last year, the payouts would probably be higher. But today you can buy a Bitcoin at the same price as on 13 November 2021, and that has an impact.

[AB de Royse777]

If it was a maximum of 20 posts per week, you would probably get much higher quality applicants than the current ones so far. With 15 posts,

Have you experimented with the numbers?

you are only paying $60-$75 per week. There are already plenty of campaigns paying this much or higher.

Try to think from out of the box. Problem is when you are only considering the financial gains and posting to fulfil the weekly target - don't make this your box.

You are going to get a fair amount of account farmers and spammers. They aren’t going to put any more effort into writing better posts because they have a reduced quota in one campaign if they are already in 4 or 5 other campaigns that have higher requirements.

Did you just invent a logic just to make a logic?

[Lucius]

~snip~
Whatever the managers may say, I believe that the price of Bitcoin hasn’t kept pace. If we were in a bear market at $280K after having reached a price of almost $400K last year, the payouts would probably be higher. But today you can buy a Bitcoin at the same price as on 13 November 2021, and that has an impact.

In the context of inflation, it is irrelevant what the price of Bitcoin is today compared to 5 years ago - if the cost of living is rising, it is logical that it is followed by the growth of income earned for some work/activity. The fact is that (if we exclude mixers) gambling campaigns used to pay $50 to maybe $125 per week for Hero/Legendary rank and nothing has changed since then.

Still, that's not something a manager would even discuss, and most of those in the campaign wouldn't even dare complain about it. It all boils down to the fact that with bad pay rates you will attract a bunch of spammers who will spam from their xx alt accounts from morning till tomorrow - and as the current sig ban hammer says, it's not a matter of how high quality a post will be, but it comes down to the number of posts that are related to SEO.

[Free Market Capitalist]

In the context of inflation, it is irrelevant what the price of Bitcoin is today compared to 5 years ago

It's not irrelevant, precisely in the context of inflation. Some (few) salaries have outpaced inflation over the past five years, just as some financial assets have outpaced it—some more successfully than others.

If Bitcoin hasn’t significantly outperformed inflation over the past 5 years, it’s normal that campaign payouts haven’t gone up—but that’s not the only reason. Market prices aren’t determined solely by inflation; supply and demand are critically important. In 2021, there were still mixer campaigns on the forum. Since they were banned, the supply of campaigns has decreased, as has the number of companies with the funds willing to pay more—namely, the mixers. Add to that the fact that demand—that is, forum members with a high enough rank to participate in campaigns—has grown since 2021, and it’s not surprising that casino campaign payouts are similar to what they were 5 years ago in nominal terms but lower in real terms (when accounting for inflation).

- if the cost of living is rising, it is logical that it is followed by the growth of income earned for some work/activity.

It is logical but that's not what happens in the real world. What usually happens to the average worker is that the government tells him that inflation has risen by 3%, when in real terms it has actually been closer to 8%, and a year later, when he’s already feeling the effects of that inflation, if he’s lucky, his company will give him a 2% raise.

The fact is that (if we exclude mixers) gambling campaigns used to pay $50 to maybe $125 per week for Hero/Legendary rank and nothing has changed since then.

You're overlooking a key factor here: the reduction in supply to zero for the highest-paying campaigns, as I explained above. 

Some people think that the law of supply and demand is some invention of a capitalist in a top hat who whipped his workers while smoking a cigar, but nothing could be further from the truth. It stems from observing what has repeatedly occurred in economic relations among humans ever since historical records began.

[UmerIdrees]

LOL. Considering the idea will you say 15 posts per week and a high per post rate is a good idea and guarantee that no participants will be banned? I am going to experiment it with Zeto signature campaign.

If it was a maximum of 20 posts per week, you would probably get much higher quality applicants than the current ones so far. With 15 posts, you are only paying $60-$75 per week. There are already plenty of campaigns paying this much or higher. You are going to get a fair amount of account farmers and spammers. They aren’t going to put any more effort into writing better posts because they have a reduced quota in one campaign if they are already in 4 or 5 other campaigns that have higher requirements.

I think 20 posts a week is a reasonable target and it shouldn't be difficult to achieve in most of the cases. Yeah, if you exclude local boards and some campaigns exclude the Beginners & Help and Politics & Society sections, but still writing 20 good posts shouldn't be difficult at all.

However, the problem is with the poster himself, and you can do an experiment too. Like if you ask to write them 15 posts a week or 10 posts a week, they may still write the same piece of stuff if there were wrting 20 or 25 post per week, its only that in the earlier part they have to spend less time and compete the quota. I don't think the writer will change his style because now he is getting more money per post, it never happens like this.

[mindrust]

what if you sig banned every signature campaign participant that joined a campaign that required their participants to post more than 20 posts every week?

LOL. Considering the idea will you say 15 posts per week and a high per post rate is a good idea and guarantee that no participants will be banned? I am going to experiment it with Zeto signature campaign.

That campaign is much better than the other 2-3 dolla pay per post crap we usually have around. Speak less, make it count. Isn't that what we all want here? Less spam? Most people agree it is nearly impossible to push 20+ quality posts every week. Only a professional article writer can pull that thing. Most people here can't even speak Engrish properly and people expect them to post like a wallst journal employee.

At least my suggestion is kind of deterministic. Right now Nutildah sig bans people based on... feelings. I checked a few example I agree that those accounts mostly post shit but still, it is not a deterministic way to come to a conclusion. If you are posting too much, you are posting too much. Breathe a little.

I know some people will say "but rust, this guy is a monster, he is making 100+ posts a week and they are all A++ grade, what about this freak of nature?" Well, he can scale horizontally.

a
If that became widespread, having more than one account would also become widespread. If people are used to getting paid for 25 posts—keeping in mind that most write more than that, say about 30—and campaigns pay for 15, all you have to do is create a new account, wait at least half a year to start monetizing it, and get paid for two campaigns of 15.

The CM campaign paid up to 50 posts per week, having the best quality posters on the forum. The problem is not the number of posts.

Bingo.

And that, actually reveals the main point I was trying to make in my original post. It wasn't really a serious proposal.

The main point is,

There is no free lunch.

Without some spam, the traffic will tank. Just because Nutildah is sig banning people, those people won't turn into better posters. That's the pool of posters we got and managers are already doing their best to pick the best ones. Say, nutildah banned half of the stake's participants, what will happen? We eliminated some spam but we also eliminated a lot of forum traffic even tho that traffic is shit but it still has some value.

And the harder truth is, there is literally nothing much left to talk about. We just can't accept that.

[FinneysTrueVision]

You are going to get a fair amount of account farmers and spammers. They aren’t going to put any more effort into writing better posts because they have a reduced quota in one campaign if they are already in 4 or 5 other campaigns that have higher requirements.

Did you just invent a logic just to make a logic?

I made that assessment based on the people who had applied up to the point that I made that post, which was known account farmers and people who never earn merits because their posts are so generic. Combined there was only 10 earned merits between those applicants in the last 120 days. There’s no beating around the bush there, those are borderline to outright shitposters.

Quality of people applying has improved somewhat since, but it still looks like it’s going to be a campaign where 2 or 3 posters contribute the bulk of your substance, while everybody else is there to fulfill a quota.

If it was a maximum of 20 posts per week, you would probably get much higher quality applicants than the current ones so far. With 15 posts,

Have you experimented with the numbers?

Higher paying campaigns tend to have the best posters, regardless of the amount of posts each user is making. The same is true in the opposite direction, therefore if you are paying about the same as everybody else, you will probably get the same kind of posters that are in most campaigns.

I actually think it’s a good idea to reduce the quota in most campaigns. If these measures were adopted across the board and not just 1 campaign from 1 manager, it would go a long way in reducing spam and improving overall quality, but that’s not the situation we have here.