How to make good signature campaigns (and increase post quality)

[hugeblack]

Based on the quality of posts and users, signature campaigns can vary in price, but personally, I prefer a fixed-price system (even if the user isn't active), for example, $25 per week with bonuses for additional posts (+ for high-quality posts - for low-quality posts). With such a system and high-quality users, the campaign will get high-quality posts, but since we're not campaign managers, they're the only ones who can give you answers.

[coin-investor]

Exactly, or improve some of the other points.
I was expecting answers like @examplens's, who said that campaigns payments are low. Or noorman0's who proposed that campaigns should only take people by invitation.
Here is the place to say "Could be better if I'm not forced to write 30 post a week" for example.

But instead we have answers from people in campaigns being offtopic or rude, which also proves the point of this thread.

Your intention is good, but how you construct your title makes it appear misleading. The title alone suggests this is a topic created by the forum's top campaign manager or by someone who is an authority on post quality. It could have been better if the title had been "Suggestion on how to make a good signature campaign," making it an invitation for a community effort.

We already have this

08 Human-quality checks (internal campaign scoring system for members, approval processes for posts, etc.)

But I'm sure other campaign managers also have a grading system, or they mark participants based on their performance. Every campaign managers have their own rules and system.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

To help kickstart the brainstorming, I’ll list a few common, general campaign rules to talk about:

01 Minimum number of posts per day or week
02 Maximum number of posts paid for per day or week
03 Posts allowed only in specific forums
04 Mandatory posts during X days of the week
05 Required minimum and/or maximum character count per post
06 Allowed languages
07 Use of AI in posts
08 Human-quality checks (internal campaign scoring system for members, approval processes for posts, etc.)
09 Bonuses
10 Use of avatar, signature, company message text
11 Rank/Merit/Trust level of recruited users
12 Campaigns with a "complaint book" to report members

Let's see what are not done so far.
01. I have seen the rules in many campaign
02. I have seen it as well
03. Managers sometimes specify the board they want posters
04. I have seen it
05. I have seen this too
06. I have seen local board flexibility
07. As far as I know no manager will allow it. This will even encourage spams.
08. I think Stake does some scoring things but all campaign manager do perform human quality check. Wake up!
09. I have seen that too
10. In a signature campaign it's common
11. Of course managers take all these in considerations
12. I have seem managers to encourage the community to find spam posters.

After reading your post, I felt I did not read anything new. What are you even trying to explain in this topic?

[aioc]

After reading your post, I felt I did not read anything new. What are you even trying to explain in this topic?

OP wants to improve the signature campaigns and the quality of the forum, but has never given even one suggestion on how to do so; everything on this topic is already covered.

OP should first come up with a unique idea for improving the quality of the forum and signature campaigns that were not mentioned or overlooked by everyone here.