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

[Xylber]

All of us who frequently use the forum have noticed that the quality of posts has been declining over the years:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5567395.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5570810.0

There are things beyond our control: bots, AI, the massification of cryptos (more people and more platforms to talk about them)...
But let discuss about things that are under our control, for example, that big portions of posts are made by users participating in signature campaigns (+50% in some threads).

We should ask: Do certain rules within these campaigns incentivize and reward low-quality posts?. If "YES", then I would like to discuss those rules.
Which ones lead to spam, off-topic content, repetitive meaningless messages? And what should companies (and campaign managers) do to improve these rules and posts? Tighter limits in the amount of paid posts per week? Accepting only positive trust members? etc.


Be civil, it is not a "blame specific user" or "blame specific campaign" kind of topic, the idea is to be contructive and discuss ideas for every campaign, current and future.


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

[Hatchy]

Why aren't you creating this thread as a reply in the topic you mentioned on your post? It was created today and still same discussion with yours so it's better off as a reply instead of filling the meta board with same topics..

Those rules are made to guide campaign participants from spamming the forum or getting paid for posting thrash..if they aren't made available some members still stick on mega threads that gives no visibility to the brand spamming, why they take time in growing some of their alt accounts.

I don't think such rules should be adjusted and it totally depends on the campaign manager.. ( don't see much of a discussion here mate)..

[Mia Chloe]

Don't you think it's ok for this thread to fit in as a reply in this topic?  Is Thread Quality Falling? They are just a couple hours apart from creation this is just my opinion though. anyways again sometimes I believe this could be necessary when the OP is trying to prioritise visibility. If you ran a small survey most quality posters really don't fancy mega threads....

Anyways back on topic; for posting, you don't compel users to make a certain number of posts daily that's promoting low quality. Courtesy demands you post when necessary not because of a signature campaign.  Some of your highlighted ideas are part of the forum rules too.

[yahoo62278]

Why aren't you creating this thread as a reply in the topic you mentioned on your post? It was created today and still same discussion with yours so it's better off as a reply instead of filling the meta board with same topics..

Don't you think it's ok for this thread to fit in as a reply in this topic?  Is Thread Quality Falling?

The account has 24 posts in the last year and has earned no merit recently, so my best guess is the user saw a topic he could piggy back off of and be a thread starter hoping for merit.

@OP it doesn't matter what rules are in place, managers are supposed to be manually checking posts and giving it a pass/fail. If we toss in a load of rules it does not stop the spam. Users who spam, cheat using AI, burstpost, only frequent 1 section, or whatever are still going to continue to do the same shit. Managers have the sole discretion as to who does or doesn't qualify and who to hire or not hire.

[Mahiyammahi]

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

Did you ever read the rules of a signature campaign? Do you know how a forum works?
You basically mentioned all the rules are there in a signature campaign. Nothing new you proposed or said to improvised. Did you write this post with AI, if used AI atleast have some knowledge about what you're talking about.

Clearly seeing there you're trying to get some quick merit, atleast be constructive

[Xylber]

The account has 24 posts in the last year and has earned no merit recently, so my best guess is the user saw a topic he could piggy back off of and be a thread starter hoping for merit.

Clearly seeing there you're trying to get some quick merit, atleast be constructive

Why would I want to get merit? To get into a campaign?
You are confirming what I'm saying: campaigns rules change people's behaviour.

We have users farming accounts, merit and positive trust to enter specific campaigns. And those who are already into, it is hard to tell if they are actually posting because they want to, or because they are just fullfilling a post quota (mandatory minimum in some campaigns).
Check yourself guys, ALL of you are part of a campaign, ALL of you have +20 posts in the last 7 days... campaigns entice people to post.


Be smarter. If the quality of the forum drops, companies are not going to spend money on campaigns, your income is dead.
Let's try to solve it before it is too late.

[EarnOnVictor]

All of us who frequently use the forum have noticed that the quality of posts has been declining over the years:

Says who? Some of you are belittling the efforts of the moderators, which is not fair.

Fine, there could be a few issues, nothing is perfect, but I tell you, this forum is one of the best in the world when it comes to quality posting. You can quote me anywhere. But of course, there would be flaws, which is normal, and overall, higher marks should be attributed to it, rather than how you make it look.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5567395.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5570810.0

Well, in the first link, the references have no strong fault as such, and I don't see AI here, but posters who are not patient enough to fully read and understand what they replied to.

As for the second link, you are also guilty of what you complained (the 1st link), because many of you are mistaken about it, or didn't read it to understanding. It's more about bringing exciting topics to the forum to spice things up, and not the post quality itself.

[noorman0]

I think this is the best solution. I've seen campaign rules like this before.

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

01, 02, 03, 04, ... etc.
"This campaign is open by invitation only."

This is a single rule that goes through a rigorous selection process. At this point, managers should build their own whitelist based on regular monitoring, especially regarding changes in posting patterns when not participating in any campaigns.

[robelneo]

We should ask: Do certain rules within these campaigns incentivize and reward low-quality posts?. If "YES", then I would like to discuss those rules.
Which ones lead to spam, off-topic content, repetitive meaningless messages? And what should companies (and campaign managers) do to improve these rules and posts? Tighter limits in the amount of paid posts per week? Accepting only positive trust members? etc.

Aren't you wondering why it takes several days, or even weeks, for the campaign manager to accept applicants to their campaign? That's because they check the character and posting habits of every applicant.

Once they accept a poster, the manager trusts that they will not spam, use AI, burst posting and follow the rules of the campaign. Do not underestimate campaign managers; part of their success comes from picking the right people for the campaign.

[examplens]

We should ask: Do certain rules within these campaigns incentivize and reward low-quality posts?. If "YES", then I would like to discuss those rules.
Which ones lead to spam, off-topic content, repetitive meaningless messages? And what should companies (and campaign managers) do to improve these rules and posts? Tighter limits in the amount of paid posts per week? Accepting only positive trust members? etc.

The simplest answer to the dilemma that is bothering you is very simple. The thing about the low quality of the posts coming from signature campaigns is the low payment rate. The dollar has devalued considerably compared to 10 years ago, and most signature campaigns today have a payment rate significantly lower than it was before.
So, as a campaign owner, if you want better quality, you need to raise the payout. The banning of mixers had a lot of influence, and they had a somewhat better payment rate and had a lot of influence on somewhat higher quality posts.

[Rikafip]

So, as a campaign owner, if you want better quality, you need to raise the payout. The banning of mixers had a lot of influence, and they had a somewhat better payment rate and had a lot of influence on somewhat higher quality posts.

Thing is, even if let's say CM appears again and offers the same rate as before, all that it would do is to concentrate the best posters in 1 campaign, that are currently scattered across many, but it wouldn't really increase the overall post quality across the forum. Or at least not significantly, as few quality members maybe would come back with the higher pay.

[Xylber]

The thing about the low quality of the posts coming from signature campaigns is the low payment rate. The dollar has devalued considerably compared to 10 years ago, and most signature campaigns today have a payment rate significantly lower than it was before.

True. To partially solve this, some campaigns score posts and offer bonuses to "the best" each week.
But lazy users don't care about it, and still just do the bare minimum to not break forum rules nor to be kicked out of the campaign.

Maybe: * The user with the lowest score, will receive half the payment that week.
would force even the laziest user to try to not be the worst of the week. As nobody wants to be the worst and get half payment, it would increase the overall quality of that particular campaign.

[Signosmomentum]

The thing about the low quality of the posts coming from signature campaigns is the low payment rate. The dollar has devalued considerably compared to 10 years ago, and most signature campaigns today have a payment rate significantly lower than it was before.

True. To partially solve this, some campaigns score posts and offer bonuses to "the best" each week.
But lazy users don't care about it, and still just do the bare minimum to not break forum rules nor to be kicked out of the campaign.

Maybe: * The user with the lowest score, will receive half the payment that week.
would force even the laziest user to try to not be the worst of the week. As nobody wants to be the worst and get half payment, it would increase the overall quality of that particular campaign.

You don't need all of this. Once a poster gets into a campaign, they need to put their best effort into their post and into how and where to post, or risk being replaced by those lining up to get in the campaign.
I think that's what campaign managers do: check their spreadsheet, they give notes, and replace those who underperformed with those who deserve it.

 

[rat03gopoh]

Maybe: * The user with the lowest score, will receive half the payment that week.

If you're a manager, what metrics would you use to assess post quality? What if your client said, "We're running low on funding for the next four weeks, so please only pay 30% of your list of participants in full"?

At the very least, you should create a separate thread for each campaign you run on the reputation board, because you'll have to be prepared for drama every week.

[examplens]

Maybe: * The user with the lowest score, will receive half the payment that week.
would force even the laziest user to try to not be the worst of the week. As nobody wants to be the worst and get half payment, it would increase the overall quality of that particular campaign.

Who will decide which user has the "lowest score", the manager? Isn't it easier for the manager to exclude a member with a low score and find someone with a "better" score?
If you are the owner of the campaign, would you accept that your company is represented by a spammer, even though you will pay him a smaller amount than you normally pay?

Signature campaigns were not anyone's obligation, nor is anyone under any obligation to participate in any of them. That's just a possibility.
Most people on the forum should think about how much they really contribute to the promotion of the service whose signature they bear.

[sunsilk]

would force even the laziest user to try to not be the worst of the week.

What does it mean to you guys about being lazy users? are those users don't fulfill quota, or you've got some specific description about it?

I think that's what campaign managers do: check their spreadsheet, they give notes, and replace those who underperformed with those who deserve it.

They seem to have that note and checking of posts based on human quality or however they call it. Looks a good process on their end on how they give notes to each of their user and before they approve what's paid and not.

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

[m2017]

The account has 24 posts in the last year and has earned no merit recently, so my best guess is the user saw a topic he could piggy back off of and be a thread starter hoping for merit.

24 posts and 0 merits over the past year? Well, then this OP has every moral right to discuss the quality of posts. And also to discuss sig.campaigns, which (I was too lazy to check his old message history and waste time on it) the OP probably never participated in.

I can imagine if a campaign manager had created and proposed this topic for discussion, but it seems to me there's nothing to discuss with the OP, who likely hasn't managed a single campaign. So why is he suggesting a discussion of sig.campaign rules? I believe that discussing any topic with an opponent is only permissible if that user has experience in the field. Based on the above points, the OP "has no moral right" to raise these issues. Forgive me if my words sound a bit harsh, but at least I'm being honest.

You basically mentioned all the rules are there in a signature campaign. Nothing new you proposed or said to improvised.

I noticed this too.

I think this topic should be closed, as it's not worth discussing.

[rat03gopoh]

You basically mentioned all the rules are there in a signature campaign. Nothing new you proposed or said to improvised.

I noticed this too.

Indeed, OP did summarize all the current campaign rules and implementation of payments (rewards), what he expected was that there would be a 13th point etc. as a solution to the thread title and would be a universal rule of managers (which I think is hard to welcome).