Questionable posters in signature campaigns

[examplens]

What is new, and what worries me is that more and more shitposters now manage to earn enough Merit to move up through the Ranks.

Then, they can join signature campaigns and post without even trying to understand what is actually being discussed.

It's still up to the manager.
It's the same as when a reputable manager would make a prediction post in the Games & Round section, only because, for example, they come from a member with a lot of earned merit, even if it was LoyceV, the most recognizable.
It's simple, it's up to the managers to evaluate the quality and meaningfulness of the position, the basis for rejecting it or rewarding it with a payment. If the amount of earned merit is sufficient, then by now some of the automatic post-counting tools would have certainly come into play.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Did you read what he has posted on this thread? He has apologized already for the wrongdoing. You can also see that he sent Free Market Capitalist a merit also which show that he know he has done something wrong. Reading what he has posted is very important to get this discussion to the right direction.

What exactly did he do here?
He apologized to silence and forget this attention as soon as possible, so everyone could continue where they left off. He presents spam as something that happened by accident, so I don't understand how it's possible to spam accidentally.
I know a man who caught a woman cheating on him, she also claimed that it happened by accident. She apologized and promised that it would be the last time, it might happen one or two more times, but it would be completely accidental again.

As JollyGood often notes, checking the post history of some users, you can also notice in the case of Joy-maker that this is not his only account on the forum. Having started his "path" on the forum, he clearly understood where and what to write in order to quickly boost his account. Similarly, what can you want from an account that has a goal of dozens of daily posts on topics that are already impossibly "chewed up"? If a person has several accounts, it is very difficult to have time to think about everything, read, and write something new.
His apologies will not affect his personality in any way . It doesn't cost such accounts anything to apologize a hundred times, bow their heads, call the interlocutor "sir" as a sign of "respect," and continue doing what they did before.
There is a big difference between those for whom the forum is a place for communication, reading, and some profit, and those who have decided to live on the funds received from the signature companies.

You can also see that he sent Free Market Capitalist a merit

It turns out that this is all that is needed to resolve such situations?

[Lucius]

The problem we have on the forum when it comes to sig campaigns and those who participate in them can be defined in one sentence - too many open spots, too few quality posters.

Seems like there's an obvious solution to that, which is reduce the number of available spots and pay quality posters a little bit more. I realize this results in less overall impressions for the signature. I just have to wonder who off-forum with money to spend is reading through pages of garbage on the Gambling board and then randomly clicking on user signatures. Seems like those thousands of impressions are useless. We don't even know if they are contributing anything to a casino's SEO score.

Not so long ago, I suggested the same. If a sig campaign has 50 participants, of which at least 50% are below some average quality, I would personally increase the number of posts and the pay rate for those 25 quality posters, which would mean that the campaign will "produce" the same/similar number of posts per week and will not lose visibility.


The most successful sig campaign I've personally seen (CM) had a recipe that no other campaign even came close to trying to copy, so even though it's unrealistic for anyone to offer what they offered, anything above the current average would be enough to attract the best posters and achieve the best results.


---

Quantity has ruled over quality, and that's a great position for all the shitposters and alts farms - just 5 accounts earning $100 each week is $2000 per month.

Please don't encourage them.  

It's hard to call that encouraging, because the hundreds of alt accounts that have been discovered in the past 6 months are probably just the tip of the iceberg. I mean, these are old alt farms from the time when it was enough to invest just time and low value posts to reach a higher rank.

[nutildah]

Not so long ago, I suggested the same. If a sig campaign has 50 participants, of which at least 50% are below some average quality, I would personally increase the number of posts and the pay rate for those 25 quality posters, which would mean that the campaign will "produce" the same/similar number of posts per week and will not lose visibility.

That makes sense.. I'm also in favor of a more graded pay scale, like $40-$140 a week instead of flat rates for Legendaries. If a manager really, really wants to employ bought or hacked accounts, pay them $40 instead of the same rate you are paying legitimate Legendary accounts who are probably better posters anyway.

Same thing with utter shitposters: if a manager really, really needs to hire an account already tagged as an alt or a shitposter, pay them less than you would at their rank compared to quality posters.

This would actually incentivize quality posting, which could only be better for the brand you are representing. Not to mention better for the forum as well, which ironically, campaign managers depend on.

Somehow at the end of the day I refuse to believe that "impressions" is the only thing that matters here. SEO spam is becoming more and more a thing of the past, in all forms. Google is on to it and they're no dummies.

[Satofan44]

Not so long ago, I suggested the same. If a sig campaign has 50 participants, of which at least 50% are below some average quality, I would personally increase the number of posts and the pay rate for those 25 quality posters, which would mean that the campaign will "produce" the same/similar number of posts per week and will not lose visibility.

That makes sense.. I'm also in favor of a more graded pay scale, like $40-$140 a week instead of flat rates for Legendaries. If a manager really, really wants to employ bought or hacked accounts, pay them $40 instead of the same rate you are paying legitimate Legendary accounts who are probably better posters anyway.

Same thing with utter shitposters: if a manager really, really needs to hire an account already tagged as an alt or a shitposter, pay them less than you would at their rank compared to quality posters.

This would actually incentivize quality posting, which could only be better for the brand you are representing.

Proposals can be debated, but what can not be debated is that the current system is very fucked up and the incentives are in complete disarray. The real question is why no manager is actually trying to change something or to improve something. How long have these flat rates been a thing in the majority of time? It must have been some time since it became evident that this is only reading it massive amounts of generic shitposts.

Somehow at the end of the day I refuse to believe that "impressions" is the only thing that matters here. SEO spam is becoming more and more a thing of the past, in all forms. Google is on to it and they're no dummies.

It is not, it is one of those secrets that nobody here wants to admit publicly because it would lead to monetary losses for many parties. Random shitposting spam has very little impact on ranking, the best companies hope here is to get their name out there so that a few people try them out. It is different for the established ones, they just want to retain their leadership and don't hesitate to spend fair amounts of money. Bitcointalk is no longer relevant anyway as it used to be, so the impact on search rankings is even less.

The most successful sig campaign I've personally seen (CM) had a recipe that no other campaign even came close to trying to copy, so even though it's unrealistic for anyone to offer what they offered, anything above the current average would be enough to attract the best posters and achieve the best results.

Which was what? By not paying shitposters more money can be given to those that actually try to post something useful, it is as simple as that. Campaign budgets don't even need to be increased for some of these changes to work.

[Free Market Capitalist]

What does that suppose to mean?

Well, I was talking about a global problem, and you responded with an alleged solution specific to the gambling sections. As one post was from the Scam Accusations but referred to a problem with a casino, I thought you may have gotten confused.

Even if you are given 10% extra of your weekly signature payments? I will accept that deal gladly, no matter +ev or -ev.

If they give me that extra 10%, I might accept it, but I think it's all too hypothetical.

In the end, I think shitposting is going to continue and that's that. I started this thread because of the examples I recently came across of people responding with things that have nothing to do with the thread or with the facts being discussed, but if we were to tag all the shitposting, I think we could tag hundreds of posters, including those who shitpost in the gambling section and/or in mega-threads in the speculation section such as Buy the dip and Hodl or Buy Buy Buy Sell Sell Sell ones.

[yahoo62278]

In the end, I think shitposting is going to continue and that's that. I started this thread because of the examples I recently came across of people responding with things that have nothing to do with the thread or with the facts being discussed, but if we were to tag all the shitposting, I think we could tag hundreds of posters, including those who shitpost in the gambling section and/or in mega-threads in the speculation section such as Buy the dip and Hodl or Buy Buy Buy Sell Sell Sell ones.

The reason users are posting in the bolded sections are mainly its a merit circle jerk. Low ranked members have found a honey hole and know that spamming those threads ends up gaining them a few merits here and there.

The spamming has been a problem since at least 2014 if not sooner. This isn't the 1st thread I have seen on the subject and it likely won't be the last. Half the forum wants to say blame the managers while the other half puts it all on the users. They're both right but what is really the solution? Just fire everyone?