Campaign managers and merit sources can work together to stop low quality/spam

[[btc]]

Merit sources can seek employment from campaign managers to be...uhh..."quality enforcers"?

The thought is that since (most) merit sources already are trained to look for quality in a post, then they could spend a bit of their time (paid for) during the day monitoring posts made by campaign participants, of a specific campaign.

They would be handing a merit out to a post that ^[1]deserves to count towards that sweet, sweet bitcoin payment at the end of the week.

So let's say a campaign has 20 participants:

• A merit source (or two) could approach the manager to that campaign, and apply to become a quality-enforcer of that specific campaign.
• Their application could even be in the form of 5-10 previously made posts in a specific campaign that would be seen as quality, and not LLM generated garbage, repeated nonsense, etc.
• Now, they can earn income from being a merit source, since it has an alternative use outside of just meriting for general-quality forum wide.
• The campaign manager then can look through his 20 participants, and respectively, their posts, and see how many of them got merited by the quality enforcer of that campaign.
• Manager can then see if adjustments need to be made in the participant roster at his discretion.

[1] This idea has several ways it could go sideways, and several semantics/logistics that would need to be worked out, but...yeah. Obviously it would become a sanctioned system where both merit, and exchanging money, are related in some way - despite this being normally looked down upon/grounds for negative feedback (or ~). I guess it's also a gateway for people, who are disgruntled that their post didn't get merited by a quality enforcer, to make complaint threads in Reputation. Has this type of system ever been tried before? Thoughts?

[ABCbits]

Has this type of system ever been tried before?

AFAIK no. The closest system that i know and remember is campaign manager give money to anyone who report the participant for creating terrible post or other violation (such as using hacked account), where the manager agree with the report and decide to kick the participant.

Thoughts?

Too complex. It's much simpler if campaign manager allocate more of their time to actually review neutral and negative tag. To save their time, if they agree with the tag, they would add such account to their own blacklist.

FWIW, some user found out account with many neutral/negative tags accepted on signature campaign.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5535279.msg66553848#msg66553848
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5575985.msg66467314#msg66467314

So IMO there's far less reason not to tag such alt/farm account.

[_act_]

The best would be for the campaign manager to employ the merit source as a campaign moderator, this will be very helpful. It can be like a merit source will be given a score sheet to rank the participants in the campaign every week from a score of 0 to 10 or from a score of 0 to 100 in percentage. Those that are ranked low below average weekly can be removed from the campaign and open slot for other users to apply.

[[btc]]

AFAIK no. The closest system that i know and remember is campaign manager give money to anyone who report the participant for creating terrible post or other violation (such as using hacked account), where the manager agree with the report and decide to kick the participant.

Hey, that's actually kind of neat that you remember that. My suggestion is similar, but involves requiring the campaign manager to engage with the quality-assessment in a much easier way. The merit source that enforces quality could make a simple spreadsheet for the manager:

• Here's how many posts from person a, b, c should count towards end of week payment
• Here's how many posts from person a, b, c shouldn't count
• Person d, e, f did not post anything of quality, you may want to consider blacklisting them

Too complex. It's much simpler if campaign manager allocate more of their time to actually review neutral and negative tag. To save their time, if they agree with the tag, they would add such account to their own blacklist.

I get your point, but doesn't your reference contradict this? If people with unsavory tags are getting accepted anyway, what's the point of the campaign manager relying on them (solely)? Correct me if I misunderstood, because I did see your line of, "~there's far less reason not to tag~". This is reminding me of a certain type of sentiment that some merit sources carry, ie. "merit the post - not the person.".

The best would be for the campaign manager to employ the merit source as a campaign moderator, this will be very helpful. It can be like a merit source will be given a score sheet to rank the participants in the campaign every week from a score of 0 to 10 or from a score of 0 to 100 in percentage. Those that are ranked low below average weekly can be removed from the campaign and open slot for other users to apply.

A different perspective (campaign moderators) on my idea, but in the same vein. I agree. These rankings you're suggesting would be, importantly, sourced from data that shows people receiving a merit for a post that should count towards payment. Nothing incentivizes people more than money - I believe it's the (albeit harsh) strongest way to get these shitposters to sack up and earn their damn corn for a change.

[knowngunman]

Did you consider the fact that some merit source have alt account(s)?

I hope you're also aware of some merit source abusing the privilege?

Moreover, quality posts depend on the readers. Some readers consider posts that agree with their idea as quality. I don't know how things will look like if you have a merit source overseeing a campaign participants that usually have a different opinion.

The idea is a good one but the downside of it overwhelm the positive side of it. Every system introduced so far is already abused in one way or another. Can't wait to witness more drama in the reputation board if this idea is enforced.

[Btcdeybodi]

We can't blame campaign managers for hiring some low quality posters because some of these casino companies are the ones that instructs them to hire many participants so that they can have more visibility in the forum. Most times, it makes it difficult for a campaign manager to handle because after hiring the high quality posters, they will end up employing those low quality posters in order to complete the number of participants that is needed for that campaign.

Merit sources can seek employment from campaign managers to be...uhh..."quality enforcers"?

Being a merit source do not automatically mean that you can be able to identify quality posts. Perhaps, some merit sources gives merit to posts they agree with and not necessarily that they are quality posts.

[_act_]

A different perspective (campaign moderators) on my idea, but in the same vein. I agree. These rankings you're suggesting would be, importantly, sourced from data that shows people receiving a merit for a post that should count towards payment. Nothing incentivizes people more than money - I believe it's the (albeit harsh) strongest way to get these shitposters to sack up and earn their damn corn for a change.

Only what I think is that a mirit source can look for poor posters of a campaign with no need to give the people in the campaign any merit or looking for only people that are sent merit. He has to read what they post and make his own judgement based on what the people post and not just about merits.

The idea is a good one but the downside of it overwhelm the positive side of it. Every system introduced so far is already abused in one way or another. Can't wait to witness more drama in the reputation board if this idea is enforced.

The forum admin has tried all their best to stay away from anything that has to do with campaigns on this forum, so far they are not harming this forum, so what make you think that the admin will have anything to do with this? I can only see this as a suggestion to the campaign managers to consider, the admin will not do as it they see this thread despite that they might have seen it.

[knowngunman]

The idea is a good one but the downside of it overwhelm the positive side of it. Every system introduced so far is already abused in one way or another. Can't wait to witness more drama in the reputation board if this idea is enforced.

The forum admin has tried all their best to stay away from anything that has to do with campaigns on this forum, so far they are not harming this forum, so what make you think that the admin will have anything to do with this? I can only see this as a suggestion to the campaign managers to consider, the admin will not do as it they see this thread despite that they might have seen it.

Maybe this is a wrong quote? Or you probably misread my post?

I didn't mention admin has anything to do with this. I only say system introduced in the forum to make it more better are being abused in every way possible. The DT system, the merit system and the merit source.

This idea as well is likely to get abused. We've seen posts in the reputation board complaining about DT members, posts about merit abuse and posts involving merit source as well. Should the Op idea get enforced by managers, reputation board should be ready for such complain posts. I hope this helps because I don't know how to clarify more than this way.

[lovesmayfamilis]

As soon as money is involved, abuses may arise. Also, a question for the OP: who will pay these inspection and oversight agents?

[[btc]]

Did you consider the fact that some merit source have alt account(s)?
I hope you're also aware of some merit source abusing the privilege?

Yes, of course I did. That's why my suggestion involves the Merit source seeking employment of campaign quality enforcement, in the form of an application.

Moreover, quality posts depend on the readers. Some readers consider posts that agree with their idea as quality. I don't know how things will look like if you have a merit source overseeing a campaign participants that usually have a different opinion.

I agree this is a tricky part of the equation, but can be easily tackled with looking at the enforcement of a campaign post through a non-biased/empirical/objective lens. ie. "Is this a shit post? Has the content of this post been repeated ad nauseum? Is this LLM-generated?". More often than not, the answers to these questions are binary.

Being a merit source do not automatically mean that you can be able to identify quality posts. Perhaps, some merit sources gives merit to posts they agree with and not necessarily that they are quality posts.

If they can't identify quality posts, then why are they merit sources? This isn't a topic about the fundamental issues with who is and who isn't a merit source. Some of you are missing the major point - using merit sources as the deciders if a post should count towards payment or not. Again - the campaign manager has every right to deny the application of a merit source seeking employment. If anything, this system tests the judgment of both campaign managers and merit sources equally.

We can't blame campaign managers for hiring some low quality posters because some of these casino companies are the ones that instructs them to hire many participants so that they can have more visibility in the forum. Most times, it makes it difficult for a campaign manager to handle because after hiring the high quality posters, they will end up employing those low quality posters in order to complete the number of participants that is needed for that campaign.

Is this true? I don't know for sure, and would love some corroboration on this - ideally from a campaign manager. If campaign clients are pushing for quantity over quality (wouldn't be suprising), then this is obviously a root cause of the spam/low quality epidemic that's endlessly complained about, no?

We've seen posts in the reputation board complaining about DT members, posts about merit abuse and posts involving merit source as well. Should the Op idea get enforced by managers, reputation board should be ready for such complain posts.

What's new? That would obviously happen, and they can be adressed on a case-by-case basis.

As soon as money is involved, abuses may arise. Also, a question for the OP: who will pay these inspection and oversight agents?

I wrote in my OP that the campaign manager would be paying the quality enforcers. Also, yes, signature campaigns intrinsically already involve money, and abuse happens. What are you trying to get across?

[letteredhub]

Merit sources can seek employment from campaign managers to be...uhh..."quality enforcers"?

And where would the payment be coming from for this employment? Have you considered if the project owners would be ready to set aside extra funds for that... Because am not sure they would wanna expand their budget for this cause. Neither would CM wanna carry such financial burden.

The thought is that since (most) merit sources already are trained to look for quality in a post,

Merit sources are not trained. They're forum members who applied to be merit sources and by virtue of deserving the role they're then approved by the forum admin.

[uchegod-21]

I do not think all of this is necessary. Signature campaigns already have rules, and some of those rules clearly state that the campaign manager reserves the right to ignore a post that is of low quality. Most campaign managers are already taking note of these rules.

There is no need to employ a merit source for the purpose of curtailing spam and low-quality posts. Campaign managers just have to highlight it in their campaign rules and be strict when counting post quotas for the week.

[[btc]]

And where would the payment be coming from for this employment? Have you considered if the project owners would be ready to set aside extra funds for that... Because am not sure they would wanna expand their budget for this cause. Neither would CM wanna carry such financial burden.

I am very happy you brought this up. Extremely happy. This is one of those logistical proglems my suggestion has, that I originally referenced in the OP. I'm no buisnessman, and I'm not going to pretend I know what goes on behind the scenes in terms of dealmaking when it comes to a client:campaign manager relationship. My guess is that the manager would aquire funds in a few different ways, but they would all be in the vein of making the forum a healthier place - noise wise:

• It would probably be strongest if the manager presented this system to the client in the form of an upsell. They could be like, "I can provide a form of independent quality assurance for participant posts that represent your brand. For this extra cost, I can ensure posts are continuously reviewed for spam, LLM-generated content, repetition, low effort.". Will the client want that? No idea.

• Managers could also word it in a way that...appeals to the client's humanity (lol)? "Would you like to donate extra to support third-party merit sources I hire to keep the forum healthy?". Will the client care about that? No idea.

• Another option could be adjusting the roster size of a campaign, leaving budget aside for quality enforcement. So let's say a manager has 25 participants in a campaign. 23 could be posters, and 2 could be the enforcers. Would managers be down to do that? No idea.

Merit sources are not trained. They're forum members who applied to be merit sources and by virtue of deserving the role they're then approved by the forum admin.

I didn't mean "trained" in the literal sense. More so - them submitting an application in the form of citing multiple posts they observe to hold quality, and getting accepted to be a merit source, implies that their eyes are "already trained" to look for said quality.

Signature campaigns already have rules, and some of those rules clearly state that the campaign manager reserves the right to ignore a post that is of low quality.

Yeah, I know. The burden would move from the manager to the quality enforcers - which might be super beneficial...

Campaign managers just have to highlight it in their campaign rules and be strict when counting post quotas for the week.

Does the current consensus here, reflect that this is actually happening? Are they being strict? Are they ignoring low quality posts? Someone earlier in this thread literally said that clients encourage quantity over quality. :/

[uchegod-21]

Campaign managers just have to highlight it in their campaign rules and be strict when counting post quotas for the week.

Does the current consensus here, reflect that this is actually happening? Are they being strict? Are they ignoring low quality posts? Someone earlier in this thread literally said that clients encourage quantity over quality. :/

If you do your research well, you will agree with me that some campaign managers are strict while others are very lenient. The strict ones make sure that only quality posts are counted. Like I said earlier, if all campaign managers become stricter in enforcing the post quality rule, they won't need a third party to do that for them because campaign participants will be conscious that low-quality posts will no longer be counted.

If you concentrate on campaign participants alone, who will then monitor those who are not in campaigns, especially those whose ranks do not qualify them to join paid campaigns? Does the forum admin also need to pay people to monitor them?

Once you see a spam post, report it. Help the moderators keep the forum clean without expecting financial rewards. Too much financial expectations lead to abuse.

[letteredhub]

Merit sources are not trained. They're forum members who applied to be merit sources and by virtue of deserving the role they're then approved by the forum admin.

I didn't mean "trained" in the literal sense. More so - them submitting an application in the form of citing multiple posts they observe to hold quality, and getting accepted to be a merit source, implies that their eyes are "already trained" to look for said quality.

Alright, let me pretend to agree with all of that even though I understand that even without being a merit source anyone can without prejudice recognise a quality post.

Now another predictable problem this might create is that it has the tendency of diverting all attention of merit sources that may be recruited by CMs for this purpose to only focus on users posts from that signature campaign they're employed to. Don't you think that this could undercut attention for newbies growing up that haven't gotten to the rank of entering a campaign or even users that are not in a campaign? Did you also thought about this or no idea?!

[MarryWithBTC]

The thought is that since (most) merit sources already are trained to look for quality in a post, then they could spend a bit of their time (paid for) during the day monitoring posts made by campaign participants, of a specific campaign.

Who really trained the merit sources to look for quality posts?

Meanwhile, is the forum becoming about campaigns, money, merit sources to get extra monetization for finding spam;

then campaign participants will find out the hired merit sources and offer them some percentage of their weekly pay in order to remain in their good book thereby remaining in the campaign and getting free merits for the alleged quality posts

I did note vote because I didn't see a suitable option for me, option like;

- This will create more problems than solve it.

[joker_josue]

They would be handing a merit out to a post that ^[1]deserves to count towards that sweet, sweet bitcoin payment at the end of the week.

I even understand the purpose of the idea. And in the objective it may even make some sense.

But, I think the idea fails at the first point: give merit to posts that deserve to be refunded.

The issue is that a post may not be suitable for receiving merit. But, it may be suitable to be suitable for the campaign count.
In addition, we could be giving merits to posts, in the Gambling tab, that don't make any sense to receive merits.  tab, that do not make any sense to receive merits.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

Merit sources can seek employment from campaign managers to be...uhh..."quality enforcers"?

What quality enforcer do you need? Because they are already enforcing what is necessary by giving merit to post that are seen to be worthy of it. Secondly, merit source were not selected to be a bodyguard of a particular signature campaign, but rather they were selected to monitor posts on certain boards and rewards the ones that are seen to be worth it.

The thought is that since (most) merit sources already are trained to look for quality in a post, then they could spend a bit of their time (paid for) during the day monitoring posts made by campaign participants, of a specific campaign.

Nonsense, nobody train any merit source on this forum, but rather they were selected after applying and showing interest to offer their services to the forum. And secondly, they stand a better chances of been selected on high paying signature campaigns.

They would be sending a merit out to a post that ^[1]deserves to count towards that sweet, sweet bitcoin payment at the end of the week.

So what now happens to people who are not on signature campaigns, or are they to be discriminated on the forum simply because they were not lucky to be selected on a signature campaign?

• Now, they can earn income from being a merit source, since it has an alternative use outside of just meriting for general-quality forum wide.

So are you trying to tell us that Merit source have not been earning on the forum before? Because the last time I checked, all the merit source are in a signature campaign earning every week. So I don't think this is necessary.


QUESTION: So what now happens to signature campaign that can't afford to have a merit source due to their limited number, does it mean people in that signature campaign could spam freely?


So in conclusion, this idea doesn't make any sense, and i strongly recommend it's discarded.

[LTU_btc]

OP, your idea looks a bit too much complicated and I'm not sure that it would work. I don't think that there is need to add one more layer for quality check. Every campaign has rules and it would be enough if campaign managers would do their job with imposing it. But reality is a bit different. Campaign managers have to hire some low quality posters to fill all slots, there is just not enough good posters for all campaigns. If they won't manage to fill all spots, advertiser just will move to other manager.

I wrote in my OP that the campaign manager would be paying the quality enforcers. Also, yes, signature campaigns intrinsically already involve money, and abuse happens. What are you trying to get across?

Why manager would pay someone for job that he is supposed to do himself?

[Odohu]

You are invariably saying that campaign managers are not competent to select quality posters or does not have the ability to detect spammers and eject them from their campaigns. Campaign managers are hired because they distinguished themselves in the ability to help projects succeed and part of it involves hiring good brand ambassadors for the project.  Your suggestion questions the essence of their engagement, hence I don't see this idea as useful. Merit sources are not custodian of quality posts, I have see some of them that are poor in English but made sources because of local boards.