Should campaign managers hire campaign moderators to stop low quality/spam?

[PostQuantumBTC]

Merit sources can seek employment from campaign managers to be

[...]

Now, they can earn income from being a merit source,

no

I just like this straightforward answer.
If anyone want campaign manager to do something, the person can pm the campaign manager.
This thread will go no where because they campaign managers can not be forced to do this.
If I should consider it worth it or not worth it, that is left for the campaign managers to decide. If they see it not worth it, then it does not worth it.
If anyone see a shit post, the person should report it to the campaign manager or moderator to delete it.

[JollyGood]

For someone that joined the forum a few months ago, you certainly seem to know a lot about how the forum works. If you are genuine/real newbie then you are out of your depth and have no real concern to make comments about this particular subject. Having said that, it seems as though there is more to your account than meets the eye.

I have read through some of your posts (including the first) and can safely state that this is not your only account. How many accounts are you operating here?

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?

[rat03gopoh]

• 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.

Well, people will start thinking, "Being a merit source seems more tempting than joining a campaign. I'll apply soon." This will be... bta.lk/t/5588133

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?

The OP mentioned only credible merit sources; the one you're asking about doesn't fall into that category.

My suggestion: just ban the signature campaign. The spam problem would decrease significantly.

[libert19]

My suggestion: just ban the signature campaign. The spam problem would decrease significantly.

This. Try it for sometime and see where it leads the forum as I have said in my other thread as well.

[ABCbits]

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.".

I added the reference (my older post) because i think those manager doesn't have time see and review the negative back. If they do, i believe they very unlikely to hire account with 4 or 6 neutral tag when there are so many account who apply to their signature campaign.

"~there's far less reason not to tag~". is my response to "Should alt/farmed accounts receive tags when they are discovered even though they are making loan repayments? " on that thread.

[PostQuantumBTC]

My suggestion: just ban the signature campaign. The spam problem would decrease significantly.

If signature campaign is banned, spam will reduce but some good posters will also leave the forum or become not really active again. Also those that some people called spammers but still average that learned one or two things like close source wallet must be avoided and how to safe themselves to hackers may not have the privilege again if they stop visiting this forum. This is what I think if they are still reading what good members are posting but not having enough knowledge to post good like them.

[notocactus]

If signature campaign is banned, spam will reduce but some good posters will also leave the forum or become not really active again. Also those that some people called spammers but still average that learned one or two things like close source wallet must be avoided and how to safe themselves to hackers may not have the privilege again if they stop visiting this forum. This is what I think if they are still reading what good members are posting but not having enough knowledge to post good like them.

Good posters can leave the forum by many reasons, like they want to enjoy their lives off the forum, offline as much as possible, or feel this forum distasteful and no longer have interest to be here, even just for reading. Clearly if the forum is covered by shitposts, there is no joy to read here, it wastes a lot of time to read shitposts while it's not like a necessary step to do for finding good posts to read and discuss.

Many reasons to leave the forum but if the signature industry is shutdown, signatures are disabled forum-wide, we all can imagine that forum will be affected in traffics, though it should not be a reason to continue spamming.

Spammers must be aware of that fact, it's hard for them to understand that, as signature industry is a privilege, not a rights. Hence, if theymos does hard thing like shutting down this industry, spammers must feel comfortable with that as it's consequence from their "shit works and contributions".

[FinneysTrueVision]

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.

The OP didn’t say campaign managers were incompetent. This is a very misleading framing of what was stated.

It would actually be beneficial to the brands hiring these managers if more was done to filter out the garbage, which there is plenty of. Managers get hired to generate traffic for websites and they are doing a fine job of that. The difficult part is in attracting the highest possible quality visitors to a site. This is undoubtedly an area that needs improvement and this can only be done by elevating the current standards we see in the most spam filled campaigns.

A higher emphasis on quality of posts would, in my opinion, make signature campaigns more effective than simply treating the forum as a cheap SEO content farm.

[JollyGood]

No, I will not create a thread to discuss your reputation just because you want me to. If I want to create a thread to discuss your conduct, I will make it without taking your opinion on the matter in consideration.

Having said that, you did not answer the question about how many accounts you are operating.

Nevertheless, your suggestion for merit sources to be earning from campaign managers by being enforcers is nothing more than another pointless suggestion (just as many others are made from time to time).

~

Your post, maybe outside of your opinion that I am "too new to be concerned with this", is off-topic to this thread. I've reported it. Make a reputation thread with your opinions/evidence that I am, as you feel you can "safely state", an alt - and I'll address it. Thanks.

[lovesmayfamilis]

In my opinion, such topics should primarily concern managers and those sponsors of the company who advertise here on the forum. Now think about it: if the car is moving, why would anyone interfere with its movement? I think everyone understands what I mean. If the sponsors are satisfied with everything, then why would they pay someone extra? If managers choose people and they are satisfied with them, why would they do something extra for themselves, with the same pay? Is someone going to do something selflessly in our time? Yes, and that's what reporters do. But they don't owe anyone anything either, as it always depends on the time they devote to reading posts.

I would suggest that the OP read the posts of all users of the same company and try not to go crazy with what will be written within one week.🤷‍♂️

[khatarnak]

Thoughts?

This will make forum even worse.

Already we have enough people:

- backing each other
- alt accounts
- merit circles
All helping each other with shitposting.

Now imagine if you put money behind Merit too.
Those groups will become even stronger because now they have financial reason to help each other.
It just creates another thing people can abuse.

[rat03gopoh]

If signature campaign is banned, spam will reduce but some good posters will also leave the forum or become not really active again.

That's it, and the next question is why are those services still interested in advertising here, even with minimal banner formats and thousands of dollars per week?

Beyond just analyzing visitor traffic, they know that this forum is active in almost every board. They don't care about spam or forum' purpose at all; they care about impressions. Their target audience isn't limited to technical experts; spammers might also be potential customers, contributing bigger revenue.

I suspect the threads that will remain active after the spam policy upgrade are: https://bta.lk/t/5132720 and https://bta.lk/t/1306983, and guess what, they'll attract advertisers? I've been on several older forums, including xdaforums (formerly xda-developers), where there's no spam, no drama, no incentives. Sometimes you have to wait hours to see a reply after yours is in the most popular section, and then days to get a new thread.

I don't support spam, however. If my previous suggestion is too harsh, I think we can at least utilize the report button and consider merit spending as strictly as possible. It would distribute responsibility to all constructive users instead of just merit sources.

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

Sincerely speaking I don't think a collaboration is even necessary. There's a certain level of quality that always stands out and it will always continue to. It makes a lot of sense that both are distinct in their own aspects even if they have a one indirect relationship regardless just as expected.

We are making this kinda complex based on the topic and the point remains if you are a very fine poster you'll most likely have a lot of merit and be recognised which is a major factor into getting a campaign.

[nutildah]

I had a funny thought and wanted to append it to a pre-existing thread, and this one seems to fit pretty well.

I wonder how many posters just totally make stuff up deep in sport-specific megathreads and anybody who might notice doesn't say anything about it...     I mean it must happen sometimes right. I'd be pretty good at that.

"Sri Lanka is currently dominating Ceylon in the quarter final of the women's masters badmitton tournament, enjoying a 3-1 set lead over their historical rival."

Oh wait a minute, it has to fit into the context of a pre-existing megathread.

"Arsenal mopped up the floor with Newcastle today as Wayne Rooney scored a career high 7 goals, tying a record set by Pele in 1962. Newcastle defenders pulled several hamstrings at the beginning of the match, causing deep bench substitutions that resulted in a catastrophic performance. Arsenal coach Austin Powers ran on to the field nude as the clock ran past zero, shouting "Yeah, footy's our bag baby", to the adoration of the homefield crowd. The game ended when the clock went to zero, because that's how all sports end, everybody knows that."

Anyway, my point is don't pay for posts like that.

[[btc]]

Anyway, my point is don't pay for posts like that.

Thanks for putting your comment about not paying for shitty posts, here in this thread. I was hoping you'd soon put something here. Over the past day or so, I've been reading through various responses to my suggestion, and responses to my responses, and I think I can come to one conclusion. First, I'll leave this quote here before I continue:

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.

So yeah, after some thinking, I'm almost positive this thread would have gone in a better direction if merit sources weren't involved in marking the posts that deserve to count towards end of week payment. I think the root of my thinking when I formulated the suggestion, was entirely focused on the fact that:

• Bad posts need to be marked
• Hey! Merit is a way to mark good posts
• Ooh! Bad posts can just not be marked
• Merit sources intrinsically should be able to discern between good/bad
• Oh look! They even have uber-amounts of merit to mark shit with
• 

Wth, lol, was I thinking. Turns out, many people who commented here on my suggestion were correct. Sorry for not realizing that earlier. Perhaps I'll rename the thread to something that drops merit sources entirely, and let it focus on the two things forum members here seem to agree is the right direction - managers could possibly consider delegating the work of (a.) sifting through posts by participants and (b.) deciding if a post should get count towards end of weekly payment. In all fairness, this marking process is probably happening behind the scenes, and probably for the better that it is a behind the scenes thing. I wouldn't know, so probably even better to lock this thread, in a day or so, after changing the title.

I just kept seeing this rhetoric in Meta recently and figured I had a neat idea:

• Decentralized solution to signature spam! Or maybe not ....
• Blanket ban on signature campaigns, what it'd yield? Let's discuss
• Gambling Discussion has been ruined — action is needed
• [POLL] What sections of the forum do you think need to be cleaned up?

Let's all wish these managers to lead this forum to be spam free,and encourage them to help the crypto-community.

I also remember seeing a neat little quote, in an old thread I came across a few days ago, when I tried to search for a list of current campaign managers. I still stand firm on my belief that if you don't pay for a shitty post, you will see a reduction in shitty posts.

[joker_josue]

I just kept seeing this rhetoric in Meta recently and figured I had a neat idea:

• Decentralized solution to signature spam! Or maybe not ....
• Blanket ban on signature campaigns, what it'd yield? Let's discuss
• Gambling Discussion has been ruined — action is needed
• [POLL] What sections of the forum do you think need to be cleaned up?

Honestly, I'm starting to think that this whole issue about spam on the forum and how to combat it is a non-issue.

I say this because I'm starting to feel that a good portion of the users participating in this debate are users who have two or three unknown alt accounts and are trying to participate in campaigns.

Whatever anyone says, a user who has to manage conversations across two or three accounts will end up spamming a lot because it's nearly impossible to maintain quality. Therefore, the solution to spam related to subscription campaigns is largely the fault of alt accounts.