Question about signature campaigns (definition of a constructive post)

[Bizmark13]

I'm interested in joining a signature campaign but would like to double-check with the community about what exactly is and isn't a constructive post. For example, here are three posts from my post history (in increasing order of length):

Check out Coinmarketcap.com. A lot of coins in the top 20 have a 24 hour volume lower than that.

BTC isn't an altcoin, and you can't mine it profitably with either CPUs nor GPUs nowadays. You could mine LTC with a graphics card but scrypt ASICs are now available which have the same hashpower but consume a fraction of the electricity costs.

With that setup, the amount of bitcoins you would mine would not make it worthwhile. People use ASICs to mine bitcoins. The age of CPU and GPU mining is over. You could try mining scrypt coins like Litecoin if you had a good graphics card but you say that yours is integrated so that's no good. Perhaps CPU coins could be mined with the processor since the one you've got seems average at least. These could then be traded for Bitcoins via an altcoin exchange like Cryptsy.

Or you could buy hashes from a cloud mining provider like CEX.IO or PB Mining. But these mining contracts aren't profitable unless you are interested in trading them. And you'll need BTC to buy them too, i.e. from another place like Coinbase or LocalBitcoins.com.

Would all three be classified as constructive? Just no. 2 and 3? Or just no. 3?

EDIT: Perhaps a better question should have been how much content/effort should I put into each post that I make? I'm guessing sig campaign operators look down on those whose posting histories are filled with short one or two sentence-long posts right?

[bitgeek]

I'd say all of these are constructive.
A constructive post can be short or long, it doesn't mater. It has to be on topic and add to the conversation.

Example: a topic says "How much did you invest in bitcoin?"
Answer: Not much, about $500.

[arieq]

A constructive post is one that inspires discussion or contributes to a current topic, and don't go off topic essentially. An example of being constructive is stating an opinion, describing why you formed that opinion, or even proposing a solution to your opinion .

Being non-constructive is along the lines of "This coin sucks" and "Dont invest, it's scam". These provide little discussion value and offer no logical formed opinion.

[SelbyTsang]

Would all three be classified as constructive? Just no. 2 and 3? Or just no. 3?

IMO, all 3 are constructive posts.

EDIT: Perhaps a better question should have been how much content/effort should I put into each post that I make? I'm guessing sig campaign operators look down on those whose posting histories are filled with short one or two sentence-long posts right?

It depends, as some sig campaigns have stricter rules than the others. The general rule is to avoid off-topic posts, "+1" posts, too general replies like "Your site looks great" and "That is a great idea", and posts for claiming giveaway and free credits.

[jbrnt]

Being constructive is not about length of your reply. I agree that comments need not be long to be considered constructive. It is all about content and context.

IMO, the first comment you quoted is informative, but not very constructive. Add a short sentense explaining your point could do the trick. The second comment would be very constructive provided no one else have said the same thing on the thread before you.

So would they be counted as "constructive" posts? Most campaigns would count all three, some would count only second and third.

[EternalWingsofGod]

As long as the post contributes to the discussion
Does not get to far off the topic and people agree or comment on it positively since it contributes to a discussion then it is constructive.

[BadBear]

I don't really have a problem with any of those posts on their own, though frequently posting similar to the first one could change that. There's combinations of multiple factors we tend to look for, so the presence of a second, third, etc would change the perception of the first.

[btcton]

I like answering to that with another question: Is any relevant information added to the thread? For example, if you go in a thread about how Neil Armstrong didn't actually go to the moon and you post something like "I want to go to the moon" or "Blue is a color" then that's obviously not constructive. In a thread where someone asks how to check your PMs on this forum where somebody already replied saying "Click where it says 'My Messages' to check them" and then you posting "They are under the 'My Messages' section" is not constructive, since you are quite literally repeating what has already been said. +1 posts and such are essentially the same concept.