Topic: Almost automated managing of +60 social bounties at the same time? Tagging? - page 2. (Read 797 times)

Dear ladies and gentlemen, could you please understand me that I just wanted to share the tools of managing campaigns and now when one person decided that using Microsoft Office is abuse I will have a lot of difficulties. Could you please share with me your experience and advice what should I do to get my trust back, because I am doing my work qualitatively that's why some of projects use my posts on their official pages.
Thank you all in advance.

Multiple accounts is allowed, and staff don't moderate scams. Therefore, any reports made because of this will be marked as bad, and no action taken. The only time alt accounts may face consequences is when one of their accounts has been caught breaking the rules, and action has been taken. For example, if one of their accounts has been caught spamming or spreading ref links, and is banned for it. Only then will the alternate accounts be banned too, and that's assuming that the staff have enough evidence that the accounts are linked.

This isn't a moderation issue. Rather something that the bounty managers have to deal with themselves. The issue is that the bounty managers don't care. Possibly implementing restrictions on who can be bounty managers or post bounties/annoucement threads is the solution to the problem. But, it's no way a moderation issue.

I have a feeling that this is done with the help of staff. Once a person is able to get away with multiple accounts, he will try to expand to as much as possible.

We can only report such cases and hope that some action is taken by staff.

I really don't know what reaction should I make, It maybe true in all aspects but still campaigns weren't supposed to be like this I think?
Then I guess, It was like committing a crime just to satisfy yourself and replenish your own needs. And while it was like that, then waiting for this forum to be absolutely spam-free will be just on our dreams.

That's how it works with the current system. Different accusations will turn out to be one, then suddenly misjudgement will soon arrived with a MARK of RED.
Just be on your positive side mate Nothing will be good if you stressed out yourself like that. Even if you received such unfairly feedbacks don't stop from sharing good infos Just think that you're doing the right thing and they just don't seem to see like the way you do.

As far as we can reasonably guess and judge from the recent events, Facebook had been using user data to target individual users for a long time. They have been generating a log of their activities and analyzing them to suggest ads, show similar updates and so on. I am sure these are targeted algorithms.
The spam generated by the Facebook and Twitter accounts pertaining to ICOs, will only ever be related to those particular users.

It would be safe to assume that most of these "accounts" consist of bot accounts or farming rings of 10,000- 20,000 people who are all in each others friend list and are all advertising ICOs to each other. The situation is hilarious actually.. My point is , as much as I too would like to smile over ICOs screwing up their Big Data algorithms; i think the problem isn't as severe as you think and those people are smarter than we care to accept..


Too bad man. Although I know a way with which you can help the community wayyy more. You have the smarts to subvert the naturally justified methods of promotion which means you must also have the smarts to SPOT some of these people who are doing it. I am sure you can appreciate that this is a big problem for all the "hardworking" bounty hunters trying to make a "living" here. If someone with an army of bots and automated tools eats up 5k airdrop addresses and bounties, just imagine what will be left for all the others here who can barely put together a sentence??!! The SMART ones will take away all their tokens...

"ALL YOUR TOKENS ARE BELONG TO US!!" 
Maybe you could try and help find some of these people.

---

As far as your present sentencing goes, well, "In cat we trust!"

OK, I am this "smart guy" who tried to help people to automate a little their everyday work and all I received is a red trust because of this topic and now I could be disqualified from some of them for trying to be useful for community. Fair enough. I did not break any rules and did not suggest any bots, just wanted to share my way of managing campaigns using Microsoft Office.

That's true maybe we could limit the announcement/bounty threads to higher ranked members then to prevent this issue and then default trust can weed out the bad ones.

I guess theymos wouldn't implement this because of the copper membership but I think this is the only way to do it other than removing bounties/signatures all together.

Of course, it's just an idea, not a solid solution to the problem. What if it is based on Trust since we are talking of distribution of wealth of some sort, then people has to be trustworthy.
Se an example with the escrows here, you will trust more the person with higher trust rating instead of newbie with no rating at all. You have to build yourself a reputation, why would you risk it later? So same can be implemented for the bounty managers, there can be a bounty score too. Managing good one campaign, your score rises. If you allow spamming your score will decrees.
Based on your rating you can have a higher fee for your work.
I can try to developed this idea more.

This won't work like I said literally anyone can become a bounty managers, some Bounty Campaigns are even run by Jr. Members with Copper Membership. Tagging them won't sold anything as literally anyone has the potential to post a Bounty Campaign thread and become a bounty campaign manager. If we can't stop this money driven bounty managers spam won't stop in the forum.

This doesn't really do anything about them managing the campaign though. All this does is puts a payment barrier for those who want to become a bounty manager. They could still pay the fee, and not moderate it. That's assuming your going to treat it like the Copper Membership.

If you are going to have some sort of criteria like the applicants of merit sources then I'm not sure how this would work either. What sort of data would they have to present to get accepted?

Or warned them on making their threads spammy. There's a way on minimizing it, look at ALU's bounty campaigns. Using google form, they limit spammy thread(but still there are members that don't read rules) that most of the bounty managers are lack off.

IMHO, there's no need for applying. What if a scammer applies for it? It will be another additional work for the Admins just to check the application. Just leave the current system for now.

Now that we have the merit system just limit the section to members+ and copper members is already a great solution to avoid the mass spam abusing on bounties.

THE SCAMMER Guinness world record on bitcointalk 1 man 1000 accounts 150k+ usd!

Why not then make a new additional rank for example : Bounty Manager, like the Copper Member. So only those ranked ones will be allowed to post in the bounty section.
There should be a procedure to apply for such position, based on different criteria,maybe same as the Merit sources today.
This will reduce the fake and scam projects and the spam too. Of course it makes everything more centralized.
I guess is too much time and work implementing those changes, and it will be easier just to remove the bounty section but, it's all about compromises.

I don't like the idea of a centralized picking of the certain people who can run the bounty campaigns but something needs to be done about it even though I disagree with a centralized list of people I think it would be better than the current situation where anyone and their mother can create a bounty.

Maybe DefaultTrust can start tagging the bad bounty managers as they are promoting spam?

So what everybody is mostly suggesting is that the Bounty Managers need to be the ones who change? Like instead of focusing on accepting and accepting members they should take a look at their post quality before they get accepted in the campaign? The problem here is anyone can be a bounty manager and also anyone can post a Bounty Campaign thread, aside from removing all kinds bounty campaigns the way I see it is there is no other solution rather than limiting the Bounty Campaign managers who can post a Bounty Campaign thread, in which these bounty campaign managers are the ones who can be trusted that they are not accepting spammers and shitposters.

The bounty managers aren't going to care if it's automated or manual.

I don't know how much people are earning from these bounties, and I used to think it was peanuts. However, it does seem people are willing to go extraordinary lengths in order to do it.

I doubt the bounty managers care as they only care about exposure. Probably doesn't warrant tagging as it should be up to the bounty managers to remove people like this if they think it's needed. But they just don't care as long as their name gets out there. I can't really blame people doing this either. 

The more they spam, the more exposure the campaign gets, and the more they earn. It's a terrible system with terrible incentives.

That just means you're unleashing massive amounts of spam on Twitter and Facebook. I can't help but smile how big data gets a taste of what they've created

Some people are even on 200+ bounties, trust me!
Someone post even the number on the report, I think it can be a bot but never paid too much attention.

I know you think it is not possible to participate in 60+ campaign at a time. I want to tell you that it is possible to participate in 100+ social media bounty campaign. It's just ability to map out your strategy and follow it. Be ready to dedicate your time.