Recently, I had this thought of opening a thread related to necessary, but also
common sense rules for signature campaigns. I started writing it, but I never finished it from various reasons; however, recently something happened and determined me to finish this post.
So
why would we need common sense rules for signature campaigns? For
reducing the spam, for
improving the posting quality and also for
having a common sense and a consensus (similar to other common sense / consensus rules applied here - for example, the rules for ads, the rules for DT election, the rules for becoming a merit source etc.).
What determined me to finish writing this topic? I was part of the 777Coin campaign for the last 6 weeks - 5 under Hhampuz and 1 under CryptopreneurBrainBoss. In 5 weeks with Hhampuz, I had only
1 post denied.
In one week under CryptopreneurbrainBoss I had 15 posts denied by him. Edit: apparently, that was a mistake of the manager and he solved it later.
The topic is not about CryptopreneurbrainBoss, nor about Hhampuz. It is about the fact that each campaign manager has his own standards and views, which are based on his subjectivism. As it can be seen from above, this subjectivism may vary a lot. Thus, maybe if we would have a consensus about campaigns too, several problems / questions / spams would be avoided.
And all these lead me to ask some suggestions / questions about common sense campaigns and participants rules, as it follows:
[1] All managers ask (or should ask) for "
constructive posts". What are "constructive posts"? How can we define constructive posts? Should they be defined as "
replies on the subject, no matter their length" (including one liners)? Or should they be considered constructive
only if they meet a minimum character length? I saw that some managers accept small posts as being valid for their campaigns, while others don't. No matter if the posts are on subject
and usefull; they just deny them. We need a consensus here.
[2] Should some boards be
banned from any campaign? I saw that some managers say that posts in some sections are not accepted; other say that posts from other boards are not accepted. Can be a general rule for boards not accepted in any campaign? Example: ban all posts from Politic&Society and Off-topic boards.
[3] Should participants be accepted only if they meet
a certain amount of merits in the past 1-2 months prior applying to the campaign (and also prior being accepted inside the campaign)? And another suggestion here, the merit number could be fixed for each kind of rank, but lower for low rank users and bigger for higher rank users. Currently,
out of 21 signature campaigns, only 4 or 5 have a merit requirement; can such requirement be implemented for all campaigns? But I'm not talking about a trivial minimum threshold as the actual one is (5 merits); I'm talking about a
serious threshold, such as 20-30 merits.
[4] Should participants be excluded from campaigns if they don't earn
a minimum amount of merits per week? Furthermore, similar to
(3): could this minimum threshold be a fixed number for a low rank, a bigger number for a higher rank and so on?
[5] Should be accepted inside any campaign
only members of certain ranks (eg. minimum Senior users)? Several campaigns are oriented only to high rank users; why wouldn't be applied here a
general rule to be accepted in all the campaigns only these kind of users?
[6] All campaigns have a minimum and a maximum posts number per week. Could these limits be
fixed for all the campaigns? Example: have a minimum of 10 posts/week and a maximum number of 25 posts/week.
[7] All managers ask that participants don't have a negative trust; what if this rule would be improved to high rank users, meaning to be required
to have a positive trust in order to be accepted?
[8] Can there be set a common sense rule for
maximum number of posts accepted per day? Example: only 5 posts per day to be taken into account. Currently,
out of 21 signature campaigns, only one states clearly that it accepts maximum 7 posts per day, four state they accept maximum 8 posts per day, while
15 mention only that burst posting is not allowed, without giving any definition of burst posting. So what is "
burst posting" then? In order to eliminate spam even more, can it be defined as a certain number of posts per day?
I'll update later the topic if other questions / suggestions come into my mind.Edit -- two more questions / suggestions came into my mind:[9] Should humor be accepted (should the posts involving humor be counted as eligible) if it is on topic, as a general rule, or should it be denied, also as a general rule?
[10] If there is a minimum rank required for being accepted, should be accepted in any campaign
the users who have the merits neccesary for the respective rank, but which don't have yet the necessary activity?
Edit 2:[11] Should it be a general rule to
not be counted posts in topics older than a predetermined amount of time? Example: deny all posts in topic older than 12 months. This rule would be also for reducing spam. I remember that in Yobit's last day a user posted in a
9 years old topic (!!!) in order to earn a few cents more.
Edit 3:[12] Should it be a general rule to
not be allowed campaigns requiring participants to have a certain number of topics created in a week or requiring participants to have a certain number of posts in the first page(s) of a topic? Such a campaign is
BlockZone and, apparently, many people
blamed its requirements, as they may raise the amount of spam.