Bots vs. Humans - What's better for a signature campaign? - page 2.

Mt. Gox

full member

Activity: 350

Merit: 118

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 17, 2015, 07:54:15 AM

Of course, humans.

Quote from: Mt. Gox on June 17, 2015, 07:49:09 AM

In one recent incident involving a bot-managed signature campaign (Coinomat), it was found that some people were inserting invisible or barely visible characters into their posts to fool the bot into thinking that their posts went over the 75 character limit. This trick wouldn't have worked had there been a human manually counting and checking the posts instead.

Hidden characters like the ones on that posts are not easy to detect even by humans.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If someone posted a 20 character post and appended it with a string of invisible text, a human checker would see that it's too short and disqualify it for payment whereas a bot would think that it's long enough. The human wouldn't be fooled by it, but the bot would be.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Of course, humans.

Quote from: Mt. Gox on June 17, 2015, 07:49:09 AM

In one recent incident involving a bot-managed signature campaign (Coinomat), it was found that some people were inserting invisible or barely visible characters into their posts to fool the bot into thinking that their posts went over the 75 character limit. This trick wouldn't have worked had there been a human manually counting and checking the posts instead.

Hidden characters like the ones on that posts are not easy to detect even by humans.

Mt. Gox

full member

Activity: 350

Merit: 118

In one recent incident involving a bot-managed signature campaign (Coinomat), it was found that some people were inserting invisible or barely visible characters into their posts to fool the bot into thinking that their posts went over the 75 character limit. This trick wouldn't have worked had there been a human manually counting and checking the posts instead.

dezoel

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1075

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

bot and human has anvantage and disanvantage, bot maybe good for who want on time payment. Human is better than bot for me, no error/server down on human... Grin

I'll say human... ( I choose wrong answer on survey Cheesy

)

jacktheking

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1001

Personal Text Space Not For Sale

For the time being, I would say humans. Unless someone make a very good Bot, I will still say humans. Not only this would be error-free, it could also boost the Bitcoin economy by providing campaign manager job to Bitcoiner. Sorry if I sound too.. LoL.

favdesu

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1000

A human campaign manager is much better in my opinion. they can filter out bad apples.

a bot only moves depending on a ruleset, which can be gamed. however, it's up to users to point out cheaters (happened already with coinomat)

Lorenzo

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: WhatTheGox on June 17, 2015, 03:42:00 AM

Quote from: Lorenzo on June 17, 2015, 02:45:34 AM

I've had some experience with the Bitmixer bot and it definitely seemed that using a bot made things much easier for the operator. Despite (or perhaps due to) the fact that almost everything was automated, most of the participants there were quite satisfied with the campaign and everything worked fairly smoothly. Other campaigns (which I won't mention here) also use similar bots but it seems their experiences weren't quite so trouble-free.

Bots are probably cheaper, I would assume, since there is no need to pay for a separate campaign manager. Bots on the other hand are probably easier to take advantage of as well. And even with a bot, a little bit of work might still be required for checking posts, making adjustments to the bot, responding to queries, etc.

Which one do you think is better for managing a signature campaign? And when choosing a signature campaign to join, which option would you personally prefer?

EDIT: Added a poll as per twister's suggestion.

I wasn't aware there were bots judging posting standards for signature campaigns, yikes! I'd say its all well and good but you might actually get banned by the forum mods if your posts are really spammy.

They usually tend to follow a simple script. For example, if a post is under 75 characters in length, then it isn't counted. If a post happens to be located in the off-topic section, then it isn't counted, etc.

WhatTheGox

legendary

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lorenzo on June 17, 2015, 02:45:34 AM

I've had some experience with the Bitmixer bot and it definitely seemed that using a bot made things much easier for the operator. Despite (or perhaps due to) the fact that almost everything was automated, most of the participants there were quite satisfied with the campaign and everything worked fairly smoothly. Other campaigns (which I won't mention here) also use similar bots but it seems their experiences weren't quite so trouble-free.

Bots are probably cheaper, I would assume, since there is no need to pay for a separate campaign manager. Bots on the other hand are probably easier to take advantage of as well. And even with a bot, a little bit of work might still be required for checking posts, making adjustments to the bot, responding to queries, etc.

Which one do you think is better for managing a signature campaign? And when choosing a signature campaign to join, which option would you personally prefer?

EDIT: Added a poll as per twister's suggestion.

I wasn't aware there were bots judging posting standards for signature campaigns, yikes! I'd say its all well and good but you might actually get banned by the forum mods if your posts are really spammy.

Xialla

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1001

/dev/null

combination of both. bots for counting, holding lists and sending BTC and humans for accepting people, checking posts and support in thread.)

hasiramasenju

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

why not try to combine both i think it will be good option maybe bots can relieve human work because bot work faster but the bot can't choose the post is constructive or no because mostly bot only count for number of characters and for calculate quality post only human can do it and if we combine both then we will get constructive post with the specified number of characters

twister

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 502

I think Humans are better, Bots rely on rules established in a script and they follow those rules quite well but users might still find ways to abuse those rules and take advantage of them. As you yourself mentioned that a human is still needed to check posts for quality etc. for campaigns managed by bots and it's because they can't manage those things all by themselves, no matter how developed or sophisticated they are.

Plus participants from time to time have lots of queries that a Bot can't answer. And which is why I would prefer to join a campaign that's managed by a human rather than a bot.

PS: you should add a Poll.

Lorenzo

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

I've had some experience with the Bitmixer bot and it definitely seemed that using a bot made things much easier for the operator. Despite (or perhaps due to) the fact that almost everything was automated, most of the participants there were quite satisfied with the campaign and everything worked fairly smoothly. Other campaigns (which I won't mention here) also use similar bots but it seems their experiences weren't quite so trouble-free.

Bots are probably cheaper, I would assume, since there is no need to pay for a separate campaign manager. Bots on the other hand are probably easier to take advantage of as well. And even with a bot, a little bit of work might still be required for checking posts, making adjustments to the bot, responding to queries, etc.

Which one do you think is better for managing a signature campaign? And when choosing a signature campaign to join, which option would you personally prefer?

EDIT: Added a poll as per twister's suggestion.

Topic: Bots vs. Humans - What's better for a signature campaign? - page 2. (Read 1289 times)