Hi humantraffic,
Please note that, as you can check yourself, from the 2494 participants 651 participants have a total of 0.00 stakes.
A median value of 310 stakes was a good quality indicator as the social media stakes can be gathered through three different social media channels:
- Telegram (joining the group and maintaining constructive discussion)
- Twitter (including likes, retweets, comments and original tagged tweets)
- Facebook (including likes, shares, comments and original tagged posts)
Also worth mentioning is that the other campaigns in our bounty also have quality requirements.
Signature campaign participants were required to wear the signature continuously and to write constructive posts.
Blog campaign articles were rated on quality and blog popularity.
So it's natural social media entries to be evaluated based on the consistency of the support and constructiveness of the comments as well.
Thank you for your support and appreciation!
Hi humantraffic,
You have our sincere apologies for your inconvenience. But as I explained above the other bounty campaigns also had quality requirements and the large part of the entries were rejected aswell despite the fact that they have done some work as it was below the required criteria.
Also please note that the bounty portal was chosen to automate the counting process. We have not used the bounty portal to inform the community in any instance.
The channels that we used to spread announcements, in general, were our social media channels. The whole bounty campaign was announced and maintained here, so it's only natural to check here for information (as you are doing now).
Please consider this - how is taking part in social media bounty and sharing posts or posting short or generic comments more worthy than a blog article that is shorter than the required symbols or more worthy than a signature campaign participant who is not posting enough in the forum?
Thank you for your understanding!