- Minimum 5 OP posts (Meaning threads created) every week.
Topic: Can you create a signature campaign for OP posts? - page 2. (Read 821 times)
And there it is:
like if a reputed campaign with good posters have this rule, I wouldn't mind at all.
The "problem" with good topics: they're usually long. That means the signature is less visible than under a short post. So who's going to pay for that?It would be interesting though, if the campaign requires the topic to earn merit from 12+ different users to qualify for payment.
This will actually be the beginning of spam just like the yobit signature campaign. If we all decide to create topics, there will be no one left to comment under them.
It's logical, just like advising 80 out of 100 people to go into Taxi business, who would be the passengers.
It's logical, just like advising 80 out of 100 people to go into Taxi business, who would be the passengers.
LOL.. it's pretty obvious mate !! Just think about it.. creating topics everyday were aint normal people.. It will just lead to a massive shit topics and it would be the end of the forum if the mods let that kind of idea implement.
I just can't imagine that .. maybe even you were not normal too LOL just remember a thread is what something important to be discuss and it should not have duplicates.. Have you ever read the forum rules its always pinned by mods in every section.. just take time to read LOL
I just can't imagine that .. maybe even you were not normal too LOL just remember a thread is what something important to be discuss and it should not have duplicates.. Have you ever read the forum rules its always pinned by mods in every section.. just take time to read LOL
The only positive thing about this is that it could help Global Mods with identifying who to ban or temp ban.
If anyone is struggling to hit 300 good reports so they can start seeing their stats, you would only need to look at the signature campaign's spreadsheet and each user's most recent posts to rack up dozens of good reports in minutes.It is bad enough the signature spammers who are posting in topics they don't understand with some vague two line nonsensical rewording of the topic title. Asking them to start threads from scratch is only going to result in complete trash, plagiarism, or links to articles/blogs. This would be an unmitigated spam fest, and I would hope that if it is was tried theymos would step in and ban the entire campaign as he has done before.
Exactly. They'd become an even bigger annoyance than they are now increasing the likelihood of having their accounts banned.
What I mean is, can you have a sig campaign that asks participants to create threads instead of just posts on threads?
Logically, you can. Ethically, you should not.
The only positive thing about this is that it could help Global Mods with identifying who to ban or temp ban.
If anyone is struggling to hit 300 good reports so they can start seeing their stats, you would only need to look at the signature campaign's spreadsheet and each user's most recent posts to rack up dozens of good reports in minutes.It is bad enough the signature spammers who are posting in topics they don't understand with some vague two line nonsensical rewording of the topic title. Asking them to start threads from scratch is only going to result in complete trash, plagiarism, or links to articles/blogs. This would be an unmitigated spam fest, and I would hope that if it is was tried theymos would step in and ban the entire campaign as he has done before.
It's going to be fun though: if OP creates spam, the whole thread including all replies can be trashed at once.
What a beautiful thing that would be. Dozens of signature spammers missing their quota with a single report. 
Imagine a situation were, let's say about 30 participants in a campaign have to create close to 25 threads threads weekly, that's over 750 threads created by participants of that campaign alone in just one week, it's so much and a lot of them will be LQ threads.
And another thing is that it would encourage users to just make threads and not add anything to the discussion in the thread since it won't count in their weekly requirements, they'll just make 25 threads and allow others to do the "talking" in them.
And another thing is that it would encourage users to just make threads and not add anything to the discussion in the thread since it won't count in their weekly requirements, they'll just make 25 threads and allow others to do the "talking" in them.
Force to create new topic for signature campaign definently will encourage spam. It wouldn't mandatory due to over spam. As a campaign manager I believe any managers will not accept such as offer if the team ask create new topics. Although it's not against forum rules yet, but if incase any campaign ask something similar then likely moderators would forced to implement rules as well. Because it would be extra work for them to trash spam mega thread. Because I have seen some users even didn't made single topic in their lifetime. So asking them create new topic means asking to create spam topic.
Whilst I think it might not be technically against the rules, this is just a recipe for disaster and I don't think it should be permitted (though maybe it would fall under advertising spam if people are creating threads just for the sig exposure). It's already a nightmare with users forcing themselves to post about things they know nothing about, and doing the same but for threads would be even worse. They won't even be interested in discussing anything as they'll only create a thread then move on to creating a new one as that's all they're going to be interested in.
I am usually all in for interesting topics and conversations, so I wouldn't mind this concept being introduced but only with conditions added to it, like if a reputed campaign with good posters have this rule, I wouldn't mind at all. Also the creating post requirement could be a monthly requirement instead of a weekly one to avoid all the nonsensical forced posts.
The only positive thing about this is that it could help Global Mods with identifying who to ban or temp ban.
I certainly would hope that if some signature campaign decided to implement this plan that their quota and maximum is really low, like 5 or less a week. I can't imagine the quota being a high number such as 25 or more. I'm sure the staff would not be pleased with their increased workload of placing even more worthless threads into the trashcan. I can also see many threads being created in meta asking why their beloved threads have been deleted. Would they get credit for creating that thread too?
If a campaign asks something like this, people will create a thread for every news headline there is.
~
We have enough members already doing that. Take a look over the Bitcoin Discussion board and you'll get an idea. I think more than 70% of the topics there are articles. ~
If a campaign asks something like this, people will create a thread for every news headline there is.
Creating threads is not against the rules but creating spam is.
A normal person doesn't create 5+ threads every day. Creating threads is not like posting. You create a new thread for something you think it is worth a discussion and unique and interesting or it is somewhat big news.
Whoever agrees to do something like you described in your post will look like a spam bot in no time.
Creating threads is not against the rules but creating spam is.
A normal person doesn't create 5+ threads every day. Creating threads is not like posting. You create a new thread for something you think it is worth a discussion and unique and interesting or it is somewhat big news.
Whoever agrees to do something like you described in your post will look like a spam bot in no time.
This most likely leads to an insane boost in new created threads and nobody will participate in others' threads because their only interest is to create new ones themselves.
I don't want this to become the next CryptoShit forum. We're already having enough members leaving their crap to dry everywhere on the forum. Not to mention newbies will start creating threads instead of posts, thinking the campaign managers will accept them only if they have some long-ass useless threads hanging around the forum.
Moreover, I believe there's a difference between creating a thread and writing a reply. Creating a thread needs a pretty good structure (I have some shitty threads myself). How will one qualify for a campaign (or how will a manager accept someone) without the participant spamming with new threads?
I don't want this to become the next CryptoShit forum. We're already having enough members leaving their crap to dry everywhere on the forum. Not to mention newbies will start creating threads instead of posts, thinking the campaign managers will accept them only if they have some long-ass useless threads hanging around the forum.
Moreover, I believe there's a difference between creating a thread and writing a reply. Creating a thread needs a pretty good structure (I have some shitty threads myself). How will one qualify for a campaign (or how will a manager accept someone) without the participant spamming with new threads?
if you can make it a rule for your participants and they agree why not.
its very strategic for companies doing the signature camapigns. the title of the threads can be seen more by the google crawlers and index it, i think this is meant for getting more traffic not just to the forum but also visibility to the links in the OP. the first post is usually what is being read the most the 2nd page are almost not read when users already sees the answers to the question but if the original post is an article the better it is for page to appear in google searches.
If its an article it better be constructive, and something related to the thread. I can see this sort of signature campaign generating not only a lot of low quality threads, but users trying to advertise for the service they're getting paid by which would be against the rules. Therefore, if users were sharing links of articles from the service they're advertising for that is likely to be low quality as well as advertising spam. An alternative way of going about this is to look at your applicants, and see which ones are more likely to create informative threads, and have been doing so for a long time. Otherwise, hiring someone who's normal behaviour doesn't involve creating threads would likely promote spam, and if not spam genuinely low quality forced posts.
if you can make it a rule for your participants and they agree why not.
its very strategic for companies doing the signature camapigns. the title of the threads can be seen more by the google crawlers and index it, i think this is meant for getting more traffic not just to the forum but also visibility to the links in the OP. the first post is usually what is being read the most the 2nd page are almost not read when users already sees the answers to the question but if the original post is an article the better it is for page to appear in google searches.
Yes you can.
No you shouldn't.
It's going to be fun though: if OP creates spam, the whole thread including all replies can be trashed at once.
No you shouldn't.
It's going to be fun though: if OP creates spam, the whole thread including all replies can be trashed at once.
Not for nothing, but that would be a disaster--probably worse than letting Yobit form a campaign with thousands of members and no standards for post quality.
I've taken a look at cryptotalk.org, and that forum is an absolute mess. From what I've seen, some sections don't get a lot of new threads being created, so members there step it up and start making new ones. The problem is that nearly all of them are either incomprehensible or downright stupid. I'd love to give examples of that, but I'm not going back there. Ever again.
I also don't think we need more threads than we already have. One of the good things about bitcointalk is that there's a lot of "liquidity" in terms of new topics and relevant ones getting bumped. If you were to pay people to just start threads, it wouldn't take long for members to run out of ideas--and of course they're still getting paid for thread creation, so they'll start making nonsense ones.
Not a good idea.
I've taken a look at cryptotalk.org, and that forum is an absolute mess. From what I've seen, some sections don't get a lot of new threads being created, so members there step it up and start making new ones. The problem is that nearly all of them are either incomprehensible or downright stupid. I'd love to give examples of that, but I'm not going back there. Ever again.
I also don't think we need more threads than we already have. One of the good things about bitcointalk is that there's a lot of "liquidity" in terms of new topics and relevant ones getting bumped. If you were to pay people to just start threads, it wouldn't take long for members to run out of ideas--and of course they're still getting paid for thread creation, so they'll start making nonsense ones.
Not a good idea.
Jump to: