Topic: Can you create a signature campaign for OP posts? (Read 821 times)

The problem with this kind of rule in a campaign is not only that spam threads might be created every hour, you might also see an increase of number of threads with redundant topics. Topic that are already discussed a few months ago or perhaps years and the op will just say, sorry I was not able to catch that. Its the same with posts that requires them to post specially in the first 3 pages.They will post because they want to be paid and not to share anything that is worth sharing to the community.

I understand that you are probably angry because you don't like the pay, I see you have tried to participate in 2 different sig campaigns in the last few days.

It's either that, or OP has no experience in running campaigns. Afterall, he's just a Full Member here, which earned just 4 merits in 24 months, spent only 5 merits (out of 52) in 24 months, therefore nothing good can be expected from him...

This looks for me as a certain manner which should not be enforced during a campaign.

Besides, the payment for the participants is ridiculous, taking into account the effort they should put in order to accomplish the requirements. Even more ridiculous seems the discrepancy between payments for Sr. Members and payments for Heroes / Legendaries. As I can see, a Sr. Member earns 400% less than Heroes / Legendaries. I think I never saw such a discrepancy before.

In addition, the rule "In total, its 5 OP Posts + 5 Posts on the first page of a thread and 10 more on the 1,2 or 3rd page of any thread." is supposed only to bring spam, as I find to be extremely difficult for a legit user to accomplish it.

This campaign is a great example for how things should not be done and I'll add this exemple to the thread Are there needed general (common sense) rules for signature campaigns?.

16 members * 5 threads = 80 threads per week
80 threads per week = 320 threads per month
That is equal to 23 threads every 2 days..

Keep in mind that each member will most likely write at least 6 posts per week to make sure at least 5 will count. That changes the final answer to.. 27 threads every 2 days.

Speaking from purely personal experience: When you have to hit a high max target in order to maximize your weekly payment (e.g. BitVest paying a maximum of 60 posts/week), you get to a point where you struggle to hit that target and therefore you start bullshitting. This is something I really do not want to do, but subconsciously I did it every now and then. And I'm sure the best of us do it.

23 threads/2 days as a requirement is gonna hit BitcoinTalk hard. I think I've made 4 threads in the past month and I barely ever feel the need to do it unless I have an opinion I really want to share or some news I'd like to tell others about. Trust me, there's gonna be a point where these participants will not know what to write threads about anymore as they'll run out of news articles.. so you can warmly welcome bullshit, shit-threads and spam.


I second your thoughts.


Big difference between paying for posts and paying for threads. I can write +50 posts a week but I assure you that I'm gonna run out of ideas for new threads very often. I expect a lot of "is craig wright satoshi or not?? what do you think  " kind of threads..

How are you going to decide whether a thread is going to be counted toward the weekly requirement or not? "Not paying them" sounds kinda fishy to me. One member may have a legitimate question, ask it and then you decide it doesn't count because the question's been asked before?

They will not get paid then. They are doing that anyways, our campaign is not going to change that. The admin of the forum could have blocked signatures a long time ago if he really wanted.

Sure, but it sets the precedent that this kind of behavior is both desirable to the advertiser and permitted by the forum. I suspect we might see other, larger, campaigns start to ask for similar posting requirements.

For a good poster, it might not be a problem, but we know that ~90% of bounty spammers aren't good posters. Most will open threads which have been discussed 100 times before, or are simply legalized plagiarism in the form of stolen content with a link at the bottom.

We also know that bounty spammers don't just see their posts being trashed and accept it. Any thread of theirs which is trashed will simply prompt them to create more so they can still hit their quota.

I think there is no reason to worry too much, as far as I can see the campaign is looking for a total of 16 members which is a totally insignificant number when compared to what had the largest spam campaign with over 600 members producing thousands of spam posts per day.

For a good poster, it's no problem to open 5 threads every week - but given the pay rates, such will not apply to the campaign. For anyone who is afraid of spam, report it to moderators, and I personally think this campaign will last for a very short time.

I've seen so many complains about this campaign both on the thread and here and to me, it's seem BM doesn't give any concern about it or doesn't even know the weight of what he/she is pulling.
They are never going to increase the allocation also because the amount in the escrow address won't fit. It's better they adjust the rules so they won't end up tagged for accepting spammers into their campaign.

20 threads per month. Approximately $10 for Sr Members and $40 for Legendary/Hero so more Legendary and Hero members will be attracted. It looks like a trap to me.

This is basically an incentive for members to spam the forum. Imagine only 20 users join the campaign. That is 400 threads per month REQUIRED, or 100 per week. Where the hell will this thing go towards except more shitposting than we've ever seen before...

I dont think they need to make a lot of thread  the task is only to make your own original post, and they never ask for what would be the topic inside.
It will create a lot of spam since its required and thats the problem, and the payment is lower than normal campaign we have here. Its better for him to bid in auction forum ads than having that campaign. (Its possible but not a good idea)

Spam will happen if this will be implemented or will be approved by the mods. Signature campaign is a unique way to market your project in the forum but if you like to have a lot of threads that talks about your project then blog/youtube campaign is the best answer to it and not a signature campaign. There are different types of marketing so it will be best if you will just adjust your marketing plans especially if the one that you are thinking is against the forum rules.

As I am pretty sure that the moderators will not allow this kind of campaign even in the future as it will surely create a lot of spam threads and a spam post from the participants.

I seen those 5 OP posts a week, I think its completely delusional and very hard to do if even possible.

http://
Which would annoy the heck out of me as I sometimes spend an hour creating a post with lots of content and photos.

So rather then post to a trash able thread 🧵 I would skip it completely or do a lesser post.

I often do not do a truly all out solid post on a topic in mining ⛏ as I know that the thread is iffy or gray.

meaning i could be deleted along with  the whole thread.

It fact I wrote a longer more well thought out post here in meta spent maybe ten to fifteen minutes doing it only to find topic vanished.

This really gets annoying .

It seems like every opinion thinks that this rule should not be done, but in the end, he ignores everyone's opinion and implements it for himself. A terrible spam campaign is about to be created, every day, we will see dozens of nonsense new topics 

Second that. Just noticed now OP has launched signature campaign with terrible rules which will encourage spam definently. I think most of users who have replied here do not support such as terrible rules. But it seems OP doesn't respect community opinion. So all participants posts supposed to be monitor if they create spam topic in order to get payment.

However, rather than force create topic manager should choose who are creating new topics regularly. Suddenly ask someone to create new topic who are not familiar with would cause mega spam.

I don't think the shitposter will be chosen, so no problem here. More importantly, can the selected people achieve their requirements? As discussed above, creating at least 5 threads is a bad perspective that can create junk topics. 

Those sig campaign rules are awesome!

Min. number of created threads, min. number of posts on first page min number of posts on first three pages... lol

Curious how many shitposters will be able to follow the rules anyway - maybe thats the business idea behind? Everybody will "break" the rules and they wont have to pay?  

It seems that OP was serious and really interested to know how the community would feel before launching their campaign:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cfnp-blockzone-signature-campaign-5229933
Participants are requested to start at least 5 threads per week.
Ok am fine with that as long as they are willing to accept only 16 members (16*5=80 threads/week).
What I find disturbing is asking to have 5 posts on first pages and 10 posts up to the 3rd page.

Again, I appreciate that OP asked for community oppinion but after reading the sig campaign requirement it seems he is unwillingly encouraging spam.

---

After re-reading all of the replies above, it seems he is willingly encouraging spam.

Asks if he can do it, is universally told it is a bad idea and will only lead to spam, ignores all the advice and does it anyway.

And there it is:

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.

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

Exactly. They'd become an even bigger annoyance than they are now increasing the likelihood of having their accounts banned.

Logically, you can. Ethically, you should not.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

You can but you are going to generate most of the garbages here.

There was a campaign from stake.com and they had a weekly competition of creating threads beside the sig campaign. Eventually, it genearted spam.

I understand but that can be said about any signature campaign, I'm asking about rules. It would be monitored very closely anyways to ensure the quality is good.

It would discourage the intended discussion and instead encourage Topic spam in different boards accross the forum. I wouldn't advice you to start it.

There are no rules against doing that, but is this the best idea? Only paying for threads would probably encourage people to create spam mega-threads asking dumb questions that end up with pages of repetitive spam.

Paying an extra for threads *could* be fine tho.

Never seen any campaign which asks members to create threads and get paid for it. But I guess it is allowed as long as you are not encouraging spams here (correct me if I am wrong).

No, it cannot be a fixed rule, because this can create spam threads instead of spam posts, the spam topics are even worse than the spam posts. However, you can encourage participants on this matter, but to be honest, I do not support your idea 

What I mean is, can you have a sig campaign that asks participants to create threads instead of just posts on threads?