Topic: Could we have a standard to announce open spots in signature campaigns? (Read 663 times)

I believe that the member posting their applications right away without reading first is the problem here and not the bounty manager. Even if the bounty manager hasn't posted anything yet for example members see that a user has been removed from the campaign through the spreadsheet immediately you will see a lot of applications even before the bounty manager has posted anything about an availability yet, basically these members just assume that there is an open spot because of the removal. Instead of having some kind of standard I would encourage members to read first rather than post anything.

This is a non-issue because the individuals who are problematic will remain so regardless of standards/acceptable practices/rules. These individuals fall into 3 camps.
1- They know it's full, they ask a question or attempt to post in a way that seems innocent enough. They will casually drop the application again "not understanding" the current status
2- People who don't read. There are enough accounts out there being used simply as a BTC printing machine. They drop applications anywhere and everywhere, as soon as a campaign thread bumps to the top. They don't care what the last post is or what's in the OP, because these days beggars can't be choosers. Any spot will do them nicely until they find something better.
3- Genuinely don't have a clue. Heard they can earn and post looking to be accepted.

---

A thread that would have made a nice sticky (considering it remains up to date) if for no other reason than being a good overview of standard terminology. I remember reading through it long ago when I was first navigating the Sig campaigns.

Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns [Last update: 16-Jun-2020]

---

The best tools for something like this are managers having their own lists of users they will not accept, and for what reasons. Nuisance applications could be reason enough. People need to realize we aren't entitled to anything from this forum apart from the ability to read write and interact.

I completely agree with you and unfortunately it will not change the behavior of many users, but it would get some people thinking.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that it is better to have 100 guilty people escape than to have 1 innocent man put behind bars.

I heard it from a local politician who mentioned that his University Law professor thought him that philosophy.
   

Exactly. I don't know why, but I didn't thought about this word at all. I had word CLOSED in my mind, but it would be wrong to use it, because it's just for campaignswhich already ended.

As a manager, I think most of the managers want to more clarify the title. But sometimes it doesn't happen due to limited character in the title. So sometimes we have to focus on all things for example, (Full/open/cfnf), project name and bounty/sig......campaign, the payment criteria to attract participants at first sight, the eligible ranks, then the open slots. 
So, in this case, all are very essential to clarify the title. But the title characters are limited and managers force to remove the less essential things from the tittle. So it should be a considerable IMO.

the possible solutions
1. The managers should force to read all the rules before applying by making rules ( Loycev said )
2. Title characters should be increased for those sections.
3. We have to make a habit of reading the rules before applying.
4. Or we have to consider it.

Agree--and that's one of my pet peeves when displaying information in general.  I see a lot of abbreviations where there's plenty of space to write out exactly what's meant, and IMO there's no excuse not to unless the abbreviation is so standard that the average person wouldn't mistake it for something else.

Also agree with this.

Exactly, and I don't think there's really a better setup than what we already have.  People are still NOT going to read anything before applying and probably wouldn't pay attention to any other changes made.  That's cynical of me to say, but we've both been on the forum long enough to know that it's true when we're talking about signature campaigns.

You misunderstood the proposal I am making. I did not suggest to create a brand new thread mentioning open slots for signature campaigns.
I was suggesting adding which slots are open in the subject line of that particular signature campaign.
Similar to the example which I quoted in OP.

That would still lead to additional confusions. For example it might be logical to you that Legendary is #1, others will say shouldn't Newbies be #1 (smallest number) and Legendaries the biggest number. Going from the lowest to the highest rank instead of vice versa. Additionally, you would need to separate the Legendary and Hero ranks as some campaigns pay more for Legendaries despite the fact that both ranks use the same signature.

It's enough to say that it's FULL. The reason why it's full doesn't matter.

 

 

I think current situation is fine more or less. There is quite many active campaign managers and every has his own methods how to manage campaign. And most are doing their job well. I think it's more users problem that they are lazy to check what rank campaign is looking for before applying. If they can't do even such small tasks, I don't think they can be eligible for campaign.
Though, I agree with @Lucius, abbrevation CFNP may look confusing because it's not widely used outside forum and it have multiple meanings. I remember that I also had to look for explanation in Overview of Signature campaigns to find what it means. But now I don't know good alternative to replace it.

I think this a matter best left to signature campaign managers to agree upon (though I doubt everyone will fall in line) rather than for moderators to enforce ("constructive freedom of speech" and all that) and if that's the case, this thread doesn't really belong in Meta (Service discussion is probably the board best suited for such discussions). Also, relevant XKCD:



source: https://xkcd.com/927/

I think such members are mostly shitposters who don't read the thread but blindly post something and should be added to the ignore/spammers list of the campaign managers.

I too have seen such instances rarely in some long-running campaigns and the managers could have updated the OP, but in my experience, the one or two slots that open up will be filled in a day or two. So I don't think this should be made as a necessity/standard rule.

As said earlier, such members who post without reading should eventually be ignored and there shouldn't be a mandate to make a topic title. I think the guidelines listed in the pinned thread suffices.

^ CFNP is confusing for people who does not understand the acronym , even me at first I just knew it when my brain tried to figure out what it could be, and I found out the meaning of it.

Well I guess handling the campaign depends on the manager, if he really wants to be specific or not, sometimes the manager is doing the shorter terms deliberately so he knows who are the real readers here.

What I think the best to do here is to standardize the ranks by tiers/category like (1) for Legendary/hero member, (2) for Sr. Member, (3) for full member, (4) for member and Jr. Member.
or we can use the Alphabet A,B,C.

This way we could possibly ease the difficulty of finding a campaign, both for the manager and the participants.

While the word Full is pretty clear to those who know at least the basics of English, I think CFNP looks pretty confusing to a good number of users. If it is not clearly stated what that abbreviation means, anyone who tries to google it will find the following ->


It would be desirable that the title may contain the full expression, not the abbreviation - but this would require an increase in the limit of characters in the titles (if that is even possible with this version of the forum).

---

For those who are still wondering what CFNP means when it comes to the forum -> Closed For New Participants

How would that work? There is already a stickied thread somewhere here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/overview-of-bitcointalk-signature-ad-campaigns-last-update-01-jan-23-615953 that has all the campaigns organized and sorted between open and closed. True it doesn't state which slots are open, but I think this is the best we have at the present, since someone else opening a new thread just to list open spots will fall off the front page quickly.

Maybe the term 'standard' was not the best choice here. Anyways, I am not proposing that there should be a new rule by the forum when it comes to the titles for signature campaigns. More like a gentleman's agreement between the bounty managers to make it as clear as possible what kind of individuals they are looking for.     

It can only be reduced if those kind of applicants finally learned how to read .

In my honest opinion, there's no need to have a standard when it comes to announcing open spots in sig campaigns because each CM got their own styles of handling their work and I think it should remain that way. Even if the CM put a highlighted "CFNP" or "Closed" word in the title, inappropriate applications may still occur as long as there are members who are not scared of insisting their will. You knwo what, sometimes reading comprehension is not the main problem but the despair of every applicants which leads them to do wrong decisions.

Many signature campaigns already follow the logic of "CFNP" or "FULL" in the title, but that doesn't stop certain users from applying when it's full.

This is my approach when managing a campaign:
Bad applications are a very easy way to reject users.

A standard also goes against the forum's mission:

Having a standard means it has to be enforced and this would mean extra work for the forum moderators to ensure managers are abiding by the guidelines. Moderating signatures or bounties would be like opening a can of worns as there would be so much discussions and disagreements on what should and not be allowed.

We have a limit on the "title" too which sometimes can be a problem to write long details. Mentioning open slots are okay, applicants should check before applying. It is not only for this, there are more reason to check the announcement other than this reason.
On the other hand, it is not a matter of forum, BM can announce open slots as they want. Forum admin or rules can not change that. This thread would be good in service discussion I think.

Bounty managers have their different styles. (to achieve the same results) If the subject of the topic reads just 'open', without indicating the available slots, the last post of the bounty manager in the thread will indicate the ranks required. If the subject of the thread is changed to 'open' and includes the rank required, the last post of the bounty manager will still indicate the same information of the ranks needed.

Another reason why BM's leave the subject at just 'open' is cause some of them accept higher ranks for lower slots. (hero member for full member spot for example) So the last post of BM in the thread will reveal the open slots and also update higher ranks if they can apply for the position or not (if it is a lower rank to theirs that is open).

So imo it's the same thing, the problem is not with whichever style indicates an open slot, but reading patiently.

You often see a signature thread being bumped with a post from the bounty manager saying that payment for the week has been made. Immediately below that some members who see that the thread got bumped write their application, thinking that new spots are open.

Another example. A signature campaign has open spots but doesn't announce in the title which rank the spots are open for.

What comes after that are pages of applications including many ranks who aren't even accepted. For example, the bounty manager is looking for a Hero member and there are multiple applications by Full and Sr. Members.

Of course, this can't be controlled due to the fact that members refuse to read the info properly before submitting their applications, but I think it can be reduced.
By having a standard where the bounty manager changes the subject of his thread to highlight which ranks of members the spots are open for.

A recent good example of that is the following:

 
* I have intentionally removed the names of all campaigns that I used as an example because my intention is not to advertise or criticize how the individual managers do their jobs. Just an observation on my part.