Topic: Da Dice Campaign 2.O | Let us take it beyond best! (Read 5393 times)
Open for discussions.
Would anyone mind if we exclude Meta and Beginners and Help boards from next week?
You can certainly post there, but only it won't be counted. But, if we find very useful posts in Beginners and Help we will certainly count them.
What do you think?
You can certainly post there, but only it won't be counted. But, if we find very useful posts in Beginners and Help we will certainly count them.
What do you think?
I think as long as constructive posts are counted its fine. Because i think those forums are the first point where real new users apply. And those will more likely check out a dice site than older users. They dont know what it is and might click more easy. And play if they are minded that way.
So campaigners answering questions there could be a valuable marketing. Counting those posts is good i think.
Maybe its best that way. Though i wonder if there really is so much hard to identify spam.
I think if you take the bonus as a reward someone can reach for then 3 bonuses mean that everyone lower might think that he cant reach the bonus anyway, there are 3 or 4 top posters who will take them with high certainty.
So even if you have small bonuses like 1-0.1 2-3-0.05 and the last 0.1 spread in 4 maybe. Then you might reach a broader effect because many more user see the possibility to reach at least one of the bonuses.
Thats at least how i see it as an incentive. Of course i guess the top three poster wouldnt like it.
Though they wouldnt go because they still would earn way more than in other campaigns.That is exactly what it is going to be.
Great that this campaign is open to suggestions. Others are missing that for a reason i dont see from a marketing perspective.
-snip-
Yes, that is an issue.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11132175
No, I don't think discussing with examples like that will be a good idea. There will be WAR, lol.
Also, many genuine participants, who simply are not quality posters will feel bad too.
-snip-
Yes, that is an issue.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11132175
No, I don't think discussing with examples like that will be a good idea. There will be WAR, lol.
Also, many genuine participants, who simply are not quality posters will feel bad too.
-snip-
Yep its the best way to get people hurt over a post. I honestly dont know what the solution is besides: cherry pick those you want to promote dadice. If you want more posts in the gambling section, take participants that post mainly there and kick others out (regardless of constructiveness). E.g. if the majority of my posts are in tech support, but thats not a section you are interested promoting in you should probably "let me go".
I agree. But then it will be something like closed to the community or something like that.
Edit: We certainly don't want that. We need it open to everyone.
I am just thinking of a fairer system to the campaign.
We will just go with the current set up as long as change is necessary..
Just wanted to know what you guys think about all these.
Im sure you will do what you think is best. Im just a bit tired of these discussion the last days. Its frustrating because there is no good solution. Well besides maybe to stock up on mods, but thats outside of our possibilities. It might not even be helping, depending on the number of reports that come in. This is pretty much for all ideas that I have read lately, there is always a flipside to the coin.
-snip-
Yes, that is an issue.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11132175
No, I don't think discussing with examples like that will be a good idea. There will be WAR, lol.
Also, many genuine participants, who simply are not quality posters will feel bad too.
-snip-
Yes, that is an issue.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11132175
No, I don't think discussing with examples like that will be a good idea. There will be WAR, lol.
Also, many genuine participants, who simply are not quality posters will feel bad too.
-snip-
Yep its the best way to get people hurt over a post. I honestly dont know what the solution is besides: cherry pick those you want to promote dadice. If you want more posts in the gambling section, take participants that post mainly there and kick others out (regardless of constructiveness). E.g. if the majority of my posts are in tech support, but thats not a section you are interested promoting in you should probably "let me go".
I agree. But then it will be something like closed to the community or something like that.
Edit: We certainly don't want that. We need it open to everyone.
I am just thinking of a fairer system to the campaign.
We will just go with the current set up as long as change is necessary..
Just wanted to know what you guys think about all these.
How should we encourage participants who post in relevant boards like Gambling board?
At least people need to play the site before able to replied on the topic.
So this is undirectly forced to us to play it and it seems fair to company and for campaigner
-snip-
Yes, that is an issue.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11132175
No, I don't think discussing with examples like that will be a good idea. There will be WAR, lol.
Also, many genuine participants, who simply are not quality posters will feel bad too.
-snip-
Yes, that is an issue.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11132175
No, I don't think discussing with examples like that will be a good idea. There will be WAR, lol.
Also, many genuine participants, who simply are not quality posters will feel bad too.
-snip-
Yep its the best way to get people hurt over a post. I honestly dont know what the solution is besides: cherry pick those you want to promote dadice. If you want more posts in the gambling section, take participants that post mainly there and kick others out (regardless of constructiveness). E.g. if the majority of my posts are in tech support, but thats not a section you are interested promoting in you should probably "let me go".
and yes the latter seems to be a common rules for most of the gambling signature campaign like minimum of X posts in gambling boards
That is more acceptable
It would actually force every participant to make posts in the board. That is forced posting, which is what I am trying to avoid now..
Would rather go without it.
It is a debatable topic. lol.
From the campaign viewpoint, it is fair. Those who make the campaign effective should be rewarded more, however insignificant that may be, that those who may not. I am only talking about a small incentive, may be a bonus for those who actually post in the boards associated with the campaign. It might result in campaigns excluding certain members otherwise. So, speaking long term, this is actually good for those who are interested in other boards.
From the campaign viewpoint, it is fair. Those who make the campaign effective should be rewarded more, however insignificant that may be, that those who may not. I am only talking about a small incentive, may be a bonus for those who actually post in the boards associated with the campaign. It might result in campaigns excluding certain members otherwise. So, speaking long term, this is actually good for those who are interested in other boards.
Fair points, but it could be resulted in more spam dont you think? since people might be trying to post in there although he has no interest in it and just trying to get some extra tips for posting there,
lol, it won't be that big enough to persuade unwilling people to post there. lol. It is better than campaigns that state 10 etc. posts minimum in this particular board to get payout.
Yet, the latter seems to be okay with the participants
For some people, perhaps it is enough to persuade them. Reemembered the first avatar campaign on the boards? some people quickly sell their avatar off for such small rates so yes even with a small amount, some people can be persuaded to do something
and yes the latter seems to be a common rules for most of the gambling signature campaign like minimum of X posts in gambling boards
It is a debatable topic. lol.
From the campaign viewpoint, it is fair. Those who make the campaign effective should be rewarded more, however insignificant that may be, that those who may not. I am only talking about a small incentive, may be a bonus for those who actually post in the boards associated with the campaign. It might result in campaigns excluding certain members otherwise. So, speaking long term, this is actually good for those who are interested in other boards.
From the campaign viewpoint, it is fair. Those who make the campaign effective should be rewarded more, however insignificant that may be, that those who may not. I am only talking about a small incentive, may be a bonus for those who actually post in the boards associated with the campaign. It might result in campaigns excluding certain members otherwise. So, speaking long term, this is actually good for those who are interested in other boards.
Fair points, but it could be resulted in more spam dont you think? since people might be trying to post in there although he has no interest in it and just trying to get some extra tips for posting there,
lol, it won't be that big enough to persuade unwilling people to post there. lol. It is better than campaigns that state 10 etc. posts minimum in this particular board to get payout.
Yet, the latter seems to be okay with the participants
It is a debatable topic. lol.
From the campaign viewpoint, it is fair. Those who make the campaign effective should be rewarded more, however insignificant that may be, that those who may not. I am only talking about a small incentive, may be a bonus for those who actually post in the boards associated with the campaign. It might result in campaigns excluding certain members otherwise. So, speaking long term, this is actually good for those who are interested in other boards.
From the campaign viewpoint, it is fair. Those who make the campaign effective should be rewarded more, however insignificant that may be, that those who may not. I am only talking about a small incentive, may be a bonus for those who actually post in the boards associated with the campaign. It might result in campaigns excluding certain members otherwise. So, speaking long term, this is actually good for those who are interested in other boards.
Fair points, but it could be resulted in more spam dont you think? since people might be trying to post in there although he has no interest in it and just trying to get some extra tips for posting there
The max limit is kept to keep a check on forced posting. That is the only reason that is keeping us from raising it as suggested.
No, reducing it further, will not have a good effect.
Thanks
No, reducing it further, will not have a good effect.
Thanks
Raising it wont be necessary, it is less than 24 hours for the counting to start and no one reached 100 posts yet as of now. The average posts for those who reach 100 posts in a week is usually 100-110 posts ( not to count quickseller's ). Clearly I dont mind making another 10 posts extra for the campaign since there is an extra bonus in play
I don't want to write this in the campaign thread, but what is your opinion about the issue with tspacepilot? I saw you removed his profile link from the sheet, are you planning to kick him out?
I think the trust given to him was an obvious retaliation and he shouldn't be removed from the campaign because of that. Sometimes the trust system does not work as intended and a campaign manager should decide if the accusations are valid.
I think the trust given to him was an obvious retaliation and he shouldn't be removed from the campaign because of that. Sometimes the trust system does not work as intended and a campaign manager should decide if the accusations are valid.
Dunno he is currently removed.
He will be paid for his posts, since I am not really sure about that.
He will be re-enrolled next week, if everything is fine. I don't have the time to check into the details atm.
btw, just clarifying,
we are not going to offer different rates to different boards, different rates to different participants or anything like that.
This is just discussion, and don't conclude that any decision I post here is final or something like that.
we are not going to offer different rates to different boards, different rates to different participants or anything like that.
This is just discussion, and don't conclude that any decision I post here is final or something like that.
One could also argue that there is no reason to act like a guardian or treat newbies like kids. The thing with bitcoin is that there essentially is no one protecting you and you have to get used to it.
K, removed that part.
That is how I learned things here.
I did read this post yesterday that I think is very troubling.
+1 posts would have been fine in my opinion if it weren't for sig campaigns. Getting paid for posting meaningless posts is the problem, so once you disallow them for people with sig campaigns you have to disallow them for everyone else.
Following that logic signature campaigns make this board more and more useless for other people. What can we do about this?
I think I as a participant can make sure my posts are fine or just dont post them.
I think campaign managers need to think who to pay. Im not sure if removing section after section is the right way, but I am certainly willing to try it.
Edit:
Maybe we could start to post here which posts are of someone wearing a dadice signature are (elaborated) spam?
I am no particular fan of publicly shaming someone into conformation, but it would certainly give you ndnhc a few ideas who to look closer at.
Yes, that is an issue.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11132175
No, I don't think discussing with examples like that will be a good idea. There will be WAR, lol.
Also, many genuine participants, who simply are not quality posters will feel bad too.
Edit:
Maybe we could start to post here which posts are of someone wearing a dadice signature are (elaborated) spam?
I am no particular fan of publicly shaming someone into conformation, but it would certainly give you ndnhc a few ideas who to look closer at.
Maybe we could start to post here which posts are of someone wearing a dadice signature are (elaborated) spam?
I am no particular fan of publicly shaming someone into conformation, but it would certainly give you ndnhc a few ideas who to look closer at.
I dont think that posting someone's post spam here is a good idea, since doing so will lead this thread into a quarrel thread between few other people who trashed someone's post by considering it as a spam. Best thing to do is to PM ndnhc privately about someone's spam post
How should we encourage participants who post in relevant boards like Gambling board?
We shouldn't do this, everyone should be free on where to posts, by encouraging someone with less interest to post in the gambling boards will only lead the board to be spammed by the spammers
It is a debatable topic. lol.
From the campaign viewpoint, it is fair. Those who make the campaign effective should be rewarded more, however insignificant that may be, that those who may not. I am only talking about a small incentive, may be a bonus for those who actually post in the boards associated with the campaign. It might result in campaigns excluding certain members otherwise. So, speaking long term, this is actually good for those who are interested in other boards.
Lower the post cap as I proposed. I think every campaign should do that it should be forum regulated rule.
Or maybe you have better idea?
Or maybe you have better idea?
why is limiting the post is an excelent way of reducing the spam posts?please elaborate more of this. if you check on the weekly/ bi weekly sig campaign with small posts requirement, you can actually see that most of them are still spamming their post count at almost the end of their pay week
In short, spammers will always spam no matter what the post requirement is, best thing to do is to warn them or to cut off their payment immediately. The current idea of ndnhc to check on personally each posts is actually a good idea, lets see how this goes for tomorrow
The max limit is kept to keep a check on forced posting. That is the only reason that is keeping us from raising it as suggested.
No, reducing it further, will not have a good effect.
Thanks
Dang! I actually replied to everyone above and instead of alt+s, I closed the tab.
No draft too.
Edit: This is the problem with not making consecutive posts...
No draft too.
Edit: This is the problem with not making consecutive posts...
Lower the post cap as I proposed. I think every campaign should do that it should be forum regulated rule.
Or maybe you have better idea?
Or maybe you have better idea?
why is limiting the post is an excelent way of reducing the spam posts?please elaborate more of this. if you check on the weekly/ bi weekly sig campaign with small posts requirement, you can actually see that most of them are still spamming their post count at almost the end of their pay week
In short, spammers will always spam no matter what the post requirement is, best thing to do is to warn them or to cut off their payment immediately. The current idea of ndnhc to check on personally each posts is actually a good idea, lets see how this goes for tomorrow
I will something I think is relevant here:
Why don't you just deal with spam/spammers on a case-by-case basis instead? All this does is make the spammers post elsewhere where their posts are counted so next week you'll probably be banning Meta & Bitcoin discussion. People who make decent posts shouldn't be penalised so rather than discounting all posts in certain sections remove the people who make poor quality contributions instead.
It is valid point actually. It is not the way to deal with the spam. I'm worried that in couple of weeks there will be only Gambling section left to post in. I think the best way to cut the spam amount will be capping max limit post at lower level I think 50 post per week would be good, maybe even less. Not just for this campaign but for every campaign on the forum, that way people won't be tempted to post more just for money.
And I just repeat that what hilarious said is true. That will only made spam in section where posting is still allowed more - because people would be forced to post in threads they are not so fond of.
Mr. Hobbit know that you are mainly interested of promoting DaDice in gambling section. But forcing people to post there when they are not interested are just wrong. I've seen in the past that you wanted to cut Meta, Beginer and Help, Politics, and altcoins even if I am not mistaken. Don't do that. Lower the post cap as I proposed. I think every campaign should do that it should be forum regulated rule.
Or maybe you have better idea?
Announcement:
Beginners & Help and Politics & Society boards will be excluded from next week on-wards.
You may however post there as usual. They won't be counted tho.
Beginners & Help and Politics & Society boards will be excluded from next week on-wards.
You may however post there as usual. They won't be counted tho.
Why don't you just deal with spam/spammers on a case-by-case basis instead? All this does is make the spammers post elsewhere where their posts are counted so next week you'll probably be banning Meta & Bitcoin discussion. People who make decent posts shouldn't be penalised so rather than discounting all posts in certain sections remove the people who make poor quality contributions instead.
And I just repeat that what hilarious said is true. That will only made spam in section where posting is still allowed more - because people would be forced to post in threads they are not so fond of.
Mr. Hobbit know that you are mainly interested of promoting DaDice in gambling section. But forcing people to post there when they are not interested are just wrong. I've seen in the past that you wanted to cut Meta, Beginer and Help, Politics, and altcoins even if I am not mistaken. Don't do that. Lower the post cap as I proposed. I think every campaign should do that it should be forum regulated rule.
Or maybe you have better idea?
Edit:
Maybe we could start to post here which posts are of someone wearing a dadice signature are (elaborated) spam?
I am no particular fan of publicly shaming someone into conformation, but it would certainly give you ndnhc a few ideas who to look closer at.
Maybe we could start to post here which posts are of someone wearing a dadice signature are (elaborated) spam?
I am no particular fan of publicly shaming someone into conformation, but it would certainly give you ndnhc a few ideas who to look closer at.
I dont think that posting someone's post spam here is a good idea, since doing so will lead this thread into a quarrel thread between few other people who trashed someone's post by considering it as a spam. Best thing to do is to PM ndnhc privately about someone's spam post
How should we encourage participants who post in relevant boards like Gambling board?
We shouldn't do this, everyone should be free on where to posts, by encouraging someone with less interest to post in the gambling boards will only lead the board to be spammed by the spammers
One could also argue that there is no reason to act like a guardian or treat newbies like kids. The thing with bitcoin is that there essentially is no one protecting you and you have to get used to it.
K, removed that part.
That is how I learned things here.
I did read this post yesterday that I think is very troubling.
+1 posts would have been fine in my opinion if it weren't for sig campaigns. Getting paid for posting meaningless posts is the problem, so once you disallow them for people with sig campaigns you have to disallow them for everyone else.
Following that logic signature campaigns make this board more and more useless for other people. What can we do about this?
I think I as a participant can make sure my posts are fine or just dont post them.
I think campaign managers need to think who to pay. Im not sure if removing section after section is the right way, but I am certainly willing to try it.
Edit:
Maybe we could start to post here which posts are of someone wearing a dadice signature are (elaborated) spam?
I am no particular fan of publicly shaming someone into conformation, but it would certainly give you ndnhc a few ideas who to look closer at.
One could also argue that there is no reason to act like a guardian or treat newbies like kids. The thing with bitcoin is that there essentially is no one protecting you and you have to get used to it.
K, removed that part.
That is how I learned things here.
Thanks
Someone posted Beginners & Help should be excluded because we don't want newbies who may not be aware of responsible gambling and risk only what you can afford to lose concepts. So, it can also take be taken as a ethics based move.
Someone posted Beginners & Help should be excluded because we don't want newbies who may not be aware of responsible gambling and risk only what you can afford to lose concepts. So, it can also take be taken as a ethics based move.
One could also argue that there is no reason to act like a guardian or treat newbies like kids. The thing with bitcoin is that there essentially is no one protecting you and you have to get used to it.
Jump to: