Topic: Da Dice Campaign 2.O | Let us take it beyond best! - page 7. (Read 5393 times)

A bonus that will be paid out randomly to any of the constructive posters each time might be an idea. 

Regarding what is constructive. I think the most important thing for posts for an campaign is that the signature takes views. Not only pageviews but people actually looking at the signature. Pointing out to look at the signature would bring something in a post though it would be spam. So the only other solution would be to post something that keeps the eye for some while. Raising the chance to read the signature. Helpful posts might mean this. Too long posts most probably not.

It would be way better when the posts are done in an related area. So like gambling subforum or threads. Because there is the target audience.

And if you put a link in signature. Simply blue, underlined, the way you would await a link too look. Then even make it uppercase. Then you would even get more clicks than with graphics because one overlooks graphics fast but simple textlinks for some reason gain more clicks.

At least thats what i learned from experience with my internet marketing time.

If you really want to go pro then you need to use dynamic links. So you can see where the new visitors to the site came from. Which thread, which writer. Then you can go on optimizing.

If i would run such a campaing then i would make sure to optimize it. Otherwise you most probably throw money out of the window.

Go to the old spreadsheet and click on 'New Enrollees'  tab and you will see your entry there.

(I removed your entry though. Double entry plus the post count you entered is more than the post count we are supposed to start counting from)

I filled that form, not sure what you get out of it though. Maybe you can shed some light on it when you are back.

Well, there is a way to count it indicatively https://docs.google.com/forms/d/14mkNdaj0AYWkThqX1pbVLQUtjvOucg-Iuhr0OY6ppfc/viewform?usp=send_form  (so that we can avoid variations due to human error)


I will start a poll, on the weightage issue soon. But first let us be patient, and wait for the discussion to be over. Otherwise, you won't know what you are fighting against.

Here are the points we have till now:
Pros:
1. Effective advertising (negatives are in cons)
2. Most likely, all boards, even off-topic will have some weight.

Cons:
1. Promotes spam
2. Gets people to post in where they don't really want to?

etc. Let us not discuss this any further for 24 to 48 hours.

Well, you still post where you want to post.
You don't have to post in a board just because it has more payout. It won't be a big difference. May be a small increase. Anyway, it is dadice who suggested. We are discussing on it. After that when we reach a conclusion, we can talk more about that.

Yes, it is going to be a pain to count the posts like that. So, we need a method in case it is adopted.

Exactly and completely agree with you. People will start posting mainly in the GAMBLING section and avoid the other sections of the forum and I am not saying all will do that but since that section has a higher weight age, they will restrict their posts to that section which shouldn't be the case. Only people who gamble should post there else others may do it just for the campaign.

I dont think this is actually a good idea, this rules will encourage people to spam the marketplace, especially the gambling boards as people want higher payment

All boards should be equal except those of games and rounds, investor based and off-topic,

I wrote something about this in the main campaign thread (whoops) but I'll reiterate here for convenience sake.  I hope you do not go down this route.  As you insinuate, counting will become more difficult and what's more, we begin to have an incentive to post in boards we wouldn't otherwise post in because of the weights.  You have reiterated "post because you want to post" but implenting weights for subfora works against this, IMO.

Thanks


Well, I want all of your opinion regarding what payout should each board get:
Like we can say: (with random amounts)
Gambling section gets 1.25x
Other marketplace boards get 1.1x
Offtopic gets 0.1x
Meta gets 0.25x?

etc..


Also, since we don't rely on a bot to do the counting, do you have any ideas we could implement in making this er.. weighted counting more efficient?
(that is assuming we differentiate between constructive and non-constructive)

Oh this is pretty exciting.  I think I may have a chance to end up in the top 3 but there was no way I was gonna outshine Quickseller/Shorena/allusmus.  Also, I was about to post about removing the minimum post requirement (not that I've had a hard time reaching it), just that at approx 1 mBTC per post even one post is quite above the dust limit and, as you say, people should post because they feel inspired to do so, not because they are in a campaign.

Excellent news and good decision, IMO.

I think this is much better words to express that it is actually 3 x 0.1 bonus



anyway im up for correction since English isnt my native language

Yeah, there will be 3 winners of 0.1BTC each every week.


Oops, I will edit that to make it more proper. In the Signature thread OP, it was done right, I think.

does this mean that there will be a 0.1 x 3 bonus each week for the constructive poster or 3 of the week constructive poster will share the bonus among them?

this is a good quote from ndnhc


post because you wanted to post for the forum , to actually voice your opinions here, therefore i voted to not put in any minimum limit, if a guy manage only 1 constructive post, he should be paid for his effort
making a post limit of 20 posts to get paid will only decrease the quality of the post as some people tend to catch this up at the last minutes



I guess this is how the campaign gonna hold of spammers, actually a good idea

Probably you're right about the min and max posts but those who make 10+ posts constructively, they could get a chance if the min post count isn't limited.

Also, since this campaign is taking into account constructive posts only and is stricter than other campaigns, the spamming could be controlled. Just my opinion.

I think the maximum of 100 is already hard for me to achieve since it is mentioned that it is a 100 constructive post even if you made more than 100, some could get excluded because it is not constructive enough, bu i voted to raise the maximum to encourage more great poster to join this campaign and also to encourage that poster like quickseller or shorena to be paid more since they always exceeded the 100 constructive post mark

I think a maximum number of posts is reasonable as it discourages spam. To be honest I get paid very well for 100 posts, Im not even sure I actually made 100 last week, but I trust ndnhc did double check the count. I think Quickseller is somewhere in the region of ~150 posts per week. If someone posts that much its fine, but there should not be an incententive beyond a certain number of posts. There have been unlimited campaigns in the past (e.g. Primedice) and it always caused problems. Im not sure if Bit-X is still without upper limit. Seeing the number of banned accounts with their signature recently, they are proving my point.

I can also understand the reason behind a minimum number of posts. Our manager wants active participants not seemingly dead accounts. I still think it would be a nice guesture to pay those that are activly posting in a constructive way, but just cant reach the minimum. I did not check whether this was done though. Im also a bit biased on this, because I know there will be a time in the future when the semester break is over and I might have trouble reaching the minimum requirements. On the other hand its either a big enough deal for me to switch campaigns or not and keep the signature regardless.

I tend to go for casinos, because I like to gamble. If I like the casino I might as well keep the signature (esp. with a ref link) even though I dont get paid for it. DADICE has an unfinished feeling atm, but thats expected and normal in the beginning. Their admins work hard to improve the site and if they keep doing that we might see another established casino with crowd investors.

The limit per week whether min or max should be removed as some members who post constructively make very few posts and it gets difficult to reach the minimum of 20 posts for them but their posts might benefit the campaign 

Lets assume for a second that a manager is looking for constructive posters instead of constructive posts (see my earlier post[1]). In that case the manager of said campaign could hire someone trustworthy that understand the language spoken in the local section. This person could judge the overal quality of the posts of someone applying and maybe reevaluate after some time. This would allow the managers to advertise in local sections and still maintain a reasonable quality of post(s/ers). I think certain section would certainly be worth the investment. E.g. if the site you are advertising for is also available in russian/chinese/thai it makes no sense to leave those markets out of the picture. Esp. China is huge in terms of bitcoin.


I would argue not only does the board (or system) benefit, but its essential to keep signature campaigns an option for admins. I dont think a bot can do this currently either, but I think bitmixer.io is not high enough of the pay per post scale to make a big difference in spam. Esp. since it has no lower limit in posts its an excelent campaign for those that dont post much.


The question remains who defines what constructive is. As we can see with this thread, there is no easy answer. Anyone of us has a feeling for a posts constructiveness, but its hard to quantify. You cant say this post has 4/7 constructiveness. AI systems do not necessarily need to quantify things to judge them, but who should train such an AI? Maybe if we had 1 billion $ for the new board...


Ill just post this there I guess


[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10789271