Oh, i randomly got an idea. 
How about changing rules so that the maximum paid posts rule is dropped for users that have a post quality above B?
NO, of course i only ask out of ulteriour motives.
I think it might be worth it. It would be like having an additional signature campaign, though only with quality posts. And for the same price that the normal campaign pays to non quality posts too.
So if someone posts too much and drops lower than an A-rating, then he will get punished. This will ensure that only quality is posted.
Edit: Another thing i think would be good is to add an estimate about posts that wont will be counted. I guess the counting of posts, that are too short or in a thread/subforum, so that they doesnt count, is done automatically. Having that number would be helpful sometimes. I know though theres no reward for you in it.
How about changing rules so that the maximum paid posts rule is dropped for users that have a post quality above B?NO, of course i only ask out of ulteriour motives.
I think it might be worth it. It would be like having an additional signature campaign, though only with quality posts. And for the same price that the normal campaign pays to non quality posts too.
So if someone posts too much and drops lower than an A-rating, then he will get punished. This will ensure that only quality is posted.
Edit: Another thing i think would be good is to add an estimate about posts that wont will be counted. I guess the counting of posts, that are too short or in a thread/subforum, so that they doesnt count, is done automatically. Having that number would be helpful sometimes. I know though theres no reward for you in it.
Maximum posts is placed so that, it discourages making posts solely for the campaign payment to a good extent, which is good for the forum. It also helps to estimate the budget for dadice (not currently required, but still it cannot be ruled out), and avoids any bad situations. Only a limited number crosses the 100+ mark, so only very few participants actually benefit. Me and bf4btc will get into a kind of .. well. dilemma about whether to give someone a
We'd like to place as little judgement as possible on the payment a participant gets (I feel the rating is subjective and shouldn't be given any bigger role), so I am not sure such a rule change will be taken up. (me not supporting that, he he
)No, even the short posts are not ignored. To be frank, I don't think a formula can identify between a constructive post and a non-constructive one. A meaningful short sentence (or a couple of words) with a purpose should be counted, and we are trying to make it as fair as humanly and feasiably possible.
All the posts are shown, since I can't actually guess how many posts will be counted in advance. The counting is done manually, and the rate is different for every participant. It is also very kind of dynamic, and even if we make an estimate with say past rates, it could as well be wrong or misleading, difficult for improving participants and completely impossible for new participants. I tried to add a column with past ignored per cent post count, which ended up making many cells as "Loading", so I removed it. I will add it again tomorrow, with just the values.
Thanks for the input. I will ask dadice of his opinion.
ndnhc
