-snip-
It seems to me that 30 posts a week is an impossible task for many participants, so starting next week the quota will be reduced (but the amount of payments per post will be increased) .. I’m still undecided, but I think that we will return to “merits” as the main indicator. On April 15, I will publish new payout rates (but I can already say that the upper limit will be $4 per post).
Impossible or not, actually it depends on each participant.It seems to me that 30 posts a week is an impossible task for many participants, so starting next week the quota will be reduced (but the amount of payments per post will be increased) .. I’m still undecided, but I think that we will return to “merits” as the main indicator. On April 15, I will publish new payout rates (but I can already say that the upper limit will be $4 per post).
I may be able to meet the maximum quota of 30 posts, but sometimes some of my post quality is not good enough because it is too chasing the number of posts.
But it would be very good if it was reduced, and I also agree.
If "merit" were the leading indicator, it would probably be good for post quality.
But will it be targeted by the number of merits that must be achieved for each participant?
And thanks for providing a complete list of boards that are ignored, this is very helpful so that the post quota every week is met according to the target,
but not to avoid the list that is ignored because I am also active in some of the ignored board lists.
If there will be a merit requirement, it will be even harder to fulfill that target. I'd say 30 posts a week is a bit much but not that bad. To obtain merits the post needs to be a very good quality, like newspaper/magazine level quality and it is impossible to make posts that good consistently (there is not enough topics to cover and there certainly isn't enough time, for me at least) and the post count will decrease even more.
I'd say the current rule-set is fine.
