Signature campaigns could exploit this by taking their time accepting the applications but requiring them to change their signature before accepting...
Yes, that's exactly right. I have never seen any off the well-known forum managers who manage bitcoin-paying signature campaigns do something like that, but there is a possibility that an outsider who is part of the team of a project attempts something like that. Make it a requirement to wear the signature and avatar when applying, and stating that the decision on who is accepted will be made one week from now. They could even take it one step further and request that the applicants like and follow the project's social media platforms. Once the deadline passes, they just disappear. And there you have it, one week of free advertising and increased social media activity. 
Topic: Free Advertising, YES or NO (Read 872 times)
I don't think you should advertise a product that you don't use and like. If you think it is beneficial, then you should be pleased to advertise it. If you don't use or know the product, then you shouldn't risk your reputation by being associated with it.
For people to do this we first need to hold people responsible for advertising services that scam because it is clear that they did not use the service just advertised it to fill their pockets. 
I don't think you should advertise a product that you don't use and like. If you think it is beneficial, then you should be pleased to advertise it. If you don't use or know the product, then you shouldn't risk your reputation by being associated with it.
As long as its okay for the users then its not a big thing, even I used to wear signatures before applying to any campaign since I only apply when my signature space is free. Campaign manager can change the rule if they want and forum can't enforce any rules regarding the signature worn by the members if its not a NSFW content.
Signature campaigns could exploit this by taking their time accepting the applications but requiring them to change their signature before accepting and then some people might forget. If the signature campaign does not have that requirement and the member is doing it at of their own will then I would say they are trying to persuade the signature campaign manager to accept them and not sure its the right thing to do.
I remembered seeing a similar thread some time back... not sure who created that.
Because that one had yahoo answering (when he is known to impose that rule).
Because that one had yahoo answering (when he is known to impose that rule).
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 4341
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
How do you feel about that? Do you think it is OK that you just advertised a service for free and weren't selected in the campaign in the end?
As a user; I don't consider that an advertisement instead a requirement to be considered in the first place for the Job. I don't think anyone should consider that an advertisement if it's required to wear before getting a slot at your account been reviewed. If I'm not in a campaign, I wear the ads of whatever company I'm applying for before even dropping my applications and when I'm in a campaign, even though the manager stressed the wearing of avatar and signature part, I still apply because I know what I can offer. If it's someone I haven't worked with, I'll just simply leave a note of updating those ads if I'm been hired.
From the aspect of a manager; Actually majority of the applicants don't really care for the free advertisment of a thing. Some can even keep wearing your ads until another opportunity present itself for them to get hired. Nobody is forcing them to wear the ad but it'll just be easier so avoid hiring users that aren't not wearing the ads. I did manage a campaign that I had to disqualified 3/4 users that weren't wearing the ad although they have been accepted. Some users apply in so many campaign that they take the slot meant for other and make project lose days of publicity. Hope you understand what I'm trying to mean here.
Bump to see if the communities' stance on free advertising has changed.
I think currently no managers are forcing participants to wear Signature & Avatar before apply. Sometimes it's on the rules due to the nature of the Signature Campaigns, which doesn't mean you will not be accepted unless you do not wear Signature. For me, I do not give priority who wear Signature before acceptance. I just inform after accepted if the participants hadn't wear Signature.
You any managers forcing to wear Signature before apply then he can do it. Nothing wrong since there are no guidelines or rules for the Signature campaign. But participants would ignore such as campaign if they do not like to comply with campaign rules. But of course, campaign rules should comply with forum rules as well. Not one forcing participants to apply on any campaign.
You any managers forcing to wear Signature before apply then he can do it. Nothing wrong since there are no guidelines or rules for the Signature campaign. But participants would ignore such as campaign if they do not like to comply with campaign rules. But of course, campaign rules should comply with forum rules as well. Not one forcing participants to apply on any campaign.
If the campaign rule does not require to wear avatar and signature, people can not wear it.
Stay with rules, it is all people must bear in mind.
If rule does require it but you don't wear it, your application will not be taken into consideration.
Free advertisement or not, who do kind it. If we take into account most of forum users don't make posts or make less posts if they are not in campaigns. I say most, not all.
Stay with rules, it is all people must bear in mind.
If rule does require it but you don't wear it, your application will not be taken into consideration.
Free advertisement or not, who do kind it. If we take into account most of forum users don't make posts or make less posts if they are not in campaigns. I say most, not all.
IMHO, I would not wear the signature unless I'm accepted, because I have to earn a spot.
Wouldn't be fair if I'm advertising for a service I wouldn't even be using without some sort of compensation given this is a populous Bitcoin forum.
Wouldn't be fair if I'm advertising for a service I wouldn't even be using without some sort of compensation given this is a populous Bitcoin forum.
Judging by the drooling zombies who mindlessly apply for everything I'm not so sure that applies.
Well, humans aren't exactly ideals, right? That's why we always use rational agents in our strategic planning.Shitposters aside, the intent of making such a rule can be seen as reasonable.
Yes. I absolutely would be discouraged from considering switching if this requirement was upheld. I'd have a probe of something else if it was risk free and no further. And some campaigns take on a pretty ragged bunch or have very peculiar and unspoken requirements so even if I was confident in my own soaring genius, that may not be recognised by them.
Another case of how status quo thinking with signature campaigns has made it worse. 
If you aim to switch campaigns, then clearly you're confident in your writing skills, to a degree where you're willing to take an interim period to establish yourself in a (probably) better campaign.
Judging by the drooling zombies who mindlessly apply for everything I'm not so sure that applies.
Interestingly enough, from a service provider standpoint, it's actually worse for them to add these requirements as it does remove some incentive to apply to the campaign, especially if you write quality posts. Though, I don't think that the best posters here switch campaigns that often.
Yes. I absolutely would be discouraged from considering switching if this requirement was upheld. I'd have a probe of something else if it was risk free and no further. And some campaigns take on a pretty ragged bunch or have very peculiar and unspoken requirements so even if I was confident in my own soaring genius, that may not be recognised by them.
It might screw up people who are already in campaigns and aren't accepted for the new one.
This makes sense to me, though. If you aim to switch campaigns, then clearly you're confident in your writing skills, to a degree where you're willing to take an interim period to establish yourself in a (probably) better campaign. Interestingly enough, from a service provider standpoint, it's actually worse for them to add these requirements as it does remove some incentive to apply to the campaign, especially if you write quality posts. Though, I don't think that the best posters here switch campaigns that often.You are never sure if the new high paying campaign last for a week or month or more. Moving to other campaign is a risk itself even if you are selected.
Secondly, people does not mind if they wear signatures before being accepted, they only care if they can get into the campaign somehow and wear the signature in advance only for the hope to get selected.
It might screw up people who are already in campaigns and aren't accepted for the new one.
This makes sense to me, though. If you aim to switch campaigns, then clearly you're confident in your writing skills, to a degree where you're willing to take an interim period to establish yourself in a (probably) better campaign. Interestingly enough, from a service provider standpoint, it's actually worse for them to add these requirements as it does remove some incentive to apply to the campaign, especially if you write quality posts. Though, I don't think that the best posters here switch campaigns that often. I usually have this rule in my campaign threads and It's mainly just a copy/paste thing that I never changed from way back.. AFAIK I've never enforced this rule though.
From my own experience, no you haven't. We have worked together in several campaigns and I was accepted in each and every one of them without putting on the signature beforehand. Just so everyone is on the same page, this has nothing to do with a specific campaign manager, nor am I targeting anyone with this thread. It is just a rule that I have noticed in almost all campaigns.
Based on the votes, the results strongly suggest that users don't mind.
20 (66.7%) users have no problem wearing a signature.
9 (30%) members think it is not OK to put it on before being accepted in the campaign.
I don't think it's something wrong to give free advertising when applying. But personally, when I apply to campaigns, I don't change my avatar and signature. It's not because that I'm in other campaign at this time. It's because there is guarantee that manager will accept me. So, then I would have to remove that signature and avatar and add old one. It's not needed extra task. It's not something difficult, but when I'm on mobile, it's not very comfortable to copy/paste these signature codes, download avatar. I update my signature only when I get confirmation from manager that I'm accepted.
I fell out of circulation a bit, but previously I applied to many campaigns and I have seen many times that applying users simply wrote "Will wear signature and avatar once accepted" or something similar and many of them got a spot in the campaign so I don't think it is the most important for good campaign manager. Finding a good candidate is much more valuable than two days of free advertising by a shitposter ...
I fell out of circulation a bit, but previously I applied to many campaigns and I have seen many times that applying users simply wrote "Will wear signature and avatar once accepted" or something similar and many of them got a spot in the campaign so I don't think it is the most important for good campaign manager. Finding a good candidate is much more valuable than two days of free advertising by a shitposter ...
I usually have this rule in my campaign threads and It's mainly just a copy/paste thing that I never changed from way back.. AFAIK I've never enforced this rule though. As a matter of fact sometimes I try and work with the users applying to make sure they get paid in their current campaign before they switch over (if they are in a campaign when applying). Not sure how others do it though..
Jump to: