Topic: Funny since the Cryptotalk campaign came/ pour in your heart here about yobit. (Read 1396 times)

I only started posting again after a hiatus 3 days ago. So 4 merits in 3 days. If you put effort into posts and aren't posting trash then I would expect a normal user to be able to achieve 25 merits definitely within 3 months of them joining the forum.

I have no problem with someone who has just joined the forum being expected to wait 3 months before joining signature campaigns - it means that they are here to contribute content rather than just to make a quick buck off signature campaigns that their associates told them about. I've seen a decent few posts recently that just copy paste articles or latch onto a keyword from the OP without addressing the actual topic, clearly made to just farm posts for a signature/bounty campaign, and there's a big problem with this being tackled on the forum in general.

My personal opinion is that there should be a minimum merit earned for all campaigns. Definitely at least 10.

25 merits would be too much. You being a good poster have received only 4 merits in last 120 days. There is no rainfall of merit that we make the requirement too much for any campaign.



Even all the spammers say this but in reality no one can do it except a few and who knows, you might be one of them 

It's not about singling out cryptotalk, any campaign that has limits as high as the cryptotalk campaign has should have extra audits associated with it.

I think that the idea of others with a minimum of received merit is a good idea. For instance saying that you need a minimum of 25 merit received to participate would work quite well. If you're going to have limits as high as they have (20/day) then you really need something like that to ensure that the posts aren't trash. Clearly it can work - I can put out 20 posts a day fairly easily due to typing speed and have them all be high quality, because I only post on things I find genuinely interesting.

hypocrite?  no...

Just because someone pays you to wear an advert;  in no way says you believe in their product or endorse it.   (Citing example being many TV AD/product campaigns/advertisements; pick any.. just because the lettered broadcaster broadcast it;  doesnt mean they support or approve of it [whatever 'it' may be];  they are simply paid to display 'it'.)

There are lengthy threads out there with attacks on me;  for a displayed link....  while in the outright I clearly stated my rationale and intentions behind everything.


I'm not saying all of the new posters here will be of the caliber I commented earlier;  but the method of this campaign and who controls it (from yoshit):  breeds a bad percentage of unwanted garbage;  not to mention the shady behind the curtains actions and business model they run.

I can understand the need for anonymity,  but in many respects: this is not the type of business that should be run the way they do.

I agree on you on most part of it but if we remove all or rather filter the posts of cryptotalk signature participants will you see all good and sensible posting?  or we are only interested to do the strict audit for the cryptotalk participants and be lenient with others.

I know you are a participant with high integrity, you don't need to say it.

---

Almost all of the threads that I saw were posters from cryptotalk. But not all of them are junk posters, many of them also continue to maintain the quality of posts like you. Humans are unique and diverse, so understand their shortcomings and improve the quality of self. Money is more valuable to those who need it, but not the same as those who have no priority here. Many cryptotalk posters are former prize hunters for ICO, IEO, STO and others. I'm sure the Campaign Manager can work well, not many people doubt it. So I think, take this opportunity and maintain the quality of posts and don't make 20 posts per day even if you can.

I joined the Cryptotalk campaign yesterday (because it's too good for me not to take advantage of! - and like Heisenberg_Hunter said, the fact it is not gambling-related removes any moral qualms), and I will say that I have noted so far there is a ton of crap posts from people. Low quality stuff that shows that they pretty much just skimmed the OP of the thread, which converts into posts that normally read something like "Wow, great opportunity, Bitcoin will really benefit from this".

It's a big shame because it makes reading a reasonable proportion of threads on this forum a complete pain. I go on Bitcointalk to find interesting discussions, I'll only ever post on something that genuinely interests me, every once in a while I'll make a thread on projects that I'm working on (e.g. CryptoSamaritan in the past), etc. Signature campaigns are a nice bonus and my view is, if it's there I might as well take advantage of it, but my view is it's supposed to be a complement to what you already do on the forum. But when you're offering as much as the campaigns do right now, you get swamped by posters from countries where that money goes a lot further, and it becomes a job for them.

It's a shame. From what I've seen yahoo does a very good job of managing it, it's not his fault that the posters can be pretty rubbish sometimes - more just to do with the rules of the campaign.

Yes, no one says that. But that's the very definition of a hypocrite. Why would you even join the campaign then? Why would you even wear the very signature of the campaign? If you're just to denounce it, it doesn't make sense.


I don't really have a reason to denounce the campaign as this is my first time joining. You're right tho, it really does fill with people who are purely doing it for the payment. As for me, since I'm doing something that I liked to do (mostly reading through the shitiest, most informative, most hilarious threads of this forum; AND sharing what I know), might as well earn something. It's helping me a lot, not only financially but also in gaining knowledge, especially with Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general. Heck, I'm learning even more about this forum.

Nothing says you can't denounce the same banner you have in your sig;  just below the sig.    I successfully used a modified signature for years when with the yoshit campaign.

You would have to be stupid to use cryptotalk instead;   besides;  that place is gonna be a shitpost cesspool that people post on purely for a payment.... it will be short lived I believe.

This Cryptotalk campaign surely offers lucrative payment compared to the other BTC paid campaigns at the moment. I confess that I was tempted at first, plus with boss yahoo involvement, make it more appealing. However, I realized that if this campaign successfully sucks people out of the Bitcointalk community to the Cryptotalk. It means that what I have done here becomes pointless since I have to build an account there from noobs, getting harassed, etc.

No thanks, I would rather here with this community, even with the game-protect who consistently "entertains" the gamblers.

Thank you for the fast response.

I'm mistaken. I thought it was a peer (to peer) comparison, and I also thought the numbers (in %) presented are the improvements of the second list from the first list. That's why I've argued it wasn't accurate because the number of participants from both lists is different.

I apologize, now I understand. The numbers that are presented from both lists are stand-alone and do not directly correlate with each other. It's just the comparison of earned Merit by participants from both lists.

By this, we can vaguely tell that the campaign is on the process of filtration--filtration of quality posters to spammers (if that makes sense).

Yes, the number of participants in the first list and the second one are different. Based on what Suchmoon provided, the first list includes 439 participants and the second one includes 516 participants. (Yahoo bans some participants every day, but every day, some new participants join the campaign too.
As you see I calculated the percentage of participants with different ranges of merits.  

First of all, I appreciate the effort, but I think this comparison has flaws, or rather I think it's not accurate. Considering that the manger, yahoo62278, bans a lot of users almost every day, the number of participants is not the same as the first list from the second list. We also might want to consider, some participants (before the ban) might've gained merits from who-knows-where.

But then again I could be wrong, I've only based this from the data you presented.

---

I've heard it was the same method as their past campaign, so it's kinda expected. It's also a good thing I think because many users are getting banned. But yahoo62278 is only but a one-man, and this is not the only campaign he manages but still able to do such a very good job, so props to him.

Well if that's the case and he can't get on top of it he should just walk away and not associate his name with it. The campaign would probably be blacklisted like the last yobit one was if nothing changes and the spam can't be curbed. It's clearly overwhelming right now and they came here with the intention to run their campaign exactly like the last one which is baffling to me.


It's of course a problem when people are forcing them to do that many but what would be the problem with 20 quality posts? People used to far more than that back in the day including me. Even on Chipmixer now people who are doing the max 50 posts a week are probably doing around ten a day. The issue, as it has always been, is just the quality of the posts rather than the quantity and when the campaigns have little to no management or are unlimited then that's when we quickly run into issues and abuse.


It's a job like any other, but people shouldn't be taking on more than they can handle.

They should have implemented a selection process, rather than a free for all system. Spammers would still give out low quality content if the maximum was reduced, but if the list was filtered the posts would not be as bad.
They want to go with an aggressive marketing system, prioritizing quantity over quality.

I find it amusing that yahoo gets triggered the moment his own members start spamming on the thread

Gotta be stress af when you have to handle multiple campaigns.

I also expect the percentage of high-quality posters to increase as Yahoo26678 is banning spammers.

I made a compassion between first list and second list of Suchmoon.  

Merits earned by each of participants on average:
First list: 24.6
Second list: 27.8

The percentage of participants who have not earned any merit:
First list: 37.1%
Second list: 37.2%

The percentage of participants who have earned less than 10 merits:
First list: 70.6%
Second list: 70.1%

The percentage of participants who have earned more than 100 merits:
First list: 5.2%
Second list: 6.2%

No campaign should allow 20 posts per day.

If yobit were to clean up themselves and implement a better signature criteria system, I'm sure most users won't mind joining their campaign but the current reputation the campaign has it what's preventing most users from association themselves with the signature campaign. There are some areas of the campaign which is quite encouraging as they don't have a minimum post requirement or mandating participants to post xx amount of post in certain board which is quite fair to the participants as it gives them the freedom to express themselves, the way they deem fit.

On this topic; {Facts} Benefits of promoting (joining) a quality paid signature campaign. If you read through that thread, you will understand why some individuals has decided to abstain from patronizing the signature campaign irrespective of the pay rate. Yobit should work on implementing a quality criteria to attract quality contributors and also work on improving their customer services.

I've actually noticed more quality posters in Yobit's campaign. Once more and more spammers get banned, the remaining users start standing out.
I've offered Yobit a free list of Merit earned by each user, that would be very easy to use as a first filter and save them a ton of money they now pay to spammers. But they don't seem to care.