Topic: How relevant should inactivity be for hiring someone? (Read 396 times)

It's much more likely to get applications from users who have only been applying to signature campaigns for months, than finding the rare real user who made good posts 4 years ago and came back today to continue his normal real posting.
Under the scenario as you explain it, I might accept him too. But I haven't seen it happen.

But I addressed this in my post when I mentioned that in case of a big inactivity period, signed bitcoin addresses from unedited posts, quoted posts, or locked threads, should clear any doubts of the original owner being in control of the account.

I also addressed how I don't believe in "current post quality" since knowledge isn't lost unless you are suffering from some brain condition.. so someone that had decent posts in 2015 and came back to post again and wanted to join in a sig campaign, I don't see why completely reject the application if the posts were decent.

Expanding on what Hilarious has stated. Post gaps don't always mean that the account has changed hands, or that the user has returned to earn a little money, but even if that's the case it doesn't take away from their post quality. What Hilarious has stated is correct though. Every campaign manager should be going through, and taking a look at the history of the account, and consider their motives. The first major thing you would have to establish is whether the same user that was posting at the start of the account is still the one posting today. That can be hard, and really that does require a signed message, and I know that certain campaign managers will find it easier to accept someone else than to do background checks like this, however I believe going into the extra effort for more substantial users is always going to be better for the advertiser, and save headaches for the campaign manager. Honestly, I could probably look at the list of campaign participants, and tell you which ones are solely in it to make money, and probably wouldn't post all that often if they wasn't in a campaign. However, that doesn't mean that these users aren't posting constructively.

I think the accepting of new users into a campaign is a difficult one, but those that are well known, and are known for their quality of posting for a long period of time are more likely to get accepted. But, you truly never know who the best participants are until they're in the campaign, and posting. Honestly, if I was a campaign manager I would be looking at past campaigns they have participated in. It's basically a online CV. If they performed well during the time they're enrolled then that likely means they will continue those good habits. Just a thought for new campaign managers don't reward users based on rank, reward them on post quality. I don't mean merits gained, I mean your personal viewpoint.

So, I actually have an opposite view to this. This user would probably be less likely to be hired due to the fact there's a lack of content recently to judge off. However, if they're going to be active, and posting good quality content again then I don't see why not. Having said that I would check whether this user has applied to campaigns before, and most importantly their reaction after being rejected. Did they continue posting after rejection? or did they go quiet? Generally, I view it as rewarding those that were going to post anyway, because that's when you get the genuine posters, and not those that will post 10 posts in 10 minutes just because their deadline is in 10 minutes.


And there are genuine reasons. I know that there are a few climbers in this forum, and they go climbing for months on end out in the middle of nowhere. So, as long as you do your checks; Signed message, thorough look at the accounts history then I wouldn't completely write them off. Obviously, this hugely depends on the user you're reviewing. If there's equally as good users applying then they'll likely get it before the account in question.

Large periods of inactivity could be totally innocent but I’d be inclined not to enroll them in my campaign for a number of reasons.

• Account could have been hacked
• Could be an alt of somebody being used solely for paid to post work
  

Either way I’d be looking to enroll very active, good quality postersif I was a campaign manager. Long periods of inactivity rings alarm bells for me.

How will you understand that if a person came back again just to join a signature campaign?

Smart ones will make a decent amount of posts before they apply for a campaign.
If someone returns after 1 year as an example and applies is a campaign immediately that can be noticeable and can be rejected.

If you like his post history, no matter how old it is, then simply ask him for a signed message to confirm that the person behind the account is still the same, give him a slot for one week, check his posts and decide for yourself. If he manages to satisfy you, all good, but if not, you can always remove him and get the slot free for others to apply.

The account may have been "awake" too because it is an alt of someone containing multiple accounts. I think in a recent campaign this happened a few times ...

 I believe that as a manager, you should have an estimate of the maximum time you are willing to use to verify an account. And this is very much based on the campaign you will manage.

A campaign like chipmixer and other long-term, require the manager to spend more time checking the account. The old posts are worth a lot and the potential of future posts as well.
In these campaigns, an account that was dormant for a long period, perhaps more than 2 years, and just woke up, can be a great addition to the campaign. And there is time to check if the owner is the same and the possibility of removing it if the quality of the new posts is bad.

But in short campaigns with smaller budgets and with the need to demonstrate quick results, it seems to be a waste of time to add these users. Even if they can verify a signature from an old address. Adding to remove soon before the week ends, or worse, pay for a week of bad posts on mega topics, ends up being a loss of campaign resources.

I think the short answer is: It depends

You need to make sure it's the same person posting and it's not a stolen account first (since a few years of inactivity is a lot).

Another point is that a lot of people got a bit discouraged by the cryptocurrency evolution this past year so, this can be a reason for inactivity.

Some were just busy with other projects (myself included).

If you think of it, even a very active poster can bail on you when he loses interest so, it's kind of the same thing.

You should be able to see how much effort they put into posts, even if they no longer have the most up to date knowledge of Bitcoin.

At the end of the day, it is no longer reasonable to be able to know when you are dealing with the original owner of an account. If you look at the digital goods and auction subs you will see many threads offering to sell the associated private keys and email. I think some of these threads are a scam but some are legitimate, again the behavior of those on DT are making it difficult if not impossible to tell which ones are scams, which is ultimately helping the scammers. I would not be surprised if at least one person who regularly tags account sellers also operates scam account selling threads.

There are numerous factors involved here. Generally if there's huge gaps in a person's post history and they suddenly reappear and apply for a campaign then that should set off alarm bells. It usually also indicates that they've just reappeared just to try earn from a campaign and arguably users who have been here consistently should probably be given priority here. I think any decent campaign manager should do at least a cursory check of a users post history before they're accepted, but it's up to them what criteria then use to accept or deny someone. A user could have re-appeared after a five year break, made 20-40 posts to hide the gap in their history then try their luck. To try spot this you can just click through their post history every 5 or 10 pages or so and this way huge gaps can often be quickly spotted. Asking for a signed message from them will usually put any doubts to rest, but I'd also take users on a case by case basis. Not everyone is on the forum 7 days a week month after month. The actual quality of their post history is also a big factor. Sometimes their previous post history is terrible, but their last couple of pages they've improved vastly, probably to try get accepted. If that's all you look at then they might be able to get away with it. Some users disappear and when they come back they're speaking a completely different language or their posting style has significantly changed and that's always a big giveway. Sometimes they've made constantly good posts but there's been times when they're weren't that active and there could be completely innocent explanations for that. A signed message usually clears things up, but sometimes they genuinely can't be provided for whatever reason.

If you develop a rep as a diligent one you'd be set for an eternal run of decent work. It's certainly not a job I'd want to do, the tedium would finish me off, but you'd never be short of opportunities.

If he came back only to join a signature campaign, I wouldn't hire him. I've seen many accounts that only apply to campaigns, and don't post anything as long as they're not getting paid for it.

In the end, your goal is ideas that are expressed in the form of replies rather than the account holder.

Let's say, for example, a person who has had extensive experience in the technical "Posts since 2012" and has moved through a time portal to the present, if he is not following the changes that have taken place, his posts may seem "low quality."

Give the account holder a period to do more posts and check the writing style.

The inactivity can be a sign an account was recently sold, although this may not be the case.

The recent hardline stance in tagging sold accounts has resulted in account sellers selling the private keys and associated email addresses along with the accounts, making it nearly impossible to tell when an account has been sold. It would previously be fairly easy to spot when an account was sold by reviewing the security log.

My suggestion is to not accept someone without at least a handful of recent posts so you can review their current post quality.

Most campaign managers here seem to get a bad press. I would have thought that there were easier and more profitable ways to spend your time.

If I am not wrong OP asking about bitcoin signature campaign. To be honest it's very difficult to choose participant on bitcoin signature. Almost potential members applying there and managers have to choose best one. So I don't think it's very easy to decide who will be accepted. And obviously managers always will find an active member. So I don't think we can complain about it.

^this without the "doubt" part. just ask for a signed message from the user to prove that the account  does really belong to them and has not changed hands in all cases. otherwise people take a break from bitcoin and bitcointalk and that break shouldn't mean all their contributions be ignored.
additionally you can accept them on a trial basis...

I think what matters more is the quality of the posts rather than their inactivity but it is your responsibility to thoroughly check them.
Everything is in your discretion as you are the campaign manager but it is your burden to maintain that type of standard.

It's your own discretion to whoever you chooses that's why there is an application so choose the best out of everyone and besides you can kick them too if they don't meet your expectations. It's just that someone set the norm but you can create your own!

I was considering getting into the game of being a manager to promote sites and so on, and I was wondering: Should a campaign manager care at all about the activity of the applicants, if their posting history was good before they applied?

The way I see it is that knowledge is not destroyed but stored, so if someone had good posts in 2015 and stopped posting and came back years later, why should I not hire this person assuming he says he will be active again from now on? I see people with a decent posting history that generally has a good enough understanding of bitcoin and other topics being constantly rejected because of that from participating in campaigns. I believe that in doubt of an account hack, if this person provides a signed signature from previous posts it should be good to go.