Topic: If you were a campaign manager would you select these members for campaigns? (Read 1197 times)

Please explain what was wrong with my question? Did I offend anyone? Why deleting it without any answer?
are those postings acceptable for a Signature campaign?

The post below was deleted but archived in the #2 post in this thread.

It is good to read the activity in the thread but unfortunately no names have been added to the mix. Hopefully members will add a name or two and allows to read what they are doing and if it even warrants the amount of pay they are receiving from campaigns as they spam their way to meeting their signature quota.

Hopefully some names might be added to further the discussion.

Are you saying the companies are behind the alt accounts in their campaign? I doubt that’s likely because of the merit system. They would have to spend a significant amount of time and effort into building those accounts. That would mean the company would have to start building accounts 3-6months before launching a campaign. That is too much work just to cut campaign costs. I don’t think any reputable company will have any problem splashing some money on advertising.

Definitely not for us -- but TP, don't you think it'd go a long way if we took it upon ourselves to reveal the ones we've known? ^{[if y'all could be less sentimental and more realistic]}, y'all would realize that most of these accounts are managed by the companies themselves..Yikes! Nobody wants to be termed a "rebel" for not soothing up their secrets with some infinitesimal delusions ^{[especially since most of them are active users]}
he's been so relentless... A couple of elite don't even reckon him - tell me the forum is selectively imbalanced without telling me?

Just because every once in a while good poster is out of the campaign for a short period of time, it doesn't mean that there's not enough spots for good posters.


True, its not always about scarcitty, sometimes its about laziness to weed out shitposters from their own campaign (perfect example of that being the campaign you are part of).

Not at all, you got the whole of it wrong perhaps since you brought this out of an excerpt. I was just explaining what happened at times when a running campaign that was formerly CFNP becomes OPEN again where the campaign manager might need one or two participants to fill some space up. In this campaign having opened it again, I do see enough good-quality posters applying but since there was a limited space to fill up, the CM would have to choose the needed few. This is even as shitposters could be many in that campaign, and fine, good posters will surely get another campaign sooner or later after then.

However, the gist is that if the CM is fully aware of the shitposters with their plainly annoying posts, just because more quality posters applied upon the reopening of the campaign, he would have had the chance to replace them easily. This is just to clarify that it is not always about the scarcity of quality posters at times but the overwhelmingness of the CMs just as I indicated in my first post.

Finally someone states it and is not afraid to shout it from the rooftops. It has been an old problem for many years and nothing has been done about it until today. Sad but true

Chapeau @Saint-loup

You want to say that there are good posters who were unable to join any signature campaign since the beginning of the year, despite them being active and constantly applying? Yeah right.


Not that they don't gamble, but majority don't even watch the sports they are commenting. 

This thing will destroy the forum!

Since most are interested in just getting paid to post no matter what they will simply start a hundred topics a day to have for themselves, their "family", and their friends an opportunity to post in the first two pages, then completely abandon the topic and opening a new one each day. It will end with some accounts posting the same thing in 30 topic a week, the only difference being a paraphrased title for those topics.


I doubt even that happens!
I am rather curious on what would be the percentage of active posters in that section that actually gamble! I would say it would be an easy bet on 20% not knowing what an over/under or a double chance is.

Some names to consider:

==========
Campaign: bc.game
Member: JollyGood
Trust:    # +18 / =3 / -1
Reason: Has no semantic value
==========

I don't think so, at least most of the time. Since I joined the forum, there have been a few times that the available campaigns will be more than the qualified users wanting to join. Ever since M!xers were expelled, some good and average posters are still looking for the campaign to join, while some have but want to switch for the better.

But what I noticed is that when there are new openings by the campaigns with some shitposters in which more qualified users applied, the CMs only take the needed number of users at that time and CFNP the campaign again. This is despite better posters applied and shitposter are many in such campaigns. So they are not always short of better posters but are overwhelmed with the high number of users to manage. It's obvious they do not know the nonsense many users are writing because some are worse to the point that what they wrote should have naturally angered the CM to send them out.

Usually, the visitor will go to the first page and then read the first page comments and if they landed on the 5th or 10th because there are more keywords to that 5th or 10th page, they back read for some time but if they didn't find the answer, they'd skip and go to the first page again.

A user would notice that even the 50th-page-answers are quoting the OP in the first-page post. For a campaign to be successful, I think hiring users who usually reply on the first page has higher chance.

It's not that it isn't always read, its almost never read but that doesn't mean that only the posts written on the first page should count as there are "megathreads" that are more worth reafing than many brand new topics.


Or they know that they won't be able to attract better posters than the ones they want to kick, therefore letting shitposters stay in the campaign.

Well, I thought it carefully before concluding on that and it's not what I just concluded, I've been thinking about it for a long. I believe that campaign managers need more hands to be effective in this regard, but if they can't pay more hands, they will have to do this randomly, they are not robots, even as they have their personal lives too. They are really trying, especially those who would have to handle more than 100 users in all of their campaigns. That's a whole lot of work to do.

Nevertheless, what I notice is that, the more the number of users to deal with, the more the shitposters that slip through the radar of the CMs. Doesn't that speak volumes already? And if we go by your view, fine, they need to deliver as promised the sponsored company, for this, a shitposter might find his way in when there was no better one in the beginning. But over time after several warnings, if such can't change, he should be kicked out, and by then, a better poster could be available to take his position.

If truly some CMs had seen what some posters wrote, they would have evicted them a long time ago, but they remain in the campaign.

Can you prove that? checking one topic on the internet where there is the topic here on Bitcointalk
I checked the keywords Bitcoin becoming Legal tender discussion

I landed on this page https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5488939.140, I also researched three topics and some of them landed on the 5th page out of the 9th, it has something to do with the relevancy and substance of the keywords so it's not the fist poster but who created the most relevant answer on the topic that usually show up in the internet.

This is another topic to discuss but all I know as a blogger Google will always index the most relevant based on the keywords so it's not about who comments first but who has the most substance, if I were a campaign manager I would still go for quality poster regardless when he placed his comment.

I just can't believe how low the standards are for getting into a decent-paying campaign these days. It seems like a lot of campaigns are simply in the business of generating spam.

The Gambling section is nearly unreadable. Its 90% text-spun news bytes about cricket and soccer -- nobody is saying anything interesting. They are just regurgitating something they read online and presenting it in a way that isn't quite plagiarism. A LOT of it is AI generated -- I think most of the unreported/undetected AI posts are in the Gambling section. Who bothers to read these posts except for other Gambling board spammers? Is it really cost effective for campaigns?

But the solution for me is easy: just don't read those topics. I really only read and participate in a handful of topics in the Gambling section: those where I am joined by high-quality posters who actually know what TF they're talking about, or if they don't, they can admit it, and at least articulate themselves using original thought.

How did you come to that conclusion? If campaign managers decide to go with what you have suggested, I fear it will do more harm than good because we would have signature participants starting new threads everyday just to meet up with campaign standards. Many forum members use TryNinja’s telegram bot to get notifications about new topics, if it becomes a necessity for posters to get paid for making posts in the first page, they would take advantage of the bot without improving their post quality.

The reality is that 2nd page up to the 20th page isn't always read by organic visitors from the internet.
I think campaign managers should consider users who always post on the first page because they are the first to be noticed.

You are talking like this thread is 20 pages long and not page and a half lol.


I don't think that's the main problem, or not even one of the main ones. Its a simple fact that there are more spots in the campaigns than there are quality members, meaning managers have to fill the remaining spots with shitposters (at least those campaigns with lower payrates) so we get what we have at the moment.

I took my time to read almost all replies on this thread, and as for me, I believe that some campaign managers have more to do, and also, no single campaign has it all. Truly, I see a whole lot of shitposters, and you will hardly exonerate a single campaign out of this. Some would apply to a campaign like an angel but would become bad over time due to too much freedom or whatever reason. I think the overwhelmingness of the campaign managers makes it go unchecked for too long.

Contrary to what a user said, in my opinion, it's not only a matter of traffic to be generated for the company, most of the CMs care genuinely about the forum and their integrity too. However, the inability of CMs to detect flaws most times may be linked to posts being checked randomly. They are also humans, they can't check everything all the time. And the more the campaign they are managing and the people thereof, the more work they have to do.

Some like Little Mouse and icopress are really trying, I hardly see nonsense posters in their campaigns despite Little Mouse not being so particular about the merits for selection. This is why I would like those who suggested merits as criteria here to perish the idea. We've seen many shitposters having more merits and less-merited users talking the most sense.

Proactive reading and effective verifications by CMs are key here. Doing this, naturally, they can detect the shit posters all by themselves.

What is very easy to notice is that over time there are fewer and fewer members who can be considered quality posters, and we have more and more campaigns that have their own requirements. Every manager therefore has to face the problem of whether he will fill the spots with someone or he will turn out to be incompetent and, accordingly, he will not get the opportunity to manage other campaigns in the future.

---

He has been spamming with that account for years and there have already been discussions about how it is possible that someone pays him to be in campaigns that pay above average. The only logical explanation is that the account belongs to the company it promotes.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/please-do-somethingban-request-5148657

One of them is running the Stake campaign. There is no logical reason one can think of that would provide any explanation as to why certain members have been selected to participate in that campaign.

The other, he was affected when mixers were banned. Eventually several of those participants I referred to were dropped because the pool to select participants became larger. It is still did not negate the fact he used far too many members with tags during that period but that is a different matter.

Here is another account. The previous spamming, news spamming and low quality posts have improved but nevertheless it being included in a high paying campaign raises questions:

==========
Campaign: Bitcasino
Member: mich
Trust:    # +0 / =1 / -4
Reason: Account changed hands. Previous low quality posts/news spammer.
==========

Perhaps you are right, but from my own example I can say that sometimes it seems to us that we are not paying enough to the manager who runs our campaign.

I saw this on the other thread and had to see for myself. Though we cannot indisputably prove merit sales, some cases are very difficult to prove I believe these accounts are connected. I doubt the accounts will reply to this as they have nothing to say in their defense. I think it’s time we have a set of points to prove merit sales and abuse, so if we can get 2/3 points the accounts involved should be tagged accordingly.

Campaign managers may not always have the time to check the merit history of applicants. I believe they make their assessment from the recent post history and merit count. A neutral tag referencing the accusation would help the manager make a more informed decision.

I would also like to draw attention to two accounts whose merits are transferred at high speed. This behavior very loudly indicates that one account is brazenly raising the rank of another account, taking advantage of the fact that we still do not have a mark in the rules for the overflow of merits.

But if I were a manager, I would certainly notice such behavior and would not accept both accounts, only because the forum is not two people but a whole community, and besides my friend, or alternative account, dad, mom, or dog, there are other people whose posts are much better that should also be appreciated.
If these people, of course, understand what a community is.

I would note that a post that contains copy-paste with a link is rated three merits, which indicates that the sender and recipient are clearly not playing fairly on the forum.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63902838

And if a person is deceived once, then a second deception will not be far off.

Very interesting Thread idea

My serious question is whether I am allowed to post here one or the other @member who is participating in a signature campaign and who is using foul language such as

You are one of the biggest pieces of shit...............
you illiterate moron
Remember, when you were kissing his (Signature Manger) ass,............
.............. for being a massive dick.

I have no doubt AI is already starting to really fuck things up here, and it's only going to get worse.  The big problem I have personally as a merit source is that I don't have any way of knowing if a member is using an AI tool or not.  The last thing I want to do is help some pants-pissed shitposting account farmer rank up his stable of cookie-cutter alts.  Has it come to the point where I need to start using an AI detection tool before handing out merits to members I'm not familiar with?

I don't know the managers of which you speak, but I surmise that their mindset is "I don't give a fuck".  That's how this forum gets polluted, and it's sad.

A poll cannot be added because this thread is designed for other members to post the names of accounts they deem to have a dubious enough background to not be enrolled on campaigns and then to question why any manager would bother enrolling them in the first place. That was discussion could take place but adding a poll would limit the narrative to just the name (or names) in the OP.

Personally, I would do the same as you but it would be interesting to see how many back that view.

Well, the aim has to be Hero/Legendary rank and the reason for that is obvious. That arimamib account like a huge number of accounts is trying to increase rank as soon as possible in order to join campaigns. Generally speaking, it might not be an issue but when it comes to account farming and using AI, it probably is changing the way the forum operates.

There were are/only two campaign managers that enrolled an unnecessary number of members with negative tags (or highly critical neutral tags). It does make you question theie mindset.

Yee Haa! You sound like one of those tobacco-chewing baddies from a western. I am on it Sheriff  

If was not supposed to come across as rhetorical, I was inviting discussion and/or debate.

As for chatbot spammers, clearly this will get worse over time. If Carollzinha were to take action on many of those enrolled in the Stake campaign, I think it would have a profound effect in helping to clean up the forum.

What it cannot do is stop AI being used by account farmers because before those accounts can apply for campaigns they need to be of a certain rank but at least Carollzinha would be sending out a signal to those hoping to spam their way to Hero/Legendary rank before applying to join the Stake campaign.

I assume the question in the topic title is rhetorical, right? Just in case: I wouldn't hire (chatbot) spammers.

We've had Signature Campaign Guidelines since 2016, but they're not really enforced.

SmartGold01 is misinterpreting my post (again):

The result is this:
It would probably help if he would proofread his own text before posting. Use the Preview button and edit a few times.

Since we're in a topic about who to hire, I'll address this: I noticed in this post that you're just repeating what has been said already, and then say the same thing again with different words. In this post you type a lot, but you don't say much. This comes to mind:

OMG, I would absolutely reject that member (arimamib).  I took a look at the first page of his post history, and he's writing long, bloated posts that usually mention words of the thread title in the first sentence but that contain very little of interest.  The paranoid little devil that lives on my shoulder suspects he might be getting some AI help, but even if that isn't the case, arimamib is a complete shitposter.

I could list dozens, probably a hundred examples for the community to analyze--but why bother?  The only opinion that matters as far as whether any shitposting moron gets into a campaign is the manager, not the rest of us who don't manage campaigns. 

That's certainly true, but it didn't seem to be as bad a few years ago aside from oddball campaigns like Yobit and secondstrade, who would accept anybody and probably didn't even have managers monitoring the campaign participants.  I don't think either of those accepted members with negative feedback, however.  That should be a rule for any campaign, if only out of self-interest on the part of the project.  Who'd want members with red trust advertising for them?

Give 'em hell, JollyGood!

If I ever manage a campaign then I won't consider such users in my campaigns. If the member in my managed campaign use AI content in a mistaken way then I may give that member a second chance with a warning that if he/she found to be using AI generated content again then I'll blacklist him/her and he/she won't be able to participate in campaigns that I may manage in future.

If I become a campaign manager then my focus will be to select those members who are active members of the forum and who make post themselves not copy/paste AI generated content and consider it as their own. I would look for each post of the participants that I accept in my campaign and if any of those contain AI generated content then I will personally send that user a private message with warning that if he/she continue positing such content then I will remove him/her from the campaign.

At initial stage of my management career I would only consider those members who actively contribute to the forum and are some of the known names of the forum. But, overtime I may select all those members that make quality posts and contribute to the forum in one way or other. I would give main priority to the quality/contribution of the member that I accept in my campaign. I may look for merits, reputation, trust ratings, and some other details of that user, but again my main priority should be quality of the posts and contribution of that member.

If I were to be a campaign manager, I would accept the above two users only if these conditions are met;

• I have large number of participants to hire.
• More credible users are not showing interest in my campaign.

However, I think for you to have a more organised response, you could just add a poll to this thread.

The bar seems to have fallen extremely low when it comes to getting enrolled in the Stake campaign but I completely understand your views on the subject about managers implementing their own rules and interpretations. Having said that, what would you do? If you were a campaign manager would you select these two members for campaigns?

I believe there was a time the Stake manager Carollzinha updated Stake campaign rules and included a rule that prohibits Stake participants from using AI. If such a rule is still being recognised by her, she should therefore remove anyone proven to use the forum with AI.

As of neutral tags or negative tags, it is at the manager's discretion to choose who will promote her project, especially if the tags are not related to scam. Sometimes inaccurate ratings are given, so the manager should decide the severity of each tag and act to the best interest of the project.

The campaign mangers work for their clients. It's a job for them and I think they need to show results to continue their clients impressed. Since you and me are not qualified yet, never managed a campaign, discussing about who to have in a campaign and who not to, is not a good use of time. If anyone have a different idea then isn't it better to have their own campaign management?

You don't have a PhD [Where is that PhD member LOL], you are not qualified to understand a PhD holder and his papers. The knowledge is out of your reach.

It is good to see the community engage with their views in this thread.

Overall, we know campaign managers do not have an easy job and can on occasions overlook signs that demonstrate why particular participants should not be enrol on campaigns but Carollzinha (campaign manager for Stake) has enrolled several highly dubious characters that seem to defy logic.

Keeping that aside, as nobody has added any member names of their own to raise discussion and comments on, I will put another name out there for there to be discussion on:


==========
Campaign: Bitvest
Member: Zanab247
Trust:    # +0 / =2 / -0
Reason: Ban evasion and account farming.
==========

You’re not a bad poster and shouldn’t take what LoyceV said to heart (at least not in a negative way). It was his merit thread after all and he has the right to spend smerits on posts he considers top quality. A large proportion of your posts are in your local board and in the gambling board, I don’t believe LoyceV visits those areas of the forum often, that could also be a reason why you were not considered for the merit thread.

It's a shame. There are already too many spammers/shitposters in some sections like the Gambling one but not only, posting random off-topic, nonsense, low value or irrelevant content, or just repeating what they've read in the previous pages of the thread from other posters. So the forum doesn't need users posting AI generated posts on top of that. In my opinion, campaigns enrolling or maintaining such spammers should be banned or restricted to a very limited number of participants. Otherwise campaign managers accepting this shouldn't be allowed to manage a campaign here anymore, at least.

Posting differs from between users because they are of different educational standard and their merits counts is also one thing to be considered, when a campaign is launched or let me say for example I launched a campaign what to consider is locality. Yes locality matters, because some of the users here might not be an English speaking users or who is seeing their English communication skill to be very poor (using translator to post here), and for that I won't accept much of those localities rather focused on those that are passing meaningful messages.

The reason I brought it up was because of reputable users here who says my post are not of good quality, and I asked him how he evaluates his post yet there is no good reason than pointing hands at punctuation, comas, full-stop and whatever.., that is byegone.
As a manager, looking at what they are posting and reading their post from end to ends also matter to know whether these users are passing real messages or not, if they aren't passing reasonable messages then there is no need accepting those users.

Trust ratings is also one important thing to be considered which most of us here calls it reputation. There are lots of people who writes good quality post but lack merits, it could be that they don't always post in a visible boards where some users can merits their post therefore making them not to earn enough merits for the last 120 days. Although if they earned the required merits for the last 120 days duration then I will have to accept them without considering how copious their merits are, since I think merits are cyclic (revolving) between some reputable members, maybe as they think other doesn't meet their standards hence they won't give merits to them. But seeing a reputable member with just no meaningful post you would see lot of merits flowing over there as if it was raining.

This topic will let another forum become more powerful than us. Please think before you come up with such a topic as a lot of traffic and intellectuals of this forum are going to that forum because someone comes up with such an argument

The forum mods or the admin have not developed any AI policy. Do you think such a topic would be welcomed when we know the majority of traffic that the forum gets is because of the signature campaign? Does not make any sense to me at least and not sure about others.

If I’m a campaign manager, I will focus on post quality and not on the merit counts etc because this is what I’m checking when I’m counting post for weekly payment. Some users post a quality post yet doesn’t receive enough merit due to the low merit circulation on the board he or she was posting frequently.

There’s a lot of questionable merit sharing on this topic Get 201 merits in 2 months from a farm

Checking the post quality alone can guarantee you that the user that you will hire will post with your standards.

No, I would never personally hire such a member for my campaign.  Unfortunately, some campaign managers have such low standards and prioritize quantity over quality.  Stake's manager is one example of this, as evidenced by the "borovichok" case.  Despite multiple warnings, he was only removed after a strong backlash from the community and negative publicity.

It depends on what the customer wants.

If you are hired as a manger to get the people with the most posts in a varied bunch of boards and the customer does not care about quality just quantity then you are talking about a certain group / type of poster.

If you are hired to get a fewer number of posts but want better quality ones then you are going after another group of users.

It also comes down to pay. If you pay very little per post you are (in general) going to get lower quality posters.

Also, some people for whatever personal reasons not advertise certain things. Some will not want to have casinos, others (before the ban) did not want mixers, and so on. So as a manger you loose some of those people. So although there seem to be a ton of users trying to get on campaigns. There is a limited amount of 'really good' ones and then you as a manger are picking thought the 'good enough' and you might have to take some people that are not great but workable.

-Dave

Let's assume I would have to select a few people for a campaign, the first thing I would look at is not merits, it's not the boards he's active and to be honest not even the reputation if it's not something screaming -2/-15 but the way his last post page looks!
Now in the case mentioned above here is that page archived:
https://archive.ph/PyAad

So, 20 posts, all made out of two paragraphs, depending on the resolution I get only 3 and 4 rows for each paragraph, so basically a machine!
852,732,755,893,927,925,824,882,1068,1023,853,943,912,1069,1188,1040,1033,940,856,1122 characters.

I would not hire a single person whose post-history looks like this, the moment I see all your posts have the same size and not even once, for god's sake at least once you don't break out of that habit of yours it's clear you're not even remotely interested even in what you're typing!

I will assume each manager will have their criteria for selecting participants into their campaign. Could be the board they post in, merits they have, consistency of their posting across several boards, reputation, longevity on the forum. It will be a can of worms to debate the rationale behind the selection of users by a manager.
The amount the campaign pays also affects the quality of participants they can attract.

If I were managing a campaign today, I'll most likely not take that user, but no manager has to share my sentiments

You raise a valid point but I know of cases where managers have refused to take up jobs because of either the reputation of the company involved or their previous interactions. When it comes to campaign managers, it is not always about money.

Having said that, there is one in particular that did not stop promoting the Sinbad mixer even though around 5 months prior I created a thread outlining it would be seized because it was operated by a criminal enterprise. I would conclude your words are completely appropriate for that individual and maybe some others but definitely not all.

He clearly does lack in many area yet he is enrolled on the Stake campaign like a huge number of participants in that campaign are.

I guess the criteria required to wear a Stake signature is extremely low therefore if spammers and super- spammers (several that use AI) are accepted on the Stake campaign, the primary person to blame is their campaign manager Carollzinha

If I am a campaign manager, what I will use to select people into any campaign that I am managing is merit and reputation. They are both important. I may not totally consider reputation but I will strongly not select people with negative reputation which is very valid. As for merit, I will not only consider 120 days merits only but also consider the people that send the merit to them. Lastly is that I will check some of the posts of the user. But I noticed that some campaign managers are not totally considering merits because some people are posting good but have little merits in 120 days. If I bring a campaign right now, I can not take arimamib becuase he lacks in many areas, both merit and reputation.

The campaign managers only see the money, and the websites (who are not here) only see the traffic.

Some names to consider:

==========
Campaign: Stake
Member: arimamib
Trust:    # +0 / =3 / -0
Reason: Using AI generated posts.
==========

==========
Campaign: Bitvest
Member: Zanab247
Trust:    # +0 / =2 / -0
Reason: Ban evasion and account farming.
==========

==========
Campaign: Bitcasino
Member: mich
Trust:    # +0 / =1 / -4
Reason: Account changed hands. Previous low quality posts/news spammer.
==========

self-moderated to keep this thread clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammers





I would like to start this thread to discuss what possible logic could be applied by campaign managers when they select certain members to participate in campaigns they manage.

Some of us would have great difficulty in understanding the reason why certain members with certain types of feedback (including negative and neutral trust) along with their posting habits would be selected in any campaign at all.

You can all contribute names, in fact I request it. Having said that, I would recommend a maximum of two per post and then allow ample time for comments to discuss those names before other names are posted.

edit: As an example, here is a name to get the conversation started. If you were a campaign manager, would you select this member to participate in any of your campaigns?:

The second post in the thread is where collated names will be listed. You can post the names of any member you have seen wearing a signature that you deem to have enough dubious posts that should really warrant exclusion from enrolling in campaigns and then we can discuss