Topic: Is a campaign manager responsible for preventing low quality posting? - page 2. (Read 827 times)

Self-policing can work but I think the community is lacking some tools to do it properly. Merit seems to be a step in the right direction. I would like to have some visibility of how "report to moderator" works in the backend, e.g. which reported posts get deleted, which don't and why, etc. That would help to make post reporting more efficient. Even just seeing which posts have already been reported would save a lot of time.

Beyond that, asserting control over sig campaigns would require some sort of trust-like or merit-like structure where only approved campaign managers can do it and then can be held accountable by some metric. Otherwise they would just manage the campaigns outside of the forum. If theymos was willing to establish such structure the rest could probably be self-policed. Unapproved signatures could be reported. Shitposters carrying approved signatures could be easily reported to campaign managers and said managers could be penalized/removed if they fail to take action.

Time can tell once new rules are implemented because members here are getting worst day by day specially spammers in the bounty campaigns. Enforcing bigger rules could be a solution but some of the spammers previously ranks up already before the merit system were implemented and I'am sure that many of them will still spam the bounties for the rest of the forum time.

Sylon is complete trash as far as campaign managers go because he does nothing at all about the quality of his participants. You are a perfect example. If he was such a great campaign manager he wouldn't accept people like you onto his campaigns, but as long as you make one or two sentences of garbled garbage then that's good enough for him it seems. He was the campaign manager paying the 200 shitposting Russians to make the same post reworded slightly on every account so that tells you all you need to know about what sort of quality checks he does and the quality of posts he will happily pay for. As long as he and every other campaign manager can get away with doing absolutely nothing then like ICOs they will just sit back, do the bare minimum amount of work needed and collect the paycheck month after month.


I don't know either but theymos seems to take a hands off approach for most things and let the community take care of itself. Things like the feedback, trust and merit systems all really police themselves and anything else just requires more manpower thrown at it and that's something theymos probably doesn't have the time or energy to do. Freedom is great in some aspects, but inaction in other cases just leads to abuse en masse and once people realise they can get away with something the problem just gets exponentially worse the longer you leave it.
 

Probably I'm just too naive to assume that 10 posts are easy for everyone with limited English and limited understanding about bitcoin. I found that many generic threads, such as: bitcoin price, altcoin price, my portfolio, etc. are the culprits. Maybe campaign managers should look at this issue.


Indeed, campaign managers should be punished for promoting scam ICOs. I still remember Benebit was promoted in this forum. I have this hunch that maybe seniors here already designed new rules, we're just not being informed yet.

Take a look at suchmoon's reply above to get an idea why it does work, and why they aren't too bothered by quality only quantity.

No, I highly doubt that anyone posting in spam megathreads have read even half of the pages let alone the whole thing. AFAIK most campaign managers have it in their terms that posting in such threads will not count towards post count. Although,  whether that's enforced or not is another thing. Especially, when looking at the bounty managers as they seem to have zero rules, and zero moderation over their campaigns.

Yes, if they are running away from from their responsibilities. It is their task to check the post quality and if it is not up to the mark then that user should be kicked out of the campaign and should not receive the payment. This will help to create the awareness among such users and they will be forced to post quality post.

Unfortunately there are a lot of shit campaign managers on this forum that don't have a clue on what they're doing and don't care to invest time for quality to increase.

I would avoid such campaigns and go for campaigns that encourage quality.

They should ensure the post quality made by their participants. Because participants represents the ICOs name. Who will invest on an ICO promoted by a spammer .
Even if it hits the number of characters it should be still meaningful if it's not then it shouldn't be counted .

PS:
Is there anyone reading a megaspam thread from page 1 to last? Do a member still reads after reading a 2 page rephrased replies? No right? Posts from a megaspam thread shouldn't be counted it's just a waste of money because very few members saw it's ad.

I don’t understand why Theymos hasn’t wanted to punish bad managers. First he came up with the serious discussion boards, then, the merit system, and he finally said that if the merit system didn’t work out, he could even remove signatures completely, but he was never considering what would be for me the most direct and easy way to deal with the problem.

When 90% of coins are scam and every token/coin has no monetary value until it hits an exchange, it is free promotion for the company.  If there ICO is success then you don't mind in giving 2% of token as advertisement budget, if it is failure, company is still giving its own worthless token.

Manager can help in preventing spam but I think the exact requirement of companies is to get as much advertisement as possible, so they will allow anybody (whether that person spam) because its cost to company is still  0.

I think if it  become rule that all bounties will be paid in bitcoins only (or any established list of Altcoins.) , I assure you then you find these managers more proactive, most stringent and will be automatically dropping the spammers from their campaigns.

Yes they should be - but I doubt much will change since the incentives aren't aligned.

The current incentive structure supports both the 'bad' poster side, and the campaign manager side. The campaign manager wants to get maximum payment for 'managing' a bounty campaign with minimal effort. This means skimming through posts or not reviewing at all, and causing as little fuss as possible.

The poster wants to get their minimum 'constructive' post count up, which usually means lots of words with not much substance.

The people who are actually missing out are the ICO's providing the bounty, who probably want to be affiliated with high quality posts instead of low quality. So perhaps the solution is to support those active bounty campaign managers who do their job properly and filter out spam posters.

Thing that really waste of time, even i've ever reportedo people that used my account wrong but i got no respon at all from the bounty manager. But it just 1 bounty manager that did it from many more that i following. Mr. Sylon is one of the bounty manager that active in finishing the problem of the bounty hunters.

Most mangers check the post itself not only the number. For example in AmaZix signature campaigns, there is always a comment for low post quality and also people are always advised to improve on their post quality. If you've noticed, not all who register for signature campaign actually get rewarded due to post quality check.

Seeing the stuff that gets advertised here - they probably want the opposite. It's the same reason why Nigerian scam e-mails are written in horribly broken English. Someone dumb enough to fall for such e-mails is a perfect mark. Someone dumb enough to click on some shitcoining ICO ad under an incomprehensible Google-translated word salad is a perfect "investor" for said ICO.

I wouldn't mind if theymos strong-armed the campaign managers into some sort of responsibility. Probably not gonna happen though.

You would think that people getting paid to post would at least take some time in their replies and make a thoughtful post. But, it's just too easy. The criteria is way too low, and I do understand that the more people, and more posts the better advertising. But, if it were me who brought out something worth advertising I would want to best quality posters rather than hiring a bunch of Jr Members who have only ever posted in off topic and spam megathreads.

For 10 posts a week (or less), I don't find it significantly impact junk post because we will get 10 posts anyway except really busy IRL. The real danger is when the campaign demand more posts and/or stakes based on post counts.


This!

They must, yes, and, besides, it should be far more easy to mod the campaign managers than the posters, for obvious reasons.
But, sadly, this is not happening in every campaign, at least for the moment. Anyway, most of the shitposters are related to bounties instead of signatures, but, still, there are shitposters related to signatures due to the number of posts you have to write weekly.
Notice that not all the people wearing a signature is a shitposter, as well as not all the people without any signature is a good poster.

Nevertheless, I agree with you. Campaign managers should be dedicated to mod the posts of their people in order to help to clean-up the forum.  But, for the moment, there's not such a requirement, I'm afraid.

I think they should be held responsible. But, frankly giving them neutral/negative feedback isn't going to hurt them as evidenced by a few campaign managers still running campaigns even if they've pulled off something shady.


That only addresses signing up for campaigns though, and doesn't address the problem that some campaign managers are encouraging spam by allowing anyone to join up, and not review their posts at the end of each period.

Having said that I think it's about time that all applications are done off forum, and make that a requirement.

Well yeah, they should be, but if there's no repercussions for those that don't do anything then why would they bother doing any work? Most are just happy collecting a pay-check for doing the minimum amount of work and all that essentially includes is paying the users as long as they've made the minimum amount of shitposts. Until there's repercussions for those that do little to nothing about their campaigns  then nothing will change.

99% of it? Just take a look and tell us which one wisely select its users.
Solutions :
 - enforcing SMAS or something similar or
 - banning joining applications in bitcointalk, use Google or external service or
 - manager should create a separate self moderated topic for applications (if he didn't want to use Google ofc) and manage it accordingly. First post contains links to the ANN topic and the bounty one, in addition to the inclusion criteria. Second post for the accepted ones, third post for the rejected ones. The rest of the posts have to be deleted regularly.
(selecting and regularly watching users behaviour is a must)