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

Yes you're right but unfortunately some of them are too lazy to check every post of their participants so as long as the post reach the minimum character requirements it will be counted even if the reply is out of the world.

What about manajers that are Junior members or buy their way in with Copper Membership... they don´t care about the user, just want to do the campaign and go.

Yes .. right there are some of the manager only see the result don't see the quality of the placement of the participants to follow the campaign, they don't seem to care of it, the most important of them only results obtained (posts) of the participants campaign, campaign manager like that which not responsible the same as the corruptors.. 

Not only the campaign manager should be held accountable but the COMPANY HIRING THE MANAGER should be held ultimately accountable..


If red tagging the campaign manager doesn't quickly fix the problem, give em 1 week, then BLAST EVERY TEAM MEMBER of that particular company with a big fat

XYZ COMPANY PROMOTES SPAM ON THE FORUM
With a reference to the campaign thread..

They will care when every OP of their official threads and every representative posting on their behalf gets slapped with a scammer tag..


They are the ones at fault, they are the ones PAYING for the spam, and making a killing off of it..

Apparently yes, if all campaign manager will be strict to the rules and about the posting quality of all participants that want to join a signature campaign then the spamming/shitposting in the forum will decrease by a huge percent.

I remembered when I encountered a campaign manager like this when I joined his signature campaign wherein I completed the required post count for the week but some of my post from way-way back got deleted and so that manager did not put any stakes for that week for me but I argue to him to look at the date of my posts so that he can see that I really completed the posts for that week but still he is stubborn and made me post 2 more.
After that, I left his campaign for good.

Maybe but many of them are not. As I observed, they only count your post but not the quality of your post. As long as you achieve the task accurately then it will be rewarded. I salute those ico with a great campaign manager like sylon because they do it eventually.

From my perspective, if campaign manager start to check out all the posts and also pay  according to their qualityful posts then low quality posts will decreased.
If I am not wrong then I saw a campaign named as "DATECOIN" where maneger pay according to the qualityful posts only.
This is also true that they remain busy in many activities but if it's possible for them then It will be great undoubtedly.

Exactly. We already see the owner of the thread (whether it's someone acting on their behalf or not) get trashed when offering incentives for posting on their altcoin threads. I don't see why we couldn't enforce something similar for campaign managers. Frankly, some campaign mangers are raking in the money, but literally just accepting whoever scrapes off the street and posts their format.

I would wager that some of the bounty ones I've seen are completely automatic, and there's no checks or anything. At the moment they are contributing to the plague that the forum is riddled with.

It's not going to work without theymos blacklisting signatures because people will just use alts and/or run them off site. I tried for years to get something done about signature campaigns and we finally managed to at least get the guidelines set up and theymos to agree to enforcing it then nothing happened so it's not a job I'm prepared to do anymore unless things change (and I'm not sure theymos even wants it done). I really can't be expected to essentially be the defacto campaign manger for every single one of the campaigns that are too lazy to do anything. Campaign managers are making good money here and for doing little to nothing and ICOs rake in millions at the same time for a "product" that is essentially nine times out of ten a scam in some capacity. It's too much for one person and I would be losing money even attempting to do something about it so it's not worth the stress or hassle at the moment.


It's just a simple que where you can click handled, bad, or ignore.

I do like this suggestion. "Tokens" have no value to me. Meanwhile, they abuse Bitcointalk to hype the centrally controlled cryptocurrency Ethereum. Tokens are created for free out of thin air, while having to pay actual Bitcoins means the campaign needs to have actual real funding. I'm not much for taking away freedom, but I can imagine setting a minimum payment amount would force campaigns to abandon spammers. With payments in made up tokens, there's no real cost for the campaign. Who's going to pay a spammer a dollar per post?

What's stopping you from enforcing your Signature Campaign Guidelines on him?

In just 4 days, 560 Newbies have posted "#Proof of Authentication", which seems to be Sylon's signature code. I don't want to fill another thread with long lists, so here it is (copy into a new post and click Preview for a list with links to the profiles). I've checked a few, and it's spam only. Those 560 accounts are only the Newbies, I can't easily check higher ranks.
(while preparing this post, the total went up to 567 already)

I know theymos doesn't want to ban all signature campaigns, but why not start with banning the campaign managers that give financial incentives to spam?

I'd also like to see what it looks like for moderators. I'm curious, so a screenshot would be much appreciated.
I'm hoping I can report more efficiently if I know what exactly a moderator has to do to handle reports.

Bumping your own thread seems to be illegal as far as i know but im also aware that most bounty managers are requiring it for their participants in order to get qualified and recieve some bonus.

Altcoin bounty campaigns are not also strict as on what we currently experience on a regular signature campaign. they always accept all participants no matter what their status or post quality and i guess these is the main problem why we still keep on seeing low quality posters that keeps on posting low quality topics and post.

And yet we do have campaign managers with integrity and a good work ethic, who aren't required to do the job the way they do it, but who probably want to excel at their job because their reputations are at stake.  That's admirable, IMO.  There aren't many of those managers, however.

The main problem is the altcoin bounty managers who will accept pretty much anyone into their bounties.  I suspect those are the ones just counting posts or using a bot to do so.  They're the ones who don't impose much in the way of rules on the participants, with the result that any shitpost will be paid and alt accounts enrolling in the same bounty won't be caught unless the community does it, regardless of how obvious it is.  That's what needs to change, and yes I think managers bear a lot of responsibility for shitposters.

Some campaign managers are really responsible for this issue  They just need to bump their ANN or bounty thread. If I am not wrong then I have seen several bounty projects, who added extra bonus campaign to bump their ANN thread. As we can see that bitcointalk forum is filling now by jr members and maximum Jr members are shit posters and they continue posting shit in the altcoin discussion thread. And managers are counting their signature stake!
So, I think every manager should follow Yahoo, sylon, and amazing team's system to prevent low-quality post.

All the manager is not lazy except some manager. They see all the posts in the profile. They do not stack for low quality posts. However, the moderators are punished for the bad post.

1 or 2 years ago, Yobit and Bitmixer owners received negative trusts for allowing random spammers joining their signature campaigns without any restrictions and also for not managing it properly and for counting shitposts.
Soon after h&co and lauda managed it (respectively), the situation has changed 180%.
Why not doing the same with bounties managers and its owners?
Why not making an unofficial "watch list" of approved managers where the owner has to select one manager from the list. This list is open for every manager with an updated history of his works, then the ones who mismanaged his campaign will be barred from the list definitely or for few months (depends case by case). Users who has been barred couldn't manage anything in bitcointalk, if he opens a topic, it will be removed and he will be banned.

Yup Bitx and Bitmixer has this when they runs the signature campaign once. Still bot cannot check the post whether it is copied from Google, Dead thread bump or irrelevant answer. This can be checked manually by the manager only.
Characters limit will be checked by the number character in the post right but that alone will not conclude the quality posts.

Bots can and do do this and the people who know what they're doing will likely use them because it makes things so much easier, but most of them are not being thorough about the actual quality of posts. If they were  then there wouldn't be so many poor posters getting paid for drivel. As long as they see on the bot that the user made x amount of posts containing x amount of characters then hey, that's all that is required at the end of the day. There's no punishments or repercussions for running a poor campaign so why bother going above and beyond? They might not even check the character count either because there's nobody policing it at the end of the day and nobody is going to complain if they get paid for posts that they know didn't meet the exact criteria.

Counting of number of posts is not the only thing that campaign managers do, they also need to calculate the number of characters to find out eligible for payment comments. During this process the manager can see the quality of posts and can conclude what to do with a poster. Some managers, well known on the forum, created their own SMAS lists for poor quality posters or they inform theymos about some serious braking the forum rules case and he simply ban the profile.
I think only bounty campaign managers do not bother too much about their commentators and the level of posts, but signature campaign managers pay a lot of attention on that point. And now they even have Merit system in help, you must be noticed that some managers ask for minimum number of merits to become joined to a campaign.

Merit works in some aspects but it only works so far. People with a lot of multiple accounts or "friends/classmates/cousins" still easily abuse it as do those that just trade merit between themselves. Also, a lot of these shit campaigns will gladly pay Juniors and even Newbie members for whatever crap they manage to squeeze out so merit/rank is irrelevant to those that do. This shouldn't be acceptable but if there's no rules or repercussions against it people will continue to do it.

Running signature campaigns off site would be an inevitability, but we had already thought of that and that's why we were going to blacklist their signatures as well if a problem campaign had been warned and then subsequently banned. We even got theymos to agree to it but ultimately it just never happened. It would require direct input and action from theymos every time but for whatever reason he didn't respond to requests for certain campaigns to be blacklisted. There's only so much we can do without his blessing or ultimate action and things like the signature blacklist are useless if he isn't going to enforce it.

When you create a signature campaing and you are asking/paying people to post about 20/30 comments a week, i believe you have some sort of responsibility. That said this doesn't mean the quality of the posts will be higher based on the rank of the poster.

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)

If the campaign manager is only looking at the number of posts a user has when they go to grade the campaign and subtracting it from the number they had the previous week, then that manager is severely screwing over campaign participants.

The moderators have been doing an excellent job lately and deleting or locking a bunch of the mega spam threads making users posts counts change drastically throughout each week. So the managers, if they're doing their jobs correctly, should be opening each and every users profile and getting the post counts correct for each week. This also will allow them to take a glance at what a user is or has been posting.

Those campaign managers aren't going to waste their time reading every post.  Most of them are lazy and will just look at the post count.  The people with signatures always have the worst posts. They don't even contribute to the conversation they just post for their sig campaign.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the answer is yes. However there are campaigns out there in which the managers only look at the number of posts in the profiles, so it is clear that they are not bothering to read any of the posts. Should those campaigns be allowed? Does anyone know any of those campaigns?