Topic: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. (Read 1054 times)

There really aren't that many people willing to give their best though. Each campaign(the 1s that I manage) only has so many open spots per rank. No matter who is in the spot in most cases, users are only willing to post enough to get paid. They are not posting because they like a topic, they are not posting because they want to inform others about a subject in most cases, they are posting to be paid. If they're being paid for 20 posts, then they do 20 posts. Every now and then I get a guy who is paid for 20-25 posts per week and they do 40-50 posts a week.

It all comes down to the campaign managers and the companies being responsible for their participants..

I think if a paid poster gets banned for spamming then whoever is paying them to do so should recieve a stern warning, meaning the campaign manager and the representetives of the company..

- Rewards are given based on post count; and
- More post count generally lowers post quality. << externalities

Since it is highly improbable that we change the reward based on post quality, not quantity. And because of this issue:

Campaign Operators:

Signature Campaigns are a great way to introduce your business and advertise your services to the bitcoin ecosystem but this cannot be abused by you paying people to make poor contributions en masse. As a signature campaign operator you will ultimately be held responsible for the quality of posts of users bearing your signature advertisement and you will need to monitor your users closely or it will be quickly abused. If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way. The Staff and Admins do not want to have to do this but it's a last resort in an attempt to clean up the forum as signature campaigns cannot continue to operate here in such a lazy way as it is not fair that others have to go through pages of drivel to find anything of substance nor should Staff be left to clean up the mess you are paying people to make.

< ... >
Types of campaigns:

There are generally two types of campaigns: 'Fixed' campaigns which offer a fixed amount of bitcoins for a minimum of X amount of posts and 'Pay Per Post' which is pretty self-explanatory. Pay Per Post campaigns pay for every post that a user makes and thus tend to be the most abused whilst fixed campaigns tend to limit the amount of spam generated. It's up to you which campaign you choose and both are fine just as long as you have someone monitoring them. If you don't then either form of campaign will be abused. If you want to check out or compare other signature campaigns an overview of all the currently active ones can be found here.

< ... >
Please note: You as a campaign will not be warned or have your signatures removed for having a handful of low quality posters on your campaign especially if they're quickly dealt with. We accept that no campaign will be able to stop spam 100% of the time but these guidelines are there for the campaigns where it becomes blatantly obvious they are doing little to nothing at all to try prevent spam and are happily paying people to post rubbish continually even after a warning. Please monitor your users closely and there should be no issues.

Stop.

People report posts, yes? I've actually smashed through hundreds of posts in the 777Coin and Bitvest campaigns.

And regarding the plagiarism issue: it's simple enough to automate the process. We already have some people who have checked entire post histories for plagiarism, so I don't see why the same cannot be done for a campaign cycle across a few dozen users.

Maybe managers should hire one or two qualified post reviewer (similar to peer review) as a quality controller. Hence, even with the 20-25 post per week, no one will complain about the quality.

50 members per campaign posting 25 posts each (minimum) equals 1250 posts per week. Not to mention that sometimes only parts of the post are plagiarized so during the initial checking he could think everything is ok when in fact 2 out of the total 20 sentences are copy/pasted.

My question to campaign managers, would you really go through all this hassle?

Same for plagiarism, you have been paying accounts to plagerise? Permaban..

Like I said payrate are only subjected to minimum payment, projects that's are capable of paying more are free to increase their payrate pay rank. These too has to be match with a reasonable amount of maximum post count per week (haven't come to a conclusion of any number that would be suitable).

We already have a pretty comprehensive set of rules for both campaign managers and participants here: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign).

This sticky gives very clear guidelines for what is considered spam, and what bans will be handed out to signature spammers.

Assuming you know who's responsible for the campaign.

Any forum rules regarding campaigns - whether it's the OP's "minimum wage" or what you're suggesting - can work only if the forum controls all signatures, i.e. instead of being able to enter custom bbcode users would have to choose from a list of "approved" campaigns and that way you can tie them to managers etc. That obviously creates problems for everyone who just wants a personal unpaid signature.

Not me..
I just went on 2 small vacations and didn't touch my laptop for 3 days each.. No way I am posting from the Holiday Inn when I could be enjoying a drink with fine company, to make my quota of posts, to make only a few dollars a week..

Isn't it better to just hire more people? Enforcing minimum weekly post counts probably has a negative effect on post quality if people know they *have* to post enough or they'll be kicked out of the campaign.

This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently

Then the participant will be likely removed due to burst posting.  

Isn't it better to just hire more people? Enforcing minimum weekly post counts probably has a negative effect on post quality if people know they *have* to post enough or they'll be kicked out of the campaign.

If there's concern about transaction fees (especially if fees increase), people could always create accounts on whatever service they advertise and get paid there.

Yes, some have a life outside this forum. I do as well, but I login every day. I even have to take a laptop with me on vacations with my family to ensure that campaigns are paid out even if I am out of town. God forbid I'm late paying everyone. Everyone is not me, I get that but you cannot tell me that making 3 or less posts in a day is a rough task to do. Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so.

Requiring users to make a specific number of posts is really needed. A user making only 5 posts per week is not helpful.

Then the participant will be likely removed due to burst posting. 

This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently.

Honestly takes users less than 20 minutes of being online to do so.

The problem I feel is the you must make "X" posts to get paid "Y" (like mintdice turned into) campaigns as opposed to pay per post  There is life outside the forum, and it can change and things can come up. Looking at the raw numbers of the sheet I have done

Week 1 = 39 posts
Week 2 = 35 posts
Week 3 = 36 posts
Week 4 = 34 posts
Week 5 = 32 posts

Some of those are in the excluded boards but all in all I have been above 30 every week.

As of today 1/2 way though the posting week I figure I am at about 16 posts.

If something happened today that would cause me to go offline for 5 days I would not make the number for this week.
AND since I would lose a day or 2 of posting into the next week I would feel that I would have to "post for the sake of posting" to make my numbers.

In the old way, with some bare requirements to post at least 5 in the gambling forum and and a lower number of required posts overall it took the pressure off so if something came up, it came up and you just made a bit less those weeks.

This minimum post to get paid I do feel encourages a bit more spam. Just my view. Others might feel differently.

-Dave

There really aren't that many people willing to give their best though. Each campaign(the 1s that I manage) only has so many open spots per rank. No matter who is in the spot in most cases, users are only willing to post enough to get paid. They are not posting because they like a topic, they are not posting because they want to inform others about a subject in most cases, they are posting to be paid. If they're being paid for 20 posts, then they do 20 posts. Every now and then I get a guy who is paid for 20-25 posts per week and they do 40-50 posts a week.

Look at suchmoons small sample Effect of Signature Bans. Even though it's a small sample size, it is a correct view of what happens when users are banned from wearing signatures. Users just fade away into nothing in most cases.

I'm not against users making money obviously, and I would love for everyone to make more money. Users need to stop thinking only about themselves though. When they join campaigns, their first thought isn't how can I help this company. Their first thought isn't to log in to the website and check out the platform. All they are thinking is please accept me so i can make some money.

I'm not trying to personally attack you, my answers in most cases are directed towards everyone but you are the one who posted the topic and the 1 I am responding to. Everyone has an opinion and I feel they should be free to post their opinion, whether I agree or not.

I don't think it's a huge issue if these campaigns move their management off-site. If we start banning campaigns and their participants which are largely spamming, future campaigns will very quickly learn to employ a manager who actually pays attention to post quality.