Topic: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. - page 2. (Read 1075 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.

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.

And they should, you cannot simply start a campaign and employ just anybody to run it, neglecting one of  the most important role the CM plays in the campaign by checkmating users posts quality, and only top managers do that.
Other campaign managers should either try to improve on how they do their job, making their campaign participants pay more attention to what they write that gets them paid. Or the campaigns should only choose the very best managers in the forum.

As for the BTC rate, I think every campaign would pay it's participants based on the effect the advertisement is having on their company, if they are actually getting traffic, they wouldn't mind paying a little more than others, I doubt if the forum can impose anything on them.

Lets be real pay rates shouldn't be moderated in the forum it's like forcing out a budget for any willing projects wanting to promote here in the forum. High payments does not equate to higher quality post because the two things are totally irrelevant so what if someone is paying .01 BTCs for Legendaries and .05 BTCs on another project? Does it gives assurance that the ones being paid double will give twice the quality of posts in the forum? It doesn't. If you want a realistic approach then you should request that the campaign managers here in the forum has a commitment on moderating each members part of their campaign and monitor the quality of their post each time they count it, its the best thing to see if the members part of their campaign are actually worth it of what they are paying for.

Not necessarily. When theymos stepped in and dealt with the Yobit spammers, he simply wiped all Yobit signatures and banned them for 60 days. He wasn't able to ban the signature campaign itself, since it is run off-site on the Yobit exchange, and there was no manager to ban as far as I am aware. However, you can't argue that what he did didn't work - the spam was horrendous and disappeared instantly.

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.

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.

Perhaps some hybrid solution is possible where signature campaigns have to register with the forum voluntarily and anyone non-compliant can be reported to moderators. Perhaps some clever incentive can be created to encourage compliance. But TBH I can't see that happening given the strong financial incentives to the contrary. If you put any pressure on garbage campaigns they'll just move the management off site.

Absent proper enforcement any good ideas will remain "guidelines" and garbage campaigns will continue to do what they think benefits them most, i.e. spam the forum.

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..

If the campaign manager gets a warning about his employee being banned, strike 1, Warn them one more time strike 2, if they keep paying employees that are getting banned for spamming then strike 3 permaban that manager..

Something like if you are a manager and 3 accounts you are paying get banned for the spam that you are paying for in a rolling month - Permaban that manager.
Same for plagiarism, you have been paying accounts to plagerise? Permaban..

Ha ha, by by shit manager.. Better not ban evade and come back with another account to shitmanage with either..
That would put a fire under the asses of managers to make darn sure they aren't incentivising spammers..

If you want to ban users for spamming I think it is perfectly logical to ban whoever is paying them to spam right along with them..


What needs to happen is the companies representatives are the ones that need to be held accountable for the actions of their employees..


You negotiate this with the companies don't you? Why don't you refuse to implement minimum weekly posts yourself? You can also refuse to accept low posting standards too..

Not you in specific Yahoo because you do a good job, but you would probably keep a lot closer eye on your employees post quality if you yourself risked a permaban by paying for spam wouldn't you?


Maybe not 3 banned employees a month, maybe 5, maybe 2, but I advocate putting the pressure directly on those who are supposed to be responsible for it in the first place..

I'm begining to see reasons in that too although what's I'm advocating for is for some attention to be given to this sector. Great, i have see those signature guidelines you highlighted a link to although, most of those rules aren't been enforced. The section is just been allowed to surfer. The forum did something to some extent to address the spam rate on the forum (which has reduced spamming to some extent). We have the bump system and merit system implemented to tackle that problem, something that doesn't involve total elimination of the signature privilege should be done too.

It's companies right to determine the rates. Also, participants has the right to decide whether accept the rates or not. No one forces the users to participate in a signature campaign. It's up to users to decide whether participate in a campaign or not.
Here we have a free competitive market. ChipMixer has the highest rates. They can attract the best and most constructive users and they are benefiting too. There are some other companies that cannot afford high rates and are not able to attract good users. They have to stop their campaign after a few weeks.

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. It also gives very clear guidelines that managers should be monitoring their participants, and campaigns which don't do this will also be banned. The problem is that these rules are going completely unenforced, and without some clear direction from theymos on this issue plus probably several new mods, this will continue to be the case.

I think this would need a considerable amount of work to start with, but would settle down relatively quickly. Once word starts spreading among the bad managers and users that both users and campaigns were being rapidly banned for spamming, I suspect they would quickly clean up their act.

I agree with many of the points above that enforcing some sort of minimum wage does little to address the underlying problem, and is mostly an unworkable solution.

You can't force people to pay minimums and I don't think that's something the forum should get involved with. It doesn't matter whether someone is getting paid a cent per post or $100. The issue is the quality of posts and campaign managers and regardless of how much a user is being paid they should be upholding some minimum standards and for those that don't there should be repercussions as I've long said. If you let people do what they want then the greedy and lazy will abuse that.


And that's why it's a privilege. Nothing here is guaranteed. theymos could remove signatures anytime he wants if he feels that's what's best.

Thanks for bringing this topic @CryptopreneurBrainboss

Cartel won't work, mate. Even with the cartel, there will always be someone willing to accept a lower payment. Thus, lower revenue for the coalition, so that it would destabilize the coalition.

I, also as a "student" of economics (supporter of free-market to be precise) agree with @TECSHARE opinion.

If small businesses cannot pay its workers at a required minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs, which means that some of the members who are willing to accept lower wage will lose the opportunity to get some income. And for the same reason, the small businesses also lose the opportunity to get some marketing effort to grow then to afford to pay more for the salaries. In short, it will stunt the bct-economic growth.

Merit system works at a certain extent,
Campaign managers already work as professional as they can,
So what's the solution? I don't know atm, let me think while playing slots on MintDice.

But Wiseman says, "The problem is always about revenue." Instead of thinking about how to limit the posters, pressuring managers to make it more efficient, etc., think about how to attract more business here.

I guess people are still not aware of the fact what a discussion forum actually is. I have been part of various torrenting forums where I upload movies and TV-series of my self-interest and none paid for me at that time. If every uploader need to be paid for uploading a movie or TV-series which makes the website popular then the admin of the site should pay around $10,000 per month for plenty of uploaders who have been spending their time and money for such stuffs.

The campaign participants are promoting products but are they really helpful for the companies? Almost 90% of the people posting in Gambling Section are posting only for getting paid for their weekly campaign and there are hardly only a few of them being gamblers in real life.

As yahoo said, Signature payments are kinda privilege and they are being paid just for posting in a forum. I have never seen in any of the forums, that posters are being paid for their posting. This payment which I receive is like an extra pay for me per week and they are somewhere very much lesser than what I am getting paid in my real life work. People who are not willing to get a job or have a insane minimal pay rates in their real life might be sticking onto the campaign payments to feed them. Many are striving hard for freelancing works and not many of them are successful in getting one, but the forum provides a very good opportunity to earn money just by wearing a signature and posting.

What price does other forums give for us? None, but people seem to be contributing to every other forum regardless they are getting paid or not. For members receiving alts as payments for campaign : Are everyone doing their work perfectly for what they are getting paid? Posting comes from the user's perspective and not from what they are getting paid for! Even how good they are paid, some seems to post shit and on other hand, even how low they are being paid they would be contributing endlessly.

Admin gave us opportunity to a wear signature on our profile, what more we can expect from him? This is not a big opportunity for us since forum isn't money making machine? We should not force him fixed pay rate for us. Fix pay rates a task of managers how they could convince a company, and its totally depend on budget them.

The question is, why should we join a low rate campaign? If all quality poster avoid apply on low rates campaign then manager and company might reconsider pay rates. There might be managers association and they might fixed a pay rate for campaign. So it will be out of moderation by forum.

Regarding spam, its depend on managers. I don't think a manager will encourage to choose a spammer even there is low pay rate. Since there is merit system, a spammer will not able to rank up and could not join any btc signature campaign. So I think this is not appropriate to ask admin for fixed pay rate for signature campaign.

I really like it when people do that, it's the biggest cause of people getting removed from campaigns, so new spots open up regularly
You're right though, I do think it's only fair that you give companies something back for the money they pay you.

I'm not a big fan of the F/P model though, after being in F/P campaigns for just about 5 years straight, the weekly minimum post requirements do start to wear on you.

It would be good if some new companies started signature campaigns on Bitcointalk and perhaps changed things up regarding the current signature campaign model.

I will keep this short, I have some work in line to do. Just spotted the topic and thought to leave my thoughts here.

Not always. Ex: Livercoin, Yobit.

Honestly speaking the privilege thing is not always right only for the participants. Sometimes a campaign management feel privileged when they can hire some particulate forum members. Ex: Suchmoon in ChipMixer, some other users in ChipMixer and also various campaigns.

In this forum, although we do not know (99.99% cases) anyone by facial or in real life but every user has their own image, their own personality. A user born when they join and their forum activities build up their character. Ex: If I mention game-protect then we know who we are talking about, if I mention yahoo - he has an image, me has an image, the OP has an image. Similarly almost all the users has their own images and in a signature campaign, the image of a user reflects their worth. Everything has it's own price.

So, I kinda slightly disagree on saying "Signature campaigns are a privilege". It's an opportunity for users to get some financial benefit with the things they already are doing and from the companies perspective - it's a way to monetize the traffic of this forum so that they can build up a business. Both party are getting benefited.

There are some things not everyone is open to airing out but in their inner most mind they all want that, don't consider this my suggestion to be me just wanting to be paid more for posting, it's like a open discussion that everyone is open to air their views irrespective of the suggestion been poor or not.


I know I'm not in a position to give you any suggestions on this but how about punishing the offenders so they learn from their mistakes, there are far more individual willing to give in their best for the successful of the project. An extra amount of post isn't much of a deal irrespective of you not been paid for them.

PS: No personal attacks please lets keep the conversation professional.

I just wanted to add, that as a dedicated student of economics, minimum wage centralized price control systems are always counter productive and IMO are not a solution to these issues here.

Signature campaigns are a privilege, not a right. You're earning money for posting on a forum, which not many forums can give you that option. If you don't like the rates, then by all means don't join a campaign and post for free. Not an option you want to consider right?

Not sure why you think you deserve more money for posting on a forum. Go look at the rates when campaigns started on here. The rates are not gonna go up because half the world doesn't want to go out and get a job. This forum isn't the classified ads section of your local newspaper.

Rates will only rise if companies see that campaigns do them good.

The biggest thing about posters that join campaigns that pisses me off is the fact that if the post rate is 20 posts per week, guess how many they do? 20 damn posts right on the nose, then they complain because 1 or 2 posts got deleted and they didn't get paid.

Stop doing the bare minimum people. Help the companies that hired you and make signature campaigns worth the money. Otherwise take the money you make and be happy.

That can be worked on too, for each $5000 price gain of bitcoin the minimum payrate can be revisited and adjusted in a manner it would be suitable for both the projects and campaign participants. I don't intend project paying as much as your example suggested, I used the current ~$10,000 bitcoin price to make this suggestion. The idea is the participants are been paid poorly and when that's the case what do you expect the output to be like?

Garbage in, garbage out. Take a closer look at well paying campaign, the quality of post been delivered by the participants are way above the others, in some instances, the posts counts (irrespective of them been paid for those extra post counts or not) are even more because this guys are been encourage by the payrate they recieve. We're humans here not robot don't forget that, we work with emotions.

I like @suchmoon’s study on the Effect of signature bans. Granted that it is a very small sample (and thus far from conclusive), but it gives us insights on the significance of Signatures on the forum. The sample studied reduced their posting count by 75,47% due to a signature ban. As I said, it´s not an extrapolable to the whole forum, but it does on hint a direction.

Signatures campaigns pivot around five main elements:

- The corporation, who wishes as much exposure, awareness and click-throughs as possible (for as little as they can pay; fair in the best cases). Budget will be very variable, and, as we know, is tokenized in most cases due to the lack of it beforehand.

- The managers, who for the most, are managing a tokenized campaign, and (unfortunately) do not spend the time to control posting quality as maximum exposure seems to be the main goal (arguably perhaps not the best approach).

- The campaign subscriber, who wished (I guess) to be paid is something more tangible, but tends to be happy to take tokens in return for posting.

- The campaign’s target audience.

- The forum as an entity, who overlooks the generality, and I figure strives to keep an equilibrium between visitors and growth vs post content quality.

Now reality is that most campaigns will not have a budget such as that proposed, even if desired. Imposing minimum payments would give the forum a more implicated role which I don’t think it wants to have, aside from the measure probably driving down very noticeably the amount of live campaigns on the forum. That in turns drives down traffic to the forum (not a desired effect I figure), and makes the running campaigns less valuable (less target audience).

Sure the forum would benefit content wise if campaigns were to be controlled and parametrized as are the top running campaigns, but arguably the scenario depicted in the paragraph above would happen, which I figure is likely against goals.