Topic: It's quite time for some cooperation or moderation toward signature campaigns. - page 3. (Read 1054 times)

Minimum wages and arbitrary regulation almost always results in negative outcomes. I don’t think it would even be possible to enforce minimum payments because signature campaigns could be arranged on reddit or elsewhere, or arrangements could be made such that participants would need to give back a portion of their earnings if they want to be accepted, or if they want to stay in the campaign.

The free market is already working to find the correct price for signature campaigns. There are currently a decent number of open spots in various signature campaigns with posting restrictions, and requirements to post in certain sections.

It is simple. Remove all signatures like 8 years ago or "require payments to wear sig ads" that is what theymos wrote.
No more signature images
Choosing one among three ones below.
Fortunately, merit system changed the forum, and recently the bump changes have started to change the forum much better.
Shitposters already unable to join good campaigns, and from now on bounties, campaigns will reduce their campaigns' intensity (IMO) because making posts in Altcoin section (Announcement, bounties) don't bump threads (that not what companies wanted).

In addition, from theymos' perspective to maintain the forum as a welcome one for 'good' newbies, I think he also want to welcome good 'newbie' companies here, even they are good ones. So I guess they have allowable rights (so far) from admin to run their campaigns with their funds at any pay rates they can manage to pay for participants and to run their campaigns as long enough to have effects, as long as they don't pay for shit posts.

A 'newbie' company from third-world nation mostly has lower original fund than one from developed nation. Consequently, having a fixed minimum pay rate will automatically create a gap between different world-class companies.

There are users usually make very high quality posts, so payments from campaigns mean nothing with them. Good posters who often join campaigns will keep making good posts when they are free from signatures.
In contrast, shit posters will keep posting shit ones no matter how many satoshis they can earn per post.

There is no abuse or slavery hidden through signatures. Everyone have rights to wear signature (correspond to their ranks, of course) and join campaigns or not. Don't join campaigns and say companies abuse participants.

Months ago when merit system came, people cried (me too  ), complained, made noise, but the fact is they have their freedom to leave the forum, and the forum does not abuse them through merit points. If they accept rules as well as challenges from merit system, join it, then make good quality posts and rank up. If not, simply leave and enjoy their lives or freedom of posting shit in other forums.

From my perspective as a campaign manager for years now, I think quite a lot has changed around here as far as Signature campaigns are concerned. We have had multiple accounts banned, Multiple accounts receive signature bans, the merit system has been introduced making it harder for shitposters to rank up, as well as tons of posts are reported every week and deleted or threads archived/deleted.

I can remember a year or so ago, when I would launch a campaign for a company, there would be 10 pages of applicants of all ranks within a couple hours of launching the thread. I could fill 100 spots in less than 24 hours easy. Not too mention I could fill 100 spots in multiple new campaigns in a week.

Now, I can barely fill 25-50 spots in 1 new campaign. I almost always have an open spot for member ranks and most of the time full members.

So IMO the system we have has been working and there are less users creating the shitstorm on the forum then there were before.

Now on to your rate suggestion. It will NOT work period. Not every company just starting up has a 10btc bankroll for campaigns. Look at all the campaigns. Look at the number of users allowed into each campaign. When us managers are contacted we find out how many weeks the company is interested in running their campaign, and how much of a weekly budget they want to commit to the campaign.

Yes, we give our input and try to get the rates as good as we can, but ultimately it depends on the company and their budget. Some companies have a big budget, some don't. Go and tell Pepsi they have to match Coke's weekly budget and see what answer they give you.

I have lowered the minimum weekly post count to 20 posts in most campaigns depending on the payrate, but at the same time companies want as much bang for their buck as they can get. They're not gonna pay someone 100$ a day to make posts on a forum if they see no results coming from it. So i'd say if you guys want the rates to go up, then do something to help that happen. Bitching about it is not the way to go about it.

Companies need sign ups, companies want users asking questions in their threads engaging in conversation about their website/service. Companies do not just want users wearing an advertisement and posting trash in their thread. Research the site that hired you and show a general interest in the company buying your food that week IMO.

Just my opinion

I have a suggestion. The primary issue seems to be signature managers not upholding standards which results in spam and other issues. I think these issues could be largely combated by forming a sort of signature manager's union. This would be loosely organized but focused on making sure each of its manager members upholds certain standards which protect their own industry by using sustainable business practices.

Once formed, campaigns which explicitly flaunt these standards could be blacklisted, and users who participate in blacklisted campaigns would themselves be barred from participating in the well managed campaigns. Obviously this method has some potential for abuse itself, but if transparency, clearly defined standards, an fair notice is given to users participating in barred campaigns, I think abuse could be minimized while also choking out the worst of the abusers.

It's true that with lower fee, a campaign will certainly not get a higher output or quality output. For example, if we look at Darkstar, Yahoo and Hhampuz, and compare their payrates with others for management, we will see a huge different. Not different in the pay rate, we will see different in the management as well.
However, it's not that as easy as for each projects to pay high amount initially, you know everyone wants least cost with higher output. Projects will try to reduce their cost.
On the other hand, imagine BTC is at ATH. 0.01 BTC = $200 for 25 posts max, I don't think with current rate, much people will be interested to post 25+ in a week (It depends on user too, Royse posts 100+ each week although he is not required to do so).
With ATH rate, a project will be paid a significant amount per week which may bring them loss. Fixing the rate will not get anything better. I think rate isn't something we should account, it's always the campaign manager and users. If CM recruit regular poster, payrate will not make any much different.

OK, hear me out before you come to a conclusion, the signature industry on the forum is still a very vital feature of the forum and should not be ignored quite yet unless the total eliminate of the privilege comes into implemented. There's is a reason theymos hasn't removed the privilege yet, he might still be looking for a better solution to make the industry a little bit conducive for the forum. Right now the lack of cooperation or moderation of the sector is also contributing to the problems it's facing.

Users are been required to produce excessive amount of post while recieving peanuts as payment which also contribute the high level of spamming the forum is recording.

This question was asked on the previous thread, this conversation was ongoing,
I gave this suggestion:
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). I understand all fingers aren't equal although the suggestion above isn't that much considering the level of publicity you'll be recieving by advertising your product on the forum.

I recommend we give this a try, if it doesn't improve the current situation of signature campaigns then we brainstorm on other solutions or call for a total elimination of the privilege.