Thread will be locked soon. You can continue the discussion there.
Topic: Let us define constructive posts (wrt DaDice signature campaign) (Read 2894 times)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=995029.new#new
Thread will be locked soon. You can continue the discussion there.
Thread will be locked soon. You can continue the discussion there.
March 18, 2015, 03:53:53 AM
I posted about this topic a few months ago and the responses I got were pretty interesting:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/question-about-signature-campaigns-definition-of-a-constructive-post-677129
Bitmixer.io automatically excludes posts that are under 75 characters in length although I believe it is the only one out there that has such a restriction. For any particular post, length is a poor-to-average indicator of constructiveness. For example, here is a post I made that was very short but reasonably constructive. The OP complained about the newbie posting limits and believed that their posts were getting discarded by the forum software. I was the first to reply that that this was not in fact true and showed them how to retrieve their posts by accessing the draft feature.
Post length becomes a better indicator of constructiveness once it is applied to posting history. Those with entire post histories that consist of short one or two sentence replies are highly likely to have their posts classed as unconstructive while the opposite is true for those who have a history of making lengthier posts.
As for some examples of highly constructive posts, here is one and here is another. Note that these posts manage to be constructive without being overly long.
For an automated solution, post length is probably the only realistic measure of constructiveness that we have today since machines currently lack the intelligence to classify posts based on their semantics and context within the overall thread.
[snip]
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/question-about-signature-campaigns-definition-of-a-constructive-post-677129
Bitmixer.io automatically excludes posts that are under 75 characters in length although I believe it is the only one out there that has such a restriction. For any particular post, length is a poor-to-average indicator of constructiveness. For example, here is a post I made that was very short but reasonably constructive. The OP complained about the newbie posting limits and believed that their posts were getting discarded by the forum software. I was the first to reply that that this was not in fact true and showed them how to retrieve their posts by accessing the draft feature.
Post length becomes a better indicator of constructiveness once it is applied to posting history. Those with entire post histories that consist of short one or two sentence replies are highly likely to have their posts classed as unconstructive while the opposite is true for those who have a history of making lengthier posts.
As for some examples of highly constructive posts, here is one and here is another. Note that these posts manage to be constructive without being overly long.
For an automated solution, post length is probably the only realistic measure of constructiveness that we have today since machines currently lack the intelligence to classify posts based on their semantics and context within the overall thread.
[snip]
Of course you're right that this is indeed beyond the scope of most signature ad campaigns but in fact we might have the technology to do this, given the work. Imagine you train a classifier on the posts of a thread and then measure the perplexity of a given post with respect to that thread, I wonder if you could find the right set of features such that this sort of framework could be a proxy for "constructiveness".
Yeah, that is why we don't use bots
March 17, 2015, 11:01:16 AM
I posted about this topic a few months ago and the responses I got were pretty interesting:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/question-about-signature-campaigns-definition-of-a-constructive-post-677129
Bitmixer.io automatically excludes posts that are under 75 characters in length although I believe it is the only one out there that has such a restriction. For any particular post, length is a poor-to-average indicator of constructiveness. For example, here is a post I made that was very short but reasonably constructive. The OP complained about the newbie posting limits and believed that their posts were getting discarded by the forum software. I was the first to reply that that this was not in fact true and showed them how to retrieve their posts by accessing the draft feature.
Post length becomes a better indicator of constructiveness once it is applied to posting history. Those with entire post histories that consist of short one or two sentence replies are highly likely to have their posts classed as unconstructive while the opposite is true for those who have a history of making lengthier posts.
As for some examples of highly constructive posts, here is one and here is another. Note that these posts manage to be constructive without being overly long.
For an automated solution, post length is probably the only realistic measure of constructiveness that we have today since machines currently lack the intelligence to classify posts based on their semantics and context within the overall thread.
[snip]
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/question-about-signature-campaigns-definition-of-a-constructive-post-677129
Bitmixer.io automatically excludes posts that are under 75 characters in length although I believe it is the only one out there that has such a restriction. For any particular post, length is a poor-to-average indicator of constructiveness. For example, here is a post I made that was very short but reasonably constructive. The OP complained about the newbie posting limits and believed that their posts were getting discarded by the forum software. I was the first to reply that that this was not in fact true and showed them how to retrieve their posts by accessing the draft feature.
Post length becomes a better indicator of constructiveness once it is applied to posting history. Those with entire post histories that consist of short one or two sentence replies are highly likely to have their posts classed as unconstructive while the opposite is true for those who have a history of making lengthier posts.
As for some examples of highly constructive posts, here is one and here is another. Note that these posts manage to be constructive without being overly long.
For an automated solution, post length is probably the only realistic measure of constructiveness that we have today since machines currently lack the intelligence to classify posts based on their semantics and context within the overall thread.
[snip]
Of course you're right that this is indeed beyond the scope of most signature ad campaigns but in fact we might have the technology to do this, given the work. Imagine you train a classifier on the posts of a thread and then measure the perplexity of a given post with respect to that thread, I wonder if you could find the right set of features such that this sort of framework could be a proxy for "constructiveness".
March 16, 2015, 08:08:12 PM
I posted about this topic a few months ago and the responses I got were pretty interesting:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/question-about-signature-campaigns-definition-of-a-constructive-post-677129
Bitmixer.io automatically excludes posts that are under 75 characters in length although I believe it is the only one out there that has such a restriction. For any particular post, length is a poor-to-average indicator of constructiveness. For example, here is a post I made that was very short but reasonably constructive. The OP complained about the newbie posting limits and believed that their posts were getting discarded by the forum software. I was the first to reply that that this was not in fact true and showed them how to retrieve their posts by accessing the draft feature.
Post length becomes a better indicator of constructiveness once it is applied to posting history. Those with entire post histories that consist of short one or two sentence replies are highly likely to have their posts classed as unconstructive while the opposite is true for those who have a history of making lengthier posts.
As for some examples of highly constructive posts, here is one and here is another. Note that these posts manage to be constructive without being overly long.
For an automated solution, post length is probably the only realistic measure of constructiveness that we have today since machines currently lack the intelligence to classify posts based on their semantics and context within the overall thread.
While it might be more time-consuming for signature campaigns than the current system we have now, some form of automated method like the one Bitmixer.io currently uses combined with a manual method that roughly scans through users' posting histories and paying users in proportion to the constructiveness of their posts should be encouraged in my opinion - i.e. make lots of constructive posts and you will get paid more and spam the forums with one line posts that simply parrot whatever previous posts said and you will get paid less. Not only would the advertiser benefit but the system should, at least in theory, increase the average quality of posts across the board since it would provide an incentive for users to create higher quality posts.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/question-about-signature-campaigns-definition-of-a-constructive-post-677129
Bitmixer.io automatically excludes posts that are under 75 characters in length although I believe it is the only one out there that has such a restriction. For any particular post, length is a poor-to-average indicator of constructiveness. For example, here is a post I made that was very short but reasonably constructive. The OP complained about the newbie posting limits and believed that their posts were getting discarded by the forum software. I was the first to reply that that this was not in fact true and showed them how to retrieve their posts by accessing the draft feature.
Post length becomes a better indicator of constructiveness once it is applied to posting history. Those with entire post histories that consist of short one or two sentence replies are highly likely to have their posts classed as unconstructive while the opposite is true for those who have a history of making lengthier posts.
As for some examples of highly constructive posts, here is one and here is another. Note that these posts manage to be constructive without being overly long.
For an automated solution, post length is probably the only realistic measure of constructiveness that we have today since machines currently lack the intelligence to classify posts based on their semantics and context within the overall thread.
While it might be more time-consuming for signature campaigns than the current system we have now, some form of automated method like the one Bitmixer.io currently uses combined with a manual method that roughly scans through users' posting histories and paying users in proportion to the constructiveness of their posts should be encouraged in my opinion - i.e. make lots of constructive posts and you will get paid more and spam the forums with one line posts that simply parrot whatever previous posts said and you will get paid less. Not only would the advertiser benefit but the system should, at least in theory, increase the average quality of posts across the board since it would provide an incentive for users to create higher quality posts.
March 16, 2015, 06:19:30 PM
That is a reasonable point, whatever you post in a foreign language section is basically unmoderated. Nevertheless, I think I also have a valid point which is don't these guys want the advertising there?
You are right at one point , the vital point of advertisement is to target a wider area of customer
which of course include the local boards
Also, couldn't the campaign manager communicate with the moderator of that subforum if someone was making rubbish posts.
It would take some extra work as the moderator will need to browse through the campaigner post count because if local boards is allowed, i bet that 90% of the campaigner will take advantage of this to post the majority of the post count there as it is more easy to post in local boards
March 16, 2015, 06:06:41 PM
While we're chatting about posts and what is or isn't constructive, I have to say that I've always been surprised that most campaigns don't count the posts in other language sections. I mean, don't you guys want non-english users to roll your dice just as much as you want english users?
the main issue about this is that a campaign manager cant judge wether the post is a rubbish or a constructive post because the campaign manager cant understand the language, people can claim that all his post is constructive in local boards while the fact that he only posted spam useless post cant be known since the campaign manager doesnt speak that language
That is a reasonable point, whatever you post in a foreign language section is basically unmoderated. Nevertheless, I think I also have a valid point which is don't these guys want the advertising there? Also, couldn't the campaign manager communicate with the moderator of that subforum if someone was making rubbish posts. I imagine that one of the conditions of being a subforum moderator would be the ability to communicate in English.
March 16, 2015, 05:57:07 PM
While we're chatting about posts and what is or isn't constructive, I have to say that I've always been surprised that most campaigns don't count the posts in other language sections. I mean, don't you guys want non-english users to roll your dice just as much as you want english users?
the main issue about this is that a campaign manager cant judge wether the post is a rubbish or a constructive post because the campaign manager cant understand the language, people can claim that all his post is constructive in local boards while the fact that he only posted spam useless post cant be known since the campaign manager doesnt speak that language
March 16, 2015, 05:49:36 PM
While we're chatting about posts and what is or isn't constructive, I have to say that I've always been surprised that most campaigns don't count the posts in other language sections. I mean, don't you guys want non-english users to roll your dice just as much as you want english users?
March 16, 2015, 05:30:33 PM
-snip-
I get your point.
What we did was that, we gave them a chance to improve. To show that this is not what we are looking for, not what the community wants.
If we only give spots to those who post well, others will never improve.
I get your point.
What we did was that, we gave them a chance to improve. To show that this is not what we are looking for, not what the community wants.
If we only give spots to those who post well, others will never improve.
Its a more educational approach, I like it.
Yes, we are slowly getting more strict on enrollment.. The change will be noticeable from next week.
Damn, now I gotta bring my A game
-snip-
I wouldn't call this discussion pointless mate, since there are very interesting thoughts popping up from the very same community we prefer to be part of our campaign. But I agree with certain points you made: i.e. to allow a constructive poster to participate, even if there are only 25 or 30 posts per week. Also our goal is to have permanent participants, with very few leaving. That will surely make it in the weeks to come hard to join, since there wouldn't be many free spots.
ndnhc and I are permanently discussing our campaign, trying to improve it! Also we feel it is essential to discuss the campaign with you guys, the participants, since you are the backbone of it - thus this thread.
Thank you all for being with us!
I wouldn't call this discussion pointless mate, since there are very interesting thoughts popping up from the very same community we prefer to be part of our campaign. But I agree with certain points you made: i.e. to allow a constructive poster to participate, even if there are only 25 or 30 posts per week. Also our goal is to have permanent participants, with very few leaving. That will surely make it in the weeks to come hard to join, since there wouldn't be many free spots.
ndnhc and I are permanently discussing our campaign, trying to improve it! Also we feel it is essential to discuss the campaign with you guys, the participants, since you are the backbone of it - thus this thread.
Thank you all for being with us!
I dont think you are doing it work honestly and the discussion is obviously not pointless. It was a bit provocative, but I stand by it that its not possible to define in a very clear way what a constructive post is.
I find it even more confusing now and I don't know if my posts are constructive or not. I don't post much in the Marketplace as I just find people out there posting on each newbie thread, use an escrow, you are selling fraudulent goods, nobody will go first and so on. I understand sometimes it is necessary to warn but if this gets repetitive, it appears as the member is spamming.
I have seen people get banned for those posts. Its fine to ask for escrow etc. if you want to trade, but if you just want to warn others use the trust system.
March 16, 2015, 04:45:29 PM
I find it even more confusing now and I don't know if my posts are constructive or not. I don't post much in the Marketplace as I just find people out there posting on each newbie thread, use an escrow, you are selling fraudulent goods, nobody will go first and so on. I understand sometimes it is necessary to warn but if this gets repetitive, it appears as the member is spamming.
March 16, 2015, 04:37:01 PM
If we review your overall post history and assign post count according to that, will it be acceptable to everyone?
Example, xyz is seen as a constructive poster. 95% of the total posts made are counted.
abc doesn't make any real constructive posts. 45% are counted.
If we do the counting like this, by checking the details of a post and coming to a conclusion and assigning a percentage to the user, will it be okay?
Well, some of the posters will ask which posts you did not count, what is wrong with that post, did you include this one and will have to answer them. So wanted to know your opinion.
Example, xyz is seen as a constructive poster. 95% of the total posts made are counted.
abc doesn't make any real constructive posts. 45% are counted.
If we do the counting like this, by checking the details of a post and coming to a conclusion and assigning a percentage to the user, will it be okay?
Well, some of the posters will ask which posts you did not count, what is wrong with that post, did you include this one and will have to answer them. So wanted to know your opinion.
I'd probably quit the campaign with uncertainty. I'm certain that I don't post crap for raising my amount of posts. I'm renting out my signature space because it's a nice way to rake in some coin, I wouldn't be hurt if I wouldn't get the payments, when I wouldn't rent it out at least.
But mainly, I want the payment to be fair. The effort to check up with rules, check payouts and also have to add the "perceived value"of the posts would start to be too much. Then I'd go for a lower paying campaign or just quit altogether.
See it like this:
If one would post in a certain thread, have a world shocking post, really have a lot of people thinking etc. 10 out of 10.
Let's say you accept 4 out of 10 as minimum post quality and this user would after his rocking the world post 3 posts that -to you- are a 3. See the example that i gave before, that post is (at least I think that is to the thread/readers) a 7. You could easily see it as a 3 because you don't take the time to read the context around the post. This user would get 1 out of his 4 posts paid. Another user that has 4 posts with quality 4 would get all 4 posts paid.
I don't think it's reasonable to keep these "high but unspecified" quality rules while you're not wanting to check the context of a post. In that sense I'm with some other posters in this thread, rules should be clear. Telling me that my posts are low-quality (as the Q in the spreadsheet suggests) annoys me because it's unspecific. I'm ok with wearing your company name on all the posts I make now including all the ones I've made on this forum before. Getting a "we accept X out of your Y posts, the rest is not up to our standards" notice isn't a way to go for me.
March 16, 2015, 03:31:47 PM
If we review your overall post history and assign post count according to that, will it be acceptable to everyone?
Example, xyz is seen as a constructive poster. 95% of the total posts made are counted.
abc doesn't make any real constructive posts. 45% are counted.
If we do the counting like this, by checking the details of a post and coming to a conclusion and assigning a percentage to the user, will it be okay?
Well, some of the posters will ask which posts you did not count, what is wrong with that post, did you include this one and will have to answer them. So wanted to know your opinion.
Example, xyz is seen as a constructive poster. 95% of the total posts made are counted.
abc doesn't make any real constructive posts. 45% are counted.
If we do the counting like this, by checking the details of a post and coming to a conclusion and assigning a percentage to the user, will it be okay?
Well, some of the posters will ask which posts you did not count, what is wrong with that post, did you include this one and will have to answer them. So wanted to know your opinion.
March 16, 2015, 03:26:32 PM
I think this discussion is pointless, because IMHO you can not and do not want to define what a constructive post is. You are looking for people that post constructively, that are engaging in discussions and the community at large. A single post can not reflect that and it makes no sense to get picky over this post or that post. If you look at a few pages of someones post history you will know who they are.
There are certainly borderline cases and IMHO it makes sense to consider handpicking campaigners as a manager. Instead of allowing everyone to join and weed out the spammers later, take a lengthy look when someone is applying. Consider whether you want that person to respresent your business. This might even exclude constructive posters when their main section is not appealing for you to advertise in. Once they are in, payment might include all posts, because it is only natural to have a few weak ones. Should this the posting behaviour change exclusion is always an option. I also think its important to remove an minimum posting requirement, but I dont think its a big issue. Yes, I personally tend to have no problem to reach a certain limit, but I also would not want to think reaching it. Just pay a overal constructive poster for 45 posts even though 5 are of low quality and the minimum is 50. The alternative is that they either leave the campaign, feel pressured to post more - which will only lower the quality - or they dont care - which is probably rare.
I think the only thing that can improve the reputation of signature campaigns is when its hard to join. Hard as in you need a history of beeing constructive and engaged and not hard as in there is only a limited number of spots. If spammers start to fake engagement everyone profits.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/constructive.png
http://xkcd.com/810/
There are certainly borderline cases and IMHO it makes sense to consider handpicking campaigners as a manager. Instead of allowing everyone to join and weed out the spammers later, take a lengthy look when someone is applying. Consider whether you want that person to respresent your business. This might even exclude constructive posters when their main section is not appealing for you to advertise in. Once they are in, payment might include all posts, because it is only natural to have a few weak ones. Should this the posting behaviour change exclusion is always an option. I also think its important to remove an minimum posting requirement, but I dont think its a big issue. Yes, I personally tend to have no problem to reach a certain limit, but I also would not want to think reaching it. Just pay a overal constructive poster for 45 posts even though 5 are of low quality and the minimum is 50. The alternative is that they either leave the campaign, feel pressured to post more - which will only lower the quality - or they dont care - which is probably rare.
I think the only thing that can improve the reputation of signature campaigns is when its hard to join. Hard as in you need a history of beeing constructive and engaged and not hard as in there is only a limited number of spots. If spammers start to fake engagement everyone profits.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/constructive.png
http://xkcd.com/810/
I get your point.
What we did was that, we gave them a chance to improve. To show that this is not what we are looking for, not what the community wants.
If we only give spots to those who post well, others will never improve.
Yes, we are slowly getting more strict on enrollment.. The change will be noticeable from next week.
March 16, 2015, 03:23:35 PM
Honestly, I think that if I were you, I'd try to work out ground rules for things that are clearly unconstructive. Then apply those rules.
One little addendum, I would definitely say that you can't judge based on length of post
Agree with both of this
Direct short answer could never be judged as non constructive, a short reply but if that is what the answer of the question will be then i will consider it as to be constructive
Ground rules, seems a good idea. Can you give me a few examples?
Like I can't say no +1 posts, etc.? It also depends on individual opinion. If I set down a rules, a few will like it, others won't. So, in the first weeks, I will not be so direct and precise. Constructive posts is a relative subject that varies from person to person. It is practically impossible to set down clear cut rules for that. But, you can certainly give some examples, and we will surely consider it.
The counting is not based on length. (I think I already said that a million times already, lol), if it was it is very easy to do the counting. It can be fully automated. That is not how it is done.
(But if you see all 20 posts in first page as one-liners and the ones are completely useless ones, what can you do?)
Simple and clear rules are the way to go. Right now they aren't because you said that you don't want people to post a lot in politics or news sections but on the other hand will count the posts if there's not a lot of them. How many are they allowed to make? 1, 5, or maybe it's counted as a percentage, so 5%? This is ambiguous to say the least. Either pick sections you want them to post in or let them to do it as they please.
I just mentioned it. It was not a rule, just a suggestion. As long as it is less than around 50%, it will be counted. I just added it since 2 of the prevoius week's participants had almost 90%+ of their posts there. And it didn't seem not very good to put them at the same level with those who posted good, constructive ones in the Maketplace boards.
It is just a mere suggestion, like we prefer posts in the marketplace section.
I wanted to change it, but I thought it is best to do so, when the net period starts. I don't want to make changes in the middle of the campaign and confuse people.
March 16, 2015, 01:18:57 PM
Simple and clear rules are the way to go. Right now they aren't because you said that you don't want people to post a lot in politics or news sections but on the other hand will count the posts if there's not a lot of them. How many are they allowed to make? 1, 5, or maybe it's counted as a percentage, so 5%? This is ambiguous to say the least. Either pick sections you want them to post in or let them to do it as they please.
March 16, 2015, 11:21:14 AM
Honestly, I think that if I were you, I'd try to work out ground rules for things that are clearly unconstructive. Then apply those rules.
One little addendum, I would definitely say that you can't judge based on length of post
Agree with both of this
Direct short answer could never be judged as non constructive, a short reply but if that is what the answer of the question will be then i will consider it as to be constructive
March 16, 2015, 10:44:18 AM
Honestly, I think that if I were you, I'd try to work out ground rules for things that are clearly unconstructive. Then apply those rules. There's obviously going to be some gray area on this topic and I think if you shoot for getting rid of the clearly unconstructive then that will be basically as good as you can do without becoming very controversial.
One little addendum, I would definitely say that you can't judge based on length of post. If I'm asking something like "how do you start bitcoind so it's listening on a particular port for RPC commands?" then a really constructive reply might only be a few characters long "$ bitcoind -daemon ...". You could say that a longer reply would be even more constructive (explaining what the various command line options mean) however the simple, direct answer is really quite constructive.
I think this kind of thing illustrates what I mean about looking instead for clearly unconstructive posts and trying to rule them out.
Cheers!
One little addendum, I would definitely say that you can't judge based on length of post. If I'm asking something like "how do you start bitcoind so it's listening on a particular port for RPC commands?" then a really constructive reply might only be a few characters long "$ bitcoind -daemon ...". You could say that a longer reply would be even more constructive (explaining what the various command line options mean) however the simple, direct answer is really quite constructive.
I think this kind of thing illustrates what I mean about looking instead for clearly unconstructive posts and trying to rule them out.
Cheers!
March 16, 2015, 08:24:40 AM
I think this discussion is pointless, because IMHO you can not and do not want to define what a constructive post is. You are looking for people that post constructively, that are engaging in discussions and the community at large. A single post can not reflect that and it makes no sense to get picky over this post or that post. If you look at a few pages of someones post history you will know who they are.
There are certainly borderline cases and IMHO it makes sense to consider handpicking campaigners as a manager. Instead of allowing everyone to join and weed out the spammers later, take a lengthy look when someone is applying. Consider whether you want that person to respresent your business. This might even exclude constructive posters when their main section is not appealing for you to advertise in. Once they are in, payment might include all posts, because it is only natural to have a few weak ones. Should this the posting behaviour change exclusion is always an option. I also think its important to remove an minimum posting requirement, but I dont think its a big issue. Yes, I personally tend to have no problem to reach a certain limit, but I also would not want to think reaching it. Just pay a overal constructive poster for 45 posts even though 5 are of low quality and the minimum is 50. The alternative is that they either leave the campaign, feel pressured to post more - which will only lower the quality - or they dont care - which is probably rare.
I think the only thing that can improve the reputation of signature campaigns is when its hard to join. Hard as in you need a history of beeing constructive and engaged and not hard as in there is only a limited number of spots. If spammers start to fake engagement everyone profits.
http://xkcd.com/810/
There are certainly borderline cases and IMHO it makes sense to consider handpicking campaigners as a manager. Instead of allowing everyone to join and weed out the spammers later, take a lengthy look when someone is applying. Consider whether you want that person to respresent your business. This might even exclude constructive posters when their main section is not appealing for you to advertise in. Once they are in, payment might include all posts, because it is only natural to have a few weak ones. Should this the posting behaviour change exclusion is always an option. I also think its important to remove an minimum posting requirement, but I dont think its a big issue. Yes, I personally tend to have no problem to reach a certain limit, but I also would not want to think reaching it. Just pay a overal constructive poster for 45 posts even though 5 are of low quality and the minimum is 50. The alternative is that they either leave the campaign, feel pressured to post more - which will only lower the quality - or they dont care - which is probably rare.
I think the only thing that can improve the reputation of signature campaigns is when its hard to join. Hard as in you need a history of beeing constructive and engaged and not hard as in there is only a limited number of spots. If spammers start to fake engagement everyone profits.
http://xkcd.com/810/
I wouldn't call this discussion pointless mate, since there are very interesting thoughts popping up from the very same community we prefer to be part of our campaign. But I agree with certain points you made: i.e. to allow a constructive poster to participate, even if there are only 25 or 30 posts per week. Also our goal is to have permanent participants, with very few leaving. That will surely make it in the weeks to come hard to join, since there wouldn't be many free spots.
ndnhc and I are permanently discussing our campaign, trying to improve it! Also we feel it is essential to discuss the campaign with you guys, the participants, since you are the backbone of it - thus this thread.
Thank you all for being with us!
March 16, 2015, 07:23:34 AM
I think this discussion is pointless, because IMHO you can not and do not want to define what a constructive post is. You are looking for people that post constructively, that are engaging in discussions and the community at large. A single post can not reflect that and it makes no sense to get picky over this post or that post. If you look at a few pages of someones post history you will know who they are.
There are certainly borderline cases and IMHO it makes sense to consider handpicking campaigners as a manager. Instead of allowing everyone to join and weed out the spammers later, take a lengthy look when someone is applying. Consider whether you want that person to respresent your business. This might even exclude constructive posters when their main section is not appealing for you to advertise in. Once they are in, payment might include all posts, because it is only natural to have a few weak ones. Should this the posting behaviour change exclusion is always an option. I also think its important to remove an minimum posting requirement, but I dont think its a big issue. Yes, I personally tend to have no problem to reach a certain limit, but I also would not want to think reaching it. Just pay a overal constructive poster for 45 posts even though 5 are of low quality and the minimum is 50. The alternative is that they either leave the campaign, feel pressured to post more - which will only lower the quality - or they dont care - which is probably rare.
I think the only thing that can improve the reputation of signature campaigns is when its hard to join. Hard as in you need a history of beeing constructive and engaged and not hard as in there is only a limited number of spots. If spammers start to fake engagement everyone profits.
http://xkcd.com/810/
There are certainly borderline cases and IMHO it makes sense to consider handpicking campaigners as a manager. Instead of allowing everyone to join and weed out the spammers later, take a lengthy look when someone is applying. Consider whether you want that person to respresent your business. This might even exclude constructive posters when their main section is not appealing for you to advertise in. Once they are in, payment might include all posts, because it is only natural to have a few weak ones. Should this the posting behaviour change exclusion is always an option. I also think its important to remove an minimum posting requirement, but I dont think its a big issue. Yes, I personally tend to have no problem to reach a certain limit, but I also would not want to think reaching it. Just pay a overal constructive poster for 45 posts even though 5 are of low quality and the minimum is 50. The alternative is that they either leave the campaign, feel pressured to post more - which will only lower the quality - or they dont care - which is probably rare.
I think the only thing that can improve the reputation of signature campaigns is when its hard to join. Hard as in you need a history of beeing constructive and engaged and not hard as in there is only a limited number of spots. If spammers start to fake engagement everyone profits.
http://xkcd.com/810/
March 16, 2015, 02:59:24 AM
Why? Hindi is only the language spoken by the majority.
--snip--
Speakers Percentage Speakers Percentage Speakers
1 Hindi languages[6] 422,048,642 41.03% 329,518,087 39.29% 366 M
2 Bengali 83,369,769 8.11% 69,595,738 8.30% 207 M
LOL! The main reason Hindi is considered to be our local language because of the Bollywood (Hindi Film Industry) and so Indian TV serials are also in Hindi langauges. "Hindi is the most widespread language of India" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India
Bollywood is not the only film industry in India. You are ignoring Kollywood (lol, I like they way they put that 'ollywood') that is the Tamil film Industry which is also very famous. That is just one among many.
TV serials are also in any other language just as it is in Hindi. There are thousands of channels that are in other Indian languages, lol.
Hindi is prevalent mostly in north.
You're not wrong in saying Hindi is the most spoken language in India.
But most internet users in India are well versed in English and they use English as the main communication language on internet, regardless of their native tongue (unlike China, where most users use Chinese). Hindi is a pain in the butt to type on keyboard, too.
And especially the ones interested in Bitcoins - and part of this forum - come from well educated background and English is their main communication language on internet.
I'm not saying this to include the India forum in post count; if other local boards are excluded, India should be excluded too. I just wanted everyone to know the facts about Hindi and English in India when it comes to internet.
But most internet users in India are well versed in English and they use English as the main communication language on internet, regardless of their native tongue (unlike China, where most users use Chinese). Hindi is a pain in the butt to type on keyboard, too.
And especially the ones interested in Bitcoins - and part of this forum - come from well educated background and English is their main communication language on internet.
I'm not saying this to include the India forum in post count; if other local boards are excluded, India should be excluded too. I just wanted everyone to know the facts about Hindi and English in India when it comes to internet.
Yeah, Local boards (India) are excluded just like any other local boards are.
Jump to: