Topic: New way for sig campaigns (Read 2318 times)
A tier system with signature earnings based on the value users bring to the community is a good idea if done properly and fairly. No quality Bitcointalk contributor should oppose this. At the same time, you can't neglect the size of the signatures that Hero and Legendary members can wear compared to users of lower ranks. You might feel like your best campaign participant is a Full Member, but his signature code will never be as good and as attractive as that of a Hero/Legendary. Hence, it's not as visible and eye-catching as those of users with higher ranks. Like with anything in life, a balance is important.
In general, I believe campaigns shouldn't manipulate the natural behavior of members. Allow everyone to post where they feel most comfortable or where their contributions are most needed, and then select them without revealing the reasons why. 
It's not possible anymore, most users already know the criteria without the campaign managers need to stated the reasons.Gambling campaign? I will post in gambling board.
Must earn x merits per month? I will catch merit regularly including ask help from friends/local members.
Don't burst post? I will wait at least an hour before create the next post.
Don't burst post(2)? I will spread the post everyday instead of post in the last two days.
The only way to know the true character of every participants is don't mention any rules from the beginning, but it's already too late.
Even if the managers didn’t say anything about what they wanted from a poster publicly, the posters would still figure that out by looking at the accounts that were accepted into the campaigns.
Let’s go with the “Don’t burst post”
If a burst poster saves his posts for later use and posts them every hour, he is not a burst poster anymore. He exactly did what the camp manager wanted from him.
Is this a bad thing? Because he fixed his behavior. Does the reason really matter?
Smart people can see what leads to success by examining the world that goes around them. The others look for cheatsheets and campaign manager demand lists is kind of a cheatsheet.
In my opinion, campaign managers make their demands public because they already know there aren’t that many people with self consciousness around. That’s why they want to “help” these people.
And that’s because:
Campaign managers need the posters as much as posters need the managers.
Many good posters don’t realize the bargaining power they got. Without the posters the managers would lose their jobs too.
In the end lots of people with low quality posts still get accepted into the campaigns. *dunnoAscii
In general, I believe campaigns shouldn't manipulate the natural behavior of members. Allow everyone to post where they feel most comfortable or where their contributions are most needed, and then select them without revealing the reasons why.
It's not possible anymore, most users already know the criteria without the campaign managers need to stated the reasons.Gambling campaign? I will post in gambling board.
Must earn x merits per month? I will catch merit regularly including ask help from friends/local members.
Don't burst post? I will wait at least an hour before create the next post.
Don't burst post(2)? I will spread the post everyday instead of post in the last two days.
The only way to know the true character of every participants is don't mention any rules from the beginning, but it's already too late.
Users are free to post wherever they want, but I am using certain criteria in order to best rate them at how useful they will be to a client. Users that post regularly in multiple sections hold more value to a company then users that only post in the altcoin section or whatnot.
Let me clarify. What I meant by saying that is a bad idea is that if you disclose which sections you consider to be "more valuable," many members will end up spamming those sections. For instance, if you mention that you pay users who post in the "meta" section (just as an example) more, because it's perceived as the most valuable, everyone would then try to post there.
It's perfectly acceptable to hire members based on the sections they contribute to, depending on the project. For example, if the campaign is related to a "wallet," it would make sense to hire individuals who are active in that section, rather than those who are more engaged in the "mining" section.
In general, I believe campaigns shouldn't manipulate the natural behavior of members. Allow everyone to post where they feel most comfortable or where their contributions are most needed, and then select them without revealing the reasons why.
Just my 2 sats.
- Sections they frequent
Not this one, please. We don't want people spamming sections they know nothing about to enroll in certain campaigns.
In general, I think it would be best if every campaign manager prices users based on their own judgment without revealing why. Otherwise, you’ll start encouraging members to do things that could eventually have a net negative effect on the campaign and the forum as a whole.
I also think imposing a minimum number of posts per unit of time is a bad idea, the same as requiring users to post a certain number of posts in specific sections. Obviously, I am not a campaign manager, so I don't know what don't know, but as a member, I do not participate in campaigns that tell me to post a certain number of posts every week or in specific topics/sections. I’m fine with posts in certain sections not being counted, but I still want to post there. (I’ve seen one campaign forbid thier members from posting in certain sections before.)
I don't want users to just post everywhere hoping for a higher rating, I am actually looking at posts and seeing if the user is on topic, not repeating others, post makes sense etc and giving them a quality rating from 1-10. So far noone is above a 7.5 in total.
I do agree that all criteria doesn't need to be known and has not been shared. The things listed in the OP are just a part of the system.
FYI, I am only rating those whom are applying to my campaigns ATM.
- Sections they frequent
Not this one, please. We don't want people spamming sections they know nothing about to enroll in certain campaigns.
In general, I think it would be best if every campaign manager prices users based on their own judgment without revealing why. Otherwise, you’ll start encouraging members to do things that could eventually have a net negative effect on the campaign and the forum as a whole.
I also think imposing a minimum number of posts per unit of time is a bad idea, the same as requiring users to post a certain number of posts in specific sections. Obviously, I am not a campaign manager, so I don't know what I don't know, but as a member, I do not participate in campaigns that tell me to post a certain number of posts every week or in specific topics/sections. I’m fine with posts in certain sections not being counted, but I still want to post there. (I’ve seen one campaign forbid their members from posting in certain sections before.)
I am actually using a most recognized in my spreadsheet when deciding someone's quality score. How recognized doesn't say how good of a quality poster they are, but it does show how popular they are in the forum and show they have value when it comes to a signature campaign. Getting a sig campaign filled with users from the top 100 only would be very expensive to a company, but best value IMO for a brand.
it depends on the effort and it depends on the budget, not everyone always has a high budget (like my customers)
unfortunately we all know very well that if you want quality you have to spend, we know it and the customers know it too
I don't see any particular critical issues but I see an opportunity, that of optimizing and making it more efficient
in the past when you saw an advertisement on television, what happened? the client didn't know how much of an effect it had had, who he had seen
maybe you were a young 16 year old and you saw advertisements for dentures, useless and a waste of money
today with the internet it is easier, the advertisements are TARGETED, I want dentures to be seen only by men over 60 in North America (example)
targeted, precise, surgical and optimizes costs
we must learn to do this, in my opinion
It is during the manual or random checking part that a worth of a competent campaign manager comes to the fore. One manager in particular is known to manage campaigns for $25 a week in order to significantly undercut competitors. When someone is doing that, the overall quality of the checks becomes questionable (granted unless only quality posters are enrolled in the campaign).
I created a script that carries out all the checks I need to do automatically on EVERYONE, no one can escape my algorithm
i sell it here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/open-babo-signature-manager-coding-security-recovery-new-service-5511933
If i have my say on the matter, we don't have systems to automatically understand the quality of a poster..
Unfortunately, even if you wanted, there are no metrics you can come up with
certainly the parameters that can be taken into consideration are the age of the account, for example
then if it is for example in some top100 on BPIP, another one
but this is to establish whether they are of excellent "quality" with automatic parameters
being able to understand if a person writes well, you have to know them and you have to read what they write
I am actually using a most recognized in my spreadsheet when deciding someone's quality score. How recognized doesn't say how good of a quality poster they are, but it does show how popular they are in the forum and show they have value when it comes to a signature campaign. Getting a sig campaign filled with users from the top 100 only would be very expensive to a company, but best value IMO for a brand. Unfortunately, even if you wanted, there are no metrics you can come up with
certainly the parameters that can be taken into consideration are the age of the account, for example
then if it is for example in some top100 on BPIP, another one
but this is to establish whether they are of excellent "quality" with automatic parameters
being able to understand if a person writes well, you have to know them and you have to read what they write
It is during the manual or random checking part that a worth of a competent campaign manager comes to the fore. One manager in particular is known to manage campaigns for $25 a week in order to significantly undercut competitors. When someone is doing that, the overall quality of the checks becomes questionable (granted unless only quality posters are enrolled in the campaign).
If i have my say on the matter, we don't have systems to automatically understand the quality of a poster..
That's true. But once you have only quality posters in a campaign, you can automate the post counting and it'll give almost the same result as a manual count. At that point a quick review and randomly checking some posts is enough.
If i have my say on the matter, we don't have systems to automatically understand the quality of a poster..
That's true. But once you have only quality posters in a campaign, you can automate the post counting and it'll give almost the same result as a manual count. At that point a quick review and randomly checking some posts is enough.
If i have my say on the matter, we don't have systems to automatically understand the quality of a poster..
Unfortunately, even if you wanted, there are no metrics you can come up with
certainly the parameters that can be taken into consideration are the age of the account, for example
then if it is for example in some top100 on BPIP, another one
but this is to establish whether they are of excellent "quality" with automatic parameters
being able to understand if a person writes well, you have to know them and you have to read what they write
Unfortunately, even if you wanted, there are no metrics you can come up with
certainly the parameters that can be taken into consideration are the age of the account, for example
then if it is for example in some top100 on BPIP, another one
but this is to establish whether they are of excellent "quality" with automatic parameters
being able to understand if a person writes well, you have to know them and you have to read what they write
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Hire Bitcointalk Camp. Manager @ r7promotions.com
I think the "new way" is just going to be abused by some managers to avoid paying a fair amount because they will have a variety of highly subjective excuses not to do so.
The problems are, as I see it:
1. How would you track/rate the quality of individuals objectively? You would need to go through a lot of posts and trusts to assess the quality of each poster and weight of every trust. And these criteria are always changing. I doubt a sample size of a week or two is enough to judge the posting quality of an individual. And a lot of trust abusers are quick to give red trust for any reason, especially out of revenge or pure dislike.
2. Would managers be prepared to pay more than the going rate for higher quality posters? Or is this just a way to pay those they subjectively deem 'lower/average' quality posters less than the current going-rate and the high quality posters earn the same as now?
There are no problem to see at all.The problems are, as I see it:
1. How would you track/rate the quality of individuals objectively? You would need to go through a lot of posts and trusts to assess the quality of each poster and weight of every trust. And these criteria are always changing. I doubt a sample size of a week or two is enough to judge the posting quality of an individual. And a lot of trust abusers are quick to give red trust for any reason, especially out of revenge or pure dislike.
2. Would managers be prepared to pay more than the going rate for higher quality posters? Or is this just a way to pay those they subjectively deem 'lower/average' quality posters less than the current going-rate and the high quality posters earn the same as now?
1. From the experience of course and having information in mind like everything that is happening in the entire community. Every good manager understands the community very well. Yes, you will need to assess each user individually with data like merit/trust feedback/DT status/total posts number/post frequency both high and low posters/eligibility to hold a discussion/creativity/leadership/popularity/influence over others and many more parameters. The net contribution of a user to the community is very important.
Regarding trust abusers, the only one is JollyGood. Out of 1000 feedback he leaves you will find one or two is given properly. As a result to me his feedback are not worthy to consider, I usually ignore any feedback left by him. But for everyone else, I rarely doubt their judgement.
2. Supply and demand theory. There are members who will happily deny even if you offer them $6 per posts. Regarding current going-rate, what rate you have in mind? I will say there are no specific rate that can be called as a standard rate. The number is always different for individuals.
I have involved in this type of debate in the past, but I was told that the reason higher ranked members are given higher pay is not necessarily because they make better posts, but because they have higher number of posts made in the past.
You mean an open debate of some private conversations?
Because I understand that most people outside the forum, when they look inside, they capture an image of the highest ranked members despite their posting quality.
In my opinion, the merit system is not a panacea, but it's the best measurement to determine the posting quality of the members.
Even though it may seem arbitrary, I 'd say that perhaps a merit/posts ratio would be a good indicator. Wouldn't it?
I am sure that many campaign managers use these ratios already.
I think the "new way" is just going to be abused by some managers to avoid paying a fair amount because they will have a variety of highly subjective excuses not to do so.
The problems are, as I see it:
1. How would you track/rate the quality of individuals objectively? You would need to go through a lot of posts and trusts to assess the quality of each poster and weight of every trust. And these criteria are always changing. I doubt a sample size of a week or two is enough to judge the posting quality of an individual. And a lot of trust abusers are quick to give red trust for any reason, especially out of revenge or pure dislike.
2. Would managers be prepared to pay more than the going rate for higher quality posters? Or is this just a way to pay those they subjectively deem 'lower/average' quality posters less than the current going-rate and the high quality posters earn the same as now?
The problems are, as I see it:
1. How would you track/rate the quality of individuals objectively? You would need to go through a lot of posts and trusts to assess the quality of each poster and weight of every trust. And these criteria are always changing. I doubt a sample size of a week or two is enough to judge the posting quality of an individual. And a lot of trust abusers are quick to give red trust for any reason, especially out of revenge or pure dislike.
2. Would managers be prepared to pay more than the going rate for higher quality posters? Or is this just a way to pay those they subjectively deem 'lower/average' quality posters less than the current going-rate and the high quality posters earn the same as now?
This discussion is certainly a good initiative, but somehow everyone missed it, and it is worth mentioning that you are running the only one campaign whose payment rate is expressed in Bitcoin. The large fluctuation in the value of Bitcoin has led to the payment rate being fixed for USD, but still, this is a Bitcoin forum and full respect for this kind of support.
It reminds me of some past time.
Check again, the campaign payment is not fixed to USD yet. He only made slight changes in the payout due to high BTC price. It is still BTC based campaign.It reminds me of some past time.
That is OK, however a Hero/Legendary signature space cannot be compared to that of lower ranks, and there is a reason for this. There is also a reason why most clients are no longer interested in member and full member rank signature spaces.
It's acceptable, but for the forum's longevity and well-being, motivation must be given to lower ranks.
None of us started as a legendary member.
Most of the time, lower ranks develop conspiracy theories about higher ones. They tend to believe that the forum is meant to be used by higher-ranked members only.
From my newbie days, I have known yahoo62278 to be a manager that gives even a member rank opportunity to earn in the forum. It is not a bad legacy, worthy to be maintained.
I like your idea, @yahoo62278. If you use tighter filters during participant selection, companies will get the best participants, and quality users will be rewarded. But there are a few concern as well that a few other members discussed.
However, gambling campaigns seem to require a few specific posts in the gambling section. It's kind of forcing users to post there, so everyone here isn't gamblers even if they are quality users. We can't expect a meaningful post from maximum users who don't like gambling or are not familiar.
For me, I don't often post in the gambling section, and hence gambling managers won't accept me. It's kind of discouraging for me to be active on the forum besides my real-life business. But I like to read the forum; even if not posting every day, I have to log in here and read some posts.
Unless users have the freedom to choose sections, I don't think it's possible to maintain the post quality. Maximum posts on the gambling section are just garbage.
However, gambling campaigns seem to require a few specific posts in the gambling section. It's kind of forcing users to post there, so everyone here isn't gamblers even if they are quality users. We can't expect a meaningful post from maximum users who don't like gambling or are not familiar.
For me, I don't often post in the gambling section, and hence gambling managers won't accept me. It's kind of discouraging for me to be active on the forum besides my real-life business. But I like to read the forum; even if not posting every day, I have to log in here and read some posts.
Unless users have the freedom to choose sections, I don't think it's possible to maintain the post quality. Maximum posts on the gambling section are just garbage.
That is OK, however a Hero/Legendary signature space cannot be compared to that of lower ranks, and there is a reason for this. There is also a reason why most clients are no longer interested in member and full member rank signature spaces.
It's acceptable, but for the forum's longevity and well-being, motivation must be given to lower ranks.
None of us started as a legendary member.
Most of the time, lower ranks develop conspiracy theories about higher ones. They tend to believe that the forum is meant to be used by higher-ranked members only.
If you are a high rank who makes decent posts you have nothing to worry about. Basically, I am open to giving a lower rank user a chance at making more money based on their quality and other factors. When a campaign is launched there are 100+ applicants applying to fill 15-20 spots. Managers weed through those applications and choose the best people for the job. It's not 1st come 1st serve.
That is OK, however a Hero/Legendary signature space cannot be compared to that of lower ranks, and there is a reason for this. There is also a reason why most clients are no longer interested in member and full member rank signature spaces.
This discussion is certainly a good initiative, but somehow everyone missed it, and it is worth mentioning that you are running the only one campaign whose payment rate is expressed in Bitcoin. The large fluctuation in the value of Bitcoin has led to the payment rate being fixed for USD, but still, this is a Bitcoin forum and full respect for this kind of support.
It reminds me of some past time.
It reminds me of some past time.
The only downside of this Bitcoin fraction payment is when the Bitcoin price goes up the pay rate is reduced but when the price goes down the managers left it that way..
People can advocate for whatever they want, doesn't mean it will happen. The whole point of this thread for me was that I personally am going to make a few changes in campaigns. Sure people can make suggestions, but in the long run it is my decision on how I want to do things. I will have the company in mind and the forum as I genuinely care about both, but I would like to see members who are genuinely putting in the effort, get rewarded vs accounts getting top dollar because of rank and not putting in the effort.
This discussion is certainly a good initiative, but somehow everyone missed it, and it is worth mentioning that you are running the only one campaign whose payment rate is expressed in Bitcoin. The large fluctuation in the value of Bitcoin has led to the payment rate being fixed for USD, but still, this is a Bitcoin forum and full respect for this kind of support.It reminds me of some past time.
I am not asking other managers to follow me, they can and will do what they think is best. I am also not saying whatever I do is perfect, but I am going to try to change it up a bit and if it's better or worse and make decisions with the data I get.
That in itself shows a proactive and evolving approach to campaign management. I wish you success.FYI Perfectbaby last couple posts in this thread almost make me fall asleep trying to read them and comprehend what they are saying. It looks like they are trying to say HI but using 500 words to say it if that makes sense.
I have nothing against that user, but I think they are trying to hard.
I noted it too, there are several posts from the Perfectbaby account in this thread that seemed over the top and unnecessary. I do not know why they decided to try too hard with the walls of text but if you take a look at the account history for that member you should pick up very quickly it is not the only the operator is controlling. Maybe that has something to do with it. I have nothing against that user, but I think they are trying to hard.
Jump to: