Topic: New way for sig campaigns (Read 1111 times)

Though most of us would welcome changes to how some/most campaigns are run, it is the regulation part of the debate that has alienated some members. I think LFC_Bitcoin captured the mood of many members with his direct to the point approach.

And from what I understand, yahoo62278 stated he had no intention of telling other manager what to do. He was trying to offer a beneficial service to clients and to some degree hoped other campaign managers did not change the way they operate.

What I wanted to say was that (for me at least), I have much more available time on the weekends and wednesdays, so I could be posting more these days.

I understand Hhampuz though, honestly.

---

Hey man.

Just an opinion about LoyceV (I 'll post it here without any hesitation):

LoyceV is getting this amount of money because their overall contribution in this forum is also phenomenal. There are many tools that I use that were developed by him. I don't always agree with him (for instance about BIP39 which I find intuitive personally).
I am not Loyce's advocate, don't get me wrong. I don't compare him with you, or anyone. I am just saying that Foxpup wants this forum to be safe and work properly. That's why her club consists of magnificent members (not talking about me).
Apart from that, Loyce used to be a forum member long before their deal with Foxpup and many of his contributions were made before that.

But, apart from that, this forum has members who are great (many of them have already posted here).
And it's a privilege to have a digital area where you can have conversations with them.

So, there are users (not the majority but many) who are great forum members despite of their signature deals (answering to LoyceV too here about his ATM vs Forum mention).

That's exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't like someone's posting habits, you simply don't invite them to your campaign. And if you fill the campaign with only those whose posting habits fits you, you shouldn't need a minimum post requirement as they will write required amount of posts anyway.

Having said that, I do understand that it's easier said than done, as realistically there are more spots in campaigns than there are decent posters. As a result, managers often make compromises and hire below average posters, imposing bunch of restrictions and rules in order to get some results out of them.

Yes, though its true that no rules can change that, but however rules can actually regulate it on this forum, which is why I guess Sir Yahoo62278 came up with this thread as a guide  to help other campaign managers come up with a unified strategic plan to reduce the impact of "poor campaign participating" as we begin the new year 2025. Because one thing I always believe when it comes to signature campaign is that managers play an important role between satisfying the interest of clients and choosing the best user for that job. Hence, inasmuch as every manager may not agree to a consensus to using a particular pattern for signature campaign, which is still not a bad idea, since diversification makes the forum unique. I will still like to urge each and every one of us that it is our core responsibility to always report any post by any user that is perceived not to be in line with a topic of discussion (i.e Off topic) to moderators. As this will be a huge task for managers who handles multiple campaigns such as Sir Hhampus.

However, I'm sure with the discussions made on this thread by our respective managers, we are likely to see a massive improvement by campaign participants this new year.

Few reasons why we still have some high-quality posters without signature offers; they have influence, but their posting habits will not benefit the manager or client--they are good, but not everyone deserves to be paid.


That's where you strike the balance between quality and Numbers - you can't do without both.

When a client approaches you, they're expecting two things -Influencial/reputable profiles and the numbers ( how many times can you show our signatures). They emphasize more on the numbers

I think we all agree burst posting should not be happening  

You said it, I it doesn't matter how many posts I make. If there is any doubt:

A few And I'm pretty sure none of them are spamming, which is what this topic is about.

Unless there is good reason, favouritism or actions perceived to be favouritism by a campaign manager will probably upset the balance within the campaign group therefore it is not a good idea.

In your capacity as a campaign manager you would have to deal with the matter if some thing like that ever happened in one of your campaigns. You would probably receive universal support if the participant complained simply because they were your rules and the participants breached them, if they enrol they have to adhere to the rules you set regardless of who the member is.

You are in a very privileged position of getting a phenomenal amount of money every week (0.015 BTC) I believe regardless of how many posts you make just for wearing an avatar and you have been doing it for around 5 years. It is hard to tell whether you use the forum as a forum or as an ATM yourself because we do not know whether you would be posting here and in which numbers if the financial incentive was removed. The same applies to the vast majority of over 99.99% of us here.

How many members receive 0.015 BTC every week for wearing an avatar without a quota to meet? When BTC was priced at $100,000 that equated to $1500 for the avatar you wear therefore you might not be best placed to understand why some members make ends meet or those that earn more from $50 a week campaigns than they do in their real daily jobs. If you have that understanding then that is great but either way I think we all agree burst posting should not be happening. Having said that, without the financial benefit attached to campaigns, the forum would benefit first by having all the farmed and most alt-accounts abandon it. After that, almost everybody else would leave except those that have technical expertise and just a few others. In many ways, this forum is already an ATM for the majority that use it.

Maybe, the greedy and corrupt have created a huge number of farmed accounts and need time to catch up all of their accounts with their quotas. Maybe someone with a couple of alt-accounts needs to do the same for the same reason or to top up their weekly income either for greed or to support their family. Or maybe someone that has a 7 day a week job earning a couple of hundred USD$ in a land where poverty and corruption is rife was ill and could not either get to work (for which they will not be paid) and they could not meet their quota therefore tried to spam their way in to meeting it when they had just a day or two in hand.

Without doubt many members do use the forum as an ATM as they have already decided that having an account automatically means having the right to enrol on campaigns, hence the number of farmed accounts along with the cliques for political purposes. This is when a proportional amount of understanding, compassion or ruthlessness is shown by a competent campaign manager to address the issue and hopefully things will improve (and they have) when it comes to spamming.

It could happen for many reasons but the ATM part has become a reality.

But if manager is not satisfied with the amount of posts someone is writing on the weekly basis, why even hire him in the first place?  Or if someone changes posting habit in a way that no longer fit the campaign, manager can always replace him.


The manager should be able to explain to the client that there are other factors at play besides sheer numbers (ss we know, there are managers who can do this and their campaigns have no minimum).

This statement surprises me, and it goes against this:
If you use the forum as a forum instead of an ATM, there's no need to "take 2 days off" if you don't reach your minimum to be paid. You can still just post what you want, because you like it even without payment. I'd say that's the kind of people you want to have in your campaign.

If someone makes 20 posts in a day, no matter who they are, they are clearly only thinking of their wallet and not anything else. If you are given a pass, then everyone will expect 1, which is how corruption starts.

This forum is accessible via mobile or desktop which means a person can login at anytime and make a post or 2. If you are away from the forum for 5 days and have 2 days left to get your posts in, the best thing you can do is take the rest of the posting period off. 1 person is no better than another, just more reputable in cases. I'm ok with someone posting sorta fast if it's on topic, decent quality, and not everytime they login, but 20 in a day is a no no matter who it is.

On the whole it seems a very good idea to restrict posts per day however one possible side-effect of that could be to encourage some posters to create multiple accounts (including industrial scale account farming).

Now that you mention it, I understand the need for a competent manager to clamp down on burst posting but in the past I have had some situations where I was busy away from the internet in general and had quite a lot of posts to make in order to meet my quota with just a couple of days remaining. It can happen to any participant but it does show aptitude from managers if they know when/who to sanction participants and when to give the benefit of the doubt (as well as know who the regular offenders are).

Who would want to be a campaign manager these days? 

Exactly what I mean from my first response, because their is some certain rules we enforce to exist because of our personal interests why is not supposed to be like that

So I agree on your suggestion, if you come across a post you know that you don't like, you can easily report the post and mods will take care of it

Secondly, a campaign manager has the right to reshuffle he/her campaign when he finds out the promoters  of the campaign is not giving the best...I think Hhampuz always do that to keep his campaign active... so enforcement of rules by user that's not in agreement of the staff will make the forum to be substandard in the future.

Hhampuz already beat me to it but I'm gonna top it up- I've said something like this somewhere I can't remember.

Giving the freedom to post any number of posts per week is good, but hiring someone who will only write 5-10 quality posts per week will only benefit the forum and not the client side - the client is looking for numbers (to have their signature display many times per week), so as a manager, you must strike a balance between satisfying your clients and ensuring the forum is not polluted. It's a difficult job.

You can't have ''new way'' for signature campaigns that only applies for campaign participants, you need to have changes and improvements for managers, and forum would need to change also.
If someone is spamming and making low quality posts for a longer period of time, than manager should be responsible for paying him and giving him ''fuel'' to continue.
Problem is that there will always be such things as poor campaign participants, poor managers, and poor campaigns... no new rules can change that.

I tend to agree with this.
People grow tired and put members like this on ignore.

Anyone who posts habitually more than 7 posts a day will have no issue if only 5 is counted. At the end of each week they will have over 35 posts that can be counted from. Only people affected are those that posts more than 7 occasionally.

Having PPP will be the biggest factor to help natural posting. You do not have a weekly threshold you have to reach and can be relaxed with whatever amount you can manage to put together for that week.

- Jay -

I appreciate the feedback @LoyceV & @apogio, these are things that I have been thinking about doing but it is always a balancing act between pleasing the client and accommodate the users here at bitcointalk. But hey it's 2025 now so perhaps a full switch to PPP is on the cards.

And as for the max 7 posts per day point, as LoyceV pointed out I don't think it breaks rule 4 either - for me it was about discouraging burst posting (I had cases where people just made 20 posts on the last 2 days of the week). It has had the desired effect, I recently upped it to 7 from 5.

Allow me to nitpick (again): this doesn't break #4! It's totally fine if certain posts don't get paid. It may become a problem if the campaign participant changes his posting habits to meet the campaign criteria, in this case by spreading the posts he would have made in one day, out over the rest of the week.

Well put.

In fact, what the forum needs is:

1. quality posters that will continue to post regardless of the deal.
2. good campaign managers that will respect the posting habits of each member individually.

(1) can be somewhat determined by user's attributes (merits and posting content should be enough).

(2) can be determined by each campaign individually. The campaign should follow the criteria I 've posted here:


This way, you can be certain that users won't post just to post (aka get paid), downgrading the forum's overall quality.

---

However, @Hhampuz I saw the duelbits OP and I want to give some suggestions.

You say:


Why don't you change it to:


Then, pay (with the income from the campaign) 2-3 people who have the necessary time to do the job of seeing who is not posting as they should and collect the posts that shouldn't get paid each week.

These users could be rolling, to guarantee transparency.

Although I agree with the "not needing vigilante rules" part of your post, there's a problem with this part: if posts don't get reported, they don't get removed. And if spammers get paid to produce thousands of posts per week, people grow tired of reporting them (which, unlike spamming, isn't a paid job). If Mods don't ban users for shitposts, reporting their posts is a thankless and endless job.

From the campaign thread:
Why don't you remove the minimum, and pay a pro-rated amount if users post less?