Topic: New way for sig campaigns - page 3. (Read 1633 times)

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?

Congratulations to you and Duelbits for enrolling 121 members the campaign. That is a huge number of participants in just one campaign and let it not be forgotten that their campaign has been constantly running successfully for many years. The credit for that goes to you and Duelbits for making it happen.

$25 per week campaign managers (and those managers that have contacted clients that use other managers to run their campaigns in order to try to steal them) have not helped the situation at all with their antics therefore they will probably continue with their own local rules rather than try to band together for the sake of cohesion. If they want to make a difference they can but I suppose they will want to stay out of any potential group of consensus.

Your tactic for rotating participants in order to keep them on their toes is a proactive move and no doubt has helped your campaigns. I cannot speak for others but in my opinion I think the point of no return was crossed a long time ago and the perk not job principle probably ended around the time when farmed accounts began running riot all over the forum. Many members now assume it is an inevitability to enrol in campaigns and part of the proof lay within the number of farmed accounts that are being operated. Without expectations of campaign participation they would never have created their farmed accounts.

I have 121 members in the Duelbits campaign 

---

As for the topic at hand, if we were to police this theymos would have to get involved and babysit all the campaign managers (or hand pick them) which I don't believe will ever happen. As such, it's nice if a few managers can band together and have some sort of QA when running their campaigns but in the end the clients will either go with their first contact or whoever is cheapest (looking at you $25/week campaign managers).

One approach I have taken over the last year or two is that I do these "cleanups" where I remove a number of members in any of my campaigns in order to get fresh blood in, some people tend to get complacent and just post to get paid after some time and this hopefully keeps everyone on their toes. I do however also have a bunch of users who see it as a job where they HAVE to hit x amount of posts but I always tell them that if you are busy or you have shit going on in life just take a break and get back to it when you can do it naturally. We need to get it back to a state where it's considered a perk rather than a job but we might be too far gone there too.

It's more of a general Forum issue and habit among some of the altcoin discussion board posters. I myself dislike reading walls of text, not because they are spam, but because I am lazy and do not have enough time to read long notes on the Internet. With that said....

Before I joined Stake, long postings were = quality; not anymore, we can't always regulate how they write, but we can always manage how much their posts are worth and how many X number of posts each participant earns/week.

You're only seeing the signature everywhere simply because we run the biggest campaign on the forum.. BTW this discussion isn't about stake. Let's focus on the topic.

Edit:


Such a bold claim - most reputable casino on the forum is the only thing I remember Stake for..

Humans are always repulsive to changes, especially when they don't understand the reason behind the change. A manager decides how to manage a campaign to be productive. Changes shouldn't be made because we have have done same thing for a long time. Changes should be made only if;

• The system already in practice is failing or has failed.
• If what is about to be implemented will yield better result to the project owners and as well as keep the community sane.

I am not against changes, but I only advocate flexibility, such that if what you want to introduce does not work, you stop it and rather than force it in order not to be tagged a failed idea.

Also remember that being a manager in BTT is not the only work you do. Implement what you can conveniently handle incase you begin to handle good number of campaigns, let's say 5 active.

This statement makes the whole drama with you sound like a selective attack on the stake signatures campaign and its participants, stake is one signature campaign that have been constantly attacked here in the forum, and the moment forum members wear stake signatures he/she automatically becomes spammer to some forum members, but sincerely stake has the highest quality rating system made up of reputable forum members and the reflection of that can be seen in the quality of posts and members wearing stake signatures around the forum.

I do not think there will be a universal approach, I have stated that several times already. Also, posting about the most spamming campaign does not equate to obsession and it is not an indirect attack. If you found problems with the number of spam posts as well as the quality/choice of poster on the BC Game campaign (which I am part of), I would not call it an indirect attack or obsession nor imply impropriety on your part.

Having said that, if there has been any marked improvement and there is an active approach to disassociate from the not-so-good posters that have multiple tags yet still find themselves on the Stake campaign, then it really is a positive move that can add to what is best or the forum.

Let me understand this, you stated "we" on numerous occasions therefore what is your role in the Stake campaign? I was told in a different thread you were checking spreadsheets and post quality, are you a campaign manager too?

If there ever was a vote there will never be consensus therefore the rules going forward are probably going to be as they have always been. Each campaign manager will set their own rules and criteria and that will not change unless theymos introduces a blanket system (but we all know he will never do that).

Man, at least I understand what you were saying, because in the other two posts, I didn't. I just see a long post with no dots that seems like it wants to say something and I'm not clear what. I hadn't reported them because at the end of the day reporting posts or putting someone on ignore is my decision and I have no obligation to do so, and here I'm talking about a structural problem of the campaign in which you participate, in which you are not the only one who makes such posts, although measures seem to have been taken to correct it.

But since you ask me I have reported the two posts to the moderators, although as I say I didn't want to focus on you but on a problem of the campaign in which you participate that is not sufficiently well corrected and I am by no means the only one who thinks so.

Happy New Year from me as well.

As mentioned in your thread quote above, let me state here again and since this thread is somehow related to your topic and as it both borders on improving quality posting in signature campaigns around the forum., when it comes to the issue of spam and quality posting in this forum, there is no generally accepted format, and what we have is a report, ignore, what that means is that anytime you come across a low-quality Spam post's report to moderators and such a post get deleted if your report is marked as good., if you find the user offensive you ignore and move on.

Happy New Year everyone!

I don’t agree with some self appointed centralised, not voted for, vigilante rules being implemented on the forum.

If anybody really has a problem with someone's posts, just report it to a moderator.

If it gets deleted then you reported it correctly and the system works.

If it doesn't get removed, then that's why we have staff/moderators to make that choice.

With all respect, the moment a handful of individual posters start dictating rules that the masses have not agreed to is the moment this forum dies.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and if you have made changes I understand that it will be for the better, but I still don't perceive them. The thing is that I usually find long posts that seem generic to me, that don't contribute anything, and when I look at the signature it's always the same. For example, in a thread I created recently, this is the last post:


And if you look at the first comment in the thread it's in the same style. I think maybe if you've made changes it's because there are still reminiscences of the past system where people write long posts but don't usually say much. In fact, if you look at the first comment in the thread it's the same.

I know you have great quality posters but I don't know what it is that at least in my experience I keep coming across long posts that seem to me like verbiage that doesn't say anything. I don't know what the solution is, but at least be aware that the problem still exists at least in some cases of some of your signature campaign members.

I don't understand your recent obsession with stake sig campaign but it doesn't look good - begining to look like an indirect attack.

We've had the post cap measure in place for a long time to encourage only quality posters; the lower your rating, the fewer posts you're required to make per week. Our payout method solely favours high-quality posters. In the end, we will only do what we believe is best for the forum and our clients. We are always open to changes, however our current system is similar to what the OP suggests.

There's never going to be a universal approach if that's what you think is going to happen.

I don't know if it's time for a change, but you have a campaign running. The members of your running campaign must be good fighters to run the campaign because the rules you have given are important. If you want to follow those rules, a member must recharge the maximum amount and earn merit by improving the quality of the posts. All those who are running are performing well. I was there, too, and tried to do my best.

Although I'm currently in another campaign, I still follow your rules because by following your rules, I have learned a lot, know, and prepare myself for a good position. Those in your campaign are performing very well and moving forward very nicely. If the rules you have shared here or what you want to do are implemented, quality members will be found.

What you mentioned or tried to explain is certainly important but my question here is, can managers who have many projects running signature campaigns follow all the activities of so many campaigns well? Am a little skeptical about this because those who have a lot of projects running may not be able to pay attention well. Although I don't know about this issue, that is why I asked.

It was a very unpopular decision in some quarters for theymos to ban mixers because it affected the payments for campaign participants across the forum. When it comes campaigns, there is no reason why theymos once again cannot intervene with a set of ground rules. I think that decision (if he were to ever make it) would be very unpopular too. I understand there is a significant difference between banning mixers to disassociate them from the forum and laying down rules of how to run campaigns but it is an option (though I would not advocate it).

I cannot see way forward on this issue because of lack of consensus, except for campaign managers to implement their own rules as they currently are.

For me, the campaigns are totally fine as they are already, provided that:

1. no rush.
2. no minimum posts to get paid.
3. no mandatory posting in specific sections.
4. no need to change posting habits.

When I started co-operating with icopress (approx. 1.5 years ago), he always did the work like this.

Now, I co-operate with Royse who also does the work like this.

I 've expressed multiple times that:

A. I won't change my posting habits for a campaign.
B. I won't post in gambling section for any reason.
C. I won't go into a posting-spree just to get paid.

As long as the above criteria are met, I believe that the signature campaigns that follow them, will always shine among the others.

As much as I'd like to see that, it's never going to happen as it goes directly against the forum's mission to be as free as possible. But even enforcing the existing rules would improve things: it's been 7 years since Signature Campaign Guidelines was posted, and I've never seen it being enforced. So I guess change has to come from within the community, and some campaign managers indeed do a good job. But that won't stop the spammers as long as they get paid for it.

You guys know that I'm not always politically correct, but I agree that the system needs a rehaul.


In my opinion

#1. Theymos needs to introduce and develop a forum feature through which the signature campaigns can grow, and tax it in order to further finance it. I'm sure there are tons of talented developers who could help create a play field for advertisers and campaign managers to offer a better service.
#2. Campaign Managers have to go through a vetting/certification process, or even a training modul on which they would be educated on how to approach clients. A lot of campaigns here fail not because of the advertisers, but because of the campaign managers. If the campaign managers knew how to educate the advertisers in forum advertising, we would have more long term campaigns, and less short term fails. I'm not pointing fingers here, just look at the data, look at how many new campaigns start and how many finish within just a few months.
#3. Moderators need to step up their game with the gambling/sig spam. I love to talk about the industry, but the section here is just full of random spam, and since I've joined in there was zero (or very little) effort put into managing it. Sure, I can go and report a post here and there, but is just turning a little screw.
#4. Theymos/moderators need to find a way on how to reward top performers. The Merit system is great up to one point, but once you pass that there are no special recognition that divide people like Loyce and Dkbit from the others. Again, if I would be looking for 50 accounts for my sig campaign, I would need to dig for months and create several custom deals and custom requirements to make the campaign work. If I would have a magic wand, I would probably wish for filters in terms of forum post views/interactions, e.g. sort people who have the the most viewed/liked threads/posts on the forum. In that way you can easily, at the end of the week or month, see who had the most useful posts on the forum.

One thing that stood out in my campaign was the fact that profiles with a higher historical value performed better, e.g. an old account which owns and maintains notable threads had a higher click through rate than a newer account which posted like crazy. So if the word got out that creating a thread of value, or contributing to a thread of value, increases the value of your account (and thus gives you a better chance at a campaign), I think that people would make better use of their time here on the forum and actually post interesting stuff.