By not paying for spammy posts he will not attract spammers, leaving room for people who make higher quality posts, which will increase the overall effectiveness of the campaign
That's one problem. Whether the post is considered spammy or is only the manager's choice and the participants are not being told which of their posts were disqualified.
The other is the length of posts. If it was only about spam I wouldn't even start the argument, but it seems most posters were paid less than they should because their posts, according to the person who counted them, were too short. I guess that's it, we'll see how they do next week.
Well it seems to be your argument for the manager to pay for all posts despite their spam status, which is obviously not the solution. If you are making a lot of one liners then you are more likely to have few/none of your one liners paid for, while on the other hand if you have mostly posts that you put a lot of effort into then a very short post
would be more likely to be paid out. Yes that is not treating everyone exactly the same when deciding when to pay a specific post however the one liner is more likely to be looked at closely if written by someone who has a reputation for putting effort into their posts verses someone who has likely made their ways to many people's ignore list for posting crap
You misunderstood me. I'm arguing that:
-There was only a rule saying spam is not allowed, but this rule turned out to be "I'll decide if I like your post or not" and nothing about posts being likely or more likely to be paid for. I find it to be picky, but i'm sure some people will like it and stay in that campaign, while some will not (they had at least 4 resignations after the first week).
-the manager said it himself that it's normal that some posts weren't counted if they didn't fit the formula
We kind of use a formula to determine the number of posts. We won't be able to classify all posts as constructive or otherwise, since some will be on the borderline.
And that the closer to the weekly limit you are the greater chance of your posts not being counted.
93 posts counted. Too many posts can't check atm. I saw a post in games and rounds and may be that was ignored? It tends to be stricter as the post count goes up.
I find this awkward and that's it. I'll allow myself to quote their manager again:
We will improve on our methods slowly.
Good luck then
