Topic: Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns - page 253. (Read 17849 times)

That was a fast one didn't even get to evaluate it anyways I guess it shows that their is Bitcoin to be made outside of the bitcointalk forums in other alt-coin sections.
If that qualified as an alt-coin campaign or an external reference to another site.

Gotta add that one bit though:
@Armed: Sorry if that's what you understood, that was not my intention. Of course that is okay.
Just didn't like the kind of attitude that people often put on. There could be no sig campaigns at all and people would have to sit there doing faucets for many many hours to even get close.

Perfect!

No, but you're saying it's wrong to claim you're entitled to getting paid for the advertising you've done, because you haven't "lost anything, except having to bear the 'unbearable' signature ad".

@sed

Let's just keep it at what we can both agree on, that it's a kind of contract that both parties have to fulfill according to terms.

@PRC_May  Perhaps I interpreted your comment about "entitled" in the way that seems most relevant to me.  I apologize if I misconstrued what you were saying.


I don't exactly see that.  If someone says to me "I want to rent this space for this much money" and I agree, that seems a lot more like an agreement between individual parties than it does to an employer/employee relationship.  In any case, I apparantly am missing some of the context here, because I don't really know what you mean about "demanding stuff out of the blue".

As far as whether it's a gimmick, I don't know that I agree.  As far as I can tell, what you mean by that is that the impact is trivial.  But that doesn't seem to be the case.  At least, for your sake I hope that it's not.  I know that from my end, the litle bit of BTC I make doing these ad campaigns has eventually added up to a pretty respectable sum.  But then again, what's respectable is obviously open to interpretation.  In any case, it's certainly more than you'll make clicking on faucets for hours.  And I hope that my sponsors make a good profit from the traffic that gets brought to their websites from my posts.


Here I think I disagree entirely.  If someone is scamming, then I lost the value of the contract, which might be very little or very large depending on the rate of pay and the number of posts involved.  To be honest, this is one of the main reasons that I'm not interested in monthly campaigns.  I don't want to lose the value of a month long contract if the contractor fails to pay (as in the case of updown, recently).  I don't think it's just spoiled brats who say that they expect people to uphold their end of an agreement.


Well, I just post like I post.  I like to argue (to a point, I don't like flamewars, but I like discussion).  And by "free money" threads I think you're talking about signature campaign threads, which I definitely keep track of.

Cheers!

Don't quite get your message there.

One party offers a deal the other party can accept or not. Sounds fair?
Free markets FTW.

It's not about that, it's about a 2 part agreement where someone agrees to pay another person for a service. The owner of the campaign sets    - ALL - the terms, so it's not about people "demanding stuff for little work".

@sed You obviously didn't get what I meant and what the other posters meant then.

People act as if they felt entitled to free money. That is all.

It's like going to an employer and demanding stuff all out of the blue for doing extremely little. These campaigns are a nice little gimmick for active BCT members nothing more.

And even if someone is scamming, what did you lose? Nothing? Having to bear the unbearable, a line of advertising?
This sounds like spoiled brats.


Edit: btw, your post history so far mostly consists of arguing in "free money" type of threads since you've signed up.

I think you didn't understand what I said at all.  I'm obviously in a agreement with PRC at the moment.  I obviously agreed to terms of that agreement.  I also consider that prc is bound by that agreement and therefore I am "entitled" to the terms of that agreement which, in this case, are a payment per post.  Anyway, I don't know what you mean, saif, so I'm going to leave it at that for now

No one going to do any agreement with you if you want to do then you must accept their terms of agreement

I'd say that I am entitled to pay if someone has made an agreement with me to pay.  I don't bear someone's advertizement for free.  If I don't have any advertizement then I don't feel entitled to anything.  But if I bear an advertizement that I put on for a certain agreement, then I *do* feel entitled to the terms of that agreement.  Does that make sense?

But now few already catches and many under under stick eye of Stunna and other members of this campaign just because of this now its hard to do cheat

Exactly, some people feel like they're entitled or something.

People even talk about how to cheat PD's campaign.

It's a tough balancing act getting the rates right. Stunna has to take into consideration the value he is getting for the coin he is putting forward first and foremost. On the face of it this suggests that more posts generally means more visibility. The trouble with that is that many posts can occur in areas of the forum that have relatively low visibility, or are clumped together in a dead-end topic e.g. many of those within Off-Topic.

Then there is the whole managing post quality and keeping the PrimeDice image clean. Lots of poor quality posts may put the PrimeDice stamp around the forum, but it can be detrimental to the brand image. Furthermore it only fuels peoples' anger towards programmes like this. Stunna is proactive in ensuring that the spam is cut down and that the post quality is mostly good. MICRO's recent analysis into PD post quality was fed directly into last month's payouts where a number of questionable claims were flagged up.

Then there is the whole competition side of things. Who pays most, who is most reliable etc. It all contributes to what is decided to be a fair earnings for fair posting.

Whatever Stunna sets the rates to we know that we are going to get paid for fulfilling our end of the bargain, and that to me is crucial. To be paid bitcoin in exchange for making posts on a forum is a nice little earner in free time.

The number of posts with a PD signature will likely go down thus PD's exposure will go down as well

because with such rules will give rise a lot of spammers are just pursuit of post only, and for the members and the upper rank definitely get more than just 0.01 per week

That signature campaign has been now cancelled as no one is interested in joining it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8051455

Get sorted out which ranks can apply and which not, change #2 afterwards. As in: only members or higher allowed.


5 is not a Rule, is it? WHy call it auction? Is it an auction? If so, why a fixed price?
4 is just bs IMHO. If you only want to pay 5, you should only hire 5.
2 means you only want to do this 1 week? So its a one time deal?
3 together with 4 means you are basically promoting spam. Think about it, the week is almost over all of your 7 contestants will know where they stand and will try to reach at least spot #5. There will be spam, there will be drama. Again if you only can/want to pay 5 people, hire 5 people, not more.


Well you are paying in bitcoin if I understood you correctly, so you are correct here. You are paying directly, correct?