Topic: Shouldn't Theymos act on Bounty Managers Now (Read 1118 times)

This is ridiculous, let the Admin head institute an action against these managers or else, they will destroy the forum in his hand, as the Head Admin. Exploiting the system for their Contentment and never worry of the forum future? they aren't seeking for the forum progress therefore the forum shouldn't seek theirs too.


Not comfortable with them not be able to check their employees work at the end of the day, before payment be made to their respective accounts. Let the upper room take the necessary action now or never.

Absolutely in agreement with your idea to provide guidelines and rules that will govern them all.


That is the spirit of patriotism, and am convince you are one among the good citizens of this forum, keep it up sir/ma'am, "we will get there to put an end to them someday!!!."

I just gonna drop those here, so hopefully someone will see the problem all the way from the past til now.
Improvements in Bounty Campaigns
Campaign Managers and Bots. The main reason for the SPAM. Solutions?
Shouldn't bounty managers clean up spam posts in their thread ?
Setting Bounty requirements

They are because they accept anyone who applies in an altcoin signature campaign!
Is there any screening process that these bounty managers do? Do any of the applicants get rejected? I am not asking the reputable managers managing BTC campaigns but the rest. It seems that anyone gets accepted as long as you have the needed rank.

Simply looking at the numbers you would understand that a manager of an alt campaign doesn't have much time to check the posts.
- They accept 300+ users, maybe even 1000s in their signature campaigns.
- Many campaigns also have social media campaigns. Not sure what the average is in those, but lets say 2000 users. X3 for facebook, twitter, instagram for example.

So lets say that a campaign has 300 participants in their signature campaign. Every user has to post 15 posts weekly. 300 users = 4.500 posts weekly.
2.000 social media participants in facebook, twitter and instagram campaign = 6.000 posts daily, 42.000 weekly.
Altogether that is 46.500 weekly posts that need to be checked by a human in terms of quality!
And that is just the work that needs to be handled for Sig and Social Media campaigns and there is much more.

To sum up, most bounty managers can't check and don't check what the participants in their campaigns post as there is no time for that.
We are in need of a particular set of guidelines and rules for Altcoin bounty managers if something is to change.

The same reason all the bounty spammers are here - greed, money, personal gain, etc. They don't care about the future of the forum, they only care about how best to exploit it for themselves.

We shouldn't be forcing the good managers to clean up the mess of the bad ones. If the bad ones can't follow the clearly laid out rules that I linked to above, then they get a warning then a ban from the mods. Mass bannings would quickly send the message that they need to clean up their act.

  Then what is the reason why they are still here on the forum, if they aren't ready to contribute to the progress of this forum?. Although am not yet conversant with these Campaign Managers on this forum, but have read some comments about some good Campaign Managers who have been here for longtime and doing well in this regard.

Suggestion: Let these senior Campaign Managers take it upon themselves to work on the new springing Campaign Managers to be useful to the forum, and not just to make money to the detriment of this forum. If possible, let them form a union to handle issues of this caliber. Defaulters within the unions will be dealt with if found accept spammers into their campaigns. “Just my little cent”.
  

The problem is that most campaign managers don't do their jobs. Have a look at the guidelines in the following stickied thread: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign). It states that campaign managers should be actively monitoring their participants daily, and that they should not be paying people to make poor contributions en masse. This clearly isn't the case.

There are small handful of good, clean campaigns, which are generally run by one of the users on this list (Overview of Bitcointalk Signature Anti-Spam Campaign Managers), but the vast majority of campaigns pay out for any old spam, whether or not it is contributing to the thread, whether or not it is on topic, sometimes whether or not it is even understandable. We can't leave it to campaign managers because there are too many campaign managers out there who will employ spammers en masse.

That we have seen many time on the forum, where accounts are rank up behind higher accounts which to me act like grandfather account rank children's accounts. Many deserved accounts on the forum are starving with merit while others with grandfathers are enjoying the privilege of grandfathership, thanks for your diligent notice.

As rightly said, the merit could be fix on 20 earned merit from Full Member rank and above while 10 merit for Junior members and Member account. This can curb spam and plagiarism, although this cannot be rely upon, but the rest should be left for the Campaign Manager to decide whether to allow such account to participate on the campaign or not, as merit cannot be a yardstick for quality post.   

32k active users, hmmm, close to the number of all the people that received at least one merit

So, 5000 users the AI saidddd...wtf..you've gone eco too?

It didn't pass emission standards?

Seems like the 10 merits idea is indeed feasible...

Among ~32k users who posted at least once in the last 30 days ~5300 have "http://" or "https://" in their signature.

I don't care much about those ICOs and most of them end up paying their "workers" useless tokens.
That "ecosystem" needs to be cleaned and invasive species exterminated
Overall a lack of people able to display a sig might end just like in the real economy, higher wage for those qualified, employers must prove they can pay you, better rates...and a lot of those who don't qualify will try to earn some merits to join the club.

I don't know if it's possible to find out, but would be interesting to know how many active users carry a hyperlink signature right now.

Those BTC paying campaigns would currently be covered, and they also tend to require a minimum amount of Merits per se.

What would not be covered are all those other signatures that pay in their own token. Much as we may like this fact (lack of mass candidates for ICO signatures), ICO campaigns are a large part of the current signature ecosystem. Unless the forum wants to play a hand here through means that have been suggested before (i.e. only accept BTC paying campaigns), the numbers would not add-up for them with the current volume of overall campaigns (plenty of smiles here I guess …).

I consider 7500 as being a big enough number, and you have to take into account that a lot of people will slowly earn this in the future as they will get motivated to at least "earn" the merit.
Let's exclude 1/3, 2500 (and I think I'm pretty generous here) for the older members who don't give a damn about sigs, old accounts no longer active and you still get enough members for 100 campaigns with 50 participants.

According to this: we currently have 18 campaign running. Haven't' checked them all but I doubt they have more than 50 participants on average.

Oh, and obviously I don't care for ico/bounties sigs.

Personally I think we should be tagging the shit managers, they are a bigger problem than the shitposters now

Plag busting isn't something new, and everyone that takes their time to read the rules know's the price to pay for this >>>BAN

Not to defend anyone or anything but Most if not all bitcoin signatures at the moment have atleast reputable campaign managers that cross examine users post history before accepting new participants unless in a few cases were a company tries to manage it's own campaign with their hand picked manger...otherwise if your post history is bad you won't get into that campaign!

Maybe the problem lies in the companies that are seeking for bounty managers services away from the forum were they get to engage newbies for the job and the end result is everybodies guess....spam but with the merit system it counters for better posting.

Indeed but posters with tons of posts and never a single merit, stands a bit for sh*tposter or spammer, and indeed I would think earning 10 merit isn't bad to exclude more members with only intentions to sigh campaign and spam the place...

Most of the times people with interest in specific sections and making good or contributing posts will be noticed and be merited, i'm sure of that.

I don't see that necessarily as a bad thing. The majority of running signature campaigns are for either trash or scams. When you can pay participants at no cost to yourselves from a token you've just printed out of thin air, then there is no requirement to either have a solid business plan or select good posters to maximize your advertising. If the majority of these scammy token/altcoin campaigns ended up struggling to recruit as many people as they want, then so be it. The campaigns paying in bitcoin for real services and business will continue to have no issue.

Your numbers are interesting. The massive drop between 1 and 2 merits, compared to the much smaller drops between 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5, suggests that several thousand accounts have bought or traded for a single merit. Even an increase to 5 would probably be sufficient.

There’s also a number game behind the scenes to consider. Delimiting Campaigns by earned merits, whilst conceptually interesting, renders poor numbers to cover all currently running campaigns as soon as we start increasing the threshold.

If we take a look at how many merits people have earned, the numbers as of last Friday look like this:

1 earned merit or above: 28.339 accounts
2 earned merit or above: 17.419 accounts
3 earned merit or above: 13.606 accounts
4 earned merit or above: 11.888 accounts
5 earned merit or above: 10.739 accounts
10 earned merit or above: 7.503 accounts
 
Delimiting campaign signatures to 10 earned merits or above leaves only 7.503 currently qualified accounts that could take part. Likely small for all current campaigns, which could have some benefits on the other hand both overall and individually for those participating, but may cause a shortage of candidates and have an impact on the number of running campaigns.

Edit: I don't see it as a bad thing either, but likely there is a likely delicate equilibrium to keep, and a shortage of signature candidates may cause more than a ripple in that equilibrium.

Your suggestion, if implemented will also look chaotic like de-ranking. The forum will run amok and the Meta section will go up with petitions. We saw a little of that during the "1 merit" requirement for ranking up Jnr Members. Again, that someone doesn't get his posts merited doesn't mean the poster is a shitposter/spammer. It could (rightly so) that he isn't lucky getting them merited. I have seen great posts which aren't merited lot here.

I don't want to de-rank anyone. I agree that that would be unfair. I only want to remove signature privileges until you have earned 10 merit. That is not a difficult task for anyone who isn't a spammer.

There already is. A limit of 1 merit is too low because it is trivial to buy a single merit. Buying 10 merit is much more difficult and will mean the supply of merits being sold dries up much more quickly.

Link to these good posts in this thread and they will be merited: [self-moderated] Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source

I don't think they would care about that. If a project makes a bounty with the intention to cheat their bounty hunters they wouldn't be interested in the consequences. Considering that these projects usually only pay after a successful ICO, and not on a weekly basis, they would have already gathered enough funds and the ICO is over so posting proof that they are scammers and expecting a punishment wouldn't change anything. They already got what they wanted.

The only way to get some regulation in the bounty and ICO world would be enforce these campaigns to pay in a weekly basis (like BTC sig campaigns). There is still the risk of getting a bag of worthless tokens.
Or, force them to pay in BTC. It has been suggested many times before and it is certainly not on top of the admins to-do list.