Topic: sig campaign- what about "1merited post per week" instead of"25 post per week" (Read 970 times)

I was reading this thread and also other threads where members writing all problems they are facing and what could be solution for them.

Here is my opinion and proposal for solution because all problems to be solved must be treated from root of the problem.
Problems
  1.   Low quality posts on forum
  2.   To much post because bounty requires to have some per week
  3.   You cannot get merit because merit sources are not reading Your post

Cause of the problems
  1.   Bounty and signature campaign are asking to have some number of post per week. Members do not understand thread topic.
  2.   Campaign rules, activity rank demands to have some post activity during week
  3.   Merit sources are not in all threads and they cannot read all posts each member writes. Also, higher rank members do not read all posts in each thread.

Possible solutions
  1.   We have them because members can write one single line of sentence and sometime just rephrase others post. I have saw so many posts that give same answer to one question. This is not neccessary and here
        moderator could clean this posts. Moderator would leave only those which gives different answers to questions in a thread and this thread would have clean and not repeated answers.
  2.   Here could be set of rules how many post can be on forum. For example it could be max 7 post per week for any signature campaign.  In this case all members would not post to many posts on a forum just to fulfill
        demand and these posts would be with higher quality.
  3.   Forum members  should
        a. Decide which post deserves merit or not because posts are for them
        b. Or at least they should give vote for that post. After reaching enough votes for post, member will receive some merits for it. This way merits are given by members who reads posts.
        c. Also, there is another option that after reaching some level of votes, moderator or merit source would receive info to check this post and to give merit or not. Merit sources would not need read post but they
           would get automatic message to check and credit post with merit

That would be a good idea but these Ico's will have a free campaign because we all know how hard getting a merit so if you have 20 bounty hunters in a signature and only two get a merit for entire campaign, they will just transfer to a signature campaign that does not implement this kind of rule

I believe that would benefit experienced and high rank members, but I think it would be hard for full members below. Given that there are only a few sources of smerits and that they are very valuable and rare, it would be really difficult for others. However, I think that would make participants of signature campaigns more credible. It's a double-edged sword 

Not bad idea. But there will some thing happen if managers implement this policy. First thing will be happen, any company will not interest for signeture campaign. Next thing even some company will agree but it will increase merit abusing. Every one will try to buy or trade merit. Sure it will happen.

I think it's best option to prevent spam is earn merit requirement for signeture campaign. I have noticed many managers already enquired that.
I hope it's very good example on LoyceV thread. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.42289619

It's best policy for me to avoid spam.

Sir, I agree with you, the idea is really good, it will save the forum from a "heap of garbage"! But then the bounty campaign in the Russian locale will die. To get an Merit for the posted messages in Russia locale quality of the message is not enough. =( You need a lot of luck to get Merit  in Russia locale .

Profy managers of signature campaigns do not pay for 25 shitposts at all, they mark it in their spreadsheets as usual. But as I see, your suppose about 1merited post per week, can become our future here on the forum. If we started from 5-10 earned merits to join to some of signature campaigns now we need to have from 30 to 50 earned merits to join the newest signature campaign. Who knows what is going to be in the future?!

The idea isn't bad. But I am afraid that this will make more merit abusement. People can easily merit them by alt account or friends account. Perhaps, I like the rules of Yahoo. You need a certain amount of merit to join or get a higher pay. But our manager definitely can take your idea and do an experiment once. 

I like the idea, but probably the ICO team won't be happy with it and would fire the bounty manager. For them, quantity over quality wins. I start questioning the effectiveness of signature campaigns. Nothing caught my eye recently, I trust more some experts and do my own research later rather than clicking on some member's signature. And I can see sig campaign stakes allocation dropped significantly. So I'm not alone who think the same.

The prime purpose of signature campaign is to advertise whatever website or ICO it is. If the metric for payment is Merited post then the purpose of advertisement will be destroyed. Advertising is disseminating information about the website/ICO and the number of post is crucial. So at the end the number of post will still be counted and not the merit.

good idea , but IMO i  think its hard to implementation , there are good post but still didnt have get merit because the limited of merit source ,also the merit source didnt always check all post

Bounty Managers and Moderators do not have sMerits to award unless they are Merit Sources or have earned the merit themselves. Therefore, regardless of the idea, most of them would not even have a bucket load of sMerit to deploy the suggested option.
Even so, Moderators are not there to be complicit with Campaign Managers in helping out with their Campaigns (it should actually be the other way around; Campaign Managers should control the spamming on their Campaigns in order to help Moderators – and the forum overall).
Currently, very few Campaign Managers are leaning towards anti-spamming campaigns, although I have seen some and let’s hope it becomes a trend.

That may be in the minds of anti-spamming managers, but is certainly not a general practice. I doubt that it will be an enforced Forum Campaign rule, although those Campaign Managers that align with it should have some sort of benefit (and I don’t just mean that the Campaign will be better off due to a better bearing of the ICO’s name, but something more in the line of visibility as we have discussed on another thread just this week in Meta ( The core of Bitcointalk's spam problem).

How about a harder task of 30 posts per week yet gain 2 merits from bounty managers and moderators? Just a suggestion yet managers do reviews post before giving rewards and stakes right?

And how about adding a rule that a single shitpost would lead to no stakes? For campaign participants to take posting sriously.

I'm running the ChipMixer campaign with currently 59 participants just fine 

This suggestion is good for the forum but will not  help the advertisers. Advertisers need more visibility to their signature or project and that comes in the second case. If a member makes one post and gets merit for it, he will not make further posts. This will reduce the exposure the campaign will get.

Even if posts are low quality, they will get some traffic from search engines based on various factors. Thus, I am not in support of this. Having additional merit requirement after those post requirements may be a better idea.

So far the Idea was good I've seen the positive side of it because in signature campaigns your post should be constructive yet highly content in order to achieve the exposure needed by the project but there are 2 results it's either be horrible or not.

1. The Shitposters will improve their posts as well as the quality of their contents.
2. Since most of them likes to take advantage, It's either they will buy merit to others or they will user their alts to give merit to their own posts.

But if I'm going to guess most of them would do the number 2.

Would it then be out of place to suggest to CM by way of regulation not to accept more than, let's say, 30-50 participants per campaign? That won't be a bad idea, would it? This should go a long way in controlling spamming and shitposting, I should believe as the managers will have roving eyes on participants posts.

This is is the issue here really. A select few of the best campaign managers can run their campaigns excellently with zero spammers on there like Darkstar and Chipmixer for example, but when you've got dozens of crapcoin campaigns which pop up and accept hundreds of users each it's useless and they just dwarf everybody else by the thousands. You have to remember the crapcoin campaigns don't care about the quality of posts or how it effects this forum, and the more people shitposting with their signature the better. Running a campaign is probably at least a part-time job if not a full one but when people can get away with doing nothing they will. Would you turn up to work everyday if you were still going to get paid regardless of whether you got out of bed or not? Same situation here. Crapcoin campaign managers aren't going to do any work when they don't need to and this is the source of the problem.

Bounty managers don't have an incentive to stop spammers: they pay a fixed amount of made-up Tokens. If ten times more people join, they just all get a smaller part of the pie, but the campaign gets more exposure.
I really dislike Tokens: it's Ethereum's way of taking market share from Bitcoin by spamming social media for their own financial gain.
I'd love to see all campaigns with payment in Tokens banned from the forum. If campaigns are only allowed to pay an actual amount of Bitcoin per post, they'll be forced to start caring about quality.

Yah, Yahoo actually initiated that method but for some time he too has stopped using that criterion. On the overall, this world is such a horrible place. People (dissidents) will always find loopholes in everything good and circumvent it. Merit trading became the order of the day while the Yahoo method lasted. Although many accounts were surprisingly nuked for that.

On the 1merited post "bill", I don't think advertisers will like it. Publicity is advertising and advertising is publicity. You don't get the needed spread and publicity with people writing just a post. You get that with numerous posts.

The awarding of merit is not consistent. One week you could get 6 and then for a month nothing, even if your posts are of the same subjective 'quality'.

So perhaps merit is used as more of an entry requirement for the bounty. Such as 'must have at least 10 merit awarded since merit started to join bounty'.