Topic: Signature campaign post quota - page 3. (Read 913 times)

You won't only have min 10 weekly posts per participant, there will be a max quota too. With min 10 posts, you will get 50*10=500*2= $1000 spent. What about the max quota? If the max quota is 15 posts per week, you need more $500. I don't think anyone would be interested to join for max 10 post per week. You would barely get more than a few members with max 10 post per week and thus again, a very shortage of campaign participants at the end.

Are my calculations wrong because I don't think that adding slots always means increasing the budget?

Weekly budget: $1k
Target posts: 500 posts ($2 per post).
I can open 25 slots where each participant must reach min. 20 posts weekly;
or I can open 50 slots for min. 10 weekly posts per participant.

It's just up to the manager how to vary the campaign model without compromising the overall target post.

I can't talk for other campaign managers but I always try to run pay per post campaign. However, it's not only your (I mean the campaign manager's) decision. The team plays a great role here. Because they want more reach, they would try to get the maximum exposure with the budget. Pay per post is great for getting quality posts to be honest but it sometimes doesn't bring the maximum post per week like you said above. But the campaign wants the maximum every week.

If you want to open more slots, you need an increment in the budget too. You just can't expect that everyone won't reach the post quota so with the previous budget, you can cover all of them. You have to increase the budget on paper. The team will see the budget every week in the invoice.

Regardless, I encourage all the projects to run pay-per-post but it's not on me all the time. The same applies to all the other campaign managers too, maybe.

I've never understood the rationale behind post quotas, maybe someone can explain the thinking behind them? (After digesting the rest of this post, obviously.)

I don't know why all campaigns don't just follow the pay-per-post model: instead of asking for 25 posts per week for $50 (let's say) why not just offer $2 per post with a 25 post cap?

The only real problem I can see is that people might not post enough (for the company's needs), but because a lack of posting corresponds directly to money saved, why not respond to that situation (if and when it becomes a problem) by opening more slots?

Its managers job and it would really be their criteria on how to determine a good quality post or not, even if its one liner then it wouldnt really be an issue as long it would be on point or directly to the topic.

If we do speak about Chipmixer which is known to be the highest paying campaign wayback and now its been completely stopped due to some legal issues.It would be understandable that criteria and
qualifications on getting in on the said campaign would really be tough. Most of them are known or popular on this forum or something that has the reputation plus having that
tons of merits.Therefore, getting in would be impossible for those who arent making merits at all.

Although we do have some campaigns todays which pays decent but the competition is really that high because qualifications becomes even more tighter.It all depends on the
manager on how he would be choosing his participants and in speaking about post counts then its neither on personal choice of CM or by the company but most
likely it would really be on the manager itself on making such numbers.

I view your point as a wrong articulation. If a manager set 25 as a minimum post for the week to get paid then they should stick on that point. Even at that. 25 set by the manager is forcing the participants to meet up that demand. Normally 99% of the users of the forum any number of post they want a day or a week on their own. Nwada001 you are making your argument from the Capitalist point of view which is fully supporting the idealism of the managers in the forum, but if you look it from the opposite point of view then you will discovered that what you are saying is even contradicting your own self. I don't why a manager set a specific number of post quota and still a participants from the campaign when he meet up the quota to 100%.

In the realist school of thought , those managers are not qualified to manage any campaign because they are violating their own rules. If a manager set 25 as minimum and the participants post 80, the manager will still count the 25 and kept the remaining 55 as uncounted so if a participant post 28 in a week, the manager would still take 25 and leave the rest or in sometime the system would delete 2 or 3 from the post so because of that every participant post more that the weekly post quota.

Well the socialist scholars have not become managers in the forum so we are going along with the exploitative managers for their own benefits and not even the company benefits, it is few managers that are good that I know in the forum. It is only Capitalist managers that are found in the forum which alienating the participants and still want them with heavy load. If participants post more than the post estimated or stipulated number by the manager he should be paid high which some manager are doing now.  What OP is trying to portray is the truth. Why managers set a number of post to get paid in the week and still remove participants even though they meet up the number and even more?

You're just like saying if high amount and long posts are better than 20-25 posts and one liners.

There's a former Chipmixer campaign who's tend to post one liners, but almost all of his posts are counted, this is because of his quality. It was a biggest campaign before and only the top users can participate. Actually there are many users post 2-3 paragraphs, but when you read his post, you will see if he's just repeating what he said before.

Assuming the campaign have a minimum 20 posts and there's a bonus for extra 10 posts, I wouldn't surprised if someone will say, look this user creating 30 posts/week only to get the bonus

True, rates went up significantly in the last few years. I remember when I was looking for my first signature campaign, an average rate was $50 for Legendary member and now it doubled. Hopefully this trend continues.


That's probably the best way to force members to increase their post quality, not to count their shitposts and I do hope that managers are strict in that way.

What I like is that managers started removing below average posters from their campaigns on the regular basis, which wasn't so common in the past. If members know that they won't be kicked out of campaign unless they leave it by themsleves, their post qualiy will eventually deteriorate.

I doubt it, least not most. I think the managers have done a decent job lately of getting users fair rates.

Just because a user posts in the gambling section doesn't mean the manager counts the post. Most managers have a different view of what quality is as well.

I think 20-25 posts per week is a perfect balance between spamming and making signature noticed for users. But I would increase number of minimum characters used in post. Because common "150 characters" is just one sentence, one line. User completes campaigns task, so it is no good to blame him for one liner, but one liner does not look good and useful. Setting amount of daily accepted posts is also a good addition to campaign rule, that prevents spamming weekly quota in few days.

I think it will be good to add a bonus, that will stimulate to post more than 20-25 posts, but dont make posting a torture and reward spamming. Sort of a "make each week extra 10 posts, and get $5". Reward isnt that huge to go crazy and make always more posts, but a nice tiny reward for extra efforts.

Are they willing to pay more for that amount of posts, or they expect to pay the same as those who ask for ~25 posts, which kinda became a forum standard?


If managers know that 50% (I think that percentage is much higher btw) of those who write in gambling board have no idea what they are talking about, why force it then? Isn't it better to check their post history and if you see they write in places where you want to advertise more, then you hire them? That way you eliminate the need for certain board posting quota.

I have used this same system in the past. Ideally users should be doing 3-5 posts beyond the quota  to avoid not being paid. Never know when a post will be deleted by a mod for being off topic, thread got moved to a section that doesn't count, or reported for multiple other reasons.


Let's expand on this a little. Little Mouse is correct, you have to balance the company and the forum. Some companies want to see 30+ posts per week( I've had many discussions about the number) but if we ask for 30+ posts per week there will be a bigger load of low quality posts than is seen now. If the company doesn't feel they are getting any value from the campaign, they will just end it and move on. This is why I feel it is important for participants to make a post here and there in the companies thread that hired you.

Requirements on sections are managers trying to help a company. For example, gambling sites are going to get the most from users posting in the gambling section. Problem is, half the people posting in that section these days do not have a clue about gambling. They joined a campaign and are just trying to get paid at any cost.

If you are the type of person that doesn't post very often, try to find a pay per post campaign. If you don't like a campaigns rules, noone forces you to join.

I don't know which campaign manager you're pointing out but generally from my assumption campaign managers don't want their participants just make a post on bitcointalk to get payment, managers do check the posting habits of users and if they feel someone is not fitting in their criteria then they have all the rights to remove them from campaign. From the poster point of view it's okay to post whatever you want without violating the forum rules is okay.

It's not Mandatory is an aspect of those participating in campaigns in which their pay is calculated per post up to a limit, for instance, minimum 5 posts a week and maximum 25–30 posts a week. If you make 10 posts, you will get paid, but it's not mandatory to make up to the maximum.

But under the bounty section, just like the one you are wearing right now, if you don't get your maximum post count, you won't get paid, so in an aspect like that, it's mandatory.

Saying post requirement is not compulsory nor mandatory is very false, i don't know if you understand what you are saying, it is like you participating in a campaign that the post requirement per week to get stake is 15 and you make 10 post or less and then telling the bm it is not mandatory, 
If you say not compulsory for a participant to participate if they feel the post requirement is too much for them, yeah that is very clear, nobody is forcing anyone to be in a campaign where the post requirement is too much for them to handle. It is individual choices.

You understood Op very much well. It varies from manager to manager. I can tell of my own manager Hhampuz because I have worked with him for a long time.
He doesn't have problems if you make the exact 15 posts per week that is required in my campaign. His concern is that the 15 posts should be spread and you use the forum like a normal forum user and not to login and drop random number of posts in order to earn the week's pay without involving and engaging in discussion with others.
This is among the reasons he removed some users in 2 of the campaigns he managers.

A campaign participant should be able to re-examine himself and be true to one's self if the junk he drops is worthy of the pay he receives weekly.
The payment in the campaign is a major determinant. For instant if I am opportune to be in Whirlwind campaign. I will have to add additional energy and time to be sure I sincerely earn the 150/week.

Don't get confused, it's just there to become one of the rules, the most important is always the right of the manager to add/remove or/and pay a user or not in the campaign.


I guess you don't get what OP is trying to tell. What you said is right  that's obvious. What OP is trying to imply is, say the minimum post of the campaign is 25, the user make 25-28 post in the last 2 weeks which is good for the campaign rules and s/he get paid but was removed for the 3rd week because s/he just made bare minimum.  On the other hand, the manager expects its participants to make 30 posts above besides the minimum posts, sounds like confusing right? Like i said it's only there to complete the set of campaign rules ^{(e.g. you wont get paid if weekly quota is not reached)} but the last call will always be from the manager whether you are going to proceed the next round/week or not.

IMO, minimum 2 posts a day (14/week). There are members who post quantity with quality, they should be paid accordingly up to max posts.


I'm active on Reddit, I love being there for sake of it. However, here it's hard to shake of feeling that you are getting paid to post and this feeling makes your post feel phony, may be it's just me.

It's very simple logic that didn't need to argue if you think you didn't reach the commitment of minimum post quota post per week then, don't participate signature campaign.  The post requirements vary for each manager who managed the signature campaign and their agreement with the company that they manage to promote here.

I tend to agree with other's opinions, the signature campaign isn't a job and yet we're lucky that we incentivized making such quality post.  If your posting habit per week ranges around 15-20 posts then don't join a signature campaign that has a requirement of more than that and yet you're lucky if there's a low minimum requirement post quota per week.  So don't ask it will be generalized this rule to all managers who managed signature campaigns. 

There's no such fixed post quota per week which it would be basing up on neither on the team or the campaign manager on how many post they would really be requiring for you to be eligible for weeks payout but for sure it would really be playing around these numbers; 15-25 post per week and some of them doesnt really have minimum post count.

It does really vary on managers rules and conditions yet most of them is really just that the same but there are some few alterations which i do believe that it is really that basing up according
into their standards on which they would really be adding up some rules like posting a x/on a certain board and this would be basing on what kind of project/company
you are really that promoting. If ever it was a gambling or casino then its common sense that it would be asking on gambling boards.

When it comes to removal, then it would be usually into those people who do missed out few weeks on not on posting. Some are being kicked just because the manager do sees
that a certain member do really just made out post for the sake of money and quality is much been that mediocre. Its really that according on managers standards
whether a member would stay on the campaign or would be kicked out.