Topic: Signature campaign post quota - page 4. (Read 882 times)

There's no right post quota per week, each campaign is unique and the manager decide what the post quota is, if you're not comfortable with the rules then don't participate in the campaign. As a signature participate, you're an employee of the campaign manager and his rules are his for you to follow or you get removed from the campaign. The minimum quota rules are there to give the campaign some amount of weekly works but you shouldn't be making just the minimum, if you're doing so then you're indirectly telling the manager that you're just there to make money and such users aren't useful to the forum because their posts aren't usually quality but just there to make up the weekly quota.

There are so many campaigns on the forum therefore you're free to join those that suits your posting styles and habit. I did a thread on that few years ago titled; [Guide] Factors to consider before joining paid signature campaigns but many people just join any campaign available and then begin adjusting their posting habits or style to fit the campaign and this usually drops their quality. For example, some campaign requires you to be active for some specific amount of days (judging from their maximum daily post count) so if you're not very active on the forum, you shouldn't be joining such campaign. Every campaign manager wants the best for the projects that they're managing as such users that aren't promoting the project effectively to their tastes can be removed at any moment.

I don't see any problem with that. The quota is set because in order to get paid for wearing the signature you have to offer a minimum of value to the advertiser. I usually offer more, writing above what I get paid. Some weeks many more posts.


As far as I have seen in the campaign I am currently participating in, the manager has removed participants for writing just the right amount of posts for the quota or maybe even more because it is an indication that you are writing exclusively to get paid. I think what they are looking for is someone who enjoys the forum in general and takes the payment of the campaigns as an incentive for good posting, but who is not on the forum exclusively for the payment.


It is clear that payment is a motivation to write, but as I said before, there is a difference between taking the payment as an extra for your general enjoyment of the forum and being seen to be only interested in payment, which I think is what happens to those who are removed even if they have met the weekly quota.

Frankly speaking, I doubt it. Even good posters, even those coming from the prestigious Chipmixer campaign who used to produce high numbers of posts when the maximum paid posts were 50 are now apparently adjusting to the maximum of their new campaigns. That, to me, however, is completely understandable. Those who claim otherwise, those who think that a user's posting habit and level of activity should be the same whether he/she is on a campaign or not are probably saying one thing and doing another. Although I believe that is true to a handful of respectable members here, probably the great majority aren't like that.

That your posts are paid entails responsibility. It may not stop you from taking a break and go on a vacation, but it is enough to actually compel you to make a post. But that doesn't mean you end up producing shit posts. That each of your valid post costs $5 means you are prodded to make one. Again, not necessarily a useless one written for the sake of compliance. But without that payment, it could be possible that such a constructive post wouldn't have been written. I think paid posts encourage and incentivize knowledgeable users here to participate in discussions, make valuable contributions.

Hypocrisy aside, I think that many of us here are counting posts, but that only happens because they are paid. If they weren't, we wouldn't have cared at all. If we are short 1 post, we go, "hey, that's a waste of $4, why shouldn't I start reading interesting threads and contribute my couple of Sats?"

A good point, sigcamp is not a job or shouldn't be seen as one, the manager I'm currently with, Icopress, in his campaign thread made a statement which defines signature campaign, he said that posting in the forum is a hobby and the reward we get it's a compensation. If a person sees signature campaign as a job, then that makes it a wrong view, regardless of the number of accounts they use in working here or amount of money they make per week, it remains a way of saying thank you for being productive in the forum and channeling traffic to the brand we wear their banner. As for post quotas, every week can't be predicted, some weeks appear more busier in a participant's life. They could be more engaged in real life activities that they may not post more in the forum, but such users are expected to at least bypass the minimum number of post to be eligible for payment. If they don't that means the few posts they made in the week won't count, as it's a deal.

The answer is yes/no. When I was still a junior member, I did not wear a single signature. There are times when I make more than 10 posts per day. It all depends on the kind of topics I come across that very day and how conversant I am with those topics. Sometimes it all depends on how many times I am quoted and mentioned by other users. I always make sure I reply to 3/5 of the times I am mentioned. I sometimes limit the number of times I make a post.

This is because of a time I came across a thread where there was a list of users mentioned on that thread for bust posting, and the user who mentioned them was like, "Let me see how long this enthusiasm will last." This is because those mentioned users were always making posts on the forum with their rank; it all looked kind of spammy to others, which I would not want to get myself into since I was not that familiar with the forum rules.

But during my stay on campaign, if my previous campaign ends, I will still maintain my minimum posting limit. There is no week that I post below 30 posts; some weeks I drop above 35–60 posts, which is always above what any campaign that I'm on demands.

Yes, the joy of coming into this forum and dropping posts on a daily basis will reduce; I might even not post for an entire day, but wearing a signature campaign reminds me that I have a daily or weekly task to perform, and once I am in this forum, I forget about having a weekly target or not. It's just me trying to be me around the forum and nothing else's.

Those who complain about post quota are not well informed of the campaign goal, it is clearly stated on some of the signature managers' campaign threads, I don't believe it has something to do with just numbers but it's more on quality and motivation and posting habits of the participants.
I doubt if a manager will take out a participant who has good contribution to the forum even though he is just hitting the minimum quota.

well, the truth is that each manager has the right to put the rules he thinks will be productive, in the past I also had the opportunity to be a ignature campaign manager, it seems an easy job, but it is not easy. when I counted the participants' posts I noticed that most of them were posting in the same sections, so one of the challenges is to make the participants post in several sections of the forum but at the same time as when you have a ignature campaign a casino so you have to put requirements that direct participants to post in the gambling section, there is nothing wrong with setting a minimum post value as long as it does not break the forum rules

I particularly see no reason to complain about the rules of private companies and how managers should or should not do their work, if you become a ignature campaign manager, put your rules in place and then you'll see if you'll get good results, with so you will have the answer to your question, as you have not yet been a ignature campaign manager it will be very difficult for you to understand the reasons that lead to these minimum post values, but you can also create a thread in which you would post interviews with everyone ignature campaign managers, it would be good to hear from them what they think about this topic

I'm remember yahoo rule on any casino campaign, like "don't apply if you're not familiar with the gambling board".
All post minimum requirements are fine. This consideration should come from potential campaign participants, whether they should apply if it becomes a burden. Some people argue that sigcamp should not be considered as a job.

Some members are not aware of this rule and some are taken by surprise when they are removed without warning although managers do not have to issue warnings because when you joined you know the rules when you joined the campaign, but is still better to have a comment on the spreadsheet so you can gauge yourself on your standing on the campaign.
I know one manager who does this, he may be strict but he is fair when he imposes his rules

I'm not trying to single out Little mouse here. I didn’t mention any name of the campaign for the sake of discussion. Even Royse777 campaigns have this kind of rules about discouraging the minimum post quota behaviour. You can check it for yourself as you are already with his campaign.

Ignore my credibility and focus on the subject matter. I'm not active Bitcointalk user but I usually check services board for signature campaign news. If I'm an active user here hence I will notice immediately my issue on my trust feedback.

I only noticed this quirk rules starting to enforce by some campaign manager.

@little mouse this topic is not about you. It's about the general discussion of services. You are not the only one enforced this kind of rules.

Even if what you are saying was true, that still doesn't mean that members shoulnd't discuss it. This is a discussion forum after all and if I was a manager, I would be very interested to hear what other members have to say about signature campaign rules.

Why do you think that managers started launching campaigns with less strict rules when it comes to post quota? Things are changing, its sellers market and managers are trying to do whatever they can to attract quality members and one of the ways to do that is to have as relax rules as possible.

First, I noticed that their is more of competition among memebers participating in campaigns and signature campaign managers always select the memeber who they think is best, normally some memeber go above the required post count and seems the managers prefer them more to those that only do less the required post or those that only do just the required post. Normally for me, I think that doing only the required post means that the person is only posting for the SATs, but that aside (I might be wrong about that), some of those that even do just the required post, may end up having some of their post rejected due to low quality and I think that's why some managers remove memeber from campaign, apart from that, managers specifically use to specify "a read before joining" which sometimes says "campaign manager have the right to remove you without any explanation."  So it might not also really be that the reason managers remove members is because of the lower required post count.

Also, for some campaigns, there used to be an extra bonus that required much posting to win, but that's not really any reason why campaign managers remove members. Sometimes, reason is best known to them.

If I gues correctly, some reasons why some members get removed from campaigns are due to competition; some members are doing lots of posts normally without putting on any signatures, so probably the manager removes such people that do less post and employees those that usually do more posts. Perhaps all they also want in the best exposure for project they manage their campaigns.

Your opinion is great and fair. When one decides to follow rules strictly, the implementation becomes non flexible from the end of the enforcer.
Thanks for the absolute clarification here!

Your discussion is not going to change anything. Project pays money to get best out of their advertisement, managers job is to execute it. They will go for the best instead of members who are happy to consider it a day job. Signature campaigns are the rewards for the loyalty you show to the Bitcoin ecosystem, not to your own wallet.

Since I'm mentioned here, I think I should add what I meant in my campaign thread post.
If someone is posting 20 times (eligible) a week, they will get paid. Did someone not pay them? I can't remember if I have seen such an issue. However, since they post the exact number as required, they are following the rules. They are providing nothing extra to the campaign. In return, I will be strict with them as per the rules set in the campaign thread. If they even post 19, I'm very much unlikely to pay them^[1]. On the other hand, for those who post more than the required number of posts, I will apply flexible rules to them. Lucius missed 10 posts on the gambling section one week, I didn't even write any comments. In fact, I told him not to worry about posts in the gambling section. I don't have a problem if he posts less in the gambling section.
I thought I mentioned them clearly in the thread but seems you didn't get my point. Thank you for the mention.

1. When people only follow the campaign rules, they don't deserve any mercy in my opinion. When they post 19/week, they don't deserve payment but I paid half pay for them.

There are people who post almost 100 per week regardless of they are in a campaign or not.

Managers want to give the best output to the project, at the same time with rules for participants, as flexible as possible but the team behind the projects also plays a role here. They want the maximum exposure with the budget and of course, they have the right.

Some do write 25+ posts even without being part of a signature campaign, while majority don't.

 
Problem is that there are more spots in signature campaigns than there are natural posters so only the best paid campaigns can afford to attract them. This is best noticeable in gambling signature campaigns so managers are then forced to set up a requirement to write certain amount of posts in gambling board.


Few years ago only one campaign (CM) had no post quota at all, while now we have at least 7 of those so things are already changing for the better.


I see no reason why we shouldn't discuss it.

This is clearly an alt account and I have the feeling that the main account is in Little Mouse campaign (Flush.com). This is an issue that was raised in the signature campaign thread of Flush. Although the manager tried to clarify the issue but I purposely stopped replying because that is a signature thread of Flush while I wear Mixero to post there.

It is surprising that some persons are misunderstanding the OP while he was straight forward.
What the OP meant is that, if a campaign manager requires that you make 25 posts per week, he shouldn't at the same time be expecting you to make 5 or more posts above 25 posts. If the minimum posts is reached with quality, both parties should be satisfied.
Then, my stake is that if the minimum requirement is reached with quality, there shouldn't be any problems. I will personally prefer a campaign which doesn't have minimum requirement or one whose minimum requirement is 10 like Best Change to another which will deny you payment if eventually 1 out of the 24 posts that will complete your post is eventually deleted by a mod or moved to off topic.

The campaign may want to have that effect of being spread in the forum, and that's why there are quotas in the specific campaign. That's not going to be your problem to bear. That's their choice as well. That's why there are posts about having campaign discretion that they can impose or remove participants not performing to their expectations.

if a campaign manager disqualifies someone because he didn't write more than required post count. then it is very wrong and weird thing by a campaign manager.. but as a campaign participant I would say it is safer to write 2, 3 extra post just in case one or two post did not count due to low quality or less word count or any other reason.
I like those campaigns which don't have minimum post rerquirements and payment is based per post (having maximum post requirement is better). so if I want I can write 5 posts and get paid for 5 posts or if I want I can write 20 posts and get paid for 20 posts that way we don't have to worry to get disqualified if we don't complete required post count.

Every manage have their own rules, own uniqueness. If you want your own then start giving your own service. This discussion does not make any sense at all.