Topic: Signature campaign post quota (Read 882 times)

It's just like in real life: your previous job already paid for the experience you gained, and yet, you'd expect your new job to pay more because now you have more experience

Exactly. Instead of $4 per post, a campaign could for instance pay $2 per new post and $0.01 per existing post per week. Of course, not all old posts are on boards that show signatures, and some will be on irrelevant boards, so rates can be adjusted accordingly. It would be interesting to see the click-through rate of old vs new posts, but only the companies advertising campaigns have this data.

If the payment per old post is proportional to the clicks they receive, it shouldn't even matter. Even in existing campaigns, members sometimes become inactive. Usually they get removed after a few weeks, but I never got the logic. It's free advertising, so let them!

This will largely depend on the thread. Spam Mega threads are pointless from the start, while serious technical threads can still be very interesting even after many pages.

That is why it is advisable to promote one project for a very long time, such as the chipmixer I referenced and the company I am wearing her signature. But then, it is not every company that has the financial will to embark on a long term signature campaign.
However, LoyceV's idea is not out of place but I doubt that any manager will implement that because on the long run it could encourage laziness on the side of the significantly higher numbered posters.
Then, there’s a clause in the project I'm promoting where less than 5% of the posts are permitted to be made on a thread more than 5 pages. This simply shows that Best_Change believes that posts in more than 5 pages doesn't get good visibility. Is he right?

They already paid for these 21k posts, but these old posts continue to get visibility. Let's take one of popular topics that LoyceV made as example. You can try to imagine how many people visit such topics and see sginature ad in opening post. Or people who come to Bitcointalk from Google search results, they also see advertisment. So, advertiser for these posts once, but he get benefits from it in long term.

+5,
Really thinking out of the box.
LoyceV's post count is 23k+
KingsDen's post count is 2k+
This already means that LoyceV had made 21k+ more posts than KingsDen and these 21k+ posts are still in the forum. So LoyceV deserves higher pay than me. Maybe it is the reason legendary members earn more than Snr members and so on.
But on a second thought, it could also mean that ChipMixer had already paid for those 21k+ posts. So, posts in the past are already paid. I am just reasoning from the both sides of my brain

I have a different view: users with many old posts who rarely make any new posts are cheap for advertising! You don't have to pay for the thousands of posts with signature they have already, and you'll only pay for a few new ones per week.
This reminds me: I think a small payment per existing post could even make sense, instead of only paying for new posts.

I believe that there should be no minimum post quota to be eligible for payment, or that the minimum should be 1 post. However, we must not forget that the manager is always looking for active posters to ensure the success of the campaign, and for this they set a minimum quota that can reach 25 posts per week. I have been in a signature campaign that Royce has been running for several months, and the minimum number of posts eligible for payment is 5, which, in my estimation, is a very acceptable limit.


This is subject to the discretion of the campaign manager, and we do not forget that most, if not all, of the managers do not forget to set a rule in all their campaigns that allows them to make any decision regarding the removal/cancel-payment of any participating member as it deems appropriate for the progress and success of the campaign and the project that it is promoting.

There are some campaign managers who pressure their participants to give their lives and souls to posting. They forget that the success of any project does not depend on whatever things (cool or rubbish) we post here.
Why we crave for quality posts is to avoid spam and give prestige to the company as per high quality posters are wearing their signature.

If I consider to leave Best_Change anyday, it should be to a campaign that has no minimum requirement or atleast whose minimum requirement is 10. I cannot imagine making 25 posts to earn reward, before manager counts my post, 1 is deleted or off topiced by a moderator and in the end I am denied payment.
Neither will I like to be kicked out of a campaign because my quality dropped for a week.

My understanding is that there are many factors for eliminating participants in paid campaigns, managers have their own reasons apart from achieving quotas and others, only managers understand that, in essence: different campaign managers have different ways of thinking about their participants.

I've seen participants removed in campaigns with full weekly quotas and even more, but they're still being removed, it's only the manager who knows the reason behind it all, if you ask about the rules, of course every campaign writes that, 100% of the campaign cannot be separated from the rules set by the campaign manager.

My assessment, if you are in a campaign, do tasks according to the rules set by the manager and improve the quality of your posts instead of chasing quotas, I think you will be fine in the assessment of the manager of the campaign you are advertising.

It depends on the campaign rules, if you're in a campaign that requires a minimum post for the week then you're left with no choice than to comply and it's because you've gone through their rules and regulations for that campaign and understand them makes you apply for it, there are some campaigns that do not require minimum post, but joining a campaign is by choice.


I must correct you of this that you're wrong in saying campaign managers forces their participants, what i expect from you is to ask wether if posting more than the required posts for the week is what gives access to receiving their bonus or by the quality of what each participant produce and not the quantity.

We do have our own preference but i do believe that most members of this forum would definitely deal up on whatever terms and conditions on which a certain campaign would be having specially if it does have a good payrate per week then it wouldnt really be a problem at all but its true that i do prefer on having that kind of having no restriction on how much you would be posting on a particular week on which you would be simply be paid up on what you had posted which it wouldnt really be that stressful or really that get pressured just because there's no such rule about being kicked or what but we know that only few
campaigns does have this rule.

Usually they would be having that 10 post minimum and 25 maximum or having that 25 post for eligibility on getting paid, but actually its not really that hard to have this kind of rule.
Ex. in my campaign which it does ask out 15 post per week which this is something that you cant see this kind of campaign where usually ask 25-30 or something like
on this level.

It is a pity that I did not notice this thread until now, I enjoyed reading almost all the responses here, there were a lot of good opinions that enriched the topic.

For my part, I prefer campaigns in which the minimum weekly quota for publication is small, because this gives me a very comfortable writing space and does not make me restricted to the number of posts that I have to write to get the weekly payment.

Many of the members here have other businesses or family circumstances that sometimes prevent them from reaching the minimum payment sometimes and they may be expelled if this is repeated, so I prefer campaigns that pay Per Post. I do not prefer fixed-paying campaigns with a rather high weekly quota.

But in all cases, as long as the subscribers, have read the campaign rules and agreed to them, then they have no right to object, and they have to abide by all the campaign rules and exert their efforts to make the campaign a success and to receive payment.

There are currently several campaigns ongoing right now, and personally i don't see any problem with them in any way. The rules are clear and easy to follow for any regular poster who has good content and avoids spamming or copying. Add to that many of the signature managers themselves participate in other campaigns.

Simply if you dislike the rules of a particular campaign you have other options. If you cant meet the minimum required number of posts per week for that campaign, you can find another one that doesnt have such a requirement and still receive regular payment per post. What truly matters is the quality of your post. In my humble opinion your topic serves no purpose here.

Well, if you compare all the campaigns, you will find that the participants of 1xbit are mostly spammers and also they do not care about their posting habits neither they want to improve them because they know that they won't be accepted in any other campaign, so why make the effort to make constructive posts.


Making 20 posts a week is a fair requirement and anyone who is active on the forum can easily make these number of posts. If anyone cannot even make 20 post a week, then I am afraid he should not be in a signature campaign, as the campaign requires active members and not the ones who feel burden making the posts.

1xbit if you check their spreadsheet cannot get reputable and prominent posters because no prominent posters would like to associate themselves with scammers, so many 1xbit are spammers, and many of them become active for 1xbit but when there's no 1xbit campaign they are inactive, 1xbit participants' accounts are disposable, although their rewards is very tempted but their campaign is seasonal.
Going back to the signature campaign quota for very active posters numbers do not matter he'll just post not to meet requirements but he based it on the discussion that he can take part in, and with many new topics popping up he can always hit the quota or even exceed the required number.

Expected to see like that on a campaign where the manager doesn't have any intention to create quality campaign since there main intention is to spam the forum and make their signature visible on any section of this forum.

1xbit joiners doesn't afraid to do that since they  don't lose anything since there reputation is ruined already. So the only thing we can do about that case is to report the post if we see it as spam so that moderators can notice and delete those post.

Hhampuz noticed that in his campaign and went on a rapid removal of those that haven't been constructive in their posting in the past weeks. It doesn't matter what the weekly quota is, people will always look for a way to do less work to get paid the same. In 1xbit campaign, we still have decent posters that only joined that campaign because they had no other chance of joining other campaigns as their accounts has been red trusted. While we have those that changed to spammers immediately they got accepted into the campaign.

They did that because (1) their account has no value anymore and because they understand that the campaign manager doesn't care for the quality of the post and that's why having quality managers managing campaigns on the forum is very vital. I have noticed both campaigns and managers shape they way people post when they're enrolled in that campaign. We have some high paying and quality campaigns on the forum, when you observe the participants of the campaign write you'll see the difference between their write ups and that of those in average paying campaign. To retain their slots you see them put more efforts in their write ups.

It goes with the habit if you're posting 30 to 40 posts a week without a banner attached to your profile then you get into a campaign that asks you to post 20 posts a week you will not think of the numbers and will prefer to continue what you love doing and have been doing, but if you're a lazy poster and suddenly you're in a 20 posts campaign, you'll struggle to keep up with the numbers.

To be honest, it is hard to satisfy everyone. As long as you are making good constrcutive posts and a few posts above the minimum requirement you are good to go. I think only stake campiagn allows you to make a lot of posts and give incentive for those posts, but then the incentive is too low for the Hero / Legendary members in that campiagn. Still i see some of the posters make very decnt posts even if they post much more than the others.

Even with a campiagn with maximum 20 posts, people can still spam with non-consructive posts. I guess we cannot say that everyone in a certain campiagn is a spammer but it varies on person to person. Yes, there is one campiagn 1xbit, where you will find the most spam posts by their participants.

This is something you can think about for future threads. NFL season will start in a few months and I barely see any discussion on that sport. I personally think the NBA thread needs to be at the least separated year by year, but since it's going for 8 years I don't think that will change now. If someone did change, the other thread wouldn't die, it would need to be locked to keep people from posting.

That's why I would have preferred that gambling discussions be more specific. The NBA thread by ingiltere, for example, has been around for 8 long years. And it will stay for god knows when. For as long as there's the NBA, this mega thread would continue to grow and grow. The same goes to other sports and leagues.

The discussion is also compromised a bit because there are so many topics within the NBA, for example. There could be a number of games happening at the same time. And people are talking of different games and teams and players in a single thread. This topsy-turvy thread could be avoided if it's broken down into specifics, say, NBA Western Conference Finals: Lakers vs. Nuggets. This would result into a more focused discussion that would be closed when the series ends.

I find myself struggling at times to get 25 posts in a week actually. I try not to post in mega threads minus the NBA betting and season threads in gambling discussion boards and that's because I actually watch basketball and feel I know what I'm talking about. I talk ab out mega threads as I do not see enough new threads each week that interest me, I see a lot of people post only in mega threads to hit post quotas. I'm motivated to post but I don't want to continue to post in the same threads over and over like I see a lot of people doing.

Solosanz you got me laughing and almost rolling on the floor. Your sentimental analysis is correct and what is happening in the stake campaign and maybe some other campaigns. In as much as money is involved, there must be variation and habitual posting which is influenced by the weekly pay that is gotten from the campaign.

Darker45, you are correct. Stake has a minimum post of 25 per week but the pay is not within the range of what a hero member or a legendary member receives per week. This is why many of them are posting upto 80 per week and above in order to hit $100 and this definitely leads to spam.

Wow, you're too honest for telling us that I cannot blame you if you think that quality comes first before quantity, honestly, there is no exact campaign post quota, you can be in a campaign with 20 posts but you have the time and you have the motivation to posts because you love being in a discussion, in a debate or you want to contribute in a discussion, the most important thing is if you are going to post 3 or 10 posts daily it should not be spam its still quality that counts because its the one that will define you.

Oh no In my early days here I've been innsimilar type of campaign like Stake - Yobit. IIRC, they allowed to make up to 20 posts per day. Don't remember how many posts per week I was making, but my record was 12 posts in one day and it already was too much for me.
And to be correct, Stake doesn't requires 100 posts per week, they just allow to make up to 100 posts.

If I will see that I have to push myself too much to reach required quota and that I'm posting just for quantity, then yes, probably I will get out of campaign.

What if your current campaign increases the minimum post to 25 will you get out of the current campaign, now that there are so many applicants and yet few campaigns, that number doesn't matter if you are knowledgeable on the many subjects here in this forum and you are an active poster by habit, your motivation should be your habit not on numbers.

That's nice; every manager always knows what's best for the client, and as such, they will do their best to provide quality service for their clients. This method, I also believe, increases user participation as they will want their worth to be known on the forum. By doing so, they will not just focus on creating a bunch of comments or threads with zero value and meaning, but will want to make every post unique and pleasant to readers. If this method has been working very well for you, then it's the best. I must confess my post quality today, and as of when I was still new to the forum and started participating in campaigns, I tried to engage on posts that I found interesting and not just some random threads that I knew nothing about just in the name of completing my post count for the week.

There is no hard and fast rule that how many minimum posts a person should make in a week. The campaign manager can set any number of posts and usually, we see this number somewhere between 15 posts to 25 posts. However, anyone is free to make any number of posts greater than the minimum amount required by the campaigns as long as the posts are not spam and there is no post bursting etc

It is always advisable to post a few posts above the minimum requirement, as even if some of your posts are not counted or deleted, you still have enough posts to qualify for the weekly payment.

Actually agree on this sentiment or comment on which this is indeed reality. People would always be having something to say which its not really that shocking. The only thing on which
people couldnt thrown up some negative words is into those people who had earned most merit. We know that no matter how short or 1-liner reply they would be having as long they do have that tons of
received merit then it wont really be making some issue or would be generating out those common words to be thrown up on a certain user.

This is where you could really see that there's some different treatment or impression. About post quotas then it would be entirely be depending on the campaign manager in the end of the day.
They are the ones who would be setting up those rules and terms in regarding on the campaign. Even he's just a community manager, he would really be having the full rights on how
he would really be handling it out, usually post numbers will be ranging 15-25 post per week and this is that common max post count
but there are actually who doesnt have a limit which users would be spamming out as much as they can.

This is the key idea behind our signature campaign. When we spoke to the campaign manager, he literally insisted that this was the only approach that could bring results. After all, the posts of people who enjoy discussions are the most organic, as a result, the most readable. There are still users in our campaign who post just for the sake of the quota, but the manager assured us that after a few weeks these users will leave the campaign if no progress is seen.

Actually, this is the main idea of our dialogue with the manager.

"The signature campaign is similar to "product placement" in the sense that advertising is shown under the member's profile through discussions in various sections of the forum without an explicit indication. It's completely voluntary and even if it's not direct clicks it definitely subconsciously settles in the minds".

You're correct, but I read most of users posts, they're talking about campaign participants are only posts to get paid, not writing in natural.

Let's use Stake campaign as the example, the minimum posts per week is 25 posts and they willing to pay maximum of $125 per week excluding the $35 bonus.

When someone create 25 posts, people will say this user is only posts to get paid.

When someone create 83 posts (58 gambling posts) or 95 posts (70 posts non gambling), people will say this user is only posts to get maximum extra payment.

When someone create long posts, people will say this user is trying to become a best poster to earn bonus.

People aren't happy with that, they're want to see you're really posting without get any cent.

Stake doesn't actually require its participants to make 100+ posts per week. The minimum post requirement to get paid is just 25, although it seems they're still paying those who make less than the required 25 posts but with a different pay rate. Also, posts beyond the minimum are paid but with a significantly low rate, less than half of the rate for the first 25 posts. And then there's also the payment limit. So you cannot just post non-stop and get paid for it.

I am just knowing that there is another campaign that has optimal post quota of 15 posts per week apart from Roobet. Honestly 15 posts is the fairest deal anyone can get in the forum. There are many people who makes more than 15posts each day even without being signature quota conscious.
You do not belong in this conversation because your quota not only small, but you also have a manager who doesn't stress his participants @Hhampuz.  He is my first employer in this forum and he is so cool and experienced in the business


I want to involve in your imagination. Can you imagine yourself in a  campaign that requires 100+ posts per week? Just think about stake 

My current campaign have optimal post quota - 15. I can reach it easily without forcing myself to post in order just to get paid. I usually make about 20 posts per week, sometimes up to 25. But sometimes when I have busy week, reaching even 20 posts would be difficult.
Why I'm posting above required quota? Because I just don't count my posts, signature campaign don't change my posting habbits. Just on last day of week I check how many oosts I have made to be sure that have enough to get paid. Now I can't imagine myself in campaign which would require 25-30 posts.

The meaning of my OK quality is an acceptable or constructive. I'm describing a scenario which a user post prioritized quality and not not quantity since the pay rate is per post. I might use the OK quality wrong here but that's actually what I'm trying to imply on my post.

A user posting within the range with good quality compared to user that posting bunch of shit post above the max post count. This the case that I'm thinking but I'm not sure if that's the real case on my example.

Anyway, I agree with that campaign participants should do their best every week since they are being paid. This should be customary for every signature campaign participants when they are enrolled on the campaign.

Perfect quota doesn't  exist, find something that works for you, btw some campaigns are flexible enough such that they pay based on each post!

It's not a forcing matter when post quota comes naturally and btw every manager has their own style of running a campaign and its their way of running things by choosing
participants that can give extra ..and sadly their rules  won't bend to what you want.

If you are going to post on the forum to meet your quota requirements then clearly this shows that you are on the forum to get paid and nothing else! Try be part of the forum and post naturally!!!

You think it's OK to barely get by in life, or would you rather live a good life? Posting on this forum is the same IMO. If you are just an OK poster and never really strive to be a great quality writer/poster, you will likely never be able to command a custom deal for a casino and will always have to worry that you'll be kicked from a campaign. Why would you want to be in fear every week?

I saw a scenario like this before during the time when a lot of Chipmixer campaign participants was vacant. The existing signature campaign forced to reshuffle and now posting within the requirements is being discouraged by some managers.

The post that I quoted below is from the campaign that have a per post rate. I personally post within the margin because 25 post is not my normal post count when I don’t have any campaigns. Forcing user to make above the requirements while the campaign is on per post rate is bit contradicting to each other.


Filling the weekly quota with OK quality post is not bad in my opinion. Correction me on this one if I’m wrong.

You mean people got removed because they wrote only the required amount of posts? Thats strange tbh. I might be wrong here, but my guess is that them getting removed has to do more with their post quality rather than amount of posts written.


I think that current situation is diametrically opposite, its sellers market and its never been easier (at least not since I started applying for signature campaigns) for a shitposter to get into $100 per week signature campaign.

I think there is a positive side to this regards to pay-pay-post system for participants because some week may be different from other week in the life and activities of the poster especially health issues. If a participants is running under campaign with maximum post per week (maybe 25 ) and he or see is not able to complete the post for that week because of being hospitalised and stopping at 20, they get denied of the weekly payment. I think this is a disadvantage of maximum post against a participant.

With the current competition for the highest paying campaigns I have seen in the Services section people being removed from the campaigns, having written just the 25 posts of the quota or maybe up to couple more, as an indication of little effort. The competition between campaigns has changed since CM is not here, where there was a clear difference between the top 50 paid and the rest. The maximum total payout for a campaign has been socialized let's say, but at the same time there is a lot of competition from forum members to access the $100-$150 weekly payout campaigns for Hero/Legendary.

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.

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.

Tbh I don't like the minimum post requirements neither. The campaign I am in only requires me to post 15 posts in a week and that's one of the lowest I've seen out there but years ago, bitmixer.io (to me it was the best ever signature campaign this forum has ever seen) had none of these requirements. If you made 4 posts for example last week, the campaign would pay for your 4 posts... It is a bit frustrating to be having to make posts while you are on vacation you know. It is not that you can take a break from posting. At best you will get a warning for your first offense and then you will get booted if you repeat the same mistake.

If you're in a campaign you agreed to the campaign manager's rule on the number of posts that you need to reach the maximum you can post in a day that is counted so it's not about what I think it's about what the manager set up so he can maximize the visibility of the project he is managing


I don't see anything wrong with it, being in a campaign is a privilege and the manager picked you because of your posting habit which is posting not for quota but posting because you are posting normally as a forum member not as a paid worker, you should not be looking on numbers but quality.


If I'm a bounty manager I love to see my participants go the extra mile not because they are forced but because they are committed and they have passion as contributors to this forum.

It is an alt account, he confirmed it himself in this topic
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitbollo-incorrect-use-of-trust-feedback-5451642

If you are not satisfied with the rules of the campaign in which you participate, it is better to look for another campaign or to stop using signature campaigns. It is just a bonus and not a daily job that you need to strive to develop your certificates in order to preserve them.

BTW you are only newbie with only 60 posts, How did you know all these details? When I was in your rank, I could not distinguish between posting in some boards, or even knowing that there were paid signature campaigns in the forum. is this an ALT account?

Let's be truthful, you might not post up to 25 posts in a week if you are not in a paid campaign. You might decide to use your time on something else that might bring financial benefit. A signature campaign should not be seen as a full-time job but having a post quota gives participants the responsibility of performing the task they are been paid for. If you allow participants to post naturally some might just do a few posts and relax which affects the main focus of the promotional campaign. Every firm that runs a campaign program wants their products to be promoted around the forum so having a bunch of unserious posters will negate their objectives.

It is also important to state that joining a campaign is not by force and different campaigns have their requirements so you should choose the one that suits you. Most campaign managers don't just pay attention to post quota but post quality. Some quality posters/members will never be removed from a campaign because they didn't complete their post quota.

In summary, post quotas are important because the campaign manager and the firm have plans and targets. Post quality is more important than just completing post quota. And if you are not comfortable with the rules of a campaign, don't join.

Done

My concern is not burst posting but minimum post requirements. I don't want to quote managers announcement to pay respect but some of them are requiring user to post above minimum post requirements.

I'm not convincing managers to believe me. I'm trying to determine the exact logic for obligating user to post above minimum requirements.

First this is not the right section, this thread is fit in service discussion section.

This is really a subjective matter and you can't generalize all the campaign manager need to agree with your opinion.

Burst post matter is an example, there are different definition for them:
1. Creating many posts in a short time, this make some users need to wait for a hour to post from his previous post.
2. Creating 10+ posts in a day, only post for 2 days to hit the 25 week posts requirements.
3. Creating post in one thread only, he keep replying with the same user over and over, to avoid multiple posting/post in a row.

Which is right for you? maybe you will say the number 1,I could say number 2, the other will say all of them, etc.

I mean the quota for sure will depend on the campaign or manager that you join, there are some minimum post requirements on some campaigns since it wouldn't make sense to join a campaign if you would not post at least.

They are the ones who join the campaign so it was surely not forced plus they are getting paid as well, In my observation most of the participants were removed because of the low-quality post, they have the right to remove someone anytime whenever they want to since its already written on the rules so you can't complain about that and as a manager they will do their job to make the campaign at its best by picker the best participants, I see it reasonable for some users getting remove since most of them have a low-quality post, there are a still members that only have a few posts in a week but doesnt get removed because they have a quality post and I guess already a trusted member.

I understand the premise of your logic. What I'm asking it does user here normally make 25 post per week without any subscription on signature campaign?

If being natural is what the campaign manager wants. Removing the post quota is the answer.

Can you keep posting above 25 post per week without signature campaign to give joy in the forum?

Post requirements are not compulsory, nor is it mandatory; it's not a force to be on a campaign if you can't cope with their minimum post requirements. Most managers are not looking for those who are just posting because they want to get paid; they want participants who derive joy from posting. When a campaign's minimum requirement is 25, at the end of the week you are ending with either just 25 posts or about 27 posts, which clearly shows that all the participants are after is the paid post and nothing else. Every manager wants what's best for their clients, and as such, any member they notice is not productive will be removed and replaced with some other active member who can deliver the task.

What do you think the right post quota per week?


I read some campaign manager sentiment about this issue. Forcing their participants post above the minimum post requirements they set by themselves. If they want a higher post quota participants, They should increase the minimum post requirements or make the campaign rate per post without any consequences for posting low but quality post.

I'm confused on the minimum post requirements rules. I saw many users being remove on the campaign by posting within the quota.



_{Without rules we are nothing but animals. -Socrates}