If you are talking about bounties in relation to signature campaigns which pay in a(n) token/altcoin, as opposed to signature campaigns which pay in bitcoin, then you are correct to say that bitcoin paying campaigns generally have much higher quality posts than token/altcoin paying campaigns.
I was talking about signature campaigns that pay participants with altcoins.
This, however, does not mean bounty managers have free reign to let their participants spam low quality trash across the forum. In fact, the vast majority of spam comes from campaigns which do not pay in bitcoin; since they can create their payment token out of nothing, it costs them nothing to "pay" for this advertising and so they don't have to be picky and look for high quality posters. Instead, the go for quantity over quality and recruit hundreds of spammers.
If any of these campaigns is having excessive numbers of their posts deleted for spamming, then that bounty manager should either do their job properly, or the campaign should be banned.
You are completely right.
Unfortunately, managers of altcoins signature campaigns accept any user applies. Just check some of their spreadsheets. I just wanted to say that even if a campaign has lower number of deleted posts, it doesn't mean that its manager is doing his job properly. The lower number of deleted posts is only due to his luck. Because he has accepted all the applications.
We cannot compare the quality of mangers work based on deleted posts. Because all of them are doing a same thing.
They accept every one. If campaign "A" has less deleted posts than "B", it doesn't mean that the manager of campaign "A" is better than manager of campaign "B". Because both managers have accepted every one. Manager "A" is only more lucky than manager "B".
Check the spreadsheets. Only some users with red trust are not accepted. It is same in almost all of altcoins signature campaigns.