Topic: The end of an era for me: Leaving Signature Campaign (Read 1263 times)

Don't sell yourself short. Signature Campaigns and their participants have been a point of contention ever since they began. Many people will take interest in pretty much any relevant development.


I know for me, I've become less active, because of the way the dynamics changed around here (for me personally) after my ban-appeal. There is nothing wrong with an ebb and flow of posting activity, but at least now you don't have any minimum requirement influencing that.


This is one of the biggest problems that signature campaigns bring to our forum.
Although, let's be clear; you didn't "have" to, you chose to for monetary gain.
This sort of steps away from "leaving money on the table".


How much of your posting do you think was to increase your post count or wasn't something you truly meant?
Purely curious, I'm not a crusader, and if I've misunderstood you then I apologize.


If you think that spam will be completely eliminated with the removal of paid signatures, then you haven't been around long enough.
What about the 1-post newbie spam asking for loans? Those have literally nothing to do with signature campaigns.

Well, these newbies posts are also for the promotion of the altcoins and ICO and they are getting paid for it in terms of shit coins. 
I think the better way to collect these reports is that they submit them in excel file as posting the links on thread and then counting them is a tiresome job.

I guess you haven't seen patrol yet: almost all Newbie posts are only spamming links to Facebook and Twitter. Barely any of these posts are worth reading, and they can't even wear a signature yet.

You still think that spam will only be reduced if paid signatures are banned ?
It may introduce many other complications / effects  but for the SPAM, i think it will be completely eliminated.

welcome to the club.
dont sell your soul and dont sell you name.
and dont support the gig economy.

and to reduce spam just ban all paid sigs.

This is the main problem that I have had with regard to signature campaigns.

My philosophy on post-checking has marginal overlap with the desired outcome of the client.

It is obvious that more posts = more clicks (generally) and the service operators would want to maximize their bang for their buck. The problem is in gathering participants with high enough post quality to satisfy my criteria, while keeping costs low. I mentioned my thoughts on the pay/post model and despite having the capability of producing a high number of posts, even with a significant percentage of the total post count encompassing ineligible (and thereby unpaid) posts, the fixed-post model may still seem more appealing to clients.

I had a brief discussion with a current signature manager and they noted that in some cases, the service providers don't want to deal with variable payments. They want to see, "I pay 0.1 a week" not "I pay 0.05 to 0.015 a week" even if the average payment on the latter end could be lower.

I'll send a PM to Baryom and ask him about this, he's the owner of Bitsler. They have their own referral link in every signature, so they should have these stats available.
No idea if he'd be willing to share this, but it's worth a try.

As far as I know, most signature compaign managers don't have access to this data. The few campaigns I've managed ended quickly because they didn't deliver enough new users.

I would not be opposed to managing a campaign, but I wonder how viable it would be as a side-business.
Whenever a new campaign manager starts a thread in the services boards, they're always met with comments that the market is already too saturated and that it's impossible for someone new to become a campaign manager.

Granted, these may be relatively new members, but I still think it's fairly hard to compete with existing managers.

That said, it would be quite interesting to offer campaign management services with some sort of a turnkey solution, where I as the campaign manager would decide how the campaign should be run.
I'd personally employ a particular campaign management style that's equal for every campaign I'd manage.

Basically this:

- Reasonably high merit requirements for every participant
- Bonus Pay rates based on the amount of previous posts
- P/W without a minimum amount of weekly posts to adhere to, reasonably low maximum amount of posts that get paid
- High base-pay per post, but employing a pretty strict requirements for posts to be eligible for payment.

The thing is, if I just posted this in the Services boards, I doubt that anyone would hire me. The best way to actually start managing campaigns like these, would probably be by starting to contact companies outside of Bitcointalk and offering them this solution, backed up with some statistics about the impact of Bitcointalk signature campaigns.

Now that I think about it, I'm kinda tempted to hire some sales people and have them contact some companies, offering a formula like this. Could be a huge waste of money, to be honest, but on the other hand it could also bring some completely new campaigns over here.


Not as niche as I thought then, they may make even more than Bitcoin casinos, without their investment being subject to variance.

I think you underestimate the volume of mixers: Bitmixer for instance processed 65,000 BTC per month. I'm not sure how much they charged, but at just 1% you're looking at 650 BTC revenue per month.

This is something out of this world. I mean i hardly see any person who is in good campaigns since many years and he leave by himself saying that he cannot post forcefully just to meet the campaign requirements.
This is like a great player in the sports like football, who is in good form but retires himself early because he thinks he cannot give full dedication towards his performance.

I highly doubt this, 'good posters' do not need incentives to make quality contributions. True that rules, like 'posts in XXX board is compulsory' could affect their posting shouldn't get take up such campaigns. But with lots of research, that could still give out quality posts in such scenarios.

You are suggesting a cartel mate... It works when the economy is good. Conversely, they will start backstabbing each other when the economy is bad.

Do not underestimate what money can do to people, my friend...

Anyway, this is an exciting topic, but maybe we should move somewhere else. Anyone care to create a thread about this issue? It would be best to give @eternalgloom peace of mind and wish him good luck for his future endeavors.

During my initial days of using the forum, posting around 25 posts per week was literally very difficult for me without spamming. Hence to prevent this, I altogether stopped participating in bitcoin campaigns and didn't participate in much of the campaigns. When I come across any good alts, I would promote them in my signature rarely when I really feel like they were good to promote. But as days passed by, the amount of scams had made me stopped promoting any of these alts in my signature. But this doesn't seem to be the case for many of the signature wearing posters. They would be promoting even if the alt was proven to be malicious and shady.

Poor Bounty Hunters were very popular at the start of 2018, but due to the scams they have felt like these bounties were absolute waste of time and majority of them have left the forum as a result.

Thanks. I have learned some basic BTS of making a signature and if I have find enough time I would like to do that for other coins too.

Also I have read somewhere in the forum that a manager would be paid based on the number of posts he has managed in a week. For instance a manager picks up 5 posters, and those 5 posters have varying posting habits like one posts 10 per week, another 20 per week and suppose if we consider the total posts produced by 5 posters is 100 per week. Hence the manager would be paid a certain percentage for that 100 posts per week. This might be one among the reasons why managers impose a minimum number of posts per week.


This is quite true but the service providers need more posters to promote their product and need to spend less for their promotion. Regarding the fact ChipMixer is seeing insane hype for the openings is because of their trust which they have gained over the years. If Yobit were to pay 0.00075 per post and if they were a long running campaign, how many quality posters would apply for that?

I agree with some of your thoughts, some campaigns pay very little compared to others, although they are looking for very high criteria. If we look pay rates for Legendary members, most campaigns pay up to $100 per week, and that is good amount in some countries. But some lower ranks are getting only dust ($5 for Member rank), which really could be classified as a category of modern slavery.

Some would say that no one is forcing anyone to join the signature campaign, but users just take what is offered. I think campaign mangers can affect owners of promoted services in a way to set higher prices for all ranks and to stop forcing min amount of post per week. But as you may indicate from your own example, there will always be those who agree to all conditions asked by service owners.

This is the current situation with signatures campaigns :



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.1340

That's really quite a step for you @eternalgloom. It's just now that I have encountered your thread. I read some of your posts in the gambling section. I guess there are some external factors that are being affected towards maybe lifestyle or something to take that huge step to stop being part of a signature campaign.

This topic gets you to think about the current situation that you have now, whether you are in a signature campaign or not, being part of Bitcointalk is definitely something special and is a part of our lives. It's something to be thankful about, that's for sure.

Good luck in your future endeavor, eternalgloom!

Over last few months, there are two rounds of Yobit signature campaign. The first one that triggered temporary bans on participants who made shit posts and reported by users, as well as ban on Yobit signature globally in the forum over months (~3 months, but I am not sure).

The second one has never confirmed payments sent to participants and we all thought Yobit did not send payments for participants in the second round (this year).

Nevertheless, their pay rate is still high as same as other good campaigns nowadays, or even higher (per post). Their extremely high max post cap per day, per week is another reason that caused spam (that I agreed with you).
Their pay rate for Hero Member rank is higher that Wolf.bet's campaign, that both of us participated in.
If companies (such as Yobit).

• Decrease max post cap per day
• Have experienced manager to manage their campaign

I believe there is no complaints about their campaigns.

There's a trick to determine if a campaign is paying high, poor or moderately, you don't call a campaign that was paying participants roughly ~$200 for over 140 posts per week a high paying campaigns that's just a spamming paying campaign and such campaign attracts only spammers or disguise spammers (hiding under the merit earned) as quality posters.

To determine the payrate of a campaign to be high, you have to compare it to the post count required by the project to recieve such payment. With my minimum payrate suggestion above I'll go with a weekly post count of minimum 25 to maximum 40 anything above that is just slavery based on that payrate.

@eternalgloom have you considered taking a role in signature management since we're advice to be the change we want to see. You can bring your philosophy into the management business and hopefully others employ your style of management since from my observation so far, you mean well for both members and the forum and I'm sure your years of been an employee most have given you enough experience to be an employer. What you think?.

Payrate is just one of vital components for successful campaign. I agree with payrate's contribution to quality of participants for each campaign, but it is not enough. You can pay a participant 0.005 BTC per post, but if you (as manager) or others play as managers of campaign don't have strict rules to choose participants, and after that to check their post quality before sending payment, such campaigns will end with failures and spam. Even good posters will decrease their post quality if managers are not strictly manage after choosing them into campaigns. In campaigns I joined, there are sometimes managers have to send warning message after payment sent, because some of participants show signal to turn into burst posting, that is not good for managers, and for companies.

Yobit, months ago, run their campaign with high payrates, but there is no one says that campaign is a successful one. That campaign attracted both spammers and good posters. Spammers banned temporarily if reported by users; good posters did not ban because they made posts that are good enough to not get reports from users. Because of terrible management, the number of spammers overwhelmed the number of good posters among Yobit participants.

Lol sometimes I wonder how you reason, we're brainstorming on possible solution to increase the payrate for campaigns which will also encourage quality contributions just as merit have, as participants tends to put in more efforts into their style of writing when there's a motivator (e.g to retain their spot in campaign, pass on a vital information or get some merits). Currently I feel the signature participants are been treated as salves, the payrate wity requirements associated with most signature campaigns aren't encouraging.

I have regretted the opportunity of managing a campaign just because of the poor payrate the campaign insisted on paying (and now the campaign is been managed by someone else on the forum).  There's no minimum payrate simply because the forum doesn't moderate signature campaign and nothing else. Also i wasn't asking them (the forum) to moderate, just recommending the campaign managers put heads together to workout some strategy to keep the signature industry fair for the participants.