Topic: The signature campaign “syndrome” - page 2. (Read 1176 times)

Once I read the replies of a thread, I'll ignore most of the users that participate on a low-paying signature campaign, by the thought that they are shit posters.

I remember reading a post by someone a long time ago who talked about the benefits of signature campaigns. He was advertising a company and had a referral link in his sig. After a while, he checked his stats and noticed only 1 or 2 clicks. Campaign-wide, it wasn't any better with the other participants.

Being paid to post is really a motivation, I knew a lot of good posters who joined a high-paying signature campaign

I am late here. However, I don't hide the signature of the forum. My personal view is, companies paying us for wearing signature, means they expecting few impressions from the forum where real crypto users engaging crypto-related discussions. So, if I hide signature mean other campaign's signature banner will not show to me and they wouldn't get impressions from me. But I am wearing one and I am expecting impressions as well. It's kind of selfish IMO.

Websites advertised in the signatures actually do not get better SEO rankings because theymos put the rel=nofollow tag in the Signature html box (in other words - this linked page should not be crawled by Google and so it has no effect on its ranking).

I bet you that those signatures do get clicked on, though I have no idea at what rate.  Somehow it's hard to imagine signature campaigns going on this long if there was no benefit to the businesses that ran them. 

Those signatures help A LOT with the search engine optimization (SEO). If your website is linked from another website, it'll increase its SEO performance. The more traffic (higher SEO) the site that links you has, the better it is for your business. Now imagine how good would it be if you'd be linked thousands of times on a place that is ranked #6,787 in global internet engagement. By wearing your signature you have to understand that besides those that will notice it, you're automatically bringing more clients/people to the product outside of bitcointalk.

Make a minimum of 45 eligible posts each week that you participate to receive a payment.

In a perfect world, but some of the campaigns or bounties look like they actually actively target those that are low quality, so they can pay them peanuts, while also getting their brand out there through sheer volume.

Signature bearers post > Non-Signature bearer posts
I think the signature campaign has done more good to the forum in terms of post quality than bad,

I have been in this forum for 1 year and I've noticed that the main motivation for making high quality posts is the fact that you can get paid out of it. While I'm a strong believer that signature campaigns enrich this forum's quality and that “it keeps it alive”, it is advisable to mention a downside of this procedure and specifically:  The “syndrome” of signature campaigns.

I'll speak out my personal view about this, it may not be true for everyone. Once I read the replies of a thread, I'll ignore most of the users that participate on a low-paying signature campaign, by the thought that they are shit posters. But, that may not be true. I observe a form of prejudice. I'll actually take a closer look to a post made by a high-quality signature campaign participant rather than a newbie.

A user may have thousands of merits, but he/she may create low quality posts. Someone with 4-digits post count and 2-digits merit count would be quickly rejected into your mind, either because he/she may have promoted failed/scam tokens or made shitty posts for pennies. But it's much more different with avatars/signatures. Most of the times, when I scroll a thread I'll skip those replies, without even looking at the merit/post count ratio. It just makes a splash! And that's because along with the avatars/signatures, I will have formed a bad picture of the ones that advertise it.

I wonder if this happens to you too, and if it does, do you hide avatars and signatures to prevent it? This poll may be a great feedback for the campaigns' owners too.

I don't put signatures on ignore because I find it to be deceptive to participate in a signature campaign, and at the same time have those signatures on ignore.

I bet you that those signatures do get clicked on, though I have no idea at what rate.

I bet you that those signatures do get clicked on, though I have no idea at what rate.  Somehow it's hard to imagine signature campaigns going on this long if there was no benefit to the businesses that ran them.  You'd think that if they were ineffective, that information would quickly be discovered and there wouldn't be so many of them over such a long period of time.  Doesn't that make sense?  And people come here because they're interested in crypto.  These signature advertisements probably don't look like the typical spam advertisements that you see all over the internet--they're specifically targeted toward the very people who would visit a forum like this, so my guess is that a lot of members (especially newbies) do click on them.  Whether that translates into revenue for the underlying business I've no idea.

I ignore all sigs that appear to be a part of a campaign, as I don't believe that the members use the products, and have no idea of their quality or benefits.