Topic: The signature campaign “syndrome” - page 4. (Read 1176 times)

The only problem I feel with signature campaigns is “must post xx number of posts in a week”. I wish if this limit was not there. This is the only reason that kills the quality. I haven’t found any campaign which have a soft corner on this and gives a choice to the user if he want to post 1, 10 or 50 posts in a week. But not forcing on certain number of “must have” posts.

We can see this on other social media platforms almost every other YouTube video includes a paid promotion or sponsored content but since the sponsors are not forcing the creators to post x number of videos in week. The quality of videos doesn’t drop significantly.

If we can some how convince the sponsors and campaign manager to don’t force this “x number of posts rules” or at least keep it bare minimum. I believe quality of posts may increase.

It feels weird wearing a signature and saying this, but sig campaigns definitely contribute to the forum's overall  spam problem. People wouldn't post meaningless nothing here that's already been said a thousand times on a daily basis if they didn't have the financial incentive to do so.

It is easy to spot posters are purely motivated by money because their posts generally suck. If someone can't even pretend to be the least bit interested in contributing something original, yet they post anyway, it can only be because they are being paid for it.

Furthermore, I've witnessed a few genuinely original thinkers / positive contributors join sig campaigns and then watch their posts turn to lifeless dronings because they fear not fitting the mold and being kicked out of their campaign.

I have avatars and signatures blocked simply because I can't stand looking at them--and that's true for every forum I've ever been a part of.  They just take up space and are distracting to me.  It isn't because I've formed a prejudice against members of any particular signature campaign.  I've been here long enough that I'm well aware that some of the best posters might participate in some of the lousiest campaigns--and pretty much everyone here has some form of advertising in their sig space or avatar, so I don't hold that against anyone.

Generally I can tell whether a post is a shitpost within the first sentence or two, because they have a very similar "style" so to speak and it's easily detectable if you've read enough posts here. 
Why don't you ignore users?  Man, my ignore list runs a mile long and I could probably add at least 50 new members to it if I were of the mind to do so.  What do you do with your list of "quality-posting users"?  Just curious.

I do not hide signature or avatar
I do not ignor users
I like reading posts of high-paid campaign members
I have lists of some quality-posting users

I report shit posters but gain from good posters.

I don't hide signatures and avatars but I do ignore other members if I see them repeat similar low quality posts and this can be members from all campaigns including higher paid.
My observation is there people sometimes fight who will answer first some stupid fake questions and that is not really helping forum in any way, and there are good topics that are dead and inactive.
More shallow and stupid topic are it produces more replies and shitposts, and that is the signature syndrome.

I would actually disagree with this. Signature campaigns likely do raise the amount of quality posts being posted. Money is a motivating factor for most of the world. I've only ever met a few individuals who aren't motivated by money. We've all probably wanted to get a promotion or a better paid job at some point in our lives, usually to either feed our families, or simply to keep yourself running. Signature campaigns are similar in that they offer an incentive for users to take time with their posts, and actually put in the effort.

Which, to be honest I don't see a particular problem with. If they are taking the time, and making constructive posts, then I don't really care what their motivating factor is. I think we are focusing on the motivation, rather that the actual problem. The actual problem is; there's a number of low quality posts with or without signature campaigns. However, there's a certain demographic which participate in campaigns, which have a low quality threshold, and therefore get paid for spouting low quality posts.

You're right about what the "main motivation" for the majority of all posters is. Believe it or not there was actually a time when people used to sign up for the forum just to learn about Bitcoin, and some still do -- i see them in the Development & Tech section. But nowadays it's about getting as much coin for as little effort as possible. People don't think about using the forum to learn more about cryptocurrency, thereby using it to fundamentally better their own lives. They just read a thread title and post away. It's sad because a prosperous future is staring them in the face and they don't even realize it.

In this way the forum is largely over-run by mindless postbots, who may be human but whose function mirrors that of a bot. Occasionally there are some interesting or at least entertaining nuggets here or there.

Imo, quality contribution cannot be forced or faked, those who try to do this will run into trouble eventually with the forum rules, and those who do contribute qualitatively have to be genuinely interested in discussions about Bitcoin. Signature campaigns help keep the forum active, but doesn't raise the quality.

No, I do not hide avatars or signatures. The company being advertised and the users profile details could slightly influence how I read a post, but I try to remain as open minded as possible.

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.