Topic: Why do members switch campaigns always? (Read 1394 times)

The decision to switch campaigns is influenced by a mix of financial incentives, campaign dynamics, personal preferences, and perceptions of stability and management styles.I don't really hop campaigns but I do see the value in hopping depending on your situation.

Crystal clear!

Various reasons sponsors the need for which a member might decide to switch signature campaigns but the two obvious reasons are the number of posts per week and the pay rate per comment or per week.

People pay keen attention to these points as they are often not within their control but the managers' and its also standard and non-negotiable. In some cases, the minimum post requirements are not stated, only maximum.
It can be said that such posts mut be completed for payment eligibilities else all efforts for that week will be nolified. People get uncomfortable with such and want to switch to another campaign with better conditions

Having a signature campaign opportunity for participation is not that easy, because the manager will have to check in wether the applicant meet up with the minimum requirements for participation, also they will have to check in their profile history most importantly, just as the way an applicant can decided on which signature campaign they want to participate in, also is the same way the campaign managers go in scrutinizing those they want and think could give the best promotions to their service.

A "law" would be a big term to apply in this scenario. More like an unspoken rule would be more appropriate, since many people use the forum as a means to provide service and get paid for it.

Some managers may have a internal rule to give less priority to those who switch campaigns too quickly. This from the manager's perspective can be annoying but considering the participant's side, a better work opportunity is defenitely welcome if they are fit for it.

I personally become lazy with the status quo and tend to stick to the campaign till it ends or they get bored of me and downsize me out. I was in Roobet for a long time with only 70$/week, left only because they decided to downsize the campaign.

It's really full of assumption, I don't think they're loyal instead they've tried to apply on other campaign, but got rejected. That's why you see them are loyal since they don't have any option to migrate.

The good thing is there are few campaign managers not taking a personal when they faced such people , although they didn't mention if they're fine with that or get annoyed just like what you said above.

Since there's no law that restrict anyone from changing signature campaign as they want as long as it not violating against the campaign or forum rules, it's our individual choice to choose to stay leave or apply to anyone we wish to work for, but most importantly is that they have to always read about the rules and regulations of the campaign before applying to know if the conditions are going to be convenient for them or not.

Too bad you aren't a campaign manager. To be fair though, this people that you're talking about that are jumping from campaign to campaign are easily accepted in campaign so they're going to be doing that because there's nothing wrong with that and it's only annoying to the manager. Try that on other users that are diligently applying on campaigns but always getting rejected because of low merits or any other requirements not being met, I'm telling you, you will definitely get the most loyal posters although the only problem with that is they're quality in posts will not be to the best level. Regards to the reason why they move from campaign to campaign probably got to do with the campaign manager, they might want to work on this campaign manager than the previous one.

If I were a campaign manager, I would be annoyed by these members whom I accept from among hundreds of other member applications. Then, they move from my campaign to other campaigns as soon after they are accepted or even without completing a single week of work. I know that it's their entire right, but instead of wasting the campaign manager's time, they could, from the beginning, choose a campaign whose rules, weekly posting requirements, and payment rates align with their preferences. As the previous members mentioned, and I agree, one of the reasons they move every time is because there is another campaign with higher payment rates than the one they are in. However, what if this campaign, which they moved to, ended quickly after the completion of its promotional period, and they were surprised that the campaign they left was long-term? Honestly, those who work in signature campaigns and have been accepted into one should consider it a work contract they must abide by and remain in for a reasonable period without constantly moving from one campaign to another every time... because this will prove that this member is not disciplined and does not deserve further consideration for his joining application for future campaigns or is not a good decision-maker and will cause annoyances for the campaign manager.

Consider having made a constraint of n-merits/week to stay in the campaign, that would mean more of shady merit exchange dealing happening. In my opinion this type of rule should not be made in any stage in future. But am I just being paranoid to go against the system?

If the distribution of merit was equal in every section you posted in, maybe then this could have been put in. Just consider Bitcoin Discussion section and the Good/Bad post ratio, that is obviously <1.0 and merit sources will not look through them.

Post history and variation is the number of sections they post in would be a better parameter, but as a former campaign member myself, others might think I am being biased.

You are right, quality of discussion is really low and altcoin lovers found other places to discuss. Then again, if there are more merit sources present there maybe people would put more effort into their posts while now they know that no one really cares so they don't bother.

Altcoin board is in such a big mess that lack of merit sources is least of its worries, imho.

Even if there is a merit source there, I still wouldn't expect impressive results when you consider how many posts that board generates and how much of that is complete nonsense. If that person had 100 merits to allocate, they would probably still suffer finding enough good posts in any given month. 

As a matter of fact, that 0.05 merit/post ratio is actually pretty decent for Altcoin Discussion as their total average since 2018 up until now is only 0.02. To put things into perpsective and to show how low that is, even Off Topic board has higher overall merit/post ratio (0.07) and we all know about generally poor quality of posts there.

Anyway, if you are curious about some other boards merit/post ratios, you can find them on Merit Dashboard.

I very rarely go to the altcoin section, I only check a few coins sometimes to see if there is any news. However, I saw that almost all campaign managers do not count posts from altcoin discussions, I believe they recognized the poor quality of the posts there. But 0.05 merits/post is a really bad ratio, it seems to be worse than I thought.

I do believe that his merit appliucation will be eventually approved but I don't think that it will happen anytime soon. From what I noticed, theymos usually introduce new merit sources/removes inactive ones and generlaly readjust merit source allocation only when there's a big drop in the amount of merit shared and if you check the merit stats you will notice that those number still look pretty good compared to 2 years ago when theymos did the last readjustment. Add on that the fact that activity has been constantly decreasing (not in gambling board though) which is another factor that might affect his decision


Probably not good given their measly merit/post ratio (for example, Altcoin Discussion board had only 0.05 merits/post last month).

Perhaps that can change in the near future if theymos or Cyrus approve cryptofrka's merit source application that specifically targets the gambling board as a destination to distribute merits. I also wonder if there is a handful of quality contributors in the altcoin boards or is that a cancer that no one can control any longer? Some time ago, a user applied to become an altcoin-board merit source, but I can't remember how that story ended.

There's so much merit being shared (combination of theymos increasing merit source allocation 2 years ago and fewer quality membera) that even average members make pretty solid amount of merit so chances that someone very good to be overlooked when it comes to merit are slim. Unless that person is mostly writing in gambling board which is still seriously undermited.

That's correct; your rank doesn't necessarily mean that you're knowledgeable. I've seen plenty of Jr. Members up to Full Members contributing vastly to the forum and assisting other users by providing technical knowledge regarding Bitcoin, networks, wallets, and so on. On the other hand, there are high-ranking members who had ranked up before the merit system was introduced and are still posting gibberish in known spam sections of the forum.
I also believe that warnings should be given before removing a signature campaign member if a deteriorating performance is found. It could be a case of personal matters that may have impacted his or her performance. However, if it's a continuous issue, no more than two warnings should be given.

I suppose you have a point. I have been getting custom sig deals for years now that usually have no merit requirement, so I don't really pay attention to merits. I have used a must earn 1 merit per week rule in a couple campaigns and wasn't really a fan of it. Should merit earning be taken into consideration? Maybe, but post history and quality is much more important to look at. Some deserve merits and don't get them which makes the system unfair. Wouldn't like to see a great forum contributor over
looked because he didn't earn x amount of merits.

I know that all the campaigns have that warning but one thing the managements have to know is that the participants are not robots but humans who use their brains and also have other works in real life. So they are sometimes they might produce low and high. There are sometimes a participant might not even know what he is writing, and many reputable members have also testified to this. As I said earlier, some managers understand those things and give warning from one to two and if the user is still on low quality then he or she would be kick out. And one thing we have to know is that mistake must come the matter the person is knowledgeable and brilliant. Well forum frown at low quality and there are different ways low quality post can be produced. And everyone view post from different perspective.

Extensive knowledge will affect the quality of the constructive content created.
Seniors or even those who are new but have good knowledge and content quality will easily get many merits, they are really serious in responding to every discussion, thus providing a solution, not just nonsense.

Some other legendary accounts with minimal merit may just create nonsense posts, because they are already in a safe zone with a signature campaign that pays for it, but in the end, when the rules change it will be the reason why they are kicked out.

---

A manager who leaves a note about how they did in 1 week is a warning that should be evaluated.
Sometimes there are managers who don't give any warnings, but as the rules change in the campaign and developers want quality participants, those who don't have good progress will be kicked out immediately.

Improving all the time is necessary.
It's also a warning to myself to keep improving and not just give crap.