Why not limiting the Signature Campaigns and posts per week? - page 2.

orkoso

member

Activity: 276

Merit: 23

Quote from: minifrij on January 28, 2018, 10:52:46 AM

Which is completely irrelevant on a forum called Bitcointalk. If a community is about something specific, it doesn't matter how much or little popularity that thing has.

Bitcoin is not a separate entity any more, and the forum and the coin would only suffer by trying to pretend so. It seems that more than ever it is required to avoid living in the past and acknowledging that the competence is here to stay and is strong.

minifrij

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1268

In Memory of Zepher

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 08:26:20 AM

- Campaigns done properly bring funds to the crypto community and support the value of Bitcoin since it is paired with alts in markets.

Correct. The issue comes when campaigns aren't done properly, which a significant amount of campaigns on this forum aren't.
If I open a ballpit and the majority of people that use it piss in it, I'm just going to close the ballpit. The 'get rid of signatures' argument is in the same vein.

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 08:26:20 AM

- You would be ignoring the real trend in crypto (see the dominance graph). Do you notice that Bitcoin is no more than 36% of the total value?

Which is completely irrelevant on a forum called Bitcointalk. If a community is about something specific, it doesn't matter how much or little popularity that thing has.

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 08:26:20 AM

But above all, you would be harming the value of this forum. Alts are no longer "alts", they are as relevant to the cryptocommunity as Bitcoin if not more and you may get rid of some spam yes, but you will also be loosing talent, new blood and new ideas. If you make the forum and "old boys club" that is what you will get, old boys taking about old topics and eventually becoming irrelevant.

I think you're taking what Jet Cash said too literally. From my interpretation he wasn't saying that anything that deviates from Bitcoin is wrong and should be left out, but that the huge amount of useless vapid shit being posted as a result of those abusing campaigns should stop. While Bitcointalk is about Bitcoin primarily, I don't think many would argue that having a section for alts is a particularly bad thing (providing it isn't abused).

orkoso

member

Activity: 276

Merit: 23

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on January 27, 2018, 07:37:45 PM

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 08:43:43 AM

Quote from: Zackgeno96 on January 27, 2018, 08:22:07 AM

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 07:56:41 AM

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

This has been already implemented. There was a time, where minimum required post count was 100 in order to get paid. It was one of the reason for spamming but by the time it was reduced to 20 to 25 post per week. It would not be feasible to the projects who runs these campaign to promote their project; if you further reduce the post counts to 10 per week then it will affect their promotion.

I am not going to say names, but there are two campaigns right now that ask for 50 and 100 posts minimun. 20 posts is three a day (roughly) I honestly doubt that many members here have three relevant and well thought things to say a day. Even two.

Dude, I used to belong to the old Yobit campaign, and not only could you make 20 posts/day max, but they paid out within hours of you making your posts. It was fantastic! And I don't recall there being a character minimum, either. As you can imagine, Yobit attracted some of the shittiest posters on bitcointalk, and a lot of their output was one-line shitposts. But damn, that was a fun campaign and it was my first.

The problem, OP, is the question of who is going to be requiring those maximums? You sure as hell can't count on lousy campaign managers to do it, like the altcoin ones. And Theymos is benefiting from this whole thing, so he isn't going to do it. It's a good idea, but there's no way it's going to get implemented.

I don´t see why theymos nor any other admin would have less benefit frankly, there would simply be less posts, but the balance would be the same. It would be very easy to setup a way of reporting non-compliance and the campaigns admins would be the first ones to name non-compliant competitors.

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6981

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 08:43:43 AM

Quote from: Zackgeno96 on January 27, 2018, 08:22:07 AM

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 07:56:41 AM

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

This has been already implemented. There was a time, where minimum required post count was 100 in order to get paid. It was one of the reason for spamming but by the time it was reduced to 20 to 25 post per week. It would not be feasible to the projects who runs these campaign to promote their project; if you further reduce the post counts to 10 per week then it will affect their promotion.

I am not going to say names, but there are two campaigns right now that ask for 50 and 100 posts minimun. 20 posts is three a day (roughly) I honestly doubt that many members here have three relevant and well thought things to say a day. Even two.

Dude, I used to belong to the old Yobit campaign, and not only could you make 20 posts/day max, but they paid out within hours of you making your posts. It was fantastic! And I don't recall there being a character minimum, either. As you can imagine, Yobit attracted some of the shittiest posters on bitcointalk, and a lot of their output was one-line shitposts. But damn, that was a fun campaign and it was my first.

The problem, OP, is the question of who is going to be requiring those maximums? You sure as hell can't count on lousy campaign managers to do it, like the altcoin ones. And Theymos is benefiting from this whole thing, so he isn't going to do it. It's a good idea, but there's no way it's going to get implemented.

francojon

member

Activity: 238

Merit: 11

Quote from: Adioliver on January 27, 2018, 09:12:48 AM

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 07:56:41 AM

IMHO and in many peoples opinion, many one of the main sources of spams are Signatures Campaigns. I am not in favour of suppressing these because they do provided finance and develop the world of cryptocurrencies.

I do participate on these campaigns because I can support a project that I like or think is good for the community and get a few tokens along the way, even if sometimes they are worth nothing Roll Eyes

However, many of the campaigns set a minimum of posts that I have to make a week. Some of these ask for 20 posts a week, so I am faced with the dilemma of either having to say no to a campaign that I really like or having to post on low quality threads without much interest.

I know that many people here would say that I should not take the campaign, but that is not a good solution as I do want to promote the projects I like.

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

Any new campaign on the forum would have to follow this rule or risk not being accepted / be banned / muted.

Yeah your thought is good but won't the signature campaigns be at loss if they instruct their participants to post only 7-10 posts a week?. There are numerous signature campaign nowadays and in the fight of promoting themselves it is a necessity for them that each participant posts around 20-30 posts weekly.And this eventually leads to the increase in the number of spammers.But now i believe that we can rest this case as the new merit system has been introduced in bitcointalk.Now people won't be able to rank up unless and until they contribute some good and substantial posts to the forum.I guess even signature campaign participants would now be judged upon their merits.

If they all get the same rules the gaming field is levelled for every one.

LTU_btc

legendary

Activity: 3234

Merit: 1375

Slava Ukraini!

If you can't make 20 good quality posts per week, you shouldn't join that campaign. I don't see many reasons to limit max number of posts because there are enough users who can reach required number of posts without spamming. And if number of posts would be reduced, these campaigns will become not effective because with less posts they get much less visibility. 20-30 is not that much, because as said above some campaigns asking to make even 100 posts. To reach it, users have to posts absolute garbage.
But I think something has to be done to regulate bounty campaigns. If there are lot of spammers in campaign and campaign manager aren't doing hos job properly, then mods just delete campaign thread and project loise right to advertise on bitcointalk via signature campaigns.

Adioliver

full member

Activity: 266

Merit: 108

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 07:56:41 AM

IMHO and in many peoples opinion, many one of the main sources of spams are Signatures Campaigns. I am not in favour of suppressing these because they do provided finance and develop the world of cryptocurrencies.

I do participate on these campaigns because I can support a project that I like or think is good for the community and get a few tokens along the way, even if sometimes they are worth nothing Roll Eyes

However, many of the campaigns set a minimum of posts that I have to make a week. Some of these ask for 20 posts a week, so I am faced with the dilemma of either having to say no to a campaign that I really like or having to post on low quality threads without much interest.

I know that many people here would say that I should not take the campaign, but that is not a good solution as I do want to promote the projects I like.

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

Any new campaign on the forum would have to follow this rule or risk not being accepted / be banned / muted.

Yeah your thought is good but won't the signature campaigns be at loss if they instruct their participants to post only 7-10 posts a week?. There are numerous signature campaign nowadays and in the fight of promoting themselves it is a necessity for them that each participant posts around 20-30 posts weekly.And this eventually leads to the increase in the number of spammers.But now i believe that we can rest this case as the new merit system has been introduced in bitcointalk.Now people won't be able to rank up unless and until they contribute some good and substantial posts to the forum.I guess even signature campaign participants would now be judged upon their merits.

orkoso

member

Activity: 276

Merit: 23

Quote from: Zackgeno96 on January 27, 2018, 08:22:07 AM

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 07:56:41 AM

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

This has been already implemented. There was a time, where minimum required post count was 100 in order to get paid. It was one of the reason for spamming but by the time it was reduced to 20 to 25 post per week. It would not be feasible to the projects who runs these campaign to promote their project; if you further reduce the post counts to 10 per week then it will affect their promotion.

I am not going to say names, but there are two campaigns right now that ask for 50 and 100 posts minimun. 20 posts is three a day (roughly) I honestly doubt that many members here have three relevant and well thought things to say a day. Even two.

orkoso

member

Activity: 276

Merit: 23

Quote from: Jet Cash on January 27, 2018, 08:12:16 AM

Or just ban the signatures so that Bitcoiners can have Bitcoin Talk back to talk about Bitcoin.

Following that route would be unwise for several reasons, but I will just mention a couple:

- Campaigns done properly bring funds to the crypto community and support the value of Bitcoin since it is paired with alts in markets. The main use of bitcoin today is trading, not "hodling".

- You would be ignoring the real trend in crypto (see the dominance graph). Do you notice that Bitcoin is no more than 36% of the total value?

But above all, you would be harming the value of this forum. Alts are no longer "alts", they are as relevant to the cryptocommunity as Bitcoin if not more and you may get rid of some spam yes, but you will also be loosing talent, new blood and new ideas. If you make the forum and "old boys club" that is what you will get, old boys taking about old topics and eventually becoming irrelevant.

Zackgeno96

hero member

Activity: 1778

Merit: 520

Quote from: orkoso on January 27, 2018, 07:56:41 AM

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

This has been already implemented. There was a time, where minimum required post count was 100 in order to get paid. It was one of the reason for spamming but by the time it was reduced to 20 to 25 post per week. It would not be feasible to the projects who runs these campaign to promote their project; if you further reduce the post counts to 10 per week then it will affect their promotion.

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 2472

https://JetCash.com

Or just ban the signatures so that Bitcoiners can have Bitcoin Talk back to talk about Bitcoin.

orkoso

member

Activity: 276

Merit: 23

IMHO and in many peoples opinion, many one of the main sources of spams are Signatures Campaigns. I am not in favour of suppressing these because they do provided finance and develop the world of cryptocurrencies.

I do participate on these campaigns because I can support a project that I like or think is good for the community and get a few tokens along the way, even if sometimes they are worth nothing Roll Eyes

However, many of the campaigns set a minimum of posts that I have to make a week. Some of these ask for 20 posts a week, so I am faced with the dilemma of either having to say no to a campaign that I really like or having to post on low quality threads without much interest.

I know that many people here would say that I should not take the campaign, but that is not a good solution as I do want to promote the projects I like.

For this, my proposal would be to limit the amount of postings required in any campaign to 1 a day or no more than 7 or 10 a week.

Any new campaign on the forum would have to follow this rule or risk not being accepted / be banned / muted.

Topic: Why not limiting the Signature Campaigns and posts per week? - page 2. (Read 564 times)