Signature campaigns & forum earning discussion thread.

[yahoo62278]

I hear you guys, but need to try something new. If it looks shitty and non organic, then I can always remove the rule.

[SamReomo]

I hear you guys, but need to try something new. If it looks shitty and non organic, then I can always remove the rule.

I think you may rethink once again before making that rule a compulsory one. I also agree with the users who said that such rule could lead to spamming on an announcement thread and nothing else.

However, instead of making it a rule, you may make it a suggestion to the applicants of the campaign as that won't be a forced thing and users who get paid from a campaign might spend sometime on their announcement thread willingly.

[examplens]

Let's look at things from another angle, what the service/project owner and their manager see here.

I hear you guys, but need to try something new. If it looks shitty and non organic, then I can always remove the rule.

I think you may rethink once again before making that rule a compulsory one. I also agree with the users who said that such rule could lead to spamming on an announcement thread and nothing else.

Although I would act differently, this is a completely legitimate condition for participating in the campaign. (Unlike Btt, it is not forbidden to set such a condition in the campaign here)

However, instead of making it a rule, you may make it a suggestion to the applicants of the campaign as that won't be a forced thing and users who get paid from a campaign might spend sometime on their announcement thread willingly.

Let's talk about when a rule is set but seems isn't mandatory, and how the participants will behave.

For example, for participation in Unijoin's signature campaign, icopress added a rule that all participants are expected to test Unijoin's service at least once.
The campaign lasts 3+ months, can you check how many participants of their signature campaign tested the service and wrote a review? I found only 3 out of 18 members.

➥ By submitting your application, you agree that once accepted you will test UniJoin and post your review.

An obvious example that justifies yahoo62278's position, if you leave things like this as optional, nobody will care.

I'm curious, how would it look if the manager decided to exclude from the campaign everyone who didn't do a test/review? He would have every right to do that, right?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I see that my comment has sparked an interesting debate, and it has also made me know some curious anecdote like this one:

I agree with examplens, this could be positive in the sense that it would avoid the situation we had on the other forum in the Sinbad campaign, where a participant asked "what is a BTC mixer" after several months of running campaign..

Source.

For example, for participation in Unijoin's signature campaign, icopress added a rule that all participants are expected to test Unijoin's service at least once.
The campaign lasts 3+ months, can you check how many participants of their signature campaign tested the service and wrote a review? I found only 3 out of 18 members.

This has caught my attention, and coming to page 8 of the thread I count 5.

notblox1

dwyane36

Don Pedro Dinero

BitMaxz (not a review but he shows he has accessed the site)

klarki

Stompix

And there are others who have not explicitly written a review but you can see in comments that they are familiar with the site, such as paid2, who is very involved, but there are also others who although they have not written a review participate in the thread and you can see that they know what they are talking about.

So the results are not as bad as it might seem in those 3 that you have counted. I think the best solution is to encourage participants to try the service and comment on the thread, without requiring a weekly post but telling them that their participation or not will be taken into account to decide who stays in the campaign.

[examplens]

And there are others who have not explicitly written a review but you can see in comments that they are familiar with the site, such as paid2, who is very involved, but there are also others who although they have not written a review participate in the thread and you can see that they know what they are talking about.

I understand this condition as a test Unijoin and wrote a review. Not like, visit the site and write that you visited it.
So I'll quote one more time to make sure I'm reading correctly:

➥ By submitting your application, you agree that once accepted you will test UniJoin and post your review.

If I were to act as a neutral visitor to the forum, I recognized only three reviews that would help me get a clearer picture of what this service offers.
Even if the standards were lowered and this solution accepted as satisfactory, it is still only 6 out of 18 participants even made an effort in 100 days of this campaign.

To be clear, I have nothing against anyone from the campaign, nor is it my business, but if I were the manager, I would not be satisfied with this kind of relationship.

[paid2]

If I were to act as a neutral visitor to the forum, I recognized only three reviews that would help me get a clearer picture of what this service offers.
Even if the standards were lowered and this solution accepted as satisfactory, it is still only 6 out of 18 participants even made an effort in 100 days of this campaign.

To be clear, I have nothing against anyone from the campaign, nor is it my business, but if I were the manager, I would not be satisfied with this kind of relationship.

I agree with the idea, a deal is a deal, while at the same time I think that as long as the overall engagement is good, the manager should probably be satisfied. There are many different things that can impact the success of a campaign. For me the only question should be: when a manager is asking for reviews/mandatory ANN posts, is it for the sake of the reviews/posts or to try to give a maximal engagement in the said campaign?

For example, I think it's just as positive to have reviews scattered all over the pages of the ANN, as it is to have them all in one block at the beginning of the topic. This would appear like "fake" to a neutral visitor in my opinion (like empty reviews, superficial content), whereas an organic discussion seems to me to be much more representative of the interest that the participants have in their project.
From my side, I'd prefer post a review using it like a "useful bump" when the ANN is too inactive for a period of time, than post one in the middle of an organic conversation.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I agree with the idea, a deal is a deal, while at the same time I think that as long as the overall engagement is good, the manager should probably be satisfied.

I think so. What would be the other way? Kick 12 to 15 participants out of the campaign? If things go as well as they seem to be going, it would be crazy to do that.

There are many different things that can impact the success of a campaign. For me the only question should be: when a manager is asking for reviews/mandatory ANN posts, is it for the sake of the reviews/posts or to try to give a maximal engagement in the said campaign?

That's what I think. I regularly visit the thread and I think there is a good engagement of those who participate in the campaign, many of us are customers of the service, others have not written a review but have a very good involvement with the project, like paid2. In my case I did not write a full review but an addition of comments to the previous one. However, I have made the translation to Spanish of the Ann, I am a customer of the service and I have offered along with paid2 to improve the translation of the site.

I think the manager values this more that people have made a review on page 6 of a thread that is on page 16 today, and that a supposedly neutral visitor of the forum will try to find it.

[notblox1]

I see that my comment has sparked an interesting debate, and it has also made me know some curious anecdote like this one

This was one time post, and I am not going to write there all the time.
It is the same for review, I wont post reviews all the time for the same service.
I dont need to write all the time in that topic if I dont have anything normal to ask or comment.

[SamReomo]

Although I would act differently, this is a completely legitimate condition for participating in the campaign. (Unlike Btt, it is not forbidden to set such a condition in the campaign here)

I agree that it's not forbidden on this forum and lies under the rights of a campaign manager but what's the benefit of something that could lead to more spamming? If you are active on Bitcointalk reputation board then you might have idea about the thoughts of the members regarding Stake's signature campaign.
 
Although, the Stake's manager allow the users to make more posts so the platform will have more visibility, and the participants of that campaign are bombarding gambling board with their posts. Many of the members consider the posts of some Stake participants as spam and even if that's allowed by the rules of Bitcointalk but still users aren't happy because they can see spamming by the participants who only post to get paid.

The situation is quite different here, I agree that the rule which yahoo62278 has added isn't a harmful one, but I still fear that if participants are forced then that could lead to spamming in those announcement threads.

[examplens]

I agree with the idea, a deal is a deal, while at the same time I think that as long as the overall engagement is good, the manager should probably be satisfied.

I think so. What would be the other way? Kick 12 to 15 participants out of the campaign? If things go as well as they seem to be going, it would be crazy to do that.

Why not? I've seen big purges in the campaign before. At least the participants in the campaign are replaceable.
After all, it doesn't have to be excluded from the campaign, it can also be a halved payment until the criteria set at the opening of the campaign are met.

I think the manager values this more that people have made a review on page 6 of a thread that is on page 16 today, and that a supposedly neutral visitor of the forum will try to find it.

Links to good review posts can always be added to the first post.

To emphasize once again, this is just a discussion and I'm just stating what I notice. The case with the campaign we are discussing is just one example.

Although, the Stake's manager allow the users to make more posts so the platform will have more visibility, and the participants of that campaign are bombarding gambling board with their posts.

Do not compare amateurs who managed Stake campaigns with serious managers who know their job. 

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Why not? I've seen big purges in the campaign before.

In which one? Not on Unijoin.io one as fas as I can remember in ATT. Not of the order of more than 50% of the members of the campaign. Also, I would say that if icopress was not happy with what you say, before taking action he would issue a reminder/warning in the signature campaign thread.

[examplens]

In which one? Not on Unijoin.io one as fas as I can remember in ATT. Not of the order of more than 50% of the members of the campaign. Also, I would say that if icopress was not happy with what you say, before taking action he would issue a reminder/warning in the signature campaign thread.

In 6 days it will be exactly 10 years since I registered on Bitcointalk. I must say that I have seen many different things when we talk about signature campaigns.
If we ignore the size and payment rate, why do you think that all other conditions should be different just because this is an Altt forum and not a Btt? In the end, signature campaigns always have the same goal, building and promoting the brand.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

In 6 days it will be exactly 10 years since I registered on Bitcointalk. I must say that I have seen many different things when we talk about signature campaigns.
If we ignore the size and payment rate, why do you think that all other conditions should be different just because this is an Altt forum and not a Btt? In the end, signature campaigns always have the same goal, building and promoting the brand.

Hey examplens, I wouldn't want to argue much more with you because sometimes when two people don't stop arguing about something, in the end instead of trying to find common ground, what they do is find reasons to try to further justify their position. What I said before I said because you said:

I think so. What would be the other way? Kick 12 to 15 participants out of the campaign? If things go as well as they seem to be going, it would be crazy to do that.

Why not? I've seen big purges in the campaign before.

So said it would appear that you have seen purges in this campaign at ATT, which I doubt.

But it seems that this debate has somehow drawn attention to the manager, as in his most recent post in the campaign he refers to this thread, with which I understand that he may consider those who have not done the review on Unijoin as possible candidates if he decides to get rid of someone.

[dkbit98]

I hear you guys, but need to try something new. If it looks shitty and non organic, then I can always remove the rule.

You have this rule in one or more of your campaigns? 
Was it you who came up with this idea, or the service you are working with asked you to make this rule change in their campaign?
I understand some rules need to exist in any campaign but I am for giving more liberty to members than limitations.

[pawel7777]

I personally believe that users should want to help a service that has hired them. Apparently, users do not care who hired them though, only thing that they care about is getting paid.

Do I want to encourage spam in the announcement threads? No, I want to encourage engagement. I want to encourage users to actually visit the site and look around. I want users to say some negative or positive things about the company to help them improve.

Hired them? Do you consider signature participants to be employees of the business they advertising?
I think the general agreement was that signature spaces were being hired, not participants themselves. But this is crossing into a different territory.

I do understand your logic, but this is effectively paying for bumping ANN threads, which is ethically dubious to say the least.

And we all know that people posting negative things about the service (e.g. pointing out higher house edge than that of competitors or criticising lack of transparency in disclosing house edge) will probably not be welcomed by the service being advertised, so you'll likely end up with astroturfing.

I hear you guys, but need to try something new. If it looks shitty and non organic, then I can always remove the rule.

Fair enough. But I think if you have to force participants to post in ANN threads, it'll be non-organic by definition.