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.
notblox1dwyane36Don Pedro DineroBitMaxz (not a review but he shows he has accessed the site)
klarkiStompixAnd 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.