Пост
ParvezMayar
·
--
⚠️ 🚨 #CreatorPad Scoring Concern: Content Quality vs Reach Imbalance..
With the recent shift toward post/article + performance-based scoring, a few structural issues are becoming increasingly visible.
1️⃣ Impressions can be boosted through trending coin mentions
Some posts and articles appear to gain disproportionate reach by including daily trending coin names, even when those mentions are not strongly relevant to the campaign itself. This can inflate impression-based points and distort fair comparison between creators.
2️⃣ Deweighted content can still accumulate strong performance points
Content that receives very low quality scores due to AI proportion, low creativity, weak freshness, or limited project relevance still appears able to collect substantial impression and engagement points afterward.
This creates a mismatch in the scoring logic.
If content quality is already being penalized, performance-based rewards should not be large enough to offset that penalty so easily.
3️⃣ Observed imbalance in weighting
Based on repeated creator observations, even strong content often appears to earn only around 30–35 points from content quality itself, while impressions alone can sometimes contribute 30–40 points, even on weaker content.
If that pattern is accurate, then reach is being rewarded too heavily relative to content quality.
✨ Suggested adjustment:
A more balanced structure could be:
• Content quality: 70 points
• Impressions + engagement: 30 points
This would still reward creators with stronger reach, while keeping the main incentive focused on writing better, more relevant, and more original campaign content.
⭐ Additionally:
if a post or article is heavily deweighted for duplication, low creativity, or high AI proportion, then its reach-based rewards should also be limited, otherwise the quality penalty loses much of its purpose.
This concern is being raised for fairness, transparency, and long-term content quality across CreatorPad campaigns.
Thank you!
@Binance Square Official
.
.
.
@Kaze BNB @_Ram
With the recent shift toward post/article + performance-based scoring, a few structural issues are becoming increasingly visible.
1️⃣ Impressions can be boosted through trending coin mentions
Some posts and articles appear to gain disproportionate reach by including daily trending coin names, even when those mentions are not strongly relevant to the campaign itself. This can inflate impression-based points and distort fair comparison between creators.
2️⃣ Deweighted content can still accumulate strong performance points
Content that receives very low quality scores due to AI proportion, low creativity, weak freshness, or limited project relevance still appears able to collect substantial impression and engagement points afterward.
This creates a mismatch in the scoring logic.
If content quality is already being penalized, performance-based rewards should not be large enough to offset that penalty so easily.
3️⃣ Observed imbalance in weighting
Based on repeated creator observations, even strong content often appears to earn only around 30–35 points from content quality itself, while impressions alone can sometimes contribute 30–40 points, even on weaker content.
If that pattern is accurate, then reach is being rewarded too heavily relative to content quality.
✨ Suggested adjustment:
A more balanced structure could be:
• Content quality: 70 points
• Impressions + engagement: 30 points
This would still reward creators with stronger reach, while keeping the main incentive focused on writing better, more relevant, and more original campaign content.
⭐ Additionally:
if a post or article is heavily deweighted for duplication, low creativity, or high AI proportion, then its reach-based rewards should also be limited, otherwise the quality penalty loses much of its purpose.
This concern is being raised for fairness, transparency, and long-term content quality across CreatorPad campaigns.
Thank you!
@Binance Square Official
.
.
.
@Kaze BNB @_Ram
Жауапкершіліктен бас тарту туралы мәлімдеме: үшінші тараптардың пікірлері бар. Қаржылық кеңес емес. Ішінде жарнамалық контент болуы мүмкін. Шарттар мен талаптарды қараңыз.