It's not a win for the signature campaign. It doesn't matter if a person is spamming or not, they are getting the exposure they want either way.
That's not exactly true. People tend to put spammers on their ignore list, and when someone is ignored their post (and their signature as well) doesn't show up in a thread. So a campaign full of spammers is receiving less exposure than a campaign with no spammers, because chances are lots of people will be ignoring the spammers. Plus, having a campaign full of spammers doesn't give the advertised website a good reputation. I'm not inclined to use YoBit or recommend it to others, partially because of how they manage their signature campaign. It seems that they don't really care about the Bitcointalk community, because of how irresponsible they are when it comes to spammers in their signature campaign. If they can't properly manage a signature campaign, how can I trust them with my crypto?
Yes but still they are getting some advertising with spam posts.i think they would prefer them to pay for their spam posts rather than giving 75% to other guy with no advertising.Its a loss for them.yes may me 25% of the rate will be win situation for campaign.but 75% is a bit too high i think.they are already paying campaign manager plus 75% to him..its better for them to pay some spam users until they are spotted by their campaign manager