Crowdholding

Experimental Task: Get Rewarded for Reading Content and Researching Other Platforms

Experimental Task: Get Rewarded for Reading Content and Researching Other Platforms

task

EXPIRED


YUP icon 2000


Experimental Task: Get Rewarded for Reading Content and Researching Other Platforms

Rewards

No YUP/tokens awarded

Hey guys,

We prepared for you yet another experimental task from our UX team.

You will get rewarded both for reading and posting good content.

Read the description carefully or you might be disappointed or marked as a cheater and we don’t want that.

What are we dealing with?

There was an increase of users and reduction of quality of comments we receive as well as increase of spammers and people trying to game our rewarding system.

What is our goal with this task?

Ultimately, we want to increase the quality of the content on our platform. Part of that is reducing spam, improving the experience of posting, reading  and upvoting comments, and reward quality work.

This task will provide us with good input and it also serves as an experiment to test out one of the ideas.

We already have plenty of intriguing ideas to explore on how to solve this problem and some even from our amazing community (you guys) that you posted in some of our older tasks. So thank you for that. But now we want something different...

What do we want from you?

We want you to research one platform that is similar to us and give us a detailed review of how they deal with

  • Promoting quality content

  • Incentivising quality content

  • Dealing with content that lacks quality and people gaming the system(Spammers, Scammers, etc.)

Read the rules for more details. (eg. there should be only one main answer per platform but we encourage you to discuss and add things that are missing)

We suggest that if you decide to research a platform that has not been researched yet to post an answer as follows:


“<Platform name>

Post all the research replying to this post.

Posting this I am also declaring that I’m doing quality research on this platform”

Structure of the qualifying post

Start with Name of the Platform so that anyone can see what platforms were already researched (see Rules for why)

Then tell us in what way they are similar.

And then start with what you found out with your research. The more detailed it is the bigger the potential reward.

Tell us also how you think their approach might relate to or work on Crowdholding.

Don’t want to post but still want to get rewarded?

Find and upvote quality content. Each picked answer or comment that gets rewarded will also reward the upvoters (people who helped to bring it to our attention) from percentage of the reward for this user. However, you have only 5 upvotes available for this task. You will not be rewarded if you upvote more and you might be marked as a potential spammer.

To illustrate this, let’s imagine a scenario where an amazing comment is posted 5 days later.

This comment is hidden under someone else's answer so not many people read or see it. But there are 2 people who upvoted the comment.

Now, as this comment was amazing it receives 1000 Yups. 10 % of this then goes to the Upvoters which is 100. And as 2 people upvoted this comment then each Upvoter receives 50 Yups.

A small hint on how to benefit from this: Come to the task towards the expiration time and read through all the comments and upvote those that are good.

Rules and Rewards

  • Posts about Steemit and Quora will not receive any reward

  • There should be just one main post for each Platform (Therefore, read before you post).

  • If someone already posted about the platform you wanted to research then read through their post and let us know in the comments of their answer if they are right, if you agree or if you have something to add.

  • Quality posts will be rewarded (tipped) in the range of 50 and 300 additional Yups and extra upvotes from our Team.

  • Quality posts and associated tips with that post are determined by Crowdholding Team

  • The Upvoters receive 10 % from the Tipped reward of the posts

  • You can only upvote 5 times max on this task

  • If you upvote more, you will not be eligible for any upvoter rewards and you might be flagged as a potential scammer.

  • If you upvote a comment that was legitimately reported as spam you will not be eligible to receive rewards as well and you will be flagged as a potential scammer

Thank you for reading everything and happy participating.

Be creative.







42 COMMENTS 64 VOTES

Most recent Most voted Most verbose

Tusher Tareq

great project

The general idea of crowdsourcing is the same, but Chaordix puts a heavy emphasis on building communities surrounding a business, not just soliciting feedback

3 months ago

Having a platform focused on quality content, building communities that will narrow the gap between customers and companies while striving to be the best is heart warming up .... So much junks online.

The reward system will definitely increase the user base and quality, as we all want to be rewarded for the job but the automated mechanism will track and filter spammers and IP users. / Account must be introduced.

6 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

6 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

6 months ago

Hello user, please do not spam here, and keep the high quality of the content here! :-)

Spamming too many times will get your account banned permanently.

6 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

6 months ago

Please do not spam here, and provide useful content.

6 months ago



Gems will be (maybe) a platform where users can complete microtasks and get paid in crypto, like the Amazon mechanical turk on blockchain. I think the main point of your outreach this time is finding out how to solve the spammer issue and GEMS has a rather neat solution!

Excerpt from their wp:

2 Gems Network Overview

The Gems Network facilitates the extension and efficient operation of the micro task community
by allowing organizations to reliably deploy micro task miners. The Gems Protocol,
through validating task completions with the Gems Staking mechanism and enabling miners
to have a reusable trust mechanism through the Gems Trust Score, enforces compliance of
network participants. The Gems Protocol enables the creation of various platforms that are
built on top of the Gems Protocol. Platforms that are created have no intrinsic fee imposed
by the Gems Protocol, broaden the scope of the labor supply, and eliminate inefficiencies in
the market place. Gems allows any application to utilize efficient online scalable workforces.

2.1 Gems Staking Mechanism
The Gems Staking mechanism provides disincentive for malicious actors, enhancing the ef-
ficiency of the Gems Network. Through the Gems Staking mechanism, currently created
through Ethereum-based smart contracts, miners, requesters, and verifiers stake tokens on
the validity of their work and against the validity of others’ work, providing a palpable
disincentive for doing tasks incorrectly.

2.2 Gems Trust Score
The Gems Trust Score is an indicator of how reliable an individual on the network is. By
using the individual’s history of completing tasks accurately, efficiently, and consistently, the
Gems Trust Score is formed and linked to the network participant’s Ethereum wallet address.
Because it is easy to create a new address, trust scores are not easily bootstrapped; miners
need a long proven track record to obtain a high score.
Miners with very high scores are eligible to verify the work of other members on the network,
allowing them to increase the overall accuracy of the system while earning extra money at a higher hourly rate. Unreliable miners will be removed from the network, keeping the quality
of work high.

This is a direct implementation of my previous suggestions. It also expands and improves on STEEM's deeply flawed staking system.

So basically each crowdholder has to put some of his YUP into a task he is performing as a collateral for good feedback. This is a brilliant move that on one hand prevents the flood of just registered spam accounts and on the other hand takes YUP away from the really determined spam accounts. The people verifying the feedback also have to stake YUP for their verification.

This forms a virtous (and some less virtous) circle where good content and good verification rewards people who in turn generate a higher trust score, which gives them more rewards but also increases their required stake. The penalties for the trust score must be draconian. A single infraction takes away an exponentially larger piece of the trust score the bigger this trust score is.

At the start CH administrators (and maybe some long-standing members of the community too) will have to verify the feedback, but in time a class of users with high trust scores will emerge who can be counted on to provide relatively accurate judgment on the quality of the content.

I generally dislike human agency and circles of benevolent dictators in decentralized systems but there is currently no way of evaluating a task like this one I'm writing now without using a human. So a staking system must be implemented to raise the stakes of giving feedback and a trust score to identify validator nodes in your decentralized system. An equlibrium must be also reached between old users and new, aspiring validators. You can reward the old folk more, but their validating weight must not rise proportionally with their reward. It must be asymptotical to a manageable value because otherwise old users dictate what is acceptable which lessens the contribution of new, aspiring validators. So the trust score must grow quicker at the start and slow down later on.

Like xp progression on well made RPG. The gamification potential is through the roof.

There will also definitely be disputes on specific feedback and verification decisions, especially ones that will result in punishment. As trust scores take quite a while to build (we're talking years here) an option to appeal the validators decision must exist and be put up on a vote for the community, which must be compansated by the system.

7 months ago

joe Šovčík

Experimenter, Goal to understand humans and delight them (I'm human, too )

Nice one. I wasn't even ware of this one.
I'm looking forward to read your report.

Thank you

7 months ago

Randy Tice

Just take a look at my past contributions to projects; you will see value there.

Pretty interesting. This would definitely be a long term implementation.

Also, don't forget to type in, "Posting this I am also declaring that I’m doing quality research on this platform” at the end of your post.

6 months ago

If it's not self-evident no amount of declarations will fix it. So no, I refuse to

6 months ago

0 Votes YUP icon 0
joe Šovčík

Experimenter, Goal to understand humans and delight them (I'm human, too )

HAha, no worries :).
The declaration weas supposed to b posted only when you wanted to "reserve" some platform :). Seems like I didn't phrase that properly :).

And your tip has been sent.

6 months ago

0 Votes YUP icon 0
Hide sub-replies
jbm386

Signification time spent with enterprise software companies



I decided to pick the Earn.com platform (recently acquired by Coinbase) because I want to give a review of a platform I’ve actually used and not one I’ve only read about.


Similarities: Both platforms incentivize their consumers to provide feedback and complete tasks to receive rewards. While Earn’s approach is different in that they focus on allowing their end-users to control their tasks and outreach by having solicitors pay for their attention and tasks. However the concept of exchanging goods for consumer feedback is the same.

What I found with my research:

Promoting quality content:

Earn does a good job allowing me to dictate the type of content and tasks I want companies to target me with by building my profile and having their projects pay to have me respond based on my expertise. It looks like Crowholding is trying to build that by the new account “profile” and skills section they recently added. However, Earn takes it further by integrating with LinkedIn to create a detailed real profile / bio of their contributors. I have been pretty adamant about the most important part of Crowdholding’s value proposition needs to be that their customer’s submitting tasks will get solid ligament feedback for the community in order to get repeat investments and more customers to grow. They also are heavily targeting the engineering / developments community to use their freelance expertise to respond to tasks. I am in sales so my skill set is in certain level of demand for tasks while developers can charge a lot more of their feedback since not all of contributor feedback is going to be equal worth.

Incentivizing quality content:

A good way that Earn ensures that that their incentivizing quality content is they allow me to dictate how much is the minimum I can “charge” to respond to a task. When you combine this with the profile strategy they allow above I am incentivized to give quality responses because I am targeted for tasks based on my skill set. For example, recently I was received a much higher task compensation then my typical paid messages because an IoT crypto company noticed I had a background in their specific focus area and asked me to give a detailed responses to longer survey for higher compensation.


Dealing with content that lacks quality and people gaming the system (Spammers, Scammers, etc.):

This seems to be an area that Earn has not provided a lot of visibility into. They don’t have a public forum where everyone can see the responses created. Only the projects giving the tasks can see that. I am assuming they run into the same problems that Crowdholding does with response quality and spam. However I think they mitigate that risk in 2 ways.

1. Offering less incentive per task unless the end-user sets a high price for their feedback (most tasks are usually around $1-$5 dollars USD that can be turned into BTC).

2. They have you use your real data for your profile (LinkedIn, Twitter, etc). This makes it less anonymous and makes the end-user feel like they need to provide some level of quality because it’s their real profile out there. Now I personally think they should take this further and provide public access of responses so their corporate customers know who is actually providing quality.


How their approach might relate to or work on Crowdholding:

I am going to summarize what I think Earn does well that can be pivoted slightly to achieve a much more significant outcome for Crowdholding than what earn is doing. I think Earn’s strategy boils down to letting the contributor dictate what their attention and responses are worth and then having them prove they are worth that reward by using verifiable profile and bio information from LinkedIn. They also have the market agree or disagree on if a contributors response should be worth $1 or $20 because they dictate who gets invites to do a task. They can send $1 tasks to the entire community or target specific individuals / profile types on the platform for much larger rewards.

The way I think Crowholding can use this strategy in a different but more appealing way is by using gamification and response history dictate a higher level of reward. You’ve already built a leaderboard into the interface. You should be using that leaderboard to create competition for your end-users to submit quality responses. For instance Randy Tice is on top of the leaderboard and he should be since he creates great content. I think Randy and the other leaders on the leaderboard should automatically get bonuses for being a top contributor so that people are even further incentivized to post more and better replies. Now to make this work you need to be auditing responses much more closely since just leaving it to a community vote could allow for someone to easily reply to a task and then create another 10 accounts to upvote their response regardless of the quality so they get a larger reward. I also think their you could create an ecosystem where someone like Randy could set his price for more detailed feedback as well.

I certainly like this new experimental task with limits the number of votes and giving voters a part of the reward. I think in general that will allow you to create more authentic voting. You will just need to have people taking a closer look at what is getting upvoted so that people don’t try to manipulate the votes since votes and voters get rewards.

Lastly, providing an optional incentivize to users who provide their real bios and skills could help you get better quality responses because your projects could verify the contributor’s skill set when reviewing their feedback.



Other thoughts:

Earn has a really slick interface. I find their platform very user friendly and their tasks are easy to follow even when it’s multi-step responses. I think they use some type of workflow solution that enables their end-users to click on a wizard type step by step process for each task even if some of the steps to complete a task take the end-user outside of Earn’s website. In general I find their platform easier to use than Crowdholding. Specifically there are 2 nit-picky aspects with Crowdholding user interface that I don’t experience with earn.

1. When you type a response for Crowdholding tasks and a single space between paragraphs typically that doesn’t show up on the screen and it looks like one long paragraph mess.

2. When I want to quickly look at a project’s website for one of their tasks, I can’t click a hyperlink connected to the project’s name to take me to their website. Typically I have to create a new window and google the website in another tab. Earn has a links within their tasks to take you to the website or other key platforms (their twitter or telegram) and automatically pulls up another tab with think link which makes researching and responding much smoother.

However the biggest thing two things I think Crowdholding does better than earn is that they allow the user to get compensated via Yup and the projects token based on their projects reward. I personally prefer this much more than Earn’ss compensation which is USD or BTC. I think this provides upside and stickiness to the Crowdholding platform because as the Yup token because more valuable the better off contributors will be.

The second area I think Crowdholding does better than Earn is transparency by making the responses public and now I personally think this strategy needs to be tweaked as I outlined above in the “How their approach might relate to or work on Crowdholding”. However the idea Crowdholding is pursuing on creating gamification and rewarding quality posts more heavily based on community feedback is a stronger strategy.

Lastly, I personally don’t view Earn.com as direct competitor with Crowdholding but I think they have overlapping go-to-market strategies and share a lot of the same potential users.


TLDR Version:

Key concepts Crowdholding should take away from Earn.com

- Allowing their contributors to set their price on providing feedback
- The interface is more user friendly for contibutors

However Crowdholding can create a more compelling platform overall by building on its strategy for transparency and community voting. I think the path to do achieve a superior platform is by incentivizing thought leaders, gamification, and creating competition within the community to consistently be at the top of the leaderboard giving great content.


“Posting this I am also declaring that I’m doing quality research on this platform”

7 months ago

joe Šovčík

Experimenter, Goal to understand humans and delight them (I'm human, too )

Briliant. Thank you. And I;'m glad someone did Earn.com as they seemed interesting enough when someone quickly showed me the way they do Withdrawals and Balances.

Thanks.

7 months ago

Randy Tice

Just take a look at my past contributions to projects; you will see value there.

(I think Earn’s strategy boils down to letting the contributor dictate what their attention and responses are worth and then having them prove they are worth that reward by using verifiable profile and bio information from LinkedIn.)

- Definitely, this is something that CH should implement, but later as the platform and user base matures, like after the YUP cycle has been implemented and running for a couple months.

And *ahem* devs, are you listening? There seems to be some people who want more incentives. That sounds like...

A FANTASTIC idea!

7 months ago

This kind of new implementations and specs are very good insinde an project behind an ICO, due to the recent news about cryptocurrency those are very nice things to improve your creativity in this world

7 months ago

Annill Kumar

work around the product

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

7 months ago

Zexro Indra

former mutual wealth advisor for indonesia

we will do the best for all task.
only members who gave comments can vote

7 months ago

The general idea of crowdsourcing is the same, but Chaordix puts a heavy emphasis on building communities surrounding a business, not just soliciting feedback

7 months ago

This is a great Concept dealing with Quality contents and bringing Producers/Manufacturers and Consumer together in one place is a brilliant Idea. The rewarding aspect will increase number of participants of this wonderful project.

7 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

7 months ago

John Dexter Villapana

Im very curios on how things work

Giving reward is a good idea so that many people will be more interested in the platform.

7 months ago

Randy Tice

Just take a look at my past contributions to projects; you will see value there.

< Chaordix >

- Similarities to CH: A crowdsourcing company that allows businesses to interact directly with customers to build communities, test out products, and get feedback on business plans. Businesses get valuable feedback and marketing while users get rewarded for their input.

- What I found: The general idea of crowdsourcing is the same, but Chaordix puts a heavy emphasis on building communities surrounding a business, not just soliciting feedback. A flowchart for newly registered businesses on Chaordix was given where the first two steps where to 1) Create a community complete with logos and names and 2) Start off with simple, fun activities to get people engaged and feeling like a group. Obviously, this social approach is a key marketing point as it is mentioned quite often to prospective startups.

Users are rewarded with virtual currency (not blockchain, but a points type system) where they can redeem various rewards that include discounts and products. There are also badges and levels/ranks for active participants. Lastly, they have prize rewards and even surprise prize rewards.

To address the three points CH gave us:

- Promoting Quality Content: Each business that uses Chaordix interacts with a community manager. The community manager interacts more closely with participants and engages with them to generate ideas and solutions. This can easily be applied to CH and will work wonders. Community managers should be people who are relatively well known in the CH community and have track records of success. They can do simple surveys, respond to questions, bounce off ideas, etc. to keep people more engaged and producing quality content. Might have to include a forums feature in CH to do this.

- Incentivizing Quality Content: Chaordix has four types of rewards whereas CH only has one: virtual currency, badges and levels, and real world prizes, and random surprise prizes. CH should adapt a badge and level/rank system (I know there was previous talk about startup and super admins) that are more than just about moderating content, but can also give visibility and status to the crowdholder. The more interesting and fun one is the random surprise prizes. CH should definitely do this! You can get ballots in a drawing for yups for how many votes you get, birthday prizes for active users, even expand the Crowdholder of the Month thing and give out stuff like Mr. Congeniality award of the month or something like that.

- Dealing with content that lacks quality and people gaming the system(Spammers, Scammers, etc.): I wasn't able to find specifically if they have a ban system in place. At the center of their business model is the community so I am assuming that the community manager (who directly deals with the participants) is the one that moderates content. In that case, I think that CH had the right idea with incorporating Administrators in the future.

My Final Thoughts: It seems to me, that CH has started going the way of bitcointalk signature campaigns where people just write whatever is easiest and fastest to get their reward and move on. What we can take from Chaordix is that they are successful because they make participants, businesses, and community managers all part of an engaging community. CH doesn't have any way to build that yet, so forums, promotional events, prize drawings, ranks, ways for participants to reward each other beyond voting, etc. is needed. But really though, CH is great, but you guys have got to do some serious marketing in order to get the numbers to build communities you know, just sayin...

Posting this I am also declaring that I’m doing quality research on this platform

Phew! What a great and challenging task! Aloha and Mahalo to everyone participating in this!

7 months ago

joe Šovčík

Experimenter, Goal to understand humans and delight them (I'm human, too )

This is exaclty the type of content we want. Thank you so much for your time and effort, Randy. This will surely be one of your best answers and something to be proud of (And hopefully be able to promote this in a near future).

Again, thank you.

7 months ago

Randy Tice

Just take a look at my past contributions to projects; you will see value there.

Wow thanks! Yeah, I'm pretty happy with it. It took a long time but I managed to learn quite a bit. Really beneficial overall.

7 months ago

2 Votes YUP icon 67.8
Hide sub-replies
jbm386

Signification time spent with enterprise software companies

Randy was only person so far to actually follow the directions. He's been at or near the top of the leader board for the past few months I have been using the platform.

I'll put up a post this week on a project that fits the criteria above. However I also want to say thank you to Randy in the meantime. As a token holder of Yup, I believe the few quality contributors this platform has like Randy are critical to this platform's success.

I think this concept the Crowdholding team is for in this experimental task is going in the right direction but I would look to take this concept even further. I think being on the leader board like Randy has been by posting QUALITY content for months should get significant bonuses or some type of additional reward.

Crowdholding needs to entice more quality contributors and I feel people should be competing to be on the leaderboard for major rewards so that competition creates even better quality feedback. I think one thing to look at is to have an auditing team that gets rid of non-value posts or downvotes fluff responses. Ultimately the contributor community is what is going to make or break this platform. If Crowdholding's customers see valuable feedback coming back from the investment they make in the tokens they reward for tasks then Crowdholding will get more clients with bigger marketing budgets who will be willing to provide higher rewards for their tasks.

7 months ago

Randy Tice

Just take a look at my past contributions to projects; you will see value there.

Ahhhh, gee, thanks! But yeah, jbm does bring up a good point. I'm guessing the active contributors are YUP holders themselves. There needs to be more shiny prizes to attract and keep other long term posters.

7 months ago

0 Votes YUP icon 0
Hide sub-replies
joe Šovčík

Experimenter, Goal to understand humans and delight them (I'm human, too )

@Randy can you give me an example of some of the Random prices just so I get an idea what, how and when this might be awarded and if it's something worth looking into for CH.

6 months ago

Randy Tice

Just take a look at my past contributions to projects; you will see value there.

So I reached out to my network and got some interesting ideas. Here are two:

- Competition/Drawing type rewards. This can be done in conjunction with tips. Whenever someone receives a tip for a great post, that can also be an entry for a drawing for a YUP prize reward that is done on a monthly or bi monthly basis.

The next one is interesting (not really a random prize):

- I talked to three Bounty Program managers who had used their bounty hunter experience as a "resume" of sorts to secure work at a managerial level. They used distinctions, followers, upvotes, etc. as proof of their professionalism. So I floated the idea of "badges" or "rank" type awards and they said they would be very interested in something they can use to show their merit for future work. For CH, this means that accounts can "level up" based on their activity and quality of content. Might seem silly and juvenile, but making it "bling" is important (like a copper, silver, and gold, ring around their avatar picture or something). This will help retain long term contributors as they work to rank up and it doesn't put too much stress on the CH budget (listen, I love CH, but I'm guessing theirs a pretty tight operational budget yeah?)

My own personal two ideas are simple:

- For randomness and a fun factor, simply have people register their birthdays and give them YUPS as a birthday present. No need to advertise it, just do it and word of mouth will spread.

- For something more practical, start a referall program where you get more rewards based on how active the new crowdholder is (and how much quality content they produce). Let us do part of the work of bringing in new people.

6 months ago

1 Votes YUP icon 33.9
Hide sub-replies
joe Šovčík

Experimenter, Goal to understand humans and delight them (I'm human, too )

Your tips should be on the way soon :). Thanks for participating.

6 months ago

Zexro Indra

former mutual wealth advisor for indonesia

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

7 months ago

Airdrop Hunter

airdrop and bounty hunter

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

7 months ago

Sounds good to me. As I was browsing i was already imagining the platform that has almost the same as CrowdHolding. My mind's telling me STeemit and Quora ( holding both tokens and got Steemit account). Love them both, great long term potential coins and then I have seen this:

Rules and Rewards

Posts about Steemit and Quora will not receive any reward... Hahahaha..

Now i have to di my DYOR :)

7 months ago

Randy Tice

Just take a look at my past contributions to projects; you will see value there.

I was actually thinking the same thing lol. And shouldn't this task be labeled as difficult?

7 months ago

Agree! Difficult task indeed.

7 months ago

0 Votes YUP icon 0
joe Šovčík

Experimenter, Goal to understand humans and delight them (I'm human, too )

Yeah, it ios rather difficult :). And even time consuming unless you're already familiar with some platform. Then it's not that hard.

Like, talking about Quora or Steemit would be easy :).

7 months ago

0 Votes YUP icon 0
Hide sub-replies
joe Šovčík

Experimenter, Goal to understand humans and delight them (I'm human, too )

@jpm
Do you mean you hold both Steem and YUPs or is there some Quora token I'm nbot aware of? :D

7 months ago

Randy Tice

Just take a look at my past contributions to projects; you will see value there.

I've got some Steem but I'm not that active over there. I'm pretty sure Quora doesn't have a token. But who knows, nowadays it seems everyone is tokenizing.

7 months ago

0 Votes YUP icon 0

Sorry bout the confusion. I meant ihave the Steem token and steemit account. I have an account in Quora as well. Hope this answers you. :)

7 months ago

0 Votes YUP icon 0
Hide sub-replies

I think this is a brilliant idea, so that the quality of the content is balanced with the quality of the comments that ultimately the content owner does not feel in vain to give the gift to the participants

7 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

7 months ago

Hello user! The platform is designed for co-creation between businesses and public. We all should provide meaningful content.

Your comment is way too short. It has been considered as a spam. We have to remove it, according to our code of conduct.

If you are still unclear with our community policies, please read our code of conduct: http://help.crowdholding.com/general-support/code-of-conduct

7 months ago