Oh yes - I forgot "report to moderator".
Topic: Adding a "Likes" Points System to Complement the Merit System? (Read 251 times)
Lets have a drop down menu for awards for posts. We could include Bitcoin donations, merits, likes, Amazon vouchers, double sized sigs, and probably a few other things.
Oh yes - I forgot "report to moderator".
Oh yes - I forgot "report to moderator".
February 17, 2018, 11:08:07 AM
I think the merit system is kinda like that no need to elaborate it further and dive many aspects. If merit system will not be abused and used fairly, indeed, the "likes" you're asking is at your reach if you post or contribute good qualities in the forum.
February 17, 2018, 10:50:13 AM
I will like to remind the OP that the "Merit" system is not akin to the Facebook/Twitter "Like" button or the Reddit "Upvote" system. Nor is it created to mimic the "upvote" reputation system on other forum for example Inivision Forums.
This is simply for elder/knowledgeable people of this forum to give merits to the younger members so that they can rank - for making constructive posts and adding to the discussion.
Also according to theymos - Merit should be given to high quality posts and not simply the posts which one agrees with.
This is simply for elder/knowledgeable people of this forum to give merits to the younger members so that they can rank - for making constructive posts and adding to the discussion.
Also according to theymos - Merit should be given to high quality posts and not simply the posts which one agrees with.
February 17, 2018, 09:57:40 AM
I'm relatively new here to btctalk, having only been a member for a few months.
But I enjoy the environment quite a bit, whether it's the chance to see discussions on new icos, views on altcoin movements, or do a lil' bit of bounties for some coffee money (yes I do bounties too, mostly for projects that I agree with, and I honestly see nothing wrong with that, as long as no excessive shilling is conducted).
To the community and the forum platform I give my sincere thanks.
I also honestly think that the new Merit system has its merits (pun intended); won't go too much into it here since there's many other posts discussing the pros and cons of the new system. But observationally, the 'velocity' of smerit movements is too slow to be healthy for the system as a whole. Under the current system, smerits are almost a 'currency' of sorts by itself. They have 'value' attributed to them by their influence over the act of 'ranking up', and while disallowed, there are still black markets for merit trading (I suspect). The realisation that smerits have value leads members to excessively hoard them for 'future use', since as as a normal user, I have no certainty whatsoever over my future stream of 'merit' income, even if i strive to improve the quality of my posts.
While theymos obviously considered this problem and came up with the solution of future merit sources, I (respectfully) wish to point out that this alone is likely insufficient. To a certain extent, this is akin to the idea of trusted nodes in blockchain design, and hence have the same associated issues. Trusted nodes with too much influence run the risk of corrupting the system; too few trusted nodes run the risk of insufficient 'processing' power to fulfill the platforms' usual smerit generation needs.
On this note I would like to suggest an additional complementary system of sorts, where say every member has a certain weekly quota of X 'like' credits, which will expire at the end of the week if unused (and reallocated the next again). Because of the (i) expiration and (ii) weekly quota refresh tagged to such credits, members are much less likely to hoard them. Different member tiers could possibly be allocated different amounts of like credits, if higher-ranked members are presumably believed to be 'better' judges of content, on average.
Now when I see a decent post, 'decent' in the sense that I enjoyed the content, whether it was a random comment that made me laugh, some tip i found useful, etc., but where it was not sufficiently educational/high-quality for me to part with my hard-earned smerits. I can award the post some 'like' points instead. Like points can then be convertible to merits using a sufficiently high ratio, which can be slowly calibrated over time to ensure robustness of the overall rank system. To avoid abuse (e.g., likes trading -_-") etc., a micro cap could also be set to the number of likes (maybe just 1?) a user can award certain posts, so the volume of interested readers who 'like' the posts matter more than having 1 high-ranking member come and award large numbers of 'likes'.
I sincerely believe having some form of complementary channel for rank-up will help ease some of the tension between old/new members simply due to the challenge of ranking up and will prove beneficial for btctalk over the longer-term. For comments or views, pls.
[P.s., not sure if someone else has suggested a similar system, pardon me if there has been. No intention of copying the idea. The suggestion came in part from the fact that I read chinese novels, and platforms like qidian.com always have a dual system of more precious 'monthly-votes' (only allocated if u top-up membership fees etc.) and periodic-refresh-able 'recommendation votes', to ensure sufficient dynamism at all levels of the community.]
But I enjoy the environment quite a bit, whether it's the chance to see discussions on new icos, views on altcoin movements, or do a lil' bit of bounties for some coffee money (yes I do bounties too, mostly for projects that I agree with, and I honestly see nothing wrong with that, as long as no excessive shilling is conducted).
To the community and the forum platform I give my sincere thanks.
I also honestly think that the new Merit system has its merits (pun intended); won't go too much into it here since there's many other posts discussing the pros and cons of the new system. But observationally, the 'velocity' of smerit movements is too slow to be healthy for the system as a whole. Under the current system, smerits are almost a 'currency' of sorts by itself. They have 'value' attributed to them by their influence over the act of 'ranking up', and while disallowed, there are still black markets for merit trading (I suspect). The realisation that smerits have value leads members to excessively hoard them for 'future use', since as as a normal user, I have no certainty whatsoever over my future stream of 'merit' income, even if i strive to improve the quality of my posts.
While theymos obviously considered this problem and came up with the solution of future merit sources, I (respectfully) wish to point out that this alone is likely insufficient. To a certain extent, this is akin to the idea of trusted nodes in blockchain design, and hence have the same associated issues. Trusted nodes with too much influence run the risk of corrupting the system; too few trusted nodes run the risk of insufficient 'processing' power to fulfill the platforms' usual smerit generation needs.
On this note I would like to suggest an additional complementary system of sorts, where say every member has a certain weekly quota of X 'like' credits, which will expire at the end of the week if unused (and reallocated the next again). Because of the (i) expiration and (ii) weekly quota refresh tagged to such credits, members are much less likely to hoard them. Different member tiers could possibly be allocated different amounts of like credits, if higher-ranked members are presumably believed to be 'better' judges of content, on average.
Now when I see a decent post, 'decent' in the sense that I enjoyed the content, whether it was a random comment that made me laugh, some tip i found useful, etc., but where it was not sufficiently educational/high-quality for me to part with my hard-earned smerits. I can award the post some 'like' points instead. Like points can then be convertible to merits using a sufficiently high ratio, which can be slowly calibrated over time to ensure robustness of the overall rank system. To avoid abuse (e.g., likes trading -_-") etc., a micro cap could also be set to the number of likes (maybe just 1?) a user can award certain posts, so the volume of interested readers who 'like' the posts matter more than having 1 high-ranking member come and award large numbers of 'likes'.
I sincerely believe having some form of complementary channel for rank-up will help ease some of the tension between old/new members simply due to the challenge of ranking up and will prove beneficial for btctalk over the longer-term. For comments or views, pls.
[P.s., not sure if someone else has suggested a similar system, pardon me if there has been. No intention of copying the idea. The suggestion came in part from the fact that I read chinese novels, and platforms like qidian.com always have a dual system of more precious 'monthly-votes' (only allocated if u top-up membership fees etc.) and periodic-refresh-able 'recommendation votes', to ensure sufficient dynamism at all levels of the community.]
Wow - why did you need to use so many words?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/can-we-like-a-post-622992
February 17, 2018, 08:37:34 AM
On this note I would like to suggest an additional complementary system of sorts, where say every member has a certain weekly quota of X 'like' credits, which will expire at the end of the week if unused (and reallocated the next again). Because of the (i) expiration and (ii) weekly quota refresh tagged to such credits, members are much less likely to hoard them. Different member tiers could possibly be allocated different amounts of like credits, if higher-ranked members are presumably believed to be 'better' judges of content, on average.
That's pretty much how merits already work for merit sources. Merits are already used as "Likes" by most users anyway, and having two systems in place to reward good posts just seems awfully redundant. It also seems like a way to circumvent the finite limitations of the merit system, which was put in place to prevent abuse.
I do see where you're coming from though. Merit rewards are spotty and could be a detriment to spammers (in which case it works) and regular users (collateral damage IMO) alike in ranking up. Theymos has expressed willingness in tweaking the system, however, so it would probably be better to simply be patient and give it a chance to work.
February 17, 2018, 08:24:11 AM
I don't know if a new system adding to an also new system would be a solution or a hindrance. We don't know the merit system well enough yet.
February 17, 2018, 07:59:01 AM
Given that the merit system has existed for a grand total of 24 days, and that new merit sources are continually being applied for, reviewed and granted, I am curious on what data you are basing your observations that "the 'velocity' of smerit movements is too slow" and that future merit sources are "likely insufficient", other than you personally believing that you deserve more merit than you have received.
February 17, 2018, 07:58:32 AM
On this note I would like to suggest an additional complementary system of sorts, where say every member has a certain weekly quota of X 'like' credits, which will expire at the end of the week if unused (and reallocated the next again). Because of the (i) expiration and (ii) weekly quota refresh tagged to such credits, members are much less likely to hoard them. Different member tiers could possibly be allocated different amounts of like credits, if higher-ranked members are presumably believed to be 'better' judges of content, on average.
This can be abused by account farmers. They will create accounts in bulk and use all those weekly like credits for 1-2 account.
I sincerely believe having some form of complementary channel for rank-up will help ease some of the tension between old/new members simply due to the challenge of ranking up and will prove beneficial for btctalk over the longer-term. For comments or views, pls.
Giving members another way to rank up (which is full of loopholes) will make the merit system useless. I do not think we need this.
February 17, 2018, 06:57:21 AM
Hi Wind_Crypto, can you please be concise to your topic and stop making complicated posts. To be honest, only few members in here will read your content because you said too many and can lose interest for some readers.
About your topic, the real problem is, members only focuses on merits and doesn't care what will happen to the community. Then, it also affects you by thinking more complex system that can be a possible solution to this forum. I think merit system is enough for now, you should calm your creative side. I appreciate your idea but for those who experience a lot, it's just a sore to their authentic eyes.
About your topic, the real problem is, members only focuses on merits and doesn't care what will happen to the community. Then, it also affects you by thinking more complex system that can be a possible solution to this forum. I think merit system is enough for now, you should calm your creative side. I appreciate your idea but for those who experience a lot, it's just a sore to their authentic eyes.
February 12, 2018, 11:27:29 PM
I'm relatively new here to btctalk, having only been a member for a few months.
But I enjoy the environment quite a bit, whether it's the chance to see discussions on new icos, views on altcoin movements, or do a lil' bit of bounties for some coffee money (yes I do bounties too, mostly for projects that I agree with, and I honestly see nothing wrong with that, as long as no excessive shilling is conducted).
To the community and the forum platform I give my sincere thanks.
I also honestly think that the new Merit system has its merits (pun intended); won't go too much into it here since there's many other posts discussing the pros and cons of the new system. But observationally, the 'velocity' of smerit movements is too slow to be healthy for the system as a whole. Under the current system, smerits are almost a 'currency' of sorts by itself. They have 'value' attributed to them by their influence over the act of 'ranking up', and while disallowed, there are still black markets for merit trading (I suspect). The realisation that smerits have value leads members to excessively hoard them for 'future use', since as as a normal user, I have no certainty whatsoever over my future stream of 'merit' income, even if i strive to improve the quality of my posts.
While theymos obviously considered this problem and came up with the solution of future merit sources, I (respectfully) wish to point out that this alone is likely insufficient. To a certain extent, this is akin to the idea of trusted nodes in blockchain design, and hence have the same associated issues. Trusted nodes with too much influence run the risk of corrupting the system; too few trusted nodes run the risk of insufficient 'processing' power to fulfill the platforms' usual smerit generation needs.
On this note I would like to suggest an additional complementary system of sorts, where say every member has a certain weekly quota of X 'like' credits, which will expire at the end of the week if unused (and reallocated the next again). Because of the (i) expiration and (ii) weekly quota refresh tagged to such credits, members are much less likely to hoard them. Different member tiers could possibly be allocated different amounts of like credits, if higher-ranked members are presumably believed to be 'better' judges of content, on average.
Now when I see a decent post, 'decent' in the sense that I enjoyed the content, whether it was a random comment that made me laugh, some tip i found useful, etc., but where it was not sufficiently educational/high-quality for me to part with my hard-earned smerits. I can award the post some 'like' points instead. Like points can then be convertible to merits using a sufficiently high ratio, which can be slowly calibrated over time to ensure robustness of the overall rank system. To avoid abuse (e.g., likes trading -_-") etc., a micro cap could also be set to the number of likes (maybe just 1?) a user can award certain posts, so the volume of interested readers who 'like' the posts matter more than having 1 high-ranking member come and award large numbers of 'likes'.
I sincerely believe having some form of complementary channel for rank-up will help ease some of the tension between old/new members simply due to the challenge of ranking up and will prove beneficial for btctalk over the longer-term. For comments or views, pls.
[P.s., not sure if someone else has suggested a similar system, pardon me if there has been. No intention of copying the idea. The suggestion came in part from the fact that I read chinese novels, and platforms like qidian.com always have a dual system of more precious 'monthly-votes' (only allocated if u top-up membership fees etc.) and periodic-refresh-able 'recommendation votes', to ensure sufficient dynamism at all levels of the community.]
But I enjoy the environment quite a bit, whether it's the chance to see discussions on new icos, views on altcoin movements, or do a lil' bit of bounties for some coffee money (yes I do bounties too, mostly for projects that I agree with, and I honestly see nothing wrong with that, as long as no excessive shilling is conducted).
To the community and the forum platform I give my sincere thanks.
I also honestly think that the new Merit system has its merits (pun intended); won't go too much into it here since there's many other posts discussing the pros and cons of the new system. But observationally, the 'velocity' of smerit movements is too slow to be healthy for the system as a whole. Under the current system, smerits are almost a 'currency' of sorts by itself. They have 'value' attributed to them by their influence over the act of 'ranking up', and while disallowed, there are still black markets for merit trading (I suspect). The realisation that smerits have value leads members to excessively hoard them for 'future use', since as as a normal user, I have no certainty whatsoever over my future stream of 'merit' income, even if i strive to improve the quality of my posts.
While theymos obviously considered this problem and came up with the solution of future merit sources, I (respectfully) wish to point out that this alone is likely insufficient. To a certain extent, this is akin to the idea of trusted nodes in blockchain design, and hence have the same associated issues. Trusted nodes with too much influence run the risk of corrupting the system; too few trusted nodes run the risk of insufficient 'processing' power to fulfill the platforms' usual smerit generation needs.
On this note I would like to suggest an additional complementary system of sorts, where say every member has a certain weekly quota of X 'like' credits, which will expire at the end of the week if unused (and reallocated the next again). Because of the (i) expiration and (ii) weekly quota refresh tagged to such credits, members are much less likely to hoard them. Different member tiers could possibly be allocated different amounts of like credits, if higher-ranked members are presumably believed to be 'better' judges of content, on average.
Now when I see a decent post, 'decent' in the sense that I enjoyed the content, whether it was a random comment that made me laugh, some tip i found useful, etc., but where it was not sufficiently educational/high-quality for me to part with my hard-earned smerits. I can award the post some 'like' points instead. Like points can then be convertible to merits using a sufficiently high ratio, which can be slowly calibrated over time to ensure robustness of the overall rank system. To avoid abuse (e.g., likes trading -_-") etc., a micro cap could also be set to the number of likes (maybe just 1?) a user can award certain posts, so the volume of interested readers who 'like' the posts matter more than having 1 high-ranking member come and award large numbers of 'likes'.
I sincerely believe having some form of complementary channel for rank-up will help ease some of the tension between old/new members simply due to the challenge of ranking up and will prove beneficial for btctalk over the longer-term. For comments or views, pls.
[P.s., not sure if someone else has suggested a similar system, pardon me if there has been. No intention of copying the idea. The suggestion came in part from the fact that I read chinese novels, and platforms like qidian.com always have a dual system of more precious 'monthly-votes' (only allocated if u top-up membership fees etc.) and periodic-refresh-able 'recommendation votes', to ensure sufficient dynamism at all levels of the community.]
Jump to: