Topic: ★ Benefit of Merit Competition on Signature Campaign ★ - page 2. (Read 781 times)

Wondering most of managers (alt coin campaign) never check even quantity of post how they will find quality post if there is merit abuse?

However OP suggestion isn't bad. It would be encourage make good post at least. On the other hand it might encourage merit abuse as well. But we should take good one rather then choose bad. Even not weekly but managers can distribute few bonus stake between top merit earner monthly especially for altcoin signature. I don't think bitcoin signature manager's pick bad poster.

I saw non Bitcoin paying bounties doing it as well, extra stakes for people having certain amount of merit (for example, Eosbet). It's certainly distinguishes airdropped ranks vs self-made ones.

Merit Per week is really bit that much lol but if that is their rules then It is still up to them (that is not that hard tho to those who really have been contributing much from this forum).


You also still have to consider that because if you were posting on a spam thread then it is really pretty useless. If you have to keep up to the competition then choosing the right place would be crucial.

It is simple to understand, because LoyceV and DdmrDdmr have been ranked in the top three in terms of top earned-merits.
They have been ranked only behind theymos.
They are both outstanding guys.
LoyceV have received more than 2100 merits, and DdmrDdmr has come so close to 2000 received merits.
https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited

Merit per week is too luck based imo and hurts those that consistently gain merits. A user might gain ~10 merits every week consistently, but may never win a bonus because every week there are inconsistent people who might gain 15 in a week and 0 in the next week. It also encourages people to post in Meta because that's the easiest section to gain merits.

If I did something like this in the ChipMixer campaign, LoyceV or DdmrDdmr would *probably* win every week because people love meriting merit/trust analysis. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's very unlikely someone who makes very good posts in other sections would win and it would be a bit discouraging for everyone else. I do track merits as part of an interesting project, but I see no point in rewarding the top merit earners per week. This graph represents the earned merit distribution in my campaign. There are 5 clear outliers who would almost certainly win every week, despite there being plenty of other users who are deserving of a bonus.

Well, every campaign manager have their own methods to select participants. Personally, I think that total merit earned is one of main things which should be considered when manager choose participants. But Merit earned per week - I think it's a bit too much. I don't think it's going to improve something. If user is a good poster, I don't think that he is going to make even better posts to get few bucks bonus or something. If user have right attitude, he aren't posting just for money or merit. And in general, now we can't complain about quality of posts of Bitcoin signature campaign participants. Main problem is altcoin bounties...
It wouldn't be big additional work, because most of bounties participants haven't earned any merit at all, some lucky spammers maybe managed to get 1-2 merit in total somehow

Actually this isn't new and other campaigns are doing the same. But when you come to think of the extra fund involved you won't have to blame the campaigns not engaged in such practice of rewarding extra ordinary poster as most of them aren't paying that much talk more of adding extra expense.


Aren't you forgetting the third possible scenario, it can also lead to merit abuse and spamming for merit just to get bonus.

In conclusion we shouldn't pressure any campaign or campaign manager into promising a bonus they can't fullfil since extra fund is involved and current market situation isn't favoring most projects.

I think the managers can check posts quality and check the merits before accepting the members. I think the managers have the final word and this is how it should be since they are hired exactly for doing this, filtering shitposters and welcoming good posters. Good posters will in most of the cases have more merits than shitposters.

Yes, Merit competitions can be a good measure to improve the posting quality and I think introducing them would also be beneficial for the advertised project. Participants are required to make posts that are not only high quality but also visible. A good post is not necessarily beneficial for the product you are advertising in your signature if it isn't noticed because it's posted in a spam-megathread. I agree to gentlemand that there are sections where it's easier to get a Merit and in the Wall Observer signatures aren't displayed, so the earned Merit there isn't affecting the visibility of the signature.
A good solution could be if there are little rewards based on Merit on a bi-weekly base in my opinion.

Most of the BTC paying signatures have already a very high posting quality because the managers do a good job in selecting quality posters. The far bigger problem is in Altcoin signatures. Some managers don't care much for post quality there and pay everyone spamming the required number of posts per week although if the quality and visibility of the posts is not acceptable. It's not only bad for the forum it's also useless for the projects because they are paying spammers for posting useless bullshit.  
I'm not sure if lazy managers would be willing to have more work by checking the number of earned Merit if it's already not possible for them to reject shitposters effectively.  

I'm sure the good mangers will weed out abusers when participants buy Merit or use their alts to merit their main account, in addition someone doing this would be very stupid to risk his account being tagged. The Merit system had a useful impact to discourage people doing questionable things with their accounts if the result could be a red tag.

I think meta would do

Whereas the method is a good way to encourage quality posts, it can also sometimes encourage merit abuse by certain greedy posters. So before a manager gives out bonus payments to the most merited users on that given week, looking at the quality of the merited posts could be an appropriate thing to do.

This is a subject for the meta section more than anything.

I think a base merit requirement is important. Merit per week is a bit much. A requirement to have earned a certain amount of merit within the last month or two is a better balance.

Certain sections don't attract the handing out of merit no matter how good posts are. Others are ridiculously merit happy like the wall observer thread. It would be a shame if poster behaviour was warped by the requirement to fish for merit above creating content that doesn't make you want to hang yourself.

Hello Everyone,

Welcome to my thread. Today I am going to share a matter which looks very effective on my eyes for our community. It relates with signature campaign. I had applied on bustadice signature campaign though I had not accepted but I discover something interesting from the activities of campaign manager yahoo62278 . As a applicants I read their main thread and find that campaign manager have put additional stake for few participants  who will make most constructive post.

After visiting the spread sheet I discover the process of choosing most constructive users. Campaign manager select them based on their earn merit per week. As a new user of bitcointalk I see this kinda merit competition on a signature campaign for the first time. I am not sure that any other manager have previously done this kind of competition or not.

Honestly this matter impressed me a lot. I believe merit competition increase the quality of users post which can minimize spam on our forum. I think if other managers follow this strategy by putting bonus stake for constructive users then it will encourage community users to make quality posts. I am not only suggesting this for BTC signature but also for other signature campaign. As far as I know stake distribution fully depend on managers hand and it will not be difficult for them to put few bonus stake for those users. In one side its creating competition among participants to make quality post for achieving bonus. On the other hand forum will get quality posts, unique ideas and obviously going to the next level.

Special Note: I am not sure that my thread is appropriate for this section or not. If not please feel free to suggest.