Topic: cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers - page 10. (Read 23394 times)

The complaint stems from jealousy and a lack of own constructive opinions worth "meriting". This is the classic "everyone else is to blame except me" nonsense. Do people not have something better to do than to create "useful statistics" which only result in TV-like drama regarding who got a lot of useless points from who?

A lot of big posts full of garbage and horrible opinions. A TMAN style "insert random swearing" response to a nonsensical thread is in most cases more worthy of merit.

---

I need to look up who the top givers in these circles are. I'll only read their posts from now on (placing everyone else I see on ignore). Since I see nothing else, meriting their objectively constructive posts is proper use of the merit system. Am I doing this right?

I'm certain that you have a dinner invite planned for me somewhere down the road. Why else would you be showering me with all these merits? Quite classy I must say.

@loyce (he can't see me anyway)

I only have to hear

"Looking at it the wrong way"

"bending the facts"

to realise this is another attempt to claim high merit user = higher quality poster than low merit user

Even suchmoon has now confirmed without definition of a good post or good poster then the score is meaningless. Loyce is a little slower than suchmoon... sometimes in a good way (according to fox pup)

There is no incorrect way to look at the 0.13% lose 80% or greater of their merits if you simply remove the opinions of the same 0.13% the fact or not they are merit sources with most to give  then that is an result of the system and how it is set up and not an excuse to claim that still representing better posts get more merit than less good posts. However, as I have said there is no issue so long as you do not make silly claims about what the numbers mean.

That is simply numbers... that are not bending fact, not looking at the numbers upside down.

It is quite obvious more collisions, in a smaller board or boards (not the main discussion boards which you would think are the main boards on this forum) between people with more merit to give to each other for posts they align with are going to cycle merits around until there are some crazy even more meaningless scores.

I mean I am sure loyce wants you to believe he is the 3rd most valuable poster after theymos and satoshi on this board. That is obviously insane since he makes simple logical mistakes which I have brought him up on on time and time again without and reply from him about them. So by that measure the rest of the board are only incapable of making posts with even greater errors and even less valuable due to being illogical . I do not believe if I was talking to people of GM, VB, DZ theymos any critical thinkers that I would be finding huge holes in their statments and remarks . I am sorry but high merit rating does not equal higher value of posts generated than that of lower merit rating users. There are those with far lower merit than myself whom I know would not be making such strange logical errors during a debate. Same for suchmoon and most others that are arguing about all of this. (not all)

I have said this does not mean though that top scoring merit holders are bad posters either or worse than lower scoring merit holders. The only way one could know for sure was if every single post made here was matched agains the same comprehensive criteria for being good or having value. That is as of now impossible. So be satisfied that you are a popular poster.... at least within the 0.13%.

Stop going on and on about it and even following me here to this post (about me apparently) and keeping the topic going after I have said I am satisfied that all possible argument has been explored several times. It's like complaining there is a fire and then continually pouring on more fuel and throwing in a few gas bottles now and then.

I mean loyce should be grateful he got to re post data which I had already requested and presented several times from r1s2g3 and get over 20+ merits for it from his merit pals. What is there to moan about.

Like cryptohunter, you're looking at it the wrong way. It makes perfect sense that the most merited users have the most Merit to give, and since they give it to good posts, it often ends up with the same people.

To stay with your example, let's get some more data on The Pharmacist:
As you can see, he's had Merit transactions with hundreds of people. It's no surprise that most of them don't have many sMerits to send, which leads to the obivous result that most of his Merit came from a small group of users.

And some more data:

---

User The Pharmacist (full history)

• Received a total of 1023 Merit up to last Friday.
• Received 27 Merit (2.63%) for 5 (0.07%) of 7020 posts created before the introduction of Merit (0.0038 Merit per old post).
• Received 978 Merit (95.60%) for 406 (15.71%) of 2583 posts created after the introduction of Merit (0.3786 Merit per new post).
• Received 18 Merit (1.75%) for posts that are now deleted.

---

Again: you're looking at this the wrong way. Instead of looking where the Merit came from, you should look at the post it was sent to. Obviously there's some abuse, but I'm pretty sure most of the Top Receivers received it for legit good posts. Why would it matter who gave it, if the post deserves it?
I've merited your post, not because I agree, but because it's worth reading and you're not a spammer.

I'll just respond to this part: that's the wrong mindset Theymos made it very clear we should try to merit great posts, and later backed it down a bit to "good posts".
Merit is only wasted when it is given to bad posts, or spammers.

This is what theymos told me:
True, I've seen you around, and merited you a few times. I try to make it a point to also merit good posts without agreeing, but it's always on my mind that my Merit can be seen as an endorsement for that post.

I think theymos would disagree

I don't even mind bending facts a bit, that can easily be disproven. Just not if it keeps coming back.
I'd like to take cryptohunter off ignore again if he (she?) stops repeating the same thing. Now I feel like I'm repeating myself too

I've made this suggestion a few times to users, without much success.

I think my source sMerit is 200 now, per month. I make it a point to keep it as low as possibe, but I also try to Merit as many different posts and users as possible.
If you're not a Merit source yet, I think you should apply!

Ask theymos, see if he agrees.

Well always room for one more right?

Suchmoon showed me that PM where you said to him you are sworn to a life of celibacy. I mean I know we all tell him that but still to admit this in public is going to be very upsetting for him.

Please edit before he sees it. The Pharmacist told me he has to cut off suchmoons credit line lately ...something about merits getting more expensive. This could get serious.

I don't think it'd work out. I'm already in a three-way with Moloch (58% of his merit was sent by me alone) and gmaxwell (37%), and like most foxes I only have so many holes available.

Can you provide a post at all where I sound mad at you.  I am laughing with you and your excuses. Just ask tp out on a date and get it over. I mean he is not obviously falling for this merit courtship even after the vulpine is dangled I bet you won't even get an xmas card let and don't hold your breath until valentines day.... I mean suchmoon will send us all one as usual ... it's a numbers game for him as I have said all along.

I can't work out which are more ludicrous your excuses or suchmoons assumptions and logical fails that he makes time and time again.

Fun discussing things with you both though for sure.

Stop worrying so much about it all and creating more and more threads about it even though I have said I consider the case closed several times. Then telling me I am continuing to proliferate threads about this topic. Typical example of suchmoon madness.

Surely there is more to you than your self inflated subjective merit scores. Try to think about something else I have demonstrated with suchmoons assistance they are meaningless now so let's discuss some other interesting topics. I think this is the 5th time I have stated this so that probably means suchmoon or loyce will create another thread about it and tell me I am proliferating merit analysis in some biased raw data form.

We know all about that many quality post have unmerited. There is few reason involved. I can see no one replied yet there. It's fine if any quality poster he find. But I don't think so he will find much.

Reason behind unmerited quality post;

1. Post in wrong board. Wrong board means even someone make quality post on like Altcoin Discussion board then he might missed merit due to over spam. Because quality post will not bump many time, no one will reply on it. So thread will go to bottom. Even merit source or merit holder visits board he will not find that post. On the other hand few merit source and merit holder ignored few board then how they will spend merit on that board.

2. Reply on mega thread. Who will bother to read mega thread reply? At least not I am. So even there is quality post how we will hunt it.

3. Airdrop merit holder. We can say them merit HODLER. Means they have HODL merit. I don't know why they don't want to spend merit. Most likely they don't know how hard to earn merit.

There are few more reason but mentioned above reason is main.

We can't compare with first 2 poster. They have mostly merited for appreciation, not only for good post. So forget about that user. Merit deserve on post, not a person. I already describe above why few quality post are unmerited.

Actually I am encourage to send merit to good poster especially newbie or low rank. Even I spend time to find them but rarely I found them. But what can I do if found best post from higher rank  . Also merited them.

Jelly of your time machine obvs. I know I am.

That's it, I've had enough of this bullshit. I defy you to find a single post of yours that I have merited that didn't deserve to be. I suspect what you really mean is, you can't figure out why nobody else is giving you so many merits, and I believe it's because you're Legendary and Legendaries (in other people's minds) don't deserve merits because they can't rank up. Of course, if people did give more merit to Legendaries, cryptohunter would be even more mad, but as it is, he just gets to be mad at me. Specifically me; he keeps talking about me even after I've stopped responding to his nonsense. I don't know what his problem is.

Quickseller's post about Kavanaugh for example. A few other posts in P&S as well, just can't find links quickly.


There is a 50-merit limit per person per month so if it did happen it would have taken months or multiple senders. I didn't intentionally try to rank anyone up but I did hit the limit a couple of times.


Again, I can only speak for myself, but I'm trying send out all my sMerits because theymos said thou shalt not hoard LOL. If I have merits left over it means my standards are too high and I should lower them. Originally I had made up a bunch of criteria but right now when I'm considering a post for meriting it's basically like this: would having more of such posts improve the forum? (e.g. essentially "better than average"). If yes and if I have sMerits available - the post has a chance of getting merited (depending on how many other such posts I encounter during the day etc).


They come back exactly 30 days (to the second) after being sent. So if you look at your sent merit history you'll see that you may have 6 or so sMerits coming back over the next couple of days, assuming those merits you sent 30 days ago were source merits and not earned merits - impossible to tell from the history unfortunately.

I definitely don't feel pressured, and I didn't even ask to be a merit source to begin with. 

I still haven't figured out how the source merits get replenished.  It seems like I'm chronically out of them, and if it weren't for Foxpup giving me all those merits (I still can't figure out why he's given me so many), I wouldn't have been able to disperse as many as I have been.  Right now I'm out of source sMerits and earned sMerits.  Fortunately I did find a Jr. Member in the Economics section who wrote a fairly thoughtful post that I merited, but I think I'd do a better job as a merit source if I got more source merits.  Then I might be able to give out 5 at a time or something like that.  As it stands, there's no way I could do that with what I've got.

Yes, but it is just human nature. Like greed..
People are giving merit to good messages in their opinion, not just to effort put into posts.
Theymos gave me merits for posting a meme..

What examples can you show of well written posts that you profoundly disagreed with, and you gave merits to?

IIRC Theymos said something like just decent posts deserve merit, basically anything not a shitpost, that they didn't have to be anything particularly elaborate or profound..
But I can't find it, maybe that is just the message that I took from him.
I did find..

I have not seen this done once.

How good is good according to who?

Yeah let's not have that..

What is the "ideal new user"?
Does he mean Nulllius or just your average joe newb interested in learning cryptocurrency?

It is said that........
Over and over again and the truth of that is what backed me off busting sources asses a long time ago because it's true..

You sources are conservative with your merits, giving just enough that it is working while making high rank much harder to achieve and more elite. You are just doing what you think is right.
You aren't giving 10 merits to posts you pick instead of 1 because you must thing that is too many.. You think 1 is enough and they should be more scarce than giving out 10s all the time. You are keeping high rank elite. Whatever..
You 2 (first 2) deserve a higher rank than the old legendary, and some deserve higher than you, so maybe it should be more elite.

Sources shouldn't be pressured into giving more than they think is right. If Theymos wants more, then he needs more sources.
Some people feel that way. I'm in the middle and can feel for both sides.

I don’t know if it was suggested earlier. However merit sources can create a topic in Meta and offer to forum users, who believe that their post deserves a merit but was deprived of attention, to provide links to their texts with a small explanation comments.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion just from those numbers. It's quite possible that good posters happen to be higher-ranked more often than lower-ranked. If you have any ideas how to prove it one way or another - please share.

I can't speak for everyone but I tend to ignore the ranks when sending merits. I feel no affinity to "fellow" Legendaries whatsoever, or to a specific type of posts or anything like that. I've even merited well-formulated conspiracy theories even though I hate garbage like that. I've seen quite a few merit sources acting in a similar fashion so absent hard proof (like the case of QuestionAuthority) I'm not inclined to believe there is something untoward going on here.


Well, I disagree with that LOL

Also theymos said that's not what it's for and we must obey theymos, right?


A good segway back to the topic. Cryptohunter's problem seems to be mainly the attempt to bend facts to fit a narrative. I think there would be merits raining on her if the original assertion about good posters hiding on altcoin boards turned out to be true.

He is half right and you all know it..

Look at the first 2 posters in this thread. Over 1k merits each wasted if you are of the mindset that merits are for ranking up. But if you believe that merits are just for "good posts" then hell yes these first 2 posters deserve them because they make a ton of great posts. They are well established and experienced members therefore are very capable of making a lot of good posts because they know how things work around here.

Then you look at the proteges of these well established members (police in training) and they get tons of merits because they are in the "circle jerk"..
But they make very good posts according to them, in line with them, so if merits are just for good posts that you agree with then it is rightful. Their posts are also highly visible to them.

I have seen expressed a few times that the merit system is good for holding lower ranks down and keeping legedary status elite. Basically to turn legendary status into a much higher achievement than it has been previously. I can understand this view too because under the old system legendary wasn't as elite as some deserved and their should have been another rank above legendary created for the eliter.

It's 6 of one or a half dozen of another depending on your viewpoint.

Take me for example.
I am going to have 1030 activity for legendary soon but nowhere near enough merits even though I am a damn good poster.
Why? Because I don't make thousands of posts like some people do and legendary truly is a more elite rank to achieve than it used to be. That's fine..
My views are also not completely in line with those mostly in control and I like to bust balls when people get too authoritarian and/or big egos.
I speak out more than I should if I was just trying to achieve whatever high rank/respect/trust/power.  (like this)

You can't tell me that good posters merits are keeping up with their activity. It just is not the case. Much less just decent posters.
Should it be the case? It's just opinion. In my opinion NO, legendary status should become harder to achieve than just the activity requirement but how much? It is up to everyone's opinion separately so it is mostly up to whatever the established members feel is right.

It's a numbers game.
The more posts you make, the more visible, the more inline with the views of those that have merits to give, the more merits you get.
I can put a lot of effort into a post and get no merits, then I say something short, sweet, and funny and get a bunch. But it seems the more posts you make the better chances you get.
Much younger accounts than me get way more merits because they make thousands of posts, 10X as many as I do, and are visible and agreeable to the right people.

Cryptohunter makes a LOT of posts and a lot of them are very big long posts that took a lot of effort but are not inline with the views of those who have merit to give, so he gets few. Not that he needs them for any reason anyway.

It just is what it is. If I was just out to get merits I'd make tons and tons of posts that most sources would agree with, but I don't because I don't care that much to not just chill and be me.

If you just think everyone that disagrees with you over merit distribution is wrong then you should take into account their perspective on the situation and why they might feel that way.
I think a lot of posters that make good posts but are interested in other, non-political, topics have genuine grievances if they think their merit should keep up with activity. But should merit keep up with activity if you are just a good poster? It is just opinion and mine is no not really, high ranks should be harder to achieve than they used to be.  

I have mostly given up on saving my smerits for people that need to rank up and have been giving more to posts that I think are good and make good posts that I agree with..
I'm baaaadd too.. (though I did rank up some guy just now)

Just consider that everyone doesn't come from the same perspective as you and doesn't have the same opinions all the time and that doesn't mean they are wrong because their really is no factual right. This isn't math..

Received "from" I will edit my post for typo and mistakes.
I should have triple check the spelling and the writing.

Obviously I know that you can't chose where the merit come from.
I was just trying to show that -whether you agree or not- it looks like that merit is being circulated between the same members or at least that members prefer to send it to people that already have a title of legendary or hero (ie they relate to / same cast).


It is my intent to do so, but it will take me a few days to do something worthwhile.
Cheers for your answer.

"received by" or "received from"? Kinda hard to follow what you're trying to say there. It's not like The Pharmacist can choose who to receive merit from.


Just like cryptohunter, you forgot to post a list of those "merit-deserving members". Multiple merit sources have stated that they would be happy to send merit to those deserving users.

You also seem to be thinking that merits sent within Meta or within top 200 prevent other users from being merited. That's not how it really works. Merits are not scarce. We are sending less than 50% of the total capacity per month.

I understand and almost agree with @Cryptohunter's feeling.

But usually when you are in a privileged position you don't really notice what others might.

if i quote the pharmacist :


he seams happy to see that 30% of his merit doesn't come from the top 300

Well, i see it this way :

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=The%20Pharmacist


So if we do a little bit of maths for @The pharmacist  
total sum received from 10 users = 636 merit = 61% from just 10 persons all (except 2 are part of the top 200).
If we look at the top 100 (remove foxpup, dbshck, Winner)
He has received 283 merit from the Top100 it is 28% of his merits from just 6 persons.
If you take the top 150, then it is 569 merit received (56% of all his merit) from just 8 persons, all in the elite.



I had a look to other names in the top 50 merit receiver, but without a bot it is time consuming and i am at work  
@Lauda = 362 merit received ( 53%) from 10 persons.  https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lauda
@Suchmoon = 527 merit received (52%) from 10 persons   https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=suchmoon
@Jet cash : 479 merit received (56%) from 10 persons  (6 of them are in the top100 - merit by top100 = 295 = 35% ) https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Jet%20Cash


I guess CryptoHunter is showing a mixed feeling of jalousie and also a will to get rid of the Merit-archy (word invented, derived from patriarchy but with the merit root).  Let's be honest, everybody is a little bit racist, has a preference to the charity they give, only hire people that like, only make friends with people they relate, would be reticent to help a foreigner but quite keen to help a fellow citizen. Would rater help a hot mom with a stroller than an old homeless.

Merits do stay in the top 100 / 200 / 300 call how you want.
The same way merit doesn't really cross boards. Merit earned in meta stays in meta.
I have seen some members that on spend all their meta received merit in their national board trying to help merit-deserving members to get the recognition that is very often just to hard to get.


post edited after suchmoon spotted a few typos. Edits are in italic

I'd love to know who those members are myself, as I'd be more than happy to give out some merits to them--assuming they're deserving of it by my standards, of course.  I think cryptohunter is looking for quality posts in the altcoin section specifically, and that's a monumental task if you're doing so by the old-school method of reading through threads.  There's so much garbage in all of those subsections that it's almost impossible to find lower-ranked members making good posts.  

Even in Economics, where I do the most reading, it's the Hero & Legendary members who always seem to take the time to write the most detailed and constructive posts.  I'm still trying to find Newbie-Full Member ranked people to give merits to, but most of them are just shitposters.

Cryptohunter IMO is just a cranky contrarian who thinks everyone's brain should function with the logic of a computer, and yet he has this obvious bleeding-heart liberal mentality which manifests itself in him constantly thinking there's some underdog situation on bitcointalk whereby a cabal of senior members are keeping the lower ranks down, like slaves on a 19th century Louisiana plantation.  I just don't see it that way, and I've put him on ignore.  I'm just tired of reading his posts, which are probably made with good intentions but are consistently way off the mark.

Let's help cryptohunter figure out her problem with the top 200 merit receivers.

The original complaint was that top 200 receivers send to much merit between themselves (in reality it's ~12% or so) and there are many users on other boards who don't get merits for posts as good as or better than the ones made by the top 200. After repeated requests to show such unmerited posts cryptohunter is just now hunting for that information so it couldn't have been the real original reason for this whole debacle.

So what's the real problem here? I hope this can serve as the main collection of all those grievances instead of getting spread out across multiple merit topics as cryptohunter has been doing lately.