Yes is more accurate for me than no.
But sometimes or most of the time is more accurate.
Topic: Do you check the merit history of users before meriting them? - page 2. (Read 691 times)
No, I didn't check their merit history before giving one. The thing that I usually look is if the post caught my attention and aligned with my interest somehow or it is humorous but stating facts. That's all 
. Regardless of whatever rank they are, I'll give it to them as long as they don't have a red tag. Because for me, a person with a negative feedback (assuming proven guilty) is no longer deserve for a simple recognition like merits.
. Regardless of whatever rank they are, I'll give it to them as long as they don't have a red tag. Because for me, a person with a negative feedback (assuming proven guilty) is no longer deserve for a simple recognition like merits. 
An option of "Maybe" and "Sometimes" could make a difference I think because on my end I rarely really check merit history of the user as long as I admire the post he does. Nevertheless, I do really check the post history especially if the user has few posts, not familiar to me, the trust page and has a lower rank like Member and below because I check if they are just some sort of shitposter especially who mostly does bounty thingy.
No. I didn't even thought about it. When I decide to merit someone's post, I don't think much before doing it and I don't make any reseaches. I simply give merit.
But in past sometimes I checked history of posts before giving merits to unfamiliar user. I simply didn't wanted to give merits to bounty spammers who made 1 "helpful post" in order to get merit.
But in past sometimes I checked history of posts before giving merits to unfamiliar user. I simply didn't wanted to give merits to bounty spammers who made 1 "helpful post" in order to get merit.
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
This sounds very wrong imho.
Merit is for worthy posts, not for users.
OK, one can be nice towards an user now an then an help him out. But that's an exception. The rule should be to merit posts. That's why I've merited even users that are not here anymore or users which have negative trust: because even such users can be capable of good posts.
And this being said, .. why would I check the history then?! Nope, I don't check it for deciding if I should reward the post or not.
Since merit is subjective, I don't look at the account history (unless with a valid negative trust).
Newbies to Legendary, Active or Inactive - I will hit them some merits if I think it's worth it.
Newbies to Legendary, Active or Inactive - I will hit them some merits if I think it's worth it.
I do not. I tend to know how much merit I've sent to each member ( roughly that is )
I don't see how you can know that unless you have a very small merit circle or your own rules what is merit worthy to you.Eh, I say if they want to hoard their sMerits, that's their business and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that--nor would that factor into my decision as to whether to give someone like that merits.
This is where my opinion differs from the majority of those who have posted in this thread. I agree that it is their business what they do with it, but throwing merits their way is a waste of merits, unless the person sending them is a merit source. If I only have 1-2 merits left, I refuse to throw them in a well.So far the the most popular answers are:
Yes - 6 (40%)
No - 7 (46.7%)
Piss off - 2 (13.3%)
Well I do not have the merits yet but my opinion is that there is no need to check before meriting the person because if a person post constructive and the post is helping and has genuine content which is contributing then he or she deserves the merit no matter what his history is, I believe if we check the history then our personal opinion will come so the merit sharing is instant.
TEX-LXRY
TEX-LXRY
I guess checking on profile user's isn't necessary upon giving your merit.
If the post is worthy enough to give, then it's your call because that is your merit, it's our privilege to use. But first, instead of checking users profile, I mostly check my smerits left before I will send.
We have two kinds of merit sender here.
Merit source - they are not hoarding smerits, they most giving low profile users. Sometimes they were flooding all their merits at a time.
Normal users - they gained smerit but with high standard upon giving to the other members.
How about this account? LAngel. We thought that the user is good but it ended up wasting of merits because he is scammer.
So therefore, I dont see any members checking profile before giving merit.
We have a different perspective way of giving merit, unless if they are merit source, they oblique to distribute their smerit in the right way.
Just my two cents!
If the post is worthy enough to give, then it's your call because that is your merit, it's our privilege to use. But first, instead of checking users profile, I mostly check my smerits left before I will send.
We have two kinds of merit sender here.
Merit source - they are not hoarding smerits, they most giving low profile users. Sometimes they were flooding all their merits at a time.
Normal users - they gained smerit but with high standard upon giving to the other members.
How about this account? LAngel. We thought that the user is good but it ended up wasting of merits because he is scammer.
So therefore, I dont see any members checking profile before giving merit.
We have a different perspective way of giving merit, unless if they are merit source, they oblique to distribute their smerit in the right way.
Just my two cents!
If the user whose post I initially wanted to merit is a merit hoarder, that is enough for me to change my mind and look for other posts.
Eh, I say if they want to hoard their sMerits, that's their business and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that--nor would that factor into my decision as to whether to give someone like that merits.And no, I don't check anything like that when I'm handing out merits. The primary consideration is whether the post I'm reading had some effort put into it and is helpful/useful/entertaining. A secondary consideration is whether the poster needs merits to rank up. I do end up meriting a lot of Legendary members, but I've withheld a lot of merits from posts made by Legendaries simply because I prefer to help deserving members rank up.
And merit isn't just for the rank, if not so why legendaries are still eligible to receive one? you see it is not really for the rank sake, it is for the who really deserves it. Checking one's history before meriting is bothering, coz what if he oppose on something you believe in? you will not continue to give him merit? 
Doing the same as many others have written already , if i think the post is good and helpfull and a merit worth or more i give it .
For Users that have no merits it depends , sometimes i check there post history if they have one .
But in general i give it when in my opinion the post or thread is helpfull for me or other Users and for the Forum, i dosnt care about what rank they have , i just give it then.
For Users that have no merits it depends , sometimes i check there post history if they have one .
But in general i give it when in my opinion the post or thread is helpfull for me or other Users and for the Forum, i dosnt care about what rank they have , i just give it then.
If the user whose post I initially wanted to merit is a merit hoarder, that is enough for me to change my mind and look for other posts.
Eh, I say if they want to hoard their sMerits, that's their business and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that--nor would that factor into my decision as to whether to give someone like that merits.And no, I don't check anything like that when I'm handing out merits. The primary consideration is whether the post I'm reading had some effort put into it and is helpful/useful/entertaining. A secondary consideration is whether the poster needs merits to rank up. I do end up meriting a lot of Legendary members, but I've withheld a lot of merits from posts made by Legendaries simply because I prefer to help deserving members rank up.
I don't always check merit history, but for newbies or unknown members I do perform short post history check to avoid sending merits to spammers and cheaters who are doing plagiarism.
This is not set in stone rule, and I don't do it always, but only when I am suspicious about something.
This is not set in stone rule, and I don't do it always, but only when I am suspicious about something.
One of my first merits, sent as new mod/MS, was received by a banned user (yeah shame on me). So yes, when the user is not familiar to me, I do a quick check (merit, trust, activity) to make sure I don't send merits for nothing and to the right person.
But for the merits everyone does as he wants.
But for the merits everyone does as he wants.
Nope. I'd merit post which is merit worthy regardless the profile/rank is, but there's an exemption for scammers, I don't mind meriting their posts no matter their quality is.
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
No.
If i think the post is
What he/she'll do with it is their own business.
However, i prefer to give my merits to Full Member and lower rank, as they're new and are trying to build a name for themselves.
I do not. I tend to know how much merit I've sent to each member ( roughly that is ), but I think if a post is worthy of a merit I tend to give it, regardless. I guess I somewhat hold back at time from members who've got gobs of merit already, right or wrong.
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
Since I have very limited amount of merit to share, I gotta be careful who I give merit to.If user is low ranked (Newbie, Jr Member) and I am about to merit his very good post, I tend to check his post history just to exclude possibility of plagiarism (I just google bits of the posts. Might be overkill, but well..). If I am about to merit high ranked member that is pretty unfamiliar to me, I do tend to check his previous post and merit history, but just briefly, nothing in depth.
Short answer:
a) Profile is unfamiliar: check posting history and received merits (what for/who by). If profile is new (barely any history), either bet on it or wait for later posts from the same profile.
b) Profile is familiar / somewhat familiar: Merit at will if deserved. I might check recent merits sporadically.
The above is not clock-work, and I deviate from it at will (depending on my mood or available time). I used to check if the profile is a sMerit Sender, but haven’t done so for some time. This may have been so when I had fewer merits to award.
a) Profile is unfamiliar: check posting history and received merits (what for/who by). If profile is new (barely any history), either bet on it or wait for later posts from the same profile.
b) Profile is familiar / somewhat familiar: Merit at will if deserved. I might check recent merits sporadically.
The above is not clock-work, and I deviate from it at will (depending on my mood or available time). I used to check if the profile is a sMerit Sender, but haven’t done so for some time. This may have been so when I had fewer merits to award.
Since merit should be awared to posts which are high quality, I don't do that. If I see a good quality post which I believe deserve merit, I merit them instantly if I have any. Checking their habit of merit sending shouldn't be consider IMO. People may haven't sent merit due to their busy schedule or they may not have habit of sending merit frequently. If you don't merit a high quality post because of their habit of hoarding smerits, the purpose of the system may not be fulfilled as well.
Jump to: