These are the final results:
There were a total of 44 voters.
27 (61.4%) voted NO.
12 (27.3%) voted YES.
I don't send merits received 2 votes (4.5%).
And I would like to thank those 3 (6.8%) who voted for 'Piss off'.
I think the thread and poll have served their purpose so I will lock them now.
Topic: Do you check the merit history of users before meriting them? (Read 691 times)
Yes I do check the merit transaction history and their post history to find the user is actually making some efforts to bring contribution to the forum or that post was made for some purpose like getting merit at that time to join on a signature campaign or like that.And when they are low ranked I check for plagiarism as well, honestly I suck at checking this but I try to do as best as possible.
My point is that the community leans towards thinking that it is OK not to send merits to someone based on a generally low-quality posting history, even if the occasional post of that person is good.
I only do that in extreme cases, but the extreme cases are often the majority.
Quite often the ratio of coherent posts to referral shit is 100 to 1 or more. In that case that's enough to not make me want them to progress. It's clear they're here for a reason that'll turn out to degrade the forum.
If it's a very low merit person then I will check their post history. If everything other than the post I'm considering is several metres of referral and Facebook links I'm likely to be turned away from the idea.
But that is very similar if you think about it. 2/3 of the replies don't agree with my way of briefly checking the merit history of users. However, many users have said that they check a user's post history prior to awarding merits.If there is a right and wrong way of sending merits, your way and my way are equally wrong, or equally right. I don't want to send merits to users who have bad merit rewarding ratio. You don't feel like rewarding those who have a bad posting history and partake in bounty spamming.
But those users are equally capable of producing a quality post as the ones who don't reward others with merits. It's a completely other discussion whether or not they do that.
My point is that the community leans towards thinking that it is OK not to send merits to someone based on a generally low-quality posting history, even if the occasional post of that person is good.
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. Being precise towards someone's opinion really satisfies me, as long as he has a lot of facts that he can state to his post then that's approve to me.
When I got interested to someone's post and he is consistent about his points, he is worthy of a merit compared to those people who are just using words that is pleasant in the eye but the thoughts are irrelevant in the topic. But usually, if you are posting and constructing a sentence that is easy to understand and is direct to the point, then i will never hesitate to send a merit for those who really deserve it.
Personally, I feel that with my available merits I have a responsibility to reward other members for their quality posts and contribution to the forum.
I also started a topic in my local part of the forum where all local members can report quality posts that deserve merit.
In fact, I'm glad that there is a concrete way I can reward other forum members for their efforts and work to contribute something to the forum or help other members.
Mostly I don't check the personal history of the members but in fact I know most of them very well and follow them for a long time so there is no need for that.
I also started a topic in my local part of the forum where all local members can report quality posts that deserve merit.
In fact, I'm glad that there is a concrete way I can reward other forum members for their efforts and work to contribute something to the forum or help other members.
Mostly I don't check the personal history of the members but in fact I know most of them very well and follow them for a long time so there is no need for that.
Nope. I couldn't care less what merit they sent or received.
If it's a very low merit person then I will check their post history. If everything other than the post I'm considering is several metres of referral and Facebook links I'm likely to be turned away from the idea.
If it's a very low merit person then I will check their post history. If everything other than the post I'm considering is several metres of referral and Facebook links I'm likely to be turned away from the idea.
I mostly do not care how many smerit the person send, however i do look at the merit history to see how many merits he got because it shows that he is a quality poster. However after reading the point of view of the OP here, i will definitely look out to see how many merit a person is sending and is active in this merit spending process too.
Nope. I couldn't care less what merit they sent or received.
If it's a very low merit person then I will check their post history. If everything other than the post I'm considering is several metres of referral and Facebook links I'm likely to be turned away from the idea.
If it's a very low merit person then I will check their post history. If everything other than the post I'm considering is several metres of referral and Facebook links I'm likely to be turned away from the idea.
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.
They are, I agree. However, I have never merited a proven scammer/thief nor am I planning to do so. If someone is guilty of a scam and shows no remorse or willingness to change and reimburse the affected members...goodbye.The users come and go. Especially the scammers, sooner or later they become history.
However, a good post has to stand out, no matter who has written it.
I guess that we don't agree on this and from what I see on current poll result 1/3 of the people answering do agree with you. More than I would have expected.
I don't want to be mean, but I believe that these people misunderstood (at least partly) what merit is for.
I agree with you, I merit the post not the user, there are new people coming to forum all the time and it happens that someone has a really good post as a first post, for me, that post deserves merit same as someone's 1000.post.
Anyway stats are improving on this poll
I pretty much send merits out as soon as I get them. Increasingly I'll utilise Loyce's merit stats pages for the recipient and also my own to ensure they either haven't received merits previously, or, the ones I have sent don't surpass just two merits. My early merit giving hadn't considered merits would run out (not sure why but I thought after time _everyone's_ merits restocked - always read the label). Typically, the merits I gave out were usually to people who don't really need them (given it turns out they are merit fonts or some other reason).
Since I find myself short of a few merits every now and then, I like to check the merit history of the users I intend to merit. It is not an in-depth check. All I do is check if the users distribute their sMerits the same way they receive them. 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.
Although Merits are supposed to be a reward for good posts, I like to see that the users who receive them are participating in its distribution as well. If you couldn't care less about rewarding others for their efforts, I am not going to reward you.
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
Although Merits are supposed to be a reward for good posts, I like to see that the users who receive them are participating in its distribution as well. If you couldn't care less about rewarding others for their efforts, I am not going to reward you.
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
interesting question, i rarely provide merits to other users, but there is not much to share so keeping merits for quality posts and informations that are providing some news or benefits, when readed
it is always hard to manage scarce resource, but i do not look at other users merit history when want to give merit, simply give merit, if the post is good and provide valuable info for me/community
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.
They are, I agree. However, I have never merited a proven scammer/thief nor am I planning to do so. If someone is guilty of a scam and shows no remorse or willingness to change and reimburse the affected members...goodbye.The users come and go. Especially the scammers, sooner or later they become history.
However, a good post has to stand out, no matter who has written it.
I guess that we don't agree on this and from what I see on current poll result 1/3 of the people answering do agree with you. More than I would have expected.
I don't want to be mean, but I believe that these people misunderstood (at least partly) what merit is for.
Although Merits are supposed to be a reward for good posts, I like to see that the users who receive them are participating in its distribution as well. If you couldn't care less about rewarding others for their efforts, I am not going to reward you.
Although you have a point, this is still a subjective thing and for some, it might take more time before they could distribute their sMerits [simply because of the fact that there isn't any post that passes as a high-quality one for them].- By stopping the process [even for a short period], you also fall into that category.
Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
It never occurred to me that someone else's merit history would've/should've impacted the way I merit one of their high-quality posts...- I'm a simple guy, I see a high-quality post = I reward it with my sMerit.
Snip
Yes, of course. If a member has only received 1 merit, it's logical that he can't send 1 to someone else. But if you have received 30 and you have only sent 1, your ratio isn't that good, and you are doing something wrong in my opinion. if you have received 100 and only sent 1, it looks even worse. There is no fixed number and I don't count them. I just like to see them coming in and going out, that's it. Be a team player.
Lets suppose a persons post are average or below average but his one post is excellent. So you will not give him merit for that because his previous posts are not worthy of merits. This is a wrong approach. If you see a good post, it is best to merit it and do not care about his other posts history. Also i find it time wasting to check the posts history of the users before giving them merit.
You obviously misunderstood the question. This has nothing to do with checking the post history of a user. I briefly check a user's merit stats to see if and how he participates in the distribution of merits. Forget post history. This can be done for Full members and above but for the Members or Jr. Members ,they don't have much merits to giveaway and you may not find them among those who send merits often.
By the way, how many smerits a person should send in last 120 days to become eligible for you to merit him ?
Merit is for worthy posts, not for users...The rule should be to merit posts...
The two go hand in hand. You merit the user whose post you like. 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.
They are, I agree. However, I have never merited a proven scammer/thief nor am I planning to do so. If someone is guilty of a scam and shows no remorse or willingness to change and reimburse the affected members...goodbye.An option of "Maybe" and "Sometimes" could make a difference I think...
That makes sense, but since the poll is already active and has several votes I am not going to introduce new answers now.Lets suppose a persons post are average or below average but his one post is excellent. So you will not give him merit for that because his previous posts are not worthy of merits. This is a wrong approach. If you see a good post, it is best to merit it and do not care about his other posts history. Also i find it time wasting to check the posts history of the users before giving them merit.
You obviously misunderstood the question. This has nothing to do with checking the post history of a user. I briefly check a user's merit stats to see if and how he participates in the distribution of merits. Forget post history. The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
Lets suppose a persons post are average or below average but his one post is excellent. So you will not give him merit for that because his previous posts are not worthy of merits. This is a wrong approach. If you see a good post, it is best to merit it and do not care about his other posts history. Also i find it time wasting to check the posts history of the users before giving them merit.
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 someone has a good posts regarding to a certain topic then, i will not hesitate to give him a merit if he deserves it.
I'm really not that selfish to merit someone if they truly deserved it. I don't usually check the profile of some users, sometimes I do that but not as always. Checking someone's posts before meriting them depends on you if you are not that confident about their replies or posts. If you see their thoughts very off-topic then don't send merits, that's very simple.
Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
That is not easy to answer yes or no for me. Basically I know most of the users I am talking to and therefore I don't have to do a check.
When I'm in "foreign" boards my look falls constantly on Activity + Merit.
This happens automatically and just like Trust I check the Merit History regularly to get a feeling for the user. Not every time but again and again
I think we should focus on meriting posts that are of quality and substantial. But since this is a poll, mostly said here is none which should be the case. We should not depend on user's name before we merit him/her and also regardless of his status, whether he has a lot of negative feedbacks or trust as long the post fits your standard for merit. I think i'll drop it.
There should be no bias with that but of course we have different perspective, some value the status also of users before even giving them some merits.
There should be no bias with that but of course we have different perspective, some value the status also of users before even giving them some merits.
Yes is more accurate for me than no.
But sometimes or most of the time is more accurate.
But sometimes or most of the time is more accurate.
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.
Since I find myself short of a few merits every now and then, I like to check the merit history of the users I intend to merit.
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
Let's see the hope of theymos before begin my discussionThe question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
I'm hoping that this system will increase post quality by:
- Forcing people to post high-quality stuff in order to rank up. If you just post garbage, you will never get even 1 merit point, and you will therefore never be able to put links in your signature, etc.
- Highlighting good posts with the "Merited by" line.
Merit should be used to award good posts, help good posters to rank up. At the same time, merit help to highlight good posts with "Merited by" line and merit history of one user.- Forcing people to post high-quality stuff in order to rank up. If you just post garbage, you will never get even 1 merit point, and you will therefore never be able to put links in your signature, etc.
- Highlighting good posts with the "Merited by" line.
So if you don't have time to read a post history of one user, you can quickly scan merit history page to find some following things:
- Overview on how good that poster are (that is highlighted by received merit records)
- The overview can be biased by merit abuse so you can move to more in-depth investigation by randomly check some of merited posts
Checking the sent merit records to make sure receivers will distribute smerits, not hoard them is a different thing. It depends on your style. But integrate this step will make a meta-analysis on received and sent merit history of that user. Honestly I don't do this step.
Off topic:
People make requests to have 2 summary statistics for summary merit statistics but it has not yet been approved by the admin, unfortunately.
- Total sent merits last 120 days
- Total received merits last 120 days
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
I sometimes check the user's post history (after I may have already merited their post), if it's not a profile I am familiar with, usually in search of other useful content of the specific user or for a change in posting habit.I however don't check the user's smerit distribution ratio before meriting their post as long as it meets my quality threshold. It's a plus if the user is not a hoarder, but not a prerequisite for me.
Since I find myself short of a few merits every now and then, I like to check the merit history of the users I intend to merit. It is not an in-depth check. All I do is check if the users distribute their sMerits the same way they receive them. 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.
Although Merits are supposed to be a reward for good posts, I like to see that the users who receive them are participating in its distribution as well. If you couldn't care less about rewarding others for their efforts, I am not going to reward you.
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
Although Merits are supposed to be a reward for good posts, I like to see that the users who receive them are participating in its distribution as well. If you couldn't care less about rewarding others for their efforts, I am not going to reward you.
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?
Jump to: