Do you merit based on post or on the account history? - page 5.

knowngunman

sr. member

Activity: 798

Merit: 364

Quote from: Russlenat on September 25, 2024, 04:39:28 AM

I've noticed that some accounts take different approaches when sending merits. Some might check the account profile first before sending, while others focus solely on the post and send merits based on their judgment.

Some is based on account reputation too

Quote

Personally, there’s nothing wrong with whichever method you prefer, but I'm curious, and I'm sure many others, especially newbies, would like to know some tips. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, especially from merit sources and those who consistently give and receive merits, even if they aren’t merit sources. Newbies are also welcome to share their thoughts here----this is an open discussion for everyone!

Personally, there's no specific pattern I use in meriting a post. Sometime, it can also depend on my mood and how I enjoy the post. Among many creteria or factors that influence my merit sharing, checking of profile can not be part of it.

I have noticed how merit sharing has reduced to some noticeable extent in the forum for quite some time now. Don't really know if it's due to lack of contributory conversation or the absence of some notable merit sources that are yet to be replaced.

Hatchy

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 365

The Alliance Of Bitcointalk Translators - ENG>PID

Quote from: Russlenat on September 25, 2024, 04:39:28 AM

Personally, there’s nothing wrong with whichever method you prefer, but I'm curious, and I'm sure many others, especially newbies, would like to know some tips. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, especially from merit sources and those who consistently give and receive merits, even if they aren’t merit sources. Newbies are also welcome to share their thoughts here----this is an open discussion for everyone!

I usually reward high-quality posts with merits if they make valid points. I don't check the poster's history because I don't think it's necessary. As long as their post is helpful to the community, I send them merits.
In my opinion, checking account history is mostly for merit sources, a regular users can choose to reward good posts without checking history.I only look at someone's post history if their response is exceptionally poor, which leads me to assume they're not a good poster

Charles-Tim

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 4795

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

I prefer to send merit to people's posts that I read. But there are sometimes that I may send merit later if I have no enough merit left. I like to go through good posters posts sometimes in a way that I will click on their profile and noticed some posts that I needed to merit. I easily see some good posts of the user from the merit history and I will feel like to send more merit to one or two of the person's posts.

Russlenat

hero member

Activity: 2716

Merit: 904

I've noticed that some accounts take different approaches when sending merits. Some might check the account profile first before sending, while others focus solely on the post and send merits based on their judgment.

For those newbies who are not familiar with merits, it's part of the forum system to reward good posts and encourage users to create quality content, especially those low-ranked users who want to rank up. We’ve seen a lot of low-ranked members really putting in effort to gather merits, as it’s the most important requirement for ranking up, along with high activity, since the system was introduced.

Personally, there’s nothing wrong with whichever method you prefer, but I'm curious, and I'm sure many others, especially newbies, would like to know some tips. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, especially from merit sources and those who consistently give and receive merits, even if they aren’t merit sources. Newbies are also welcome to share their thoughts here----this is an open discussion for everyone!

Topic: Do you merit based on post or on the account history? - page 5. (Read 1454 times)