Topic: For the newbies complaining about Merits (Read 498 times)

Right, I've almost forgotten about the refresh. Initially a lot of merits were used for highlighting old posts (like the famous post about pizzas for 10k BTC), testing, and so on, but now, I suppose, merits will be mostly awarded to new quality posts.


The idea is fair, but I do not have a clean cut opinion about the ratios yet.

There are plenty of people that have done better, and it was just regular posting; I am not technically literate on the subject of Bitcoin, and I don't even have a full grasp of Bitcoin's history even though I've been here for 90% of the time. I'm always trying to learn, but I only post if there's something I can contribute to the thread. I have had a lot of free time recently so I've been reading the forums for an absurd amount of hours. I would expect within the next couple weeks for merit to start to rain freely again as sources refresh their merit; people went crazy when it first came out, but once it refreshes there will be plenty to go around.


Some of the most merited users are not high ranking or established; but it should be expected of a user that wishes to rank up to higher levels to contribute a higher level of posts and thus achieve more merit:activity. It does suggest that higher ranks are expected to contribute to a greater extent than lower ranking members; which is perfectly fair, wouldn't you agree?


Yeah, I assumed as much; just keep it casual, regular and keep doing what you do. I'm enjoying the experiment and there are many others keeping watch as well.


Yes, the lower ranks will still probably be easily attainable, but the higher ranks as you've pointed out will begin to be more exclusive. Big improvement, in my book.

Merit system is basically done to improve the quality of the posts which are made in the thread and for the newbies it's a good start to participate in the bitcointalk with the quality post which are to be make in it.
A quality or the best post will be awarded positive merit and the fake will be nil with no plus merit points.

150 merits for a couple of weeks is a very impressive result. It may be possible that more established members can get more merits per post, the activity:merit ratio in the new requirements suggests that it was the idea when making these numbers. Again, the system is too new to make reliable conclusions. Obviously, if I have an alternative account, I'm not going to exchange merits between accounts - it's not only an abuse of the system, it would ruin the whole experiment.

There is another example of ranking up to Member from scratch under the new system: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/finally-i-am-a-member-here-after-the-merit-system-2945741. Looks like 10 merit points is not a big deal.

I am not that into about merit, I am here to learn blockchain and cryptocurrency because I predict this technology would have a great future ahead. I am learning bitcoin, alternate cryptocurrency etc...this forum has many information that I can't find outside and I adore all staff and forum moderator here. I hope someday we could work together to develop and innovate this technology. If someday I got merit that means that I deserve and give benefit to the forum.

I'm not even paying attention to them anymore. If you were to look at the posts of users who claim that merit system is not working and the, not receiving merit even tho they're posting, you'll see posts that are one liners like:" Yes, *insert coin here* is great, it has a great future".

Whoever comes with a topic like this one, I'm automatically assuming he's posting like that so won't even bother.




> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-new-rank-requirements-2818350

I really don't get the merit system. The only thing I have caught  onto is the activity system. I am sure I will figure it  out  eventually.

I think the only thing we are disagreeing on is how difficult/rewarding it should be for a member to rank up, especially at the higher ranks. I do not think it is meant to be easy or even a guarantee to rank up. I think you are supposed to prove yourself and this allows the community to elect who is most deserving of a rank up. I'm sure if not enough users are able to rank up there will be tweak, either to the amount required to rank up, the amount of merit sources or even how much merit sources can generate.



Nullius is certainly an exceptional case. I have no clue whether or not they are a more established member using an alt as an experiment too, but I know I am impressed by their accumulation of merit. Almost all of his merit was gained by +1 or +2 merits at a time, there is only one notable exception to this. I also noticed that almost all of their merit comes from an accumulation of posts, not just a couple, which also shows how dynamic the distribution of merit truly is.

Another great example of a new-er member that has attracted a lot of merit for their posts is Nullius https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/nullius-976210. Not only do they post in technical areas, which seems to be a good place to gather merit attention due to the requirement to know your shit in order to participate, but their posts are quality and entertaining at times. While I think this guy is above the standard that should be expected for single merits, it also shows that new accounts can get merit. I'm unaware of any suggestion that this is a 2nd account.

Completely agree with you , for member rank up I think 10 merit points are easy to get and it is not a hard thing for new participant but still the problem is for member rank up to full , full to senior and senior to hero , I think the required number to rank up is too high and not easy to get specially if the number of merit source is not very much .

Apparently not even people doing research into your account check your post history. So, that is definitely a benefit while doing this experiment. You're somewhat undercover and so it is mostly natural. I certainly don't think anybody is giving you extra merits, because of your experiment or they know you may have another account.


Yes, you could have even done the various threads that hand out merit for your post submissions; TMAN levels people up that deserve it as well; I haven't seen you even attempt at any of these merit-boosting opportunities. I have gather like 150-Merit is the past couple weeks, so it is definitely feasible to acquire enough merit to rank up. If I want to become legendary I have a long way to go, but at least now becoming legendary will mean something.

Exactly. I do not think that people check the account creation date and its post history before giving merit, at least not often.


At present, the results show that getting 10 merits for ranking up to Member is completely feasible, even before getting enough activity. Higher ranks may be a problem, however - the requirements seem to be too high. Time will tell.

What use is a Newbie account for a Legendary (or other high rank), especially now, after the introduction of the merit system? It is not 'farming', it is what I called it - an experiment. It may be an alternative account of a more established member (or may be not), but having multiple accounts is explicitly allowed. Moreover, I'm not going to rush to some signature campaign after ranking up to Member.

Ahh, this definitely is a more clarified version of your idea. I would suggest looking at them completely separate from each-other, as an exclusive determining factor for specifically aimed purposes and goals. The ratio for merit is higher for higher rankings, because in order to obtain those ranks it has been determined that it would be best if that user was informed and being a high-quality contribution to the community; this is determined by merit. Even though they are both a piece of ranking up, you should not look at them as supposed to increase at equal pace.


Merit sources are constantly being added and reviewed to make sure there is a solid amount of merit in every sub-section and local board on the forum. We're working towards equality of opportunity, but this does not mean that we should cheapen the opportunity or the outcome.

Lowering activity requirements would not accomplish anything beneficial for the forum, so this is not a feasible option. If merit starts being given out too easily, this will also not be of any benefit to the forum. Both of these need to be considered, but I disagree that the current parameters should be changed significantly, if at all.

Excuse me.! Why you guys focusing on lower rank.? Do you think merit affects only the newbies and jr.? I guess it matters the most to Member, Full Member, and Hero coz imagine in every post you made do you guarantee to yourself that it will be merited? I think no.! The main issue here is everybody belong to this merit system no matter what rank it is. We are all subject for change.

Thank you. Your topic and the specific case you shown giving me strong motivation to improve quality of my threads in order to be helpful and getting merits. Nice lesson!

Not in my opinion. Hero and Legendary members are more frequently merited simply because they post better stuff. I can't remember the last time I actually saw a newbie/Jr member post a good topic. It has always been just asking questions that can be easily Googled or answered simply by browsing bitcointalk.

The merit system is partially correct. Because it will make legendary members get the merits and the newbies get nothing. Psychologically speaking we tend to read hero and legendary posts more then junior members or newbies so no wonder we will not give enough merits to those. I think the merit system is partially fair because it reviews the quality yet it doesn't evaluate the activity of person. A combination of them both would make a perfect evaluation system.

I should expand my thoughts a little bit. I am talking more about the ratio than requirements existence. With the current situation, for rangs higher than Member, ratio is something like 1 merit for 1 activity. In that terms (current situation), merit is a lot more valuable than activity, so probably something should be reconsidered in length of time. Maybe number of merit sources should be increased significantly, or activity requirements decreased, or activity calculation changed to something like the least of (time * 14, posts/3) for example. Yes, I know that new rules are still developing, but I think I conveyed the idea.

You can easily answer this question for yourself. The search function would have worked wonders. Activity and Merit is better than Activity or merit. Activity is not simply a minimum post count, but it is a decent indication of how frequently an account has been used over a given period of time.

Nobody said that this ratio is sufficient for completely and exclusively determining a users rank. They were implying that this ratio is good enough in terms of what the merit system is attempting to accomplish and how it is realistically distributed to lower ranking members.