Topic: Is the merit system flawed? - page 2. (Read 867 times)
It is clear that this advantage is not perfect and there are too many problems that many people have pointed out. Advantages should not be merely gifted, but should be obtained a little bit each month so that there are not too many advantages to being traded in secret. Newcomers also have long-term motivation to learn at the forum.
Even though the merit system was introduced, I always see repeated and redundant posts. I think the member of the forum are being more naughty because they cant have merit themselves. It is becoming more populated by shitposters or is it becoming polluted by new members.
Merit is good but i thini we should create section only for jr and newbie when they get enough merits to becoming a member that will be the time they can get access to all section around bct. Just my opinion.
Merit is good but i thini we should create section only for jr and newbie when they get enough merits to becoming a member that will be the time they can get access to all section around bct. Just my opinion.
merit system says it is good. What I do not understand is quality Post? already everyone has written something on a topic. I think what I can do. but in the future it will be merit sale situations or other account opening and transfer cases. I hope the management will find a solution to this.
These following two topics are the most important ones which you should read for your interests related to merit system.TMAN's guide to getting merits
Full Member thanks to merit system (iasenko)
Especially, the topic which published by iasenko, who ranked up from lower ranks. You can learn lots of valuable lessons from that guy.
Furthermore, based on your last thread, I don't think you can earn merits by publishing such low-quality one like this. It is something like grammar-corrupted and by using Google translator (just my theory).
merit system says it is good. What I do not understand is quality Post? already everyone has written something on a topic. I think what I can do. but in the future it will be merit sale situations or other account opening and transfer cases. I hope the management will find a solution to this.
The post quality in sig campaigns is 100% controlled by the sig campaign managers,not by the merit system.
Post quality is dependent on the person who is in control of the account. Not by the manager and not by merit system. 
Manager of campaigns are such small part of controlling spamming endemic task of the forum. All members should join, not only the admin, moderators, managers of campaigns.
So, let's join the big mission created by Theymos with one of the most helpful tools is merit system.
Umm utopia? So, let's join the big mission created by Theymos with one of the most helpful tools is merit system.
Fine, newbies and jrs are getting less merit because they don't know enough to impress others, but this only gets us back to the same question: why do they need to advance in ranks then? They have all the time in the world. They can spend more time on the forum, read, learn and eventually earn some merit. What does it change if it takes 2 months or 6 months, even 12 months to get to member? I know that people used to advance faster but it lead to account farming and this is what the merit system is here to slow down.
The final thing is - newbies are newbies, usually they don't know much about cryptonomics and unable to do deep analysis, researches, articles on these topics, etc - what potentially can bring them wanted merits.
Is this a bad thing? I think it should be this way. If you don't know what you're talking about, do you really need to be considered a "Senior Member" of Bitcointalk? If all the knowledge you have is the fact that bitcoin is volatile and that the price may increase/decrease because of "supply and demand" then that's not something which deserves a high rank.no, merit system isn't bad at all, it was a needed thing to implement on the forum in conditions of bounties etc. the only thing that worries me is the enormous gap between ranks higher that member
and one more - it's hard for newbies and juniors to impress heroes and legendaries.
it's easier to share merits between highest ranks, you see? like in these messages i've quoted. it was easier to give merit to another legendary rank
it's only my opinion though. oh, i've just generated the other idea in my mind - maybe it would be better if legendaries won't be able to receive merits because they'are already on top 
more sMerits would be given to lower ranks ^^ 
Someone could have lots of merit,received for 2-3 good posts,but after that,he could make 100 shitty posts,and his merit score won`t change.The sig campaigns have only a 10 or 20 minimal merit requirement.
I'm not sure why anybody would do that. If you have a lot of merit, it would make sense to keep posting quality content. You wouldn't want to risk a ban with all the 'progress', would you? Think of it from an account farmer's perspective: that's an incredibly valuable account. Why chance it by instigating the same shitty practices as the other generic spam accounts?
Sometimes I think elders don't want us to rank up 
Do they have something especially against you ? Because some members were able to achieve 100 merit points after the merit system. So they were able to get merits from the same members who are being questioned by you.
You need just two things to achieve this, being regular and active here and posting to the point content.
Manager of campaigns are such small part of controlling spamming endemic task of the forum. All members should join, not only the admin, moderators, managers of campaigns.
So, let's join the big mission created by Theymos with one of the most helpful tools is merit system.
So, let's join the big mission created by Theymos with one of the most helpful tools is merit system.
Flawed? Yes.
Should it be removed? No.
There is no benefit to ranking up apart from reducing post times if you intend to use the forum for useful discussion. Unfortunately, most users are seeking rank-ups to earn more in signature campaigns.
So why don't we rephrase these questions about the merit system?
"Can we make signature campaigns easier to enter?"
"Can I get paid more in signature campaigns with shitty posts?"
Should it be removed? No.
There is no benefit to ranking up apart from reducing post times if you intend to use the forum for useful discussion. Unfortunately, most users are seeking rank-ups to earn more in signature campaigns.
So why don't we rephrase these questions about the merit system?
"Can we make signature campaigns easier to enter?"
"Can I get paid more in signature campaigns with shitty posts?"
The post quality in sig campaigns is 100% controlled by the sig campaign managers,not by the merit system.
Someone could have lots of merit,received for 2-3 good posts,but after that,he could make 100 shitty posts,and his merit score won`t change.The sig campaigns have only a 10 or 20 minimal merit requirement.
I can see that ,most of the time,the merit has nothing to do with the post quality.Some users have received lots of merit,but they still make mediocre posts.
Fine, newbies and jrs are getting less merit because they don't know enough to impress others, but this only gets us back to the same question: why do they need to advance in ranks then? They have all the time in the world. They can spend more time on the forum, read, learn and eventually earn some merit. What does it change if it takes 2 months or 6 months, even 12 months to get to member? I know that people used to advance faster but it lead to account farming and this is what the merit system is here to slow down.
Signature Campaigns! - FTW
Getting 100 merits is extremely hard but certainly doable. I noticed that people here like all kind of stats and generously merit those who provide it. Right now my field of study is stats and reporting, this could be a very good subject to practice. I hope I will be useful for the forum soon. But I agree, from 10 to 100 is very tough, further it even harder.
Would you prefer the first step ("member" rank) requiring 50 Merits so it's not so hard to rank up to 100? I think it's good to have a relatively low merit requirement for "Members". I associate the Member rank with someone already fully being part of the community and no longer a "noob", but certainly not an "expert", "veteran" or "senior". (The rank "full member" deserves, in my opinion, another name - maybe "advanced member". Because a "member" in my opinion already is a full member.)
Quote
Sometimes I think elders don't want us to rank up
Can you link the Merit profile of an "elder" that only gives merit to other "elders"?
The new merit system can be tough for new members. Even though I have been on this forum for quite a while it is very hard for me to get a merit. But now I am trying to make my posts more interesting and hope that might help. Even though the new merit system is a little tough, I still think it is a good thing because it is a good way to control that members post only quality posts.
Getting 100 merits is extremely hard but certainly doable. I noticed that people here like all kind of stats and generously merit those who provide it. Right now my field of study is stats and reporting, this could be a very good subject to practice. I hope I will be useful for the forum soon. But I agree, from 10 to 100 is very tough, further it even harder. Sometimes I think elders don't want us to rank up
The final thing is - newbies are newbies, usually they don't know much about cryptonomics and unable to do deep analysis, researches, articles on these topics, etc - what potentially can bring them wanted merits.
Is this a bad thing? I think it should be this way. If you don't know what you're talking about, do you really need to be considered a "Senior Member" of Bitcointalk? If all the knowledge you have is the fact that bitcoin is volatile and that the price may increase/decrease because of "supply and demand" then that's not something which deserves a high rank. 
Yes, it's obviously flawed. For example, there is a huge gap between member and full member, from 10 to 100 merits. C'mon! After full member it's even more. I've earned myself 13 by doing fantastic (he-he, i'm joking, but still) translation form eng to native language of joint economic report of USA 2018. Ten great translations more? Dunno... 
The other thing is - there is a little amount of sMerig generated, and usually highest ranks don't seem to give away their sMerits to newbies...
The final thing is - newbies are newbies, usually they don't know much about cryptonomics and unable to do deep analysis, researches, articles on these topics, etc - what potentially can bring them wanted merits.
The other thing is - there is a little amount of sMerig generated, and usually highest ranks don't seem to give away their sMerits to newbies...
The final thing is - newbies are newbies, usually they don't know much about cryptonomics and unable to do deep analysis, researches, articles on these topics, etc - what potentially can bring them wanted merits.
Fine, newbies and jrs are getting less merit because they don't know enough to impress others, but this only gets us back to the same question: why do they need to advance in ranks then? They have all the time in the world. They can spend more time on the forum, read, learn and eventually earn some merit. What does it change if it takes 2 months or 6 months, even 12 months to get to member? I know that people used to advance faster but it lead to account farming and this is what the merit system is here to slow down.
I've had an incredibly hard time getting merit. This doesn't effect me very much since my account is already hero rank, though. I think the real problem is that sMerit doesn't have an incentive for people to send it. This whole system is very incomplete, and while it may cut down on spam in a small way, there's a HUGE barrier to entry into the forum now.
You're actually not doing so bad--I've seen many hero members who haven't earned merit yet and probably even more Legendaries who haven't (though they don't need it to rank up). It's supposed to be at least this difficult, because if it wasn't, the merit system would be pretty much impotent. I gave you a merit for your post, as it was thoughtful and reasonably well-written. You'll get the merits you need eventually, and the same is true for anyone who's not a shitposter. There are plenty of members with merit to give who will hand them out freely to people who deserve them. I'd say the only people who won't do that are the campaign-ring shitposters who know they can sell them or use them to rank up alt accounts.
The higher-ranked members who actually care about the forum and are invested in the merit system won't do that. They'll give them out to members who make good posts. Just be patient and keep making good posts.
Yes, it's obviously flawed. For example, there is a huge gap between member and full member, from 10 to 100 merits. C'mon! After full member it's even more. I've earned myself 13 by doing fantastic (he-he, i'm joking, but still) translation form eng to native language of joint economic report of USA 2018. Ten great translations more? Dunno...
The other thing is - there is a little amount of sMerig generated, and usually highest ranks don't seem to give away their sMerits to newbies...
The final thing is - newbies are newbies, usually they don't know much about cryptonomics and unable to do deep analysis, researches, articles on these topics, etc - what potentially can bring them wanted merits.
The other thing is - there is a little amount of sMerig generated, and usually highest ranks don't seem to give away their sMerits to newbies...
The final thing is - newbies are newbies, usually they don't know much about cryptonomics and unable to do deep analysis, researches, articles on these topics, etc - what potentially can bring them wanted merits.
It is flawed, same as the democracy. But as the humanity haven't yet come up with a better system, as forum administration and members don't have a better alternative. I was lurking Meta for a while and most of the proposals imo doing the system worse, not better. I only wish all merit exchangers (including so-called "friends") are banned and initial merits decayed.
And I wish all spammers were banned, all scammers, all trust abusers... I could go on and on.
What can you do? It's only a system and people have to actively monitor it. Every now and then somebody slips through the cracks, just like people who were farming campaigns with alts. No system is perfect, especially the one that is managed by people. The human factor
IMO the system is good and should stay. It reduces spam and account farming.
By independent accessors I mean all merits should be withdrawn from members and given to a selected group who's duty it is to award merits based on laid down parameters.
How would merits be "withdrawn"? The ones who have been awarded some merit would always retain the merit - otherwise they will lose their rank and that is bad for the forum.Quote
This will eliminate the abuse of the merit system by members.
It will never reduce the abuse. Like I have said - no system is immune to abuse. Quote
Because those selected will not have vested interest therefore they will not favor anyone neither will anyone bribe them for merit points. It will be very easy to identify any of them who is abusing the trust giving.
Then again the same thing is happening for merit system here. Favouring someone is subjective and that creates a friendly atmosphere in the fourm - something that is lacking since the storm of shitposters that appeared in the last year.Quote
This is what I have in mind.
Sorry to say but its a dumb idea. Jump to: