Topic: Is the merit system flawed? - page 3. (Read 867 times)
Merit is a good idea, its just like a reward system like a child. Giving a child what he/she wants in return for his/her good manners and right conduct. Just like in forum, the more your post is helping others and have a good quality the more merits you gets. Just simply as that.
It's not true. Merit system changed the forum to be a better one. It's simple fact everyone can see, including spammers, but unfortunately they tend to feel hard to accept the fact.
Some of them were banned and will be banned (you can search for yourself, there are topics on reporting merit abusers and a massive merit farmer (more than 200 accounts banned several months ago, I remembered I read it somewhere in the Meta section).
Why did you ask for decaying all ranks of all members in the forum to Newbie and start from zero for all to make the forum as a perfect fair place.
However, in the case it happen, you know what? There will be other people join the forum later than that point, and will keep asking for such non-sense, unreasonable decaying change like you.
I was lurking Meta for a while and most of the proposals imo doing the system worse, not better.
Some of them were banned and will be banned (you can search for yourself, there are topics on reporting merit abusers and a massive merit farmer (more than 200 accounts banned several months ago, I remembered I read it somewhere in the Meta section).
I only wish all merit exchangers (including so-called "friends") are banned
Why did you ask for decaying all ranks of all members in the forum to Newbie and start from zero for all to make the forum as a perfect fair place.
However, in the case it happen, you know what? There will be other people join the forum later than that point, and will keep asking for such non-sense, unreasonable decaying change like you.
and initial merits decayed.
I personally am not a big fan of the merit system for ranks on here, I think it pushes for people to simply beg for merit, account farm, or pay people to give them merit.
Doing such things is useless. Once you get caught you will marked with red. The reason why people want to rank up quick and easy is signature campaigns. But then if they are being tagged then they would stop such practices.The merit system flaw is only that of issuance. The responsibility of the rewarding of merit is left in the hands of forum members who have vested interest in the merit system itself. This is the reason for the abuse. The merit reward should come from independent accessors and all abuse will vanish.
What do you mean by the bolded part? I would like to know what you have in mind and what you actually mean to say by that term and how it will help the abuse to "vanish"
Any system is vulnerable to abuse. Any system.
This will eliminate the abuse of the merit system by members. 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.
This is what I have in mind.
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.
You can distinguish three periods:
1.) the "serious discussion" period which lasted until 2013 approximately, where most thread were "serious" and on-topic, even the altcoin section was interesting as experimental concepts were discussed. Spam was very limited (mostly related to the first altcoin announcements and giveaways).
2.) a transition period, where the first signature campaigns emerged (2013-2016). Spam was growing, but a good part of the threads were still on-topic and valuable information. Most spam was found in the altcoin section, which evolved into a kind of "trashcan".
3.) the spam period - which begun approximately with the upswing in late 2016 and got worse during 2017. Entire sub-forums like "Bitcoin Discussion" and "Altcoin Discussion" were dominated (at least 90%) by spam.
The third period is where it became dangerous for the forum's existence and status in the community, as many veterans left the board or only posted in relatively "clean" local subforums like German and Spanish. It became really hard to find interesting topics. Merit is an attempt to revert this situation.
Thank you very much for the informative thread, d5000.1.) the "serious discussion" period which lasted until 2013 approximately, where most thread were "serious" and on-topic, even the altcoin section was interesting as experimental concepts were discussed. Spam was very limited (mostly related to the first altcoin announcements and giveaways).
2.) a transition period, where the first signature campaigns emerged (2013-2016). Spam was growing, but a good part of the threads were still on-topic and valuable information. Most spam was found in the altcoin section, which evolved into a kind of "trashcan".
3.) the spam period - which begun approximately with the upswing in late 2016 and got worse during 2017. Entire sub-forums like "Bitcoin Discussion" and "Altcoin Discussion" were dominated (at least 90%) by spam.
The third period is where it became dangerous for the forum's existence and status in the community, as many veterans left the board or only posted in relatively "clean" local subforums like German and Spanish. It became really hard to find interesting topics. Merit is an attempt to revert this situation.
I have not joined the forum too long to have personal experience of the all three period of the forum. Honestly, the first day I joined the forum, the only reason I did it is for joining campaigns. I don't feel ashamed of this!
Over time, I realised that the forum can bring lots of more interesting things for me, including knowledge, experience, and more free opportunity (which I have to find them myself during my time spent in the forum).
There are lots of members (higher-ranked ones) reveal great tips by chances (of course, for free). If users are experienced enough to understand such free, valuable tips, they can earn money by themselves.
That's the way the forum works (and should be like this, just my hope, lol). The forum should be for serious discussions, and a place for sharing knowledge, experience, skills, not for continuously (and most terrible by bots) spamming to earn money from campaigns.
Old-timers, tell us how it was before the introduction of merit? Wasn't it created lots of useful posts and topics, serious and detailed discussions?
You can distinguish three periods:1.) the "serious discussion" period which lasted until 2013 approximately, where most thread were "serious" and on-topic, even the altcoin section was interesting as experimental concepts were discussed. Spam was very limited (mostly related to the first altcoin announcements and giveaways).
2.) a transition period, where the first signature campaigns emerged (2013-2016). Spam was growing, but a good part of the threads were still on-topic and valuable information. Most spam was found in the altcoin section, which evolved into a kind of "trashcan".
3.) the spam period - which begun approximately with the upswing in late 2016 and got worse during 2017. Entire sub-forums like "Bitcoin Discussion" and "Altcoin Discussion" were dominated (at least 90%) by spam.
The third period is where it became dangerous for the forum's existence and status in the community, as many veterans left the board or only posted in relatively "clean" local subforums like German and Spanish. It became really hard to find interesting topics. Merit is an attempt to revert this situation.
Quote
But as a means to combat spam, it is useless. After looking at the high minimum threshold for a new rank, most spammers will continue to write low-quality comments, because in their minds such thresholds are simply unattainable. Hence the purchase of merit points (which is kind of like forbidden or at least condemn) and accounts (which, paradoxically, is not prohibited).
These abusers can be simply banned, or can get red trust by DT members, so they'll not be accepted anymore in campaigns. Merit doesn't directly combat spam, but it does making account farming much more difficult. Without merit we would see a growing hoard of Heroes and Legendaries without any serious contribution. With merit, at least the "army of Heroes/Legendaries" has stabilized, with mostly those who write good content getting rewarded with a high rank.
Old-timers, tell us how it was before the introduction of merit? Wasn't it created lots of useful posts and topics, serious and detailed discussions? I do not think that before the introduction of the merit system you were fooling around and did not help each other in solving complex issues. In any case, the merit system has become an incentive for writing quality posts and comments. But as a means to combat spam, it is useless. After looking at the high minimum threshold for a new rank, most spammers will continue to write low-quality comments, because in their minds such thresholds are simply unattainable. Hence the purchase of merit points (which is kind of like forbidden or at least condemn) and accounts (which, paradoxically, is not prohibited).
Shitposting turned into shittopic creation, that's only result of merit system. Thought with merites is not bad, but very far from perfect. Not to mention the fact that the system has protected those multiacc users, because of whom it was created. Because they managed to pump their accounts. It was necessary to nullify the ranks, and then create merit system. Or make a KYC for oldschool guys, who want to keep the rank. I would suggest a downgrade of activiti and, accordingly, the title, as a solution to the problem of spam. Or\and, if it is possible, that activity was counted not on the account, but on the ip, evenly distributed between the accounts which are enter from this ip. If someone comes through the proxy just do not count the activity. I do not know if this is possible.
The problem more come from people who don't give merit we all see there are some of the well known members of this forum who will more than likely receive merit over someone with relatively no notoriety.
We can all see that since implementing the merit system the forums are not as full of shit posts and people trying to contribute positively however some of these do slip thru without merit being given.
We can all see that since implementing the merit system the forums are not as full of shit posts and people trying to contribute positively however some of these do slip thru without merit being given.
Of course. That's the goal of the merit system, to shut off shitposters and let those quality posters prosper. Gaining merit is indeed a problem, specially nowadays but merit supply is not the problem but the circulation itself is.
Gaining merit should not be a problem for those who actually make quality posts and add to the discussion. Moreover even if you make a good quality post you are still in the shadow of not getting merited simply because merit sources may have ignored you altogether or they have already run out of merits. But there is no need to lament about this rather make sure to continue to post well written quality posts that add to the discussion.Quote
That's why i think members that are not trying to circulate the merit is indeed one of the flaws.
What advantage would they get if they dont circulate the merit? There is no point in hoarding merit. They are willing to "use" the new in order to adapt to it and only those who are shitposters are complaining. 
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.
Why make getting a decent account so grindy with no payoff? It's like a video game where you'll spend 100 hours to get .0001% stronger. We need some game theory to make a new system that's rewarding and also fair to all users. This current system is heavily flawed.
Why are you in a hurry? And seriously how can you even compare this forum to a video game? Totally unrelated context. And for those who all are finding it hard to get merits,you're thinking in the short run. Merit system is not exactly flawed. The users are. Just post some shit that has some thought into it and you shall be just fine. Why make getting a decent account so grindy with no payoff? It's like a video game where you'll spend 100 hours to get .0001% stronger. We need some game theory to make a new system that's rewarding and also fair to all users. This current system is heavily flawed.
I think they just want to make sure that members will only make quality posts. I do not have any problem with that. But gaining merit is really a problem for me. I don't want to beg for merits, but I also haven't received any merit. So I really have no chance to be a Sr Member.
I think some members won't waste their time giving others merit coz it won't affect theirs.
Of course. That's the goal of the merit system, to shut off shitposters and let those quality posters prosper. Gaining merit is indeed a problem, specially nowadays but merit supply is not the problem but the circulation itself is. That's why i think members that are not trying to circulate the merit is indeed one of the flaws. I think some members won't waste their time giving others merit coz it won't affect theirs.
I think the real problem is that sMerit doesn't have an incentive for people to send it.
There's no incentive for people to send trust. There's no incentive to enter serious discussion topics.Getting a "decent account"? Is the purpose of BCT to facilitate signature-based payments? I don't think so.
However, if we want to take that stance, then we can argue this: only the best posters should be given the privilege of getting payments for their posts. I do understand that there exist many "high-rank" accounts that are spammers. They'll eventually be funneled out, either through moderation of the forum directly or of the campaigns. Though, in the case of bounties, the latter is unlikely to happen.
It's not easy to create something where you are rewarded for sending sMerit. That brings an undesirable advantage to people with alts and account farmers.
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.
Why make getting a decent account so grindy with no payoff? It's like a video game where you'll spend 100 hours to get .0001% stronger. We need some game theory to make a new system that's rewarding and also fair to all users. This current system is heavily flawed.
Why make getting a decent account so grindy with no payoff? It's like a video game where you'll spend 100 hours to get .0001% stronger. We need some game theory to make a new system that's rewarding and also fair to all users. This current system is heavily flawed.
But other factors should not rely on human judgment like merit does
We don't have AI yet, so removing human judgment allows the bots to win. :/
I'm more interested in the last April Mop system
There should be more than just two factors (i.e. merit and post) to level up
But other factors should not rely on human judgment like merit does
Just my two cents, i have 999 merits anyway
There should be more than just two factors (i.e. merit and post) to level up
But other factors should not rely on human judgment like merit does
Just my two cents, i have 999 merits anyway
I personally am not a big fan of the merit system for ranks on here, I think it pushes for people to simply beg for merit, account farm, or pay people to give them merit.
Doing such things is useless. Once you get caught you will marked with red. The reason why people want to rank up quick and easy is signature campaigns. But then if they are being tagged then they would stop such practices.The merit system flaw is only that of issuance. The responsibility of the rewarding of merit is left in the hands of forum members who have vested interest in the merit system itself. This is the reason for the abuse. The merit reward should come from independent accessors and all abuse will vanish.
What do you mean by the bolded part? I would like to know what you have in mind and what you actually mean to say by that term and how it will help the abuse to "vanish"
Any system is vulnerable to abuse. Any 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?"
The merit system flaw is only that of issuance. The responsibility of the rewarding of merit is left in the hands of forum members who have vested interest in the merit system itself. This is the reason for the abuse. The merit reward should come from independent accessors and all abuse will vanish. 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?"
>...<
Not system but human ERROR !Constructive Post -> Merit: Yes = System Support
Constructive Post -> Merit: No = Human Error
Unconstructive Post -> Merit: Yes = Human Error
Unconstructive Post -> Merit: No = System Support
>..<
I gave you a merit for this post - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.29707887
I wouldn't have seen it if I had not looked through your profile. It's in the frog pond (serious discussion), and I don't bother to look there. It's an unfortunate fact that you have to go where the awarders go, if you want to pick up some merits. This won't change until new and junior members are restricted ti their own boards, and this will reduce the rubbish on the main boards in my opinion.
Much appreciated. So yeah, to reiterate, the system needs some fine tuning. An idea would be to somehow incentivize the sending of sMerits as well. As of now, many people either don't know about the system - it's not exactly in your face - or don't really care about sending someone merits. Another idea would be to at least make it easier to sMerit someone, maybe something similar to upvotes on reddit. It's somewhat cumbersome to give out merits, imo. Anyways, I'm sure if we try to maintain the level of discussion as high as possible, we'll be able to recognize those that constantly contribute in a significant way.
Jump to: