Bumping this today.
I saw Theymos demoted Jr. Member and increased merit Sources. (More chances of getting merit now).
I think we can take one more step for those who are still spamming and got rank earlier before start of the Merit system.
Topic: Let Decay Default Merits (Read 496 times)
Pretty bad idea, people deserve rights not to participate in merit system if they willing to do so. If one is happy with his rank, why can't he stay at it forever? Just leave this merit system alone without this constant "improvements" suggestion. Need at least 1 year timeframe to evaluate its impact on the forum.
What should really start decaying is sMerits as it was planned by Theymos. Need to encourage people to give away their sMerits.
What should really start decaying is sMerits as it was planned by Theymos. Need to encourage people to give away their sMerits.
To be honest, I don't really think that merits will be decayed somehow. It is unrealistic. In the ANN about merit system (published by Theymos), merit scores will be attached with each user forever, they won't lose them in any situation.
Instead, I think that sMerits might be decayed in the future if users won't actively use their sMerits. In fact, users will earn nothing by hoarding their sMerit as Theymos, forum admin stated. sMerits has been here to send constructive users as small rewards to give them motivation to keep contributing to the forum. And users should comprehensively understand about the original objective of sMerits.
Instead, I think that sMerits might be decayed in the future if users won't actively use their sMerits. In fact, users will earn nothing by hoarding their sMerit as Theymos, forum admin stated. sMerits has been here to send constructive users as small rewards to give them motivation to keep contributing to the forum. And users should comprehensively understand about the original objective of sMerits.
I think we should start decaying Default Merits in constant rate, let say decay of 4 Default Merits every week.
In short, taking away 4 Merit per week is too much.
If taking away 4 Default/free Merit per week from an experienced user is too much than how we able to justify for newbie to gain approx. 7 merits per week to get upto rank of Sr. Member
Not a bad idea OP. This will really help purge the shitposters, how would you deal with member ranks? Would a legendary move down if he didn't maintain the required merits?
This would be a decent way of purging the shitposters from every level
This would be a decent way of purging the shitposters from every level
I think so it will motivate everybody to write sensibly. Might be we should increase Merit requirement to 50-60 for member and 25 for Jr.Member . Legendary will also lose status then if "Default+ Earned" Merits < 1000.
I'd find it insulting if my rank was dropped, and I would seriously consider restricting my board presence to lurker/reader.
You are constructive poster so I do not think it will affect you. But that is the whole point of this system,fear of rank drop will never give you liberty to gain activity via shit posting.
Nice data collection! I was still working on an answer to this question, but you beat me to it. I'll post mine in my own merit analysis once it's done.
Yes. I’ve posted a few myself. There’s quite a bit that can be done with what’s currently available, although rank should be in the raw data as that is an essential dimension to interesting data break-down. I’ve seem some user’s manage to get hold of this info but it’s probably by querying forum externally with the inherent risk of being banned..
why not just make a new rank at 10000 merit that no one yet has and see if anyone will reach it?
Merit was introduced to stop spammers from ranking up. Introducing new ranks has been suggested before, but has nothing to do with the reason Merit was created.I'd be intereted to know how many individual members I have awarded with merit, and how that compares with the other merit awarders. Is that info fairly easy to discover?
I checked what you asked for in the latest sMerit.txt raw data file (data included for sMerit given between the 24/01/2018 and the 23/03/2018).
In reference to the OP, why not just make a new rank at 10000 merit that no one yet has and see if anyone will reach it? Rather than demoting everyone that has already worked hard to get to their level on the forum (and also, the people who have bought accounts who our admins don't actually condemn in any way).
Also:
I'd be intereted to know how many individual members I have awarded with merit, and how that compares with the other merit awarders. Is that info fairly easy to discover?
I think that could be more interesting than the total amount awarded.
Well, really the total amount above is proof that, on average, substracting 4 sMerit per week would render the system useless as basically only a selected few would maintain rank over time.
I checked what you asked for in the latest sMerit.txt raw data file (data included for sMerit given between the 24/01/2018 and the 23/03/2018). Your stats:
- Number of times sMerit is given: 193
- Number of distinct users you gave it to: 156
- Total sMerit awarded: 209
- Average awarded per user: 1,34 sMerits
- Position when compared to other sMerit awarders (ordered by sMerit average descending): 5.333 (there are 47,20% sMerit awarders who award more per user than you, but you distribute well amongst multiple users).
You can see the complete file per user here (your data is on row 5334): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d6M7ULKoefxF-VnYriIZ_if1gXjmT4PM3UuOMMbL530/edit?usp=sharing
Enjoy..
That's a nice collection of information. Well done Jet Cash also for decentralising your merit awards between multiple users (as I think the system should be).
According to that sheet, I'm at 7,7,8,1.14 (or was when the data was scraped anyway).
Also:
I'd be intereted to know how many individual members I have awarded with merit, and how that compares with the other merit awarders. Is that info fairly easy to discover?
I think that could be more interesting than the total amount awarded.
Well, really the total amount above is proof that, on average, substracting 4 sMerit per week would render the system useless as basically only a selected few would maintain rank over time.
I checked what you asked for in the latest sMerit.txt raw data file (data included for sMerit given between the 24/01/2018 and the 23/03/2018). Your stats:
- Number of times sMerit is given: 193
- Number of distinct users you gave it to: 156
- Total sMerit awarded: 209
- Average awarded per user: 1,34 sMerits
- Position when compared to other sMerit awarders (ordered by sMerit average descending): 5.333 (there are 47,20% sMerit awarders who award more per user than you, but you distribute well amongst multiple users).
You can see the complete file per user here (your data is on row 5334): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d6M7ULKoefxF-VnYriIZ_if1gXjmT4PM3UuOMMbL530/edit?usp=sharing
Enjoy..
According to that sheet, I'm at 7,7,8,1.14 (or was when the data was scraped anyway).
I'd be intereted to know how many individual members I have awarded with merit, and how that compares with the other merit awarders. Is that info fairly easy to discover?
I think that could be more interesting than the total amount awarded.
Well, really the total amount above is proof that, on average, substracting 4 sMerit per week would render the system useless as basically only a selected few would maintain rank over time.
I checked what you asked for in the latest sMerit.txt raw data file (data included for sMerit given between the 24/01/2018 and the 23/03/2018). Your stats:
- Number of times sMerit is given: 193
- Number of distinct users you gave it to: 156
- Total sMerit awarded: 209
- Average awarded per user: 1,34 sMerits
- Position when compared to other sMerit awarders (ordered by sMerit average descending): 5.333 (there are 47,20% sMerit awarders who award more per user than you, but you distribute well amongst multiple users).
You can see the complete file per user here (your data is on row 5334): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d6M7ULKoefxF-VnYriIZ_if1gXjmT4PM3UuOMMbL530/edit?usp=sharing
Enjoy..
Note: Data tables derived from this weeks raw data merit.txt file.
I'd be intereted to know how many individual members I have awarded with merit, and how that compares with the other merit awarders. Is that info fairly easy to discover?
I think that could be more interesting than the total amount awarded.
I can’t see merit decay linked to a timeframe being fair on those users who, for example, post seldomly but have in the past been good contributors. Personal circumstances change and people’s free time and willingness to post will vary over time.
Being demoted as a possible outcome of the proposed merit decay system is a feeling much harder to digest that not being promoted.
Regardless, the Merit system doesn´t even generate enough merit on average per user to withstand a drop in 4 merits per week:
The weekly average sMerit assigned per Merited User within the week is around 4. if we exclude the initial exceptional weeks. So basically, your idea will on average take away all merit gained. And that is for those that do gain merit.
In fact, The amount uf users that are merited each week for the past 9 weeks is only 13,61% (of those merited at all). That would mean that all remaining users will start a slow pilgrimage towards demotion...
Note: Data tables derived from this weeks raw data merit.txt file.
Being demoted as a possible outcome of the proposed merit decay system is a feeling much harder to digest that not being promoted.
Regardless, the Merit system doesn´t even generate enough merit on average per user to withstand a drop in 4 merits per week:
The weekly average sMerit assigned per Merited User within the week is around 4. if we exclude the initial exceptional weeks. So basically, your idea will on average take away all merit gained. And that is for those that do gain merit.
In fact, The amount uf users that are merited each week for the past 9 weeks is only 13,61% (of those merited at all). That would mean that all remaining users will start a slow pilgrimage towards demotion...
Note: Data tables derived from this weeks raw data merit.txt file.
I think we should start decaying Default Merits in constant rate, let say decay of 4 Default Merits every week.
Please have a look at my analysis with data from less than 2 weeks ago (let's say the Merit system was about 6 weeks old at that time). To "survive" the rate of Merit decay you suggested, people would need to have earned at least 24 Merit in those 6 weeks. This is a very rough estimate, but that doesn't matter for the point I'm trying to make: Only 849 users had earned that much Merit, which includes the "spike" of Merit right after the introduction.If you would put the Merit decay at 1 per month, 7605 users qualify.
In short, taking away 4 Merit per week is too much.
Disclaimer: my numbers include Newbies and Jr. Members who earned Merit without receiving free Merit. I didn't correct for this.
Au contraire, it would force the spammers to show their hand and risk revealing themselves, if they send merit to each other. In any case, they would have only the initial smerit to play around with.
Not if they were intelligent enough to vary the amounts, and mixed up the awarders. Don't forget that the initial sMerit is effectively doubled if it is kept in circulation. It wouldn't need much of a boost from addition merit awards to nullify the concept.
You would start to lose members if they started to be deranked. I'd find it insulting if my rank was dropped, and I would seriously consider restricting my board presence to lurker/reader.
Of course, my biggest argument is that we may not have enough merit getting generated to go around, especially if all members feel the need to collect it.
I would agree with that and theymos has gradually been turning the tap further on.
Quote
There are 80 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 17800 sMerit per 30 days
That's been gradually increased since 35 sources at the start. It's just my personal guestimate but I think those numbers need to be doubled to make it really work well.
That system wouldn't work. It wouldn't stop the sig spammers from preserving their rankings through mutual support, and the forum would lose some valuble members. Some of the hard working mods don't seem to make many posts for example.
Au contraire, it would force the spammers to show their hand and risk revealing themselves, if they send merit to each other. In any case, they would have only the initial smerit to play around with.
The forum would not lose any members, their ranks might come down a bit. If you look at the OP's proposed rate of decay, it would take more than 2 years of not doing anything for a legendary to drop to senior.
I'm pretty sure I remember theymos posting that he would not consider any system that leads to people getting de-ranked. So the only way this would be implemented would result in people having a Merit score less than their rank requires.
This pretty much nixes the idea. But otherwise, the concept is sound. Of course, my biggest argument is that we may not have enough merit getting generated to go around, especially if all members feel the need to collect it.
That system wouldn't work. It wouldn't stop the sig spammers from preserving their rankings through mutual support, and the forum would lose some valuble members. Some of the hard working mods don't seem to make many posts for example.
I'm starting to think that we should have a member rating system of say 1-10, and members can decide on the level below which they can ignore the members posts. This would be independent of the activity, merit and post count.
There should also be a language ability check for posters to be able to post on specific language boards, including English. If you can't speak French, then you shouldn't be posting on the French language boards for example.
Restricting new/junior members to certain boards would be another great help to preserve the usability of some of the boards.
I'm starting to think that we should have a member rating system of say 1-10, and members can decide on the level below which they can ignore the members posts. This would be independent of the activity, merit and post count.
There should also be a language ability check for posters to be able to post on specific language boards, including English. If you can't speak French, then you shouldn't be posting on the French language boards for example.
Restricting new/junior members to certain boards would be another great help to preserve the usability of some of the boards.
I have gone through lot of post that are complaining about merits. Basically most of them are spammers only that are making hue and cry. One of their cheif complaint is that earlier user got free pass in this forum.
Merit system is now in place for approximately 2 months and I think it is time to correct this free pass system also.
I think we should start decaying Default Merits in constant rate, let say decay of 4 Default Merits every week. So it means
after implementing this system users who have Default Merit will see decay of 4 Default Merits per week until the user Default Merit become zero. The rank of user in forum will be determined by the sum of the current Default Merits + Merits earned. (Offcourse I am not ignoring activity).
Since decay of default merit is 4 merit/week , so it means Legendary have 250 weeks (around 5 years to earn 1000 merits points). Hero will have 125 weeks , Full Member have 25 weeks, Member will have 3 weeks.
This new system will challenge users to justify their ranks and we can proudly say that no one has got free pass.
Actually this system will pose real challenge to those people who got ranks by shit posting before the implementation of Merit system. Since decay of Default Merits will be gradual so it should not affect the constructive user in this forum.
PS: When I used word "Default Merits", I am pointing to those Merits that user got by virtue of their forum rank at the time of implementation of the Merit System. In my post I am just suggesting to decay Default Merits only, sMerits that are already generated due to these Default Merits will not be impacted.
This actually could be the best idea I have read until today on how to repair merit system. I would merit you if I had any
Not a bad idea OP. This will really help purge the shitposters, how would you deal with member ranks? Would a legendary move down if he didn't maintain the required merits?
I'm pretty sure I remember theymos posting that he would not consider any system that leads to people getting de-ranked. So the only way this would be implemented would result in people having a Merit score less than their rank requires.
This would be a decent way of purging the shitposters from every level
I'm coming round to the idea that employing more moderators and getting a lot stricter on shitposting is the only way to clear them out of here.
Not a bad idea OP. This will really help purge the shitposters, how would you deal with member ranks? Would a legendary move down if he didn't maintain the required merits?
This would be a decent way of purging the shitposters from every level
This would be a decent way of purging the shitposters from every level
And then what? It's already been 2 months after the implementation of the merit system and up until now we could see a lot of forum members bitching about it. To think that your idea would help the cause of those user, will just result more chaos in the forum. It will only make things worst and most moderators already have their hands full on how to make better implementation of the merit system. Just let those new users be, it is not our fault that we had an early priviledge in joining the forum first.
Seems like this guy is just feeling upset because he didn't get a high rank before the implemention of the merit system so if he had problems with earning merits then it will be fair if the existing high ranked users will also get some pain in the ass with decaying merit. Just like that. Without a single world describing why it should be better for the furum discusions.
It was always easier to sort the high ranked members. Just because they had to survive much more time on this forum without spamming and making any shady stuff. Otherwise they could be taged and the acc rank became useless. The cummunity works fine in most cases.
It was always easier to sort the high ranked members. Just because they had to survive much more time on this forum without spamming and making any shady stuff. Otherwise they could be taged and the acc rank became useless. The cummunity works fine in most cases.
Jump to: