Topic: Merit (Read 469 times)
If the buonty is managed in very good way I think yes, bounty manager deserve a part of sMerit, if we "accept " 50 Merit for posting a pic https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.30354958, (yeah he is probably abusing the system looking his merit history https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1005975) I don't see why we can't say "thankyou" (even if they are already paid) to good managers (only the good one!) for months of work!
Thanks.
That's exactly what I was saying by the way. Posts like this where people are discussing: 0 merits. I saw bounty threads (or ANN made by the team, similiar topic) with 10 merits or more.
I just think that a solution could be closing merit system for bounty section and just give trust.
Discussing about merit does not mean they are going to get merited. Some newbies in the forum are having this false delusion that talking about merit and asslicking the merit sources will fetch them some beggar merits but no its not so. After a while the posts get redundant and people will no longer even visit the thread except those who check their "New Replies to your posts"That's exactly what I was saying by the way. Posts like this where people are discussing: 0 merits. I saw bounty threads (or ANN made by the team, similiar topic) with 10 merits or more.
I just think that a solution could be closing merit system for bounty section and just give trust.
Quote
I guess that the entire base (and problem) of the merit system is giving the power to maintain a whole forum to normal people who merit posts in a subjective way.. 
What are you implying? That merit is biased? It may be so in your eyes for reasons unknown to me. I believe it is a good thing. It actually creates an environment worthy discussing in rather than posting to get paid. 
It's probably going a bit far, but maybe the bounty culture should have it's own merit system.
I agree with this, If people want to give merits to bounty creators it should be their own merit system, in that way base on how many merits a bounty thread has would mean that the bounty itself is successful and won't be a waste of smerit needed for ranking up because bounties does not help the bitcointalk with helpful information. Bounties are bussiness and won't contribute to this forum. Bounties is for market, other purposes/goal and not for bitcointalk to be discussed. Maybe we could find a system of meriting Merits.......
Again I am having to repeat the same thing - Meriting a post in a subjective concept. People may find posts worth meriting but then others may not concur the same idea. Now there is no regulation regarding this till date so the problem is arising. Worthless posts are something getting merited while better posts go overlooked. Quote
You know what I mean.
You know you could explain yourself in words. I am not that bright in interpreting vague sentences.Quote
I am - as you might know - not a fiery opponent of the (in)famous Merit system, but we really aren't going to discuss this all to way up in absurdo, I hope...
Still its working for now. It needs a modification on what I said above and nothing more. 
Merits received for the bounty in my opinion are not entirely honest. People give their manager a sign of appreciation that the campaign was successful, but this violates the very essence of the merit system. Initially, it was aimed but that would stimulate people to create high-quality content, and eventually becomes a sort of forum token.
Literally campaign managers don't need much of merit because they are not kind of being after it, but a sign of appreciation can be a good sign in order for other user distinguish that the campaign manager handles smooth, but not always to prefer merit about it. Trust should be given instead of merit, However it is the givers decision, the only problem is abusing it.
It is very strange to see people rewarded with merits to "sell" things.
They're giving a service to the community, but they're working and they're paid for doing it.
That is very far from receiveng deserved merit points in my opinion.
So here's next dimension Merit discussion thread 2.0 in which we are going to discuss if someone has deserved his Merit.
I am wondering: is it the fault of the one who has given sMerit, or is the one who has received it to blame?
I think that the merit should be given to people who have done a solid job in the bounty program, but for various reasons have not been rewarded - most often the failure of the project.
Ow really? This furom made for learning bitcoin thru conversation and merit has implemented to give it to the deserving members, is the successful campaign deserve it?
So here's next dimension Merit discussion thread 2.0 in which we are going to discuss if someone has deserved his Merit.
I am wondering: is it the fault of the one who has given sMerit, or is the one who has received it to blame?
Buying and selling or merits is not allowed and will be tagged accordingly. There is no doubt about that. Now coming to your question, the merit-worthiness of a post is a subjective concept and there is no hard and fast rule so as to what is considered as merit worthy. It depends on the Merit source member - but in general quality posts are merited.I am wondering: is it the fault of the one who has given sMerit, or is the one who has received it to blame?
Still a worthless post being merit will be frowned upon by others - might even end up in removal of the merit source. Though we have not seen any such cases yet.
Merits received for the bounty in my opinion are not entirely honest. People give their manager a sign of appreciation that the campaign was successful, but this violates the very essence of the merit system. Initially, it was aimed but that would stimulate people to create high-quality content, and eventually becomes a sort of forum token.
This is where it has become grey. Merit sometimes ends up in being a token of thanks which denies the actual reason why it was introduced - to prevent spammers to ranking up.Maybe we could find a system of meriting Merits.......
You know what I mean.
I am - as you might know - not a fiery opponent of the (in)famous Merit system, but we really aren't going to discuss this all to way up in absurdo, I hope...
So here's next dimension Merit discussion thread 2.0 in which we are going to discuss if someone has deserved his Merit.
I am wondering: is it the fault of the one who has given sMerit, or is the one who has received it to blame?
Buying and selling or merits is not allowed and will be tagged accordingly. There is no doubt about that. Now coming to your question, the merit-worthiness of a post is a subjective concept and there is no hard and fast rule so as to what is considered as merit worthy. It depends on the Merit source member - but in general quality posts are merited.I am wondering: is it the fault of the one who has given sMerit, or is the one who has received it to blame?
Still a worthless post being merit will be frowned upon by others - might even end up in removal of the merit source. Though we have not seen any such cases yet.
Merits received for the bounty in my opinion are not entirely honest. People give their manager a sign of appreciation that the campaign was successful, but this violates the very essence of the merit system. Initially, it was aimed but that would stimulate people to create high-quality content, and eventually becomes a sort of forum token.
This is where it has become grey. Merit sometimes ends up in being a token of thanks which denies the actual reason why it was introduced - to prevent spammers to ranking up.
Merit should be unavailable at service and bounty section. Just as OP stated, most of the posts there are pure marketing and have no reason to be merited whatsoever.
So the best bet, in my opinion, is to be turned off there or just to tell people to stop doing that. I don't even know why people feel the need to merit bounty posts. :/
So the best bet, in my opinion, is to be turned off there or just to tell people to stop doing that. I don't even know why people feel the need to merit bounty posts. :/
No, it's not (in my opinion ofc).
But I saw things so crazy, made with merits, that now I'm not surprised anymore.
Personally I do not think it's right to give 50 merits to this image, and that this person should be punished: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.30354958
But that's another story ..
But I saw things so crazy, made with merits, that now I'm not surprised anymore.
Personally I do not think it's right to give 50 merits to this image, and that this person should be punished: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.30354958
But that's another story ..
Merits received for the bounty in my opinion are not entirely honest. People give their manager a sign of appreciation that the campaign was successful, but this violates the very essence of the merit system. Initially, it was aimed but that would stimulate people to create high-quality content, and eventually becomes a sort of forum token.
Literally campaign managers don't need much of merit because they are not kind of being after it, but a sign of appreciation can be a good sign in order for other user distinguish that the campaign manager handles smooth, but not always to prefer merit about it. Trust should be given instead of merit, However it is the givers decision, the only problem is abusing it.
That's what always shown and I first thought with so much merit that given to give personal profot for the project that he handles. I men responsible people will think that the project has good potential but so far i feel doubt to see it. Maybe that's from the bounty manager team themself. But better it must have personal system.
Merits received for the bounty in my opinion are not entirely honest. People give their manager a sign of appreciation that the campaign was successful, but this violates the very essence of the merit system. Initially, it was aimed but that would stimulate people to create high-quality content, and eventually becomes a sort of forum token.
It is very strange to see people rewarded with merits to "sell" things.
They're giving a service to the community, but they're working and they're paid for doing it.
That is very far from receiveng deserved merit points in my opinion.
So here's next dimension Merit discussion thread 2.0 in which we are going to discuss if someone has deserved his Merit.
I am wondering: is it the fault of the one who has given sMerit, or is the one who has received it to blame?
I think the trust system is more adequate for bounties.
How is that? Trust is actually for marketplace trust. Though the idea has been diversified a lot now.Giving merit is the own will of a forum member untill Bitcoin Forum make any specific rules for/against bounty. Your post is some relevant to me but moderators may think about this in future.
Mods have nothing to do with merit and/or merit abuse. People do merit stuff they like and then there are bounty threads that get merited by the people who like to stay goody-goody with the bounty manager. There is nothing people can do about it. 
I can't understand why people are sending Merits to bounty thread creators. What's the point of that? It's just a waste of their sMerit.
I think it's equal parts gratitude and ass-kissing on the parts of bounty participants, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that there's something more sinister going on behind the scenes. You just never know with these bounty hunters and bounty managers.People are basically free to do whatever they want with their sMerits, and Theymos has endorsed a hands-off approach to the whole thing. Do I think it's a waste to leave bounty managers merits? Absolutely. There are people here who could probably use it more and who deserve it--though that's rare, I think. But it's not a rule violation, and it's not even an unwritten rule or breach of etiquette. It's up to them if they want to do it.
I can't understand why people are sending Merits to bounty thread creators. What's the point of that? It's just a waste of their sMerit. I understand why people are giving Merit to Bitcoin signature campaign managers - they hope that it will help to be accepted to campaign. But bounties - why?
But ok, that's their choice. I think it's better to waste sMerit in this way, instead of giving Merit to your alts or selling it.
But ok, that's their choice. I think it's better to waste sMerit in this way, instead of giving Merit to your alts or selling it.
I think the trust system is more adequate for bounties.
But I think there is no way to avoid bounty hunters from meriting bounty Managers.
They are part of the forum and I think that's not a problem at all... Managers are not shitposteds, and I think they can contribute to the forum
But I think there is no way to avoid bounty hunters from meriting bounty Managers.
They are part of the forum and I think that's not a problem at all... Managers are not shitposteds, and I think they can contribute to the forum
Who da hell cares about campaign managers? Merit system was mainly created in order to prevent spam that is mostly coming from sig campaign participants, not managers. Most managers are established forum members and merits given to them for just posting a thread doesn't change anything. It is only numbers and the feel of inequality for lower rank members. There is nothing what people should fight against.
That's what I thought, but it has been pointed out to me that bounty promotion is not done in this forum, but is on social media platforms, and that the sig campaigns are something else. This is why the bounty boys don't care about getting above junior rank. I've no idea how true this is, and perhaps somebody knowledgeable could explain the mechanism to us.
If it is true, then maybe we could work with the bounty maanagers to contain the bad posting on the main boards.
I'm only just starting to understand a bit about the bounty sub-culture on Bitcoin Talk. I agree with you comment about awarding of merits for bounty creation. It's probably going a bit far, but maybe the bounty culture should have it's own merit system.
Who da hell cares about campaign managers? Merit system was mainly created in order to prevent spam that is mostly coming from sig campaign participants, not managers. Most managers are established forum members and merits given to them for just posting a thread doesn't change anything. It is only numbers and the feel of inequality for lower rank members. There is nothing what people should fight against.
I think that the merit should be given to people who have done a solid job in the bounty program, but for various reasons have not been rewarded - most often the failure of the project.
What do you think about organising it somehow? Does it make sense?
In my opinion, mainly people share merit with each other and the new one is much more difficult now than it was e.g. a year ago. 100% sad but true
What do you think about organising it somehow? Does it make sense?
In my opinion, mainly people share merit with each other and the new one is much more difficult now than it was e.g. a year ago. 100% sad but true
I often find quite a bit of sMerit awarding to Ann/Bounty threads, especially to the OPs and by the OPs. It does seem to work quite like a "like" feature there. The thing is, you could just as easily wonder about sMerit awarded daily for gifs in certain sections, or backdated posts with no substance for example in others.
Limiting where sMerit is used I believe is not the intention on the Forum, and being there uses that are straying away from the general intent, I believe that freedom of use rules and is here to stay.
Limiting where sMerit is used I believe is not the intention on the Forum, and being there uses that are straying away from the general intent, I believe that freedom of use rules and is here to stay.
Jump to: