Topic: Merit Bounties (Read 474 times)

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I was approaching it from the other angle, thinking about using it liberally (albeit with standards) in order to fight against spam. I've been forced into using it conservatively because of my initial lack of merit, so it's possible that I'm just working from a "grass is greener" mindset, I suppose. As you said, it's a double edged sword and there's no way of knowing how the other one would/could play out, because we can only take one path at a time; it seems we both acknowledge there's ups and downs to either. Although I don't feel confident saying that one is better than the other now, which is to say you've at least changed my mind somewhat.


Well, then that is different from the impression I got at first and I see no problem with how you are doing things. Definitely not harmful to the merit system, I apologize for impulsively labeling your thought-process without more information. I can live with :
, on multiple fronts.


You're right, I agree that we shouldn't solely judge them on their post quality when giving merit either (though this would be ideal if practical). I wouldn't want to give merit to a known scammer, because as you said they would most likely abuse it. Although it would be optimal, in my opinion, if it were the case that merit were not abuse-able in the manner of being seeing as "trustworthy". I suppose I am speaking of an ideal and you are speaking in the present, which makes our approaches very conflicting, it would seem. You put it nicely :


Okay. I can agree with this, we are not at a point where this is the case and so it would seem necessary to approach merits with an increased level of caution until we are closer to this ideal. Relating it to trust, people do not do their research and dive in head-first thinking other users did the leg-work for them; then they are criticized for their ratings and feedback, even still users are incautious about green-trusted users. It seems like if we find ourselves in the "ideal" then you would be willing to do exactly as I am suggesting, which is perfectly reasonable.


Agreed, which is why in the meantime I am trying to find any sort of solution that would be acceptable, even to a conservative merit-sending such as yourself.


I'll try my best to be more concise and quote as little as necessary. I enjoy the dialogue, you've changed my mind on a few things and clarified yourself on others that allow me realize we agree on those, as well.

The only question (unless you have your own) that remains is whether or not you think it would be realistic, possible or helpful to implement what I am proposing in any context under any criteria?

I agree with your opinion，I think the essence of the forum is a place where people can communicate with each other, just as if we were all in a chat room, we should freely express our thoughts from our own hearts, make daring speeches and listen to different opinions However, at present, the merit system makes more people have some purpose and certain tendencies when speaking. In other words, it may not be true that they may have said some lies in order to obtain merit. This is against the fundamental purpose of the forum. In the long run, it will not encourage people to really communicate, but encourage people to learn hypocrisy and lie.

Accepted.

What you also need to understand is the following: Being very conservative with your sMerit (until we know the details of the decay and whatnot), actually boosts the fight against spam. It does also reinforce the negative side of the system, i.e. making it hard for constructive users to get merit. Therefore, it's a double edged sword (both being and not being conservative is).

I do not check whether a user is on the SMAS list or not before I send them merit as that would be too time consuming; I only remembered your case as I've recently taken a look at my PM box. I also believe that we shouldn't solely judge people based on their post quality when giving merit. Would you give merit to a known scammer? How about a known account farmer? Obviously, it is highly likely that they would abuse it and thus I would not give them anything.      
A decent dosage (but not too much) of assessing the user before giving merit (especially in larger quantities) would be optimal.

It is very unlikely that I will: a) Encounter a poster that I know is on the SMAS list, and thus don't want to merit a *meritable* post (your case is an exception). b) Encounter a post by someone who is SMAS blacklisted, that I want to give merit to. The first part of the previous paragraph answers this.

---

Of course. I would not claim that someone shady or a *boogie-man* (as you've put it) would never be able to produce a quality post.

As of now, I disagree. It will be a long road until we reach the state where the general consensus is the following: A high merit count does not make the poster credible; but individual posts with high merit count are credible/useful/constructive. The former is definitely going to be state that we will find ourselves in for a long time, especially given the practical experience we gained from the trust system (people naturally think a *green user* is definitely trustworthy/credible; this is not the case).
Once (or if) we reach the former, then I wouldn't mind meriting such people for deserving posts.

Correct, but they can be overlapping at times (someone who abuses a campaign with alts is both a spammer and scammer).

Optimally, we wouldn't need such bounties. However, given the state that the forum is in, it will take as a while to get there.

Indeed, which is why the long posts are being exchanged.

I don't think I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the system, however I may have misspoke when I said it is "harmful" to the merit system. You are right, there is no obligation to do anything and this is why I believe I have misspoke. I was not implying that you have any obligation to grade their homework, but I was saying that it could be helpful to our overall goal of improving the quality of posts if you were to reconsider your stance. Again though, since you are not a merit source it is more than likely a waste of your time and merit to review these people posts out of the blue. I was simply saying that when you come across someone that you would've merited, until you realize they're on your list it is a missed opportunity for rehabilitation and positive reinforcement. I know this is not your obligation, but it would seem mutually beneficial for everyone involved.

I will agree that almost everyone on that list does not realize their posting habits are unhealthy for the forum and detrimental to whatever they are trying to accomplish as individuals as well. I was not saying anything about getting off the list for a campaign, just was saying when someone has made the necessary adjustments it might be best to not hold-back merit after they have realized these things. You're your own person, you do with your merit as you wish, this is simply my perspective at the moment and my perspective is always shifting.

---

Fair; It is your merit, use it as you wish. I have no problem disagreeing with a small detail on how you distribute your merit as an individual, as long as it doesn't become intentionally malicious. I don't believe filtering certain users from your merit is going to be the end of the world, I just would hate to see the merit system being used as a popularity contest rather than a meritocracy, which was the heart of my point. If too many users begin throwing the contingency that "I also must approve of your character/behavior entirely" before handing out merit we will quickly catch ourselves in a dystopian regulation of our thought-crimes.

---

And nothing, I am in no rush to be removed, it does not affect me significantly. I understand you have your own things to do, rather than worry about people that have already proven themselves to be clueless and harmful to the forum. I'm sure you get spammed by the same people daily asking to be removed or asking for how they can improve their posts, I get it and I'm not negating the hard-work you do to maintain that list. I was only trying to make the point that with your queue being so long and it taking awhile to respond to SMAS removals it may be the case that someone has made tremendous strides towards improving themselves and now they are being filtered twice essentially. They are being ignored for merit, when they may deserve it, because you are too busy to review their SMAS status. I was getting at maybe allowing the SMAS to be for Signature Campaigns and let the Ignore list be for the users you don't care what they have to say, rather than mixing the two into a SMAS/SMAM (Against Spam/Against Merit). I'm being a little flippant. but I hope my point is not entirely lost.

---

Obviously there would need to be caveats and contingencies for this to be a proper thought-process. I know Quickseller is the boogie-man around here and you should not trust them with a trade or your money. However, there is an almost equal possibility (especially if they are logical, as you put it) that these people will produce technical information or guidance that is universally accepted still and merit-able. I'm saying nobody is a two-dimensional villain and they have equal capacity to produce high-quality information that is not misleading or malevolent. The merit system is not meant to tell you how trustworthy the writer is, it is meant to tell you who thinks this information is high-quality. The trust system already does a solid job at alerting users what these people have been up to. Maybe I am naive, but is it detrimental to believe someone like this if they are only providing information that has been vetted through the public? Meriting their quality posts would seem to help the public navigate through their posts to determine which are lies and which are actually helpful. I'm not saying we seek out these scammers to merit their good-deeds, but adding an extra layer of trust to the merit system would seem a mistake.

Oh, and I would also say that spammers and scammers are not in the same category and I would ask you the consider making a distinction. We're talking about meriting people on your SMAS, but then to mention QS seems to be disingenuous and making a false-equivalency. I understand you're just giving an example, and a good one, I'm sure you already see a distinction, but for the sake of your "Merit rule" I am discussing.

---

I agree, I just wasn't sure if you were misunderstanding my proposal/suggestion. Alright, I can get behind that as well then; I was fearful thinking you were hinting that I was deserving of being tagged for suggesting or "participating" in this kind of thing. I think that merits should be given as merits to posts that have earned them, not given out as signature campaign rewards or other irrelevant "contests"/giveaways.

It seems like we agree more than we disagree and a lot of the disagreement seems to stem from miscommunication.

Don't even get me started.

It absolutely is not. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. There is no obligation to do anything, especially not when you are not a merit source. Were I one (and no, I do not think I am ever going to apply for this), I would probably reconsider my position. The SMAS list is only effective if it is used as intended; a filter. People who are on the list also do not realize that they should improve themselves for their own and the forum's sake, not improve themselves in order to get off of the list/back into a campaign.

I'm extremely conservative with the trust system (i.e. positive trust ratings) and this is likely (already is) going to manifest itself also with my usage of the merit system.

Yeah, and? As long as you do not annoy me about it, you will get processed eventually. My PM queue is often long, and SMAS reviews are not priority given the high denial rate.

While aspiring to be very rational/logical, that does not work in practice at all (an exception would be where the other side is actually equally rational/logical which is almost never the case with humans; 99% of the people you encounter/interact with will be irrational). It is very naive and will easily lead to believing lies from smart manipulators/psychopaths and scammers (see Quickseller et. al.).

It's a general statement building up on your suggestion. That is, if we allow this kind of bounty, then we really need to make sure we do not move the goalpost eventually to other types (as mentioned in my previous post).

It takes a big person to stand up and say something like that; most people wouldn't be impressed by this, but I certainly can appreciate the honesty.

---

Descriptive words exist for a reason. I am not using them frivolously, for the most part, and again I would highly encourage you to attempt at re-writing my posts using only a sentence or two; if you can do so without losing a single iota of meaning or significance then I will cede that I am being a wordy idiot. If you aren't interested in reading more than a couple sentences at a time, then might I suggest that it is your attention span that is at fault here and not my writing style.

---

I'm aware; yet it would still seem that there are many quality posts being overlooked. If you think that there is nothing we can do to improve the amount/quality of posts currently receiving merit, then I would grant you your point, but there certainly can be positive improvements to be made.


There is nothing stopping you from submitting your posts for the public or sources to evaluate as well. It should not discourage users like yourself, rather it should serve to additionally reward the best submitted. Gaining more attention, merit and eyes to the highest quality content while giving examples of what is expected and rewarded.


"Contest" was just one of a few words to try to describe the concept. Competition is by nature meritorious, so you'll have to explain to me how pinning the greatest posts head-to-head is not meritorious or providing an incentive for greater posting quality.That being said, you claim it would draw from a limited supply of merit, but this is incorrect in my estimation. This would not serve as an idea to replace even a significant amount of the merit distribution, rather it would draw out the merit that is currently being unused and has no place in the "organic" distribution, which is inefficient at best.



I am confused; you seem to think that this idea is in anyway suggesting rewarding anything but "high-quality, on-topic posts in the forum appropriate for their subject matter". If you can see this rewarding anything else, by comparing the best posts side-by-side and meriting them (as they rightfully should be merited), then please enlighten me. In my suggestion or any form of it, other than simply giving away merit, you will still see, read, be impressed and then hit "+Merit". You still still write, post, impress someone and receive a "+Merit".  You are arguing against my suggestion, but making the case for it at the same time. It fits your criteria of organic by everything you've just laid out. The entire Merit system is a bounty, but can there be no improvements to push the most helpful, most thoughtful, most informative posts to the top of the pile more so?


Theymos said "most"; so it would imply that there are some complaints validated by theymos from members that in his opinion should rank up and are not posting garbage. Obviously it is a feature to make the spammers squirm, but to pretend as though there is not a single criticism to be made of the merit system is foolhardy.



This is literally what I'm trying to accomplish, we can obviously improve upon my idea, but we seem to agree about what needs to be done. I see this as the starting point for a more elaborate distribution strategy, but I believe you're shooting it down before you even think it through.

---

You believe that there is not a single post or member that will go overlooked, do you? Or do you believe that this is acceptable?

---

This is one of the things that I think is harmful to the merit system. You admit it yourself, you refuse to merit those on the SMAS list, which is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you refuse to even look at the posts of someone on your SMAS list with any thoughtful or serious care then you will never give incentive to the type of posts they should be making. It would seem the system is meant to reward good posts, not avoid rewarding good posts because you don't like something about what they said in a completely irrelevant thread/post(s). That being said, I messaged you about your SMAS list weeks ago, never got a reply. I've done a lot to work towards being removed from your SMAS list, but it doesn't seem like that's something you're interested in accomplishing. It may be the case that you did not intend SMAS to rehabilitate and only intended for it to mark, if this is the case then I understand much better, but if you want any chance at improving these users into what they could be then you shouldn't avoid meriting a thread you otherwise would've because of your list.

Take a page out of this newbie's book :

I don't know if this is directed at my suggestion or if you are talking about something else, but in any case I am talking about incentivizing the same thing you are concurring with. If I am incentivizing anything other than high-quality, on-topic posts then let me know, because I do not see what you're seeing.

---

I'd agree if I was suggesting a merit food-bank. This is not what I am suggesting; I have to 100% disagree, competing for merit in a public thread with 1000's of people reading the posts will certainly make these good posts more visible, accessible and rewarding to write. Merit food bank implies we are handing out welfare merit, when we are talking about handing it out to the best of the best that deserve it. If there are no merit worthy posts submitted, they don't receive merit.

It doesn't clean out spamming, but it dis-incentivizes it to a greater extent.


I know this is a long post, many people may not even read it, but I'm enjoying the conversation even if I'm mainly being shot-down and forced to defend myself like a dying animal. Thanks for the replies, criticism, comments, etc. I wanted to reply to everyone that provoked a response out of me, in case anyone of you are interested.

Lol..
Sylon- Famous and good reputation. Don't think you have ever heard hilariousandco speak about sylon..

I'm not talking about all managers. This can be the most famous with a good reputation Sylon, Aerys2, Woshib & some others.
It's just that their job is to read a lot of messages and it would not be difficult for them. It's like an option. I just suggest some additions to the system. I just want the receipt of Merit to be more real for many, not for some. It's possible to add 1-3 Merit to 50 activity. And then in couple of years though there is a chance to pass to a step above.

I was going to give you a merit until I read the bit about bounty managers. I don't think bounty managers should give merits to their sig flyers, it leads them into temptation.

Yes, often good posts just drown in a pile of spam. People do not even read normal new meaningful news or points of view. If the title does not contain the phrase "Should I buy or sell?" "How to make x100?" "Your top coins?" then this topic flies to 50 page.
I'm not against Merit. But tell me, please. How can I put Merit for good posts, if I have 1 merit? I can put 1 like. OK, I understand that there are those who produce Merit. I do not want to be. I do not have time for this and it's very responsible.
It turns out that to decide a good post or not, deserves to get a +1 award or not, only high-ranking people can. Perhaps you need to open such rights for bounty managers? They read hundreds of messages from different people. They can give Merit to post that make sense.
But they must have a sufficient number of Merit. Since 10-30 pieces will end in a couple of days.

If good posts are not receiving merit points because they are obscured by spamming, then that is a failure of the moderation system, and not the merit system.  Providing merit food banks doesn't clean out the spamming, or make the good posts more visible.

Do you see the profile name before reading every reply made here? I focus on the content written in the post irrespective of whether it is made by a popular or "unpopular person".

He's on the SMAS list at the time of writing, thus no merit from me.

I concur. While it may take some time until this filter works as it should (i.e. some people may be posting good posts in sections that are filled with garbage, ergo they are hard to find right now), I don't prefer the giveaways. They create the wrong incentives. I was also thinking about *merit bounties* that are not just about posts (e.g. do X  to get Y). We must definitely prevent the system from going into that direction and tag all the participating parties if it comes to that.

Not yet. Read my italic mention above.

I have suggested somewhat the same idea like this and I agree to every suggestion that have the same thought like this. It's gives more chances for those unpopular person that gives contribution with high quality post and to those newbies that can really contribute, they deserve merits.

I agree. It'll be interesting to see if that's what actually happens. I've definitely seen some people using sMerit outside of the context of quality posting. There's a psychological component involved too. No matter how good a post is, you are unlikely to get merit unless a) the reader likes your post, which has nothing to do with quality, or b) the reader likes you (because you are a friend or an alt account), which has nothing to do with the post in question.

This is the nature of social media. We've basically added a "like" button to the forum, which comes with the baggage of human psychology.


Fully agreed, there.

There is no need of organizing that contest. Such a deserving member will get the merits anyway.

There is already a place which offers merit bounties for quality posts.  It is called the “Bitcoin Forum”, and its URL is https://bitcointalk.org/.  Posts placed there will be considered for merit by merit sources, high-ranking users, and anybody else who has sMerit.  I invite users with quality posts to place their posts there.

---

As a low-ranked user who has proved efficient at earning merit the normal way, I find such a suggestion extremely discouraging.

Suppose that I spend some hours writing post, as I have on some of my best posts both before and after the introduction of the merit system.  I do it because I want to make the post—because I have something worthwhile to say.  I place the post in the forum appropriate for its subject matter.  Then, I find that joeuser123 received merit I didn’t because he entered his post into a “merit bounty” contest, and I didn’t.

I do not like this idea.

---

Consider the distorting effects of the system here proposed.  Far from improving merit distribution, it draws the limited supply of merit away from organic, natural distribution in the ordinary course of forum discussion, and pools it in a “contest” (OP’s word).

If you thought for even one moment that the proposed idea may be (ahem) meritorious, please reread that paragraph twice.

---

Understand that the whole of the merit system is a “bounty” program.  It cannot perform its function of improving the forum, unless the forum as a whole is treated as one huge “merit bounty” section.

I am very uncomfortable with the merit giveaway threads.  I myself have neither entered any of them, or even checked to see if I was eligible.  I know that some of the people running them are well-intended; and I don’t think there will be any long-term damage, if such threads be only a temporary phenomenon during the exciting and tumultuous initial phase of the new system.  But widening such threads into a permanent, formally organized institution would undermine the merit system.

There is and must be one, and only one proper way to earn merit:  By making high-quality, on-topic posts in the forum appropriate for their subject matter.

For the merit system will not achieve its intended purpose unless it operates naturally, organically, rewarding good posts in the ordinary course of forum discussions.  You see, you read, you are impressed by a post—you hit the “+Merit” link.  You write, you post (where you would have anyway), you do a good enough job to impress someone else—someone else hits the “+Merit” link.  Merit sources may need to develop more elaborate distribution strategies, given the importance of the task entrusted to them.  But for the rest of us, the use of this system is supposed to be dead simple.

---

...by precisely the people who deserve no merit, and will never earn any.  That’s a feature, not a bug.  Evidently, the system is working exactly as intended:


(Emphasis is theymos’.)

Just because spammers do it doesn't mean we should throw wordsmiths in the same pile. I was wrong op is a native speaker with a vast vocabulary that likes to use it.

I cant do with all of this long padded posts. I just tried to read his posts, and it could be said in a sentence or two.

Just because you use a lot of descriptive words for no reason

Ok bud, I'll take it as a foul by me. You are a native English speaker and definitely deserve the benefit of doubt..

Edit- re reading your posts I was wrong. I need to be reading less posts of the spammers to hand out merit correctly to those who deserve it