Topic: Merit & new rank requirements - page 192. (Read 167726 times)

It's pretty hard to earn merit  

I want to understand that if you are new to crypto and don't have much knowledge hence cant share expert views in comments to get merit, but if your activity requirement is fulfilled, cant we get our rank increased by activities alone?

Firstly, this is not about me getting merits or not. It is a simple question of a design principle. And you are the first one who actually gave a reasonable answer (for that I gave you an sM) , although practically, I'm not convinced whether the reason is  of relevance.

Take a Senior Member who just made the rank wanting to become Hero Member. This person needs to accumulate 240 activities and 250 merits.

As long as on average it takes several (likely 10 or more) activities to gain one merit, the activity goal has no relevance.

I agree, that if somebody is getting 1000 merits (or in this case 250 merits) in a month, then the activity count could kick in and become the relevant factor. So theoretically I can see the point. I just fail to see how practical this scenario really is. Furthermore, if somebody truly would contribute so much value that he would get 250 merits for high-quality posts, I would think he would deserve a the rank even without any time limitation (again, this scenerio, IMHO is highly unlikely).

In summary, if the activity goals per rank, is purely meant to put contraints on how quickly one could rank up, then the principle is clear but I doubt it would still have any practical relevance.

And since activity goals, practically speaking remain irrelevant in my opionion, it does not matter to me whether they are included or not, just think it might confuse some others.

at first , i hated the merit system i wont lie... i was 10 activity away from senior member... but after looking at it after a few weeks and making mistakes hating on the system , ive realized that this system is really for the best of the forum, there is so many people with multiple accounts, spamming messages and just ranking up doing nothing... the system does need some tinkering i agree , but all in all the system will really benefit the forum in the long term to give REAL members benefits and BAD members wont reap the rewards of this amazing forum

That's not the question, and yes, activities are not only posts. It still remains the case, that for ranking activities are irrelevant practically. So there is actually no need to continue to use activities at all as part of the ranking for anything above Jr. Member, and might actually contribute to the confusion.

Can i repost something that posted by others to help other newbies like me and to gain merit points?

You re getting a lot of merits yet still want to change the system, i dont know why you do that.

Of course it needs to be together, for merit and activity to decide ranks. If you suggest that only merit used to decide rank just for fairness issue, it will brings a lot of unfairness if we only use merit as indicator to rank up. Imagine if someone get 1000 merit instantly in a month, he will be a legendary rank by a month, and later all users will  be shouting how unfair it is. You need to see merit as the decider of the rank, and activity as the controller of the rank.

Thanks, bud, for setting me straight. Here's +10 sM for your time.

Same here...I was disappointed as I joined here earlier and didn't get enough time to be ranked. Anyway, after getting +1 merit, it seems more easier to me what I thought impossible before. It's true that 10 merit is easy to get while 250 is far away. But don't be disappointed. At the end of the day, the system was badly needed to prevent spamming.

Nope, newbie can rank up to junior by having 30 activities and 0 Merit, try to read the topic again before posting.

I really dont know why this thread is still runnin'. The question and other talks are being redundant. Know how to back read guys! And as for the newbies, there are many infographic explanation about the merit system which are all well explained try to read always, dont settle for being spoon fed.

^ this and for those shitposting newbies long as they aren't changing their ways, don't ever ask for merits.

Actually without Merit points you can jump to Jr.Member, but @suchmoon wrote about that to collect activity points you need not only number of posts - you need also time. In 14 days periods you need post at least 1 time, to "earn" activity points from this period of time and it can be max 14 activity points - but to earn that points you need also enough posts. More less .. So if you change in your comment "Newbie" to "Jr.Member", this what you wrote theoretically will be possible.

Incorrect, it will not remain as newbie throughout his bitcointalk life because the requirement for a jr. Member is basically 0 merit only and by that he or she may and can rank up to jr member from newbie.

So theoretically, a Newbie will remain Newbie status even though they may have penned 10K post, earned 1000 Activity, but remained at O Merits, correct?

Activity is not just the number of posts. You also need to post at least once in each 2-week activity period.

Math is way too simple a question. Did not think it would be on SAT (obviously answer is D).

I suggest you re-read the question. Or maybe I try again:

if you need x merits and y activities to reach a rank, but for each merit it takes z >> y / x activities, which will you always reach last, x merits or y activities?

Once you have the answer, please explain to me what relevance the activities have for ranking.

Dude, here's +5 sM. Lighten up! BTW, when did they start including first grade math on the SAT? Furthermore, how is it that the problem posed above is supposedly easy in your mind, yet remain perplex on the Merit thingy?

And what do you want to say, exactly, with posting 1st grader math?

I posted a fair question, and if you cannot or don't want to provide a reasonable answer, then go and bug somebody else.

Here's a sneak peek, Mr. Obvious, in what to expect on tomorrow's exam:

This makes 0 sense, as a reply. it simply states the glaring obvious