Congratulations. A very good system to get old-established board members cash out the bounties.
Regardless of the quality of their postings. (in past and in future)
And this ranking will give a lot of information about the authors quality of the members, even if the merit are already traded against coins.
In short time, the absolute transparency of the activities will be given here.
Topic: Merit & new rank requirements - page 239. (Read 167717 times)
They were gone once already, and then showed back up.
Either it's intentional hiding from theymos or it's due to a bug, eg with a limited space assigned to showing merits, which has been exceeded by the OP.
Either it's intentional hiding from theymos or it's due to a bug, eg with a limited space assigned to showing merits, which has been exceeded by the OP.
Fair enough, probably a good idea to reduce the display area anyway. Maybe add an expand button if it is full. When it fills the whole screen up it's not really ideal for viewing.
I think, a system like the merit system is a good idea, but its not well implemented. I think the needed amount of merit is too high.
But maybe im just a bit frustrated, because i was close to full member and now need 90! more merit to achieve this rank.
Maybe they should have awarded more merit at the start, so the upranking prozess wouldnt be delayed this much.
But maybe im just a bit frustrated, because i was close to full member and now need 90! more merit to achieve this rank.
Maybe they should have awarded more merit at the start, so the upranking prozess wouldnt be delayed this much.
I notice that the merits that this thread announcement got had been removed. Earlier it was about given a lot of members and was one of the threads getting highest number of merits. Is there any new rule regarding this ?
The merits are still there, they just dont show up right now.Probably an overflow error or something like that, due to the high amount of people who have given merit to the OP and were shown there.
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=toptopicsat ; Top-merited topics, all-time - 1211: Merit & new rank requirements by theymos)
I would guess that theymos just hid the display so that you can actually find the post. I did look pretty silly.
They were gone once already, and then showed back up.Either it's intentional hiding from theymos or it's due to a bug, eg with a limited space assigned to showing merits, which has been exceeded by the OP.
I notice that the merits that this thread announcement got had been removed. Earlier it was about given a lot of members and was one of the threads getting highest number of merits. Is there any new rule regarding this ?
According to the stats page https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=toptopicsat
It's still the most merited topic with 1211. I would guess that theymos just hid the display so that you can actually find the post. I did look pretty silly.
I am still confused. who can give merit to other users?
I notice that the merits that this thread announcement got had been removed. Earlier it was about given a lot of members and was one of the threads getting highest number of merits. Is there any new rule regarding this ?
I don't know you at all, but i already feel you may be quite biased here. I mean just look how much Merit you (a Legendary Rank) have been awarded in just a few meager days. This is in no way indicative of a typical user or even a power user.
Given that I've reached the top rank quite a long time ago, there is little to no meaning behind receiving any extra Merit points. Why would that makes me biased? Not really what i was getting at..
I was implying: biased in the sense that it's given you a skewed view on the likely distribution of Merits.. i.e. if one receives a lot of Merits then one may come to the conclusion that Merits must be easily attainable for all.
This new change kinda hurts our participation in bounty campaigns. I admit I have been nothing but a lurker for a long time, but have recently decided to start actively participating. Jr. Member seems like the max I will be for a very long time given the new merit requirements. I hope the new campaigns will take that into consideration as there is not always a lot of activity of the 'merit givers' on the threads that I or many may frequent or find interesting. I do, however, think that this will reduce the number of spam posts which is a plus.
I'm a bit torn on this to be honest. It benefits those who are already established members, and makes it more difficult for some newbies to rise through the ranks. It might be off putting. However, on the other side of the coin, it will hopefully cut out some of enormous amount of spam posts and worthless contribution - and that can't be a bad thing really. I'm slightly in favour 
If I have my 100 merit and I give someone merit, does that come out of me total and demote me?
If I have my 100 merit and I give someone merit, does that come out of me total and demote me?
Give a man a fish and he will eat for 1 day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime..
Do yourself a favor and read page one of this thread.. helping yourself like that is the first step to enlightenment the second step will be making constructive posts based on the information you have gained.. the 3rd step is merits..
For instance, the activity points can be awarded to a post that is more than 100 characters etc. In this way, it will be easy to know who does quality posts and the one who doesn't.
Wrong. Length is not a measure of quality.You can say nothing with 1000 characters, and you can say a lot with just a single sentence below 100 characters.
A spammer would just strech their posts to the required length and continue doing the same thing.
I still don't understand the concept behind the 'merit' system that was introduced on this forum. I know there should be some checks and balances in ensuring that forum members give quality posts. I'd rather suggest admin maintains the old system of activity points than introducing a confusing system of 'merit points'. The old system can be enhanced by only awarding activity points to posts that meet a certain threshold. For instance, the activity points can be awarded to a post that is more than 100 characters etc. In this way, it will be easy to know who does quality posts and the one who doesn't.
I'm a bit torn on this to be honest. It benefits those who are already established members, and makes it more difficult for some newbies to rise through the ranks. It might be off putting. However, on the other side of the coin, it will hopefully cut out some of enormous amount of spam posts and worthless contribution - and that can't be a bad thing really. I'm slightly in favour
If I have my 100 merit and I give someone merit, does that come out of me total and demote me?
If I have my 100 merit and I give someone merit, does that come out of me total and demote me?
So there's a little loophole here that would enable someone who has never made 1 quality post in his life to become a Legendary member, if he wrote many nonsense posts and got an activity count up to 780 until last week, and now has a merit of 1000 that will allow him to become a Legendary, still without making any quality posts.
There's a big loophole here that did enable many users that never wrote anything constructive to become legendary. Everyone who got to legendary before the system was introduced go there by time/quantity, not quality.
Where is the difference between a legendary with 966 activity and a hero with 966 activity?
And before you call this unfair, the legendary rank itself is, since the window is as big and the time you hit it is random.
I don't want to argue about this, but the OP clearly says:
So for Hero members that would be 500. The problem here is that Hero members do not level up automatically when reaching the minimum amount required for Legendary.
Quote
For current members, your initial merit score is equal to the minimum required to your rank.
So for Hero members that would be 500.
The problem here is that Hero members do not level up automatically when reaching the minimum amount required for Legendary.You are correct but theymos had a change of heart and corrected it for all Hero members that were eligible for Legendary rank by adding another 500 merit. The quote is buried deep within this thread but good luck finding it.
Hmm, btw. I wonder why some people with Hero rank got 1000 merit, and others got 500 like me?
Because the Legendary range is 775-1030 and you are on 742, only those above 775 got 1000.
I don't want to argue about this, but the OP clearly says:
Quote
For current members, your initial merit score is equal to the minimum required to your rank.
So for Hero members that would be 500.
The problem here is that Hero members do not level up automatically when reaching the minimum amount required for Legendary.Theymos made a change a few days ago, any Hero who was in the "range" so above 775 Activity had Merit total increased to 1K
Hmm, btw. I wonder why some people with Hero rank got 1000 merit, and others got 500 like me?
Because the Legendary range is 775-1030 and you are on 742, only those above 775 got 1000.
I don't want to argue about this, but the OP clearly says:
Quote
For current members, your initial merit score is equal to the minimum required to your rank.
So for Hero members that would be 500.
The problem here is that Hero members do not level up automatically when reaching the minimum amount required for Legendary.So there's a little loophole here that would enable someone who has never made 1 quality post in his life to become a Legendary member, if he wrote many nonsense posts and got an activity count up to 780 until last week, and now has a merit of 1000 that will allow him to become a Legendary, still without making any quality posts.
Hmm, btw. I wonder why some people with Hero rank got 1000 merit, and others got 500 like me?
Because the Legendary range is 775-1030 and you are on 742, only those above 775 got 1000.
Hmm, btw. I wonder why some people with Hero rank got 1000 merit, and others got 500 like me?
Yeah of course opening in a new tab is better than opening it in the current tab. But my point was having a button that updates in-place instead.
Fair point. But that kinda misses the point of having a merit system to begin with, because other people will be distracted from the content just as much.
Yeah of course opening in a new tab is better than opening it in the current tab. But my point was having a button that updates in-place instead.
If you do not care about ranks, you probably might not care about merit either. You don't have to give anyone anything should you not want to, and since ranks aren't important to you then don't care about whether you're going to receive merit either.
Fair point. But that kinda misses the point of having a merit system to begin with, because other people will be distracted from the content just as much.
Tbh. I don't like this system too much, because it draws away my attention from the actual discussion. I don't care about ranks, I just don't want to think about it. Now everytime someone posts, you have to think about whether giving merit or not, and also looking if you received any merit.
The other thing that has been said many times I think ... it should not open a new tab. That is actually an incentive to NOT click the button, because it takes away my attention from the content completely. If it would just be a button that updates in place, like a "Like" button ... that would be ok. But I would also like to take back my like in case I accidentally clicked on it, instead of the quote button.
The other thing that has been said many times I think ... it should not open a new tab. That is actually an incentive to NOT click the button, because it takes away my attention from the content completely. If it would just be a button that updates in place, like a "Like" button ... that would be ok. But I would also like to take back my like in case I accidentally clicked on it, instead of the quote button.
i actually prefer it opening in a new tab as i can just click back to the original tab and keep reading. otherwise i would have to break my train of thought right then because of needing to put a number in and click the send button. the new tab can just sit until im done reading, then do it.
a new tab also prevents accidentally sending merit with a mis-click of the button (whoopsie meant to click "quote".. yeah im sloppy when clicking). this way you can just cancel out of it.
i suppose a "one click one merit" button that updates in place could be put in with a timer that allows it to be taken back in case of an accidental click.. say 10 seconds to reverse it and then its locked in.
Jump to: