Topic: Merit & new rank requirements - page 47. (Read 167726 times)
[/quote]
So.. your idea is to award different Merits for starting a new thread, and separate merits for replying to a post?...
Kind of remind me of a famous quote:
"What do you call a dog with no legs?"
Answer : Doesn't matter what you call it, because it won't come to you!
Same thing here. Doesn't matter either way, we ain't getting any! lolz...
[/quote]
haha funny, but it can work tho... But only if we get more merit sources since there are only 119 for the whole bitcointalk forum (+2 million members) You have any ideas?
I have an idea. What if there are merit sources only for threads and only merit sources only for posts?
So.. your idea is to award different Merits for starting a new thread, and separate merits for replying to a post?...
Kind of remind me of a famous quote:
"What do you call a dog with no legs?"
Answer : Doesn't matter what you call it, because it won't come to you!
Same thing here. Doesn't matter either way, we ain't getting any! lolz...
I have an idea. What if there are merit sources only for threads and only merit sources only for posts?
<…>
Having an "alt path" to ranking-up now would defeat the whole purpose of the Merit System. Ranking-up pace is slow for the most, and that could be an issue, at least a psychological one at some point. A couple of months I tried to proyect the amount of time it would require to rank-up amongst other things (see Analysis – Personal merit per day, merit per post and ranking-up projections).Projections (described in above referenced thread)- Additional people that will rank-up with the Merit System:
Code:
year Members Full Members Sr. Members Heroes Legendries
2018 255 25 18 9 4
2019 1105 205 158 91 24
2020 820 241 143 83 45
[2021..2025] 3950 2407 729 453 285
[2026..2030] 178 772 824 431 233
[2031..2035] 82 751 1795 460 246
2036++ 206 5939 9115 12684 14197
My projections (based on earned merit per person per rank vs time interval) are a bit scare for the next couple of years … 2018 255 25 18 9 4
2019 1105 205 158 91 24
2020 820 241 143 83 45
[2021..2025] 3950 2407 729 453 285
[2026..2030] 178 772 824 431 233
[2031..2035] 82 751 1795 460 246
2036++ 206 5939 9115 12684 14197
Speed can only be picked-up in two ways:
- Getting more overall merit into circulation (even if the same people are still being merited, they will rank-up faster that the above projections).
- Getting better at posting.
Would it be possible to add another criteria to the ranking-up system?
If feel that I will be stuck as a Full Member forever.
The element of time would also help in the ranking system while preventing spam accounts.
From Newbie to Jr Member: 6 months + required activity
From Member to Full Member: 1-year old account + required activity
Full Member to Sr. Member: 2-year old account + required activity
Sr. Member to Hero: 3-year old account + required activity
Hero to Legendary: 4-year old account + required activity
Basically, there will be 2 paths on how an account can rank up:
1. Time and activity
2. Merit system
I hope this suggestion will be considered by the mods. Thank you!
If feel that I will be stuck as a Full Member forever.
The element of time would also help in the ranking system while preventing spam accounts.
From Newbie to Jr Member: 6 months + required activity
From Member to Full Member: 1-year old account + required activity
Full Member to Sr. Member: 2-year old account + required activity
Sr. Member to Hero: 3-year old account + required activity
Hero to Legendary: 4-year old account + required activity
Basically, there will be 2 paths on how an account can rank up:
1. Time and activity
2. Merit system
I hope this suggestion will be considered by the mods. Thank you!
Sorry to say that to the extent that you are genuine, your suggestion is stupid ...
In other words, if you actually understand what the merit system has added, by propose an alternative of time and activity, you are merely proposing to remove the merit system and to go back to what was in existence prior to the merit system. There is nothing novel in your proposal.
Would it be possible to add another criteria to the ranking-up system?
If feel that I will be stuck as a Full Member forever.
The element of time would also help in the ranking system while preventing spam accounts.
From Newbie to Jr Member: 6 months + required activity
From Member to Full Member: 1-year old account + required activity
Full Member to Sr. Member: 2-year old account + required activity
Sr. Member to Hero: 3-year old account + required activity
Hero to Legendary: 4-year old account + required activity
Basically, there will be 2 paths on how an account can rank up:
1. Time and activity
2. Merit system
I hope this suggestion will be considered by the mods. Thank you!
If feel that I will be stuck as a Full Member forever.
The element of time would also help in the ranking system while preventing spam accounts.
From Newbie to Jr Member: 6 months + required activity
From Member to Full Member: 1-year old account + required activity
Full Member to Sr. Member: 2-year old account + required activity
Sr. Member to Hero: 3-year old account + required activity
Hero to Legendary: 4-year old account + required activity
Basically, there will be 2 paths on how an account can rank up:
1. Time and activity
2. Merit system
I hope this suggestion will be considered by the mods. Thank you!
I feel that the merit system is not doing any justice to the BCT forum members.
Speaking from my own experience, and that I have joined BCT in Nov 2017, made different posts on a number of different various topics in the forum (namely Hardware section-Mining, Speculations, Alt-Coin ANN, and even the Chinese Section), all I have gotten so far is a "+2" for my merit points for a total of 400+ posts.
I have seen many other BCT members' posts with regards to this Merit system, and I can say with some confidence, that most of the fellow BCT members find it rather useless (putting it mildly).
The main problem - Merit did not go around well, and quite a big number of members did not get their due promotion and left the forum.
Sadly, the current btc price also is a PUSH factor to those who have left.
Kindly reconsider abolishing the Merit system, please.
Thank you for reading.
Speaking from my own experience, and that I have joined BCT in Nov 2017, made different posts on a number of different various topics in the forum (namely Hardware section-Mining, Speculations, Alt-Coin ANN, and even the Chinese Section), all I have gotten so far is a "+2" for my merit points for a total of 400+ posts.
I have seen many other BCT members' posts with regards to this Merit system, and I can say with some confidence, that most of the fellow BCT members find it rather useless (putting it mildly).
The main problem - Merit did not go around well, and quite a big number of members did not get their due promotion and left the forum.
Sadly, the current btc price also is a PUSH factor to those who have left.
Kindly reconsider abolishing the Merit system, please.
Thank you for reading.
As usual the weekly update, we got a boost on merits.
snip
Self made Full Member ? I don't see it.
Also merits are not just about who needs them or doesn't, or it wouldnt make sense to merit a legendary acc either.
If the post is good, user being banned or not, meriting it also highlights said content, thus it is serving a purpose.
It does not make sense to send sMerits to banned accounts, especially permanent banned accounts.
They don't need them, and probably don't deserve merits due to their serious violations on forum rules.
But, you maybe right at this point.
They don't need them, and probably don't deserve merits due to their serious violations on forum rules.
or even banned status.
But, you maybe right at this point.
Quote
All this does not in any way reduce the quality of a post or the impact and usefulness it has on others.
I do not consider other factors when analysing a post; users post history, last activity, trust rating or even banned status. All this does not in any way reduce the quality of a post or the impact and usefulness it has on others.
You are right at this point.
Users have their own rights and decisions to use their sMerits, holding them forever (till Theymos decide decaying un-used sMerits) or sending them to any one, any topic, any thread they agree with and think that those ones are merit-deserved.
And, @satoshi is one of the most prestigious guys in crypto world. He/she/they obviously deserve/s tons of merits.
It's only an assumption, which might happen or not. Personally, I think we should stick on current situation, rules, systems, etc. of the forum in our discussion.
Users have their own rights and decisions to use their sMerits, holding them forever (till Theymos decide decaying un-used sMerits) or sending them to any one, any topic, any thread they agree with and think that those ones are merit-deserved.
And, @satoshi is one of the most prestigious guys in crypto world. He/she/they obviously deserve/s tons of merits.
People paying respect to Satoshi is not wasting of merit.
It's only an assumption, which might happen or not. Personally, I think we should stick on current situation, rules, systems, etc. of the forum in our discussion.
Quote
Keep in mind that theymos can generate infinite amount of smerit.
At least I'm glad to see sMerits are being put in good use by the few people who send them !
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3
It's been only 8 years since his/her/their last activity!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3
It's been only 8 years since his/her/their last activity!
In my opinion an educative/quality post can't be outdated.
If a plagiarist is or an unworthy post is found after 10 years, wouldn't he/she be banned or the post get deleted ?
It shouldn't matter how long a post has been so far it is considered helpful or merit-worthy, and moreover as a user I guess I've barely read about 0.1% of the thread on here and should I come across a post that I learn something new from or find helpful I shouldn't give it merit simply because of when it was posted ?
At least I'm glad to see sMerits are being put in good use by the few people who send them !
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3
It's been only 8 years since his/her/their last activity!
,https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3
It's been only 8 years since his/her/their last activity!
People paying respect to Satoshi is not wasting of merit. Keep in mind that theymos can generate infinite amount of smerit.
At least I'm glad to see sMerits are being put in good use by the few people who send them !
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3
It's been only 8 years since his/her/their last activity!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3
It's been only 8 years since his/her/their last activity!
< ... >
Hate to say this, but honestly I don't want to read threads with pyramid quotes, like yours.Pyramid quotes require huge space of each page, and make the whole page looks very uncomfortable.
Next time, you should drop unnecessary texts, and only quote specific points at which you want to discuss.
Additionally, it's too bad to see pyramid quotes in Meta board.
<...>It is better to focus on diversifying sources of merit so that the distribution will be more decentralized.<...>
I think (not 100% sure) that that was the focus was placed when selecting the new batch of Merit Sources added in September, with prime attention to local boards. Nevertheless, monthly allowance varies from source to source, and are possibly dimensioned in relation to activity on the board (although the Merit Sources can merit in any board they like). I’m not sure the minimum monthly allowance is 50 sMerits; at least I’ve read about 10 an 25 sMerits in some cases. Hopefully, they will increase over time, providing the sections are active enough.In addition, I’m with @stompix in relation to "merit hoarding": I don’t think that it is much of an issue in relation to those that have played the meriting game, but rather more something related to the initial airdrop that has not even budged 1 sMerit since day one. That likely sums up to a fair share (even above all that has already been placed into circulation), some of which will reside in no longer active accounts, and other in hands of accounts where merit is of no concert to them.
Despite the fact that users have repeatedly assured that there`s no point in holding smerit, the majority continues to do so (perhaps they`re waiting for the right moment when this smerit can be profitably sold).
Excuse me?
??Talking like a merit hoarder here, don't you think there might be other things to consider?
Like...TIME?
Since the kid is growing up and getting more active I barely have time to read this forum 1 hour a day and mostly it happens from my phone while watching him play, things might change with the winter since we will stay more indoors but till then it's a damn time-consuming task to hunt for such posts in this sea of two lines / make your quota posts.
Also, consider that I had to restrain myself for giving merit 5 times till now and instead push the report button for plagiarism, and this adds to the pain in the ass of distinguishing a real contributor from a fake one.
This is confirmed by a large number of high-quality and informative posts, which at the same time remain "unheeded". I admit the possibility that such comments might not to be noticed by sources (they cannot read everything that is written on the forum), but they definately couldn`t not to be observed by other users. However, the latter, for one reason or another, decided not to reward them.
Can you link to some, let's say a round number of those high quality and informative posts that remained unnoticed?
I'll be happy to get 10 or 20 posts rewarded if they indeed deserve it.
The effect of the newly added merit sources during September 2018 is relatively small on aggregate, and only had a large effect during a week in appearance (but in the aftermaths, more likely than not, the peak reached in September was due to Alt TXs for the most).
This is a summary of the merit awarded by section/subsection during November 2018 (up until last update on the 23rd of this month):
Newly added merit sources can create 50 sMerit per source, "IMO" with the potential one or two sources for each section, "especially sub-sections."This is a summary of the merit awarded by section/subsection during November 2018 (up until last update on the 23rd of this month):
If we are talking about sub-boards "Local boards," especially those that have been established in the last two years, most of the members are below of "Sr. Member," so the section will rely heavily on sources [IOW on 50 or 100 sMerit each month.]
It is better to focus on diversifying sources of merit so that the distribution will be more decentralized.
English and public boards are less affected by this accreditation>
We do not have enough merit sources what can we do to get more? there are a lot of good posts that did not receive the merit that deserved
I think it’s best to be a bit more specific on where we find there to be a lack of merit sources or merit distribution on the whole.
I think that the problem of the deficit of merit distribution on the whole is much more complex and volume than the question of the lack of merit sources. Eventually, merit can be awarded not only by sources, but also by all those users who received merits themselves. I agree that there aren`t enough sources. But even if we add more merit sources, the problem still won`t be finally solved. After all, its other side is that participants rarely send merit to each other.
Despite the fact that users have repeatedly assured that there`s no point in holding smerit, the majority continues to do so (perhaps they`re waiting for the right moment when this smerit can be profitably sold). This is confirmed by a large number of high-quality and informative posts, which at the same time remain "unheeded". I admit the possibility that such comments might not to be noticed by sources (they cannot read everything that is written on the forum), but they definately couldn`t not to be observed by other users. However, the latter, for one reason or another, decided not to reward them.
Jump to: