Topic: Merit & new rank requirements - page 51. (Read 167726 times)

Thanks for the hint.
I will try it later, might be months later, because I have to learn SQL queries in order to retrieve necessary data variables for my analysis from raw data given by @Theymos.

Great initiatives!
I thank you so much for your intention to help.
My topic is here

You can get the original by scraping all profiles, start with https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/admin-1 and move up from there.
Luckily, Piggy did that already and shared the data.

I tried to quickly get you a list of new accounts per day, but it proves to be harder than expected to extract the registration date from each line (in Raw.zip), so I gave up (for now).

That's none of your business, you are banned from the forum. Remeber, you as a person are banned from the forum.

Post a good and helpful thing then hope for getting merit. Or you can buy a copper membership. If you buy Copper Member Then you will get the semi-power of a member.
buy copper membership : Here
or follow theymos  copper membership Rules: Here

@Gen3Coin

Maybe investigate some Time for do a few good Posts and replys and you should get some , but remember dont do Copy and Paste (plagiarism)  because that will get you banned  !

And I would love to have 25 million BTC.  I'd ask to strike up a deal, but I'm afraid you will never be able to raise the 25 million BTC.  However, if the reason you want a merit is so you can wear a signature, you may buy a copper membership. It's very reasonable, and you don't have to beg.

I think that applies to the newest group of Merit sources that didn't apply explicitly for that task. Me, for example.

If there are merit sources with 10/months and the average is 185, then they are very unevenly distributed.
That means that if all merit sources were spending all their sMerits we would stand at about 5000 per week. 5000 more are the merits that could be achieved - in theory - if all those that have received sMerits would spend them in the same month.

So 10.000 per week currently is the absolute maximum. I guess it's simply not possible to achieve an amount of significantly more than approximately 2/3 of that value, or 6000-7000 per week. There are always people that don't understand the merit system fully, are too lazy to give merits, do not care about them at all, do have received an uneven number - or go inactive. The last possibility can apply also to merit sources.

So if we want to get back to 10000/week we would need merit sources generating at least 30-40K per month.

I don't know who are you talking about. I would appreciate you if there was a statement.
However, currently,
The avg is- 185 although it depends on spending sMerits. I think most of the merit sources are active and they are spending their sMerits regularly. More sources are needed for only some specific local boards, otherwise, we do have sufficient sources, IMO.
Don't forget to calculate the amount in total-
22045+11022+............ for every 2 merits, we are getting 1 sMerits. Therefore, it's also our duty to spend sMerit regularly on good quality posts for ensuring a more stable situation so that newbies or other members can't complain.

I think we'll never return to the initial values of 5-10K per week if the forum staff does not add significantly more merit sources. Remember that these high values were only possible because of the "automatically-generated merits", above all those received by high ranks.

There are also merit sources receiving only 10 sMerits per month, which isn't exactly helping to solve the problem. I would propose at least 20 or 30 as a minimum, so they're encouraged to give out a merit every time they see a new merit-worthy post. I think the low value here is a security measure, a kind of "probation" period to prevent abuse by the new merit sources, but once they've shown no suspicious activity in a month or two they should be given a higher amount.

---

This week saw the 4.9% decrease of total distributed merits (at 4173) compared to the median of previous period (at 4390). It means that despite of this week rise, total merits distributed has been a little bit below normal weekly figure, at 4390.
When the current week’s figure accounted for, the median of the whole period, from 05/03/2018 to 11/11/2018, fell from 4390 to 4379.

---

Additionally, this one is weekly statistics based on LoyceV data source, which started since the first day of merit system.
I guess there are very limited, insignificant difference between data sources from @LoyceV and @coinlocket$.
The first row presents statistics for full weekly data, from 24/01/2018 to 07/11/2018.
It shows that the median and interquartile range are 4492 and (3854 – 6707), respectively. Whilst the minimum and maximum figures are 1658 and 30948, respectively.
The second row presents statistics for truncated weeky data (first four weeks truncated). After excluding extreme values in the first four weeks, the median of the period from 19/02/2018 to 07/11/2018 is 4367, which is very closely to the figure drawn from @coinlocket$ data. Addtionally, the interquartile range is 3181 to 5487. Minimum and maximum values are 1658 and 8806, respectively. There is a little bit difference in the maximum figures, 8806 from @LoyceV and 9684 from @coinlocket$ data sources.

---

A Time-series on Bitcointalk Forum's weekly distributed merits (general trend has been gradually downwards).
My topic dedicated to Time Series Analysis on Distributed Merits in the forum (daily, weekly, monthly)

Weekly update, we have an up after the sources recharge, still very low.

The official average can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=stats. It states that the average registrations per day is 434,81 (top right).

Nevertheless, I figure that average is taking into account multiple years, as can be seen by doing the following:

-   The total number of members is 2.457.608 (top left)

-   The above number is also visible at the bottom of the following page: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php

-   You can retrieve certain historical data using archieve.is (http://archive.is) or ThewayBackMachine (https://archive.org/web). If you search for the above link, you should find timestamped snapshots of the data from different historical moments. Then simply compare the numbers and divide by the number of days in between.

You can try to be more precise playing around with the hour differences too, but day difference should suffice for numbers that are large and a big enough timeframe.

Merit is not awarded for being "polite, tended to learn and share", but due to the content of the posts. If those factors you mention concur on decent posts, the fine, but you could just as well be merited for being rude and barely making any posts.

There are something like 1.200 account created daily as of late (official stats differ, but I compared number of users now to those a month ago). In a month that would be 36K accounts, and in two months 72K accounts roughly. There is no way admin/mods are going to go over a potential of 36K new accounts every month to see if they have any decent posts that are meritable. That is why the Merit System has many people with the potential of awarding sMerit (Merit Sources and specially regular users) in the first place, and also to introduce diversity of criteria.

Arguably, there could be more people involved in the awarding game, but that is a different matter which we often discuss here on Meta.

I think your proposal is not viable because we are many members and every day we are more. It is a titanic task what you propose. Who are those interested in climbing the rating? ourselves. On our part, the goal is to improve our rating. I can only advise you to create a good day a post or maybe a comment that is useful and of interest to the community and you will have more chance to earn a merit.
A tip mentions your source if your post requires it.
Good luck!

Really?
Personally, I don't think that the suggestion should be implemented at any odds.
At least, in short term, there will be no significant negative impacts if this approach implemented, might be months later.
Nevertheless, years later, the approach will definitely result in a new massive spambies automatically ranked up to Junior members. After that, they will certainly start to spam the forum again.
One more thing, which type of rank for them? I suggest a Effortlessly Junior Member for them.
If I remembered exactly, the suggestion raised by so many guys months ago, shortly (days/ weeks after the implementation of merit system).
To sum up, the suggestion should not be taken into consideration and implemented at any odds.

---

Let spambies to be who they are, be spambies forever; don't give them generous opportunities to move upwards effortlessly. They should only be able to rank up with their intensively works

If you can't earn a single merit, how will you earn the next?
There has nothing to review here. If you deserve merit, you will get it easily. Lots of member have already been ranked up to high rank. Weren't they newbie like you? I was also a newbie and I started with 0 merit. It's nothing hard if you take bitcointalk as bitcointalk.

There are suggestions made on meta section, airdropping merit to unmerited posters by;

1. Having a thousand activity will give you 1 merit.
2. And there are few users suggesting to reward merit on those people who have a certain amount of good reports.

The greatest suggestion would be #1, IMO.

I think merit system is good starting from member status and above, but being newbie for a lot of months just seems like growing digital abyss... Yes, most of my posts are bounty reports or thoughts in altcoin discussion of my first experiences in this world and chance that some merit source will notice them and reward is miserable!
My proposal is that new members after month or two are reviewed manually by administration and at least merits for jr.member status could be rewarded if person seem polite, tended to learn and share. And above ranks just will come (will be earned) naturally by time when deserved.
That is my suggestion for forum development

I don't think so. Why someone will be evaluated based on other's performance.

The same   We only can say "maybe". Well, if someone is able to send smerit on good quality posts, s/he can apply.

Let's visit my topic, created hours ago.
Time Series Analysis on Distributed Merits in the forum (daily, weekly, monthly)
One of time series plots in my topic


Where did you get the figure?

It's only a prediction. It will mainly depends upon the performance of current merit sources.
If newest sources do their works well, without abusements, violations on basic rules for merit sources; Theymos might add more merit sources.
In contrast, total merit sources might decrease significantly.