Topic: Merit & new rank requirements - page 65. (Read 167726 times)

There are many newbie. saying the big member, help me give me 1 merit. This happened to me. Now the newbie saying for the senior member. Have a look at the image attached below.

Rising from 3580 to 9684, then dropping from 9684 to 4510.
This is what I expected to see after watching your previous thread (last week). There are many demoted Junior members who ranked up back to this rank with only one new merit earned after the day newest ranking system launched weeks ago.

As I suggested in other threads, it might be better if you, or someone else, can collect specific statistics on the total demoted Junior Members who ranked up back and till now has had only one merit (enough figure for ranking up back).
Not sure, but I guess those cases and total merits received by them accounted for dominant proportions of those abnormal sudden rises of merit distribution last two week.

I really hope that you or someone else can do it someday.

---

I spent a couple of minutes to run simple analysis and grap box plots from those merit data. Here you go:

(1) Basic statistics:
Notes:
Dropped data means I dropped the data of the week from 17/9/2018 to 23/9/2018 out of the analysis because this one is a extremely outlier.

As you all can see that the means of those two datasets (4876, and 47111 for Full, and Dropped datasets, respectively) are much different than the Medians (4440 and 4431, for Full and Dropped datasets, respectively).
This is one of magical meanings of the Median statistic. In statistics, Medians are called as 'true' means of variables.

Besides the Medians, with the current datasets, statistics outside 3903 and 5043 (for Full dataset) or 4820 (for Dropped dataset) can be called as potential outliers because they are outside the Q3 + 1.5 IQR or Q1 - 1.5 IQR, with Q1 ~ 25th quartiel; Q3 ~ 75th quartile; IQR ~ Interquatile range.

For example:
You can look back at the table above, for the full merit dataset, we have:
- 25th quartile is
- 75th quartile is
so, the IQR = 5043 - 3903 = 1140
Q3 + 1.5 IQR = 5043 +1.5*1140 = 6753
Q1 - 1.5 IQR = 3903 - 1710 = 2193.
For the case, weeks which has total merit distributed over 6.7k or below 2.2k should be taken into deeply consideration to find out where are the reasons behinds those un-normal merit distributions for those weeks. And, please remember that those ones are only 'Potential Outliers'.
From the current dataset, you can easily see two important things:
(1) There are four potential weekly outliers [the first three weeks on the top, and the second from the bottom of the table given above], and all of them have values above 6.7k. I don't remember what actually happened in March, but I guess there were some significant changes on those weeks, maybe more new merit sources added. Highly appreciated information to explain these Potential Outliers.
(2) More interestingly, none of them has value below 2.2k. Thanks merit sources, at least they have been actively worked and kept distributing allocated merits.

Over time, when we have more weekly data, the whole picture will be clearer, and more reliable.
By now, the dataset which I used from @coinlocket$ contains only 30 data point (30 weeks), it's not large enough.

So what does it mean in real life in the BTT forum? It means when we see the total merits distributed per week above 4.8k, we can start thingking of some potential internal changes in the forum, such as significant new active merit sources, or new rules/ systems implemented recently. Interesting, right?  
These potential outliers presented as red circle in the below box plots.

(2) Box plots and histograms:
Box plots presents both medians, interquartile ranges, potential outliers.
Historgrams present that whether data (merit distribution in this case) is normal distribution by following the bell curve, or un-normal distribution (by not following the bell curve).
2.1. Full data:
2.2. Dropped data:
One more time, as you all can see that both box plots, and histograms obviously present that these dataset on merit distributions are un-nonrmal distributions.

---

Notes:
- I will do a time-series analysis with given datasets from @LoyceV later.
- Highly appreciated anyone help with the sort of data in Excel format (I don't need excell file, if someone can get it, simply give me a snapshot of your sheet. It is enough for me, I will input those given figures manually into my sheet). Something like this one:
- I will dedicate my spare time to do it in my coming own topic. Stay tuned, please.

Yes.  This can be a bit of an experiment when you are not sure the method in which your smerits are replenished.

 


I believe that when the merit system was first introduced, there were some unexplained questions about how merit source smerits were going to be replenished, and the below-linked thread shows some discussion of the issue in which initially, the smerit algorithm was not functioning as intended, yet from what I could tell, theymos had largely been able to correct it, within about two weeks after the first 30 days had passed and merits were not being replenished.

Here is a link to the thread (seemingly the same thread that was subsequently referred to above by Steamtyme, too?):

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/source-replenishment-question-3041961

Furthermore, in early July there was a bit of a backlog of smerits that were rewarded to smerit sources based on previous errors in the algorithm.

In essence, source smerits are currently supposed to replenish exactly 30 days from when you spend them, so any merit source should be able to systematically track his/her smerit replenishment (or errors) if s/he were to chose to do that.

So, for example in your case, it appears that you spent smerits accordingly (assumingely source smerits):

September 16  = 3 smerits

September 17  = 13 smerits

September 18  = 5 smerits

September 19  = 3 smerits

Those smerits should replenish to your source bank of smerits 30 days from the time you spent them with the below amounts on the below dates:


October 16  = 3 smerits

October 17  = 13 smerits

October 18  = 5 smerits

October 19  = 3 smerits



I'm sure that a lot of members recognize a similar phenomena in which higher ranking members are providing a lot of decent content, and surely I have no problem spending smerits on those kinds of posts/members, and giving a bit of leniency to doesn't seem to be a bad thing, either - and likely many of us have made mistakes of giving merits to shitposers who we later realize did not really deserve the merit (or that someone later points out that the post had been plagiarized... ).  There are only so many hours in the day to attempt to figure it out, too..

I remember it being 30 days from when you handed out the Smerit.

They don't come in a lump sum, so if you handed out 5 one day and 10 the next . 30 days from the first day you would be topped up with 5, and the following day you would receive another 10.

Can't remember where I saw that.

Edit: Stupid me deleted my post, reposting now


I think it was them or VOD, but it was early on probably first month or so.

it is a nice idea to have that but honestly the Admin should be considerate. Reason is that Newbies are afraid of loosing a hard earn account TO BANNED. am not supporting the Multi account farming, am saying the rate at which account is been Banned should be considered please to avoid scarring members from creating post and thread.

Yeah, I thought my sMerit supply was going to get topped up faster than it has--I forget how many merits I got when Theymos made me one of the new sources, but I used them all up pretty soon after he did it and I've yet to get any more.  I figured on the beginning of the month, but I was wrong apparently.  

So does that mean I should get replenished 30 days from the time I was added as a source or from when I spent my last merit-source sMerit or something like that?  

I'm curious but not concerned, and I'll figure it out eventually.  Anyway, I took a look around the Economics section today and didn't see any real newbies worth meriting.  The last few posts I've merited were from relatively senior members, but they were certainly deserving of it.

Edit:
Lol, I can't remember where I read what I read either.  I think it was Jet Cash who posted it in a thread or something.

As S_Therapist already responded to you, your point(s) are lost upon me (and apparently on S_Therapist, too?).

Think about what you are saying.  The merit system was introduced in order to attempt to take a significant dent out of the farming of BCT accounts in order to commercialize payment and to attempt for shit posters to earn a quasi-passive income from shit posting.  The introduction of the merit system, and how the merit system was designed, was meant to address that problematic shitposting and farming of account development that seemed to have gotten exponentially worse in the past year or so (or possibly one year prior to the implementation of the new system).

Merit member sources was an attempt to put several humans (or at least seeming human to the extent merit sources are to be considered human) in the process of reviewing posts and recognizing good (or at least better posts) as compared to some posts that are more obviously shit posts.  Actually sometimes it is obvious what is shit posts and what is not, but other times, there can be some difficulties and errors in determining the good, bad and the ugly, and still seemingly humans are better at that (as contrasted with an algorithm or some other possible methodology).

Your suggestion of giving each member a renewing bank of smerits might not be a bad idea, but it likely would have a tendency towards taking us back nearly to the same place that we started.

Surely this current merit system is far from perfect, but I currently believe that we have seen some members who have been able to earn a decent amount of merits and to "shine" in this new merit system.  Accordingly, I remain of the tentative conclusion (as several more senior members have also asserted) that if you make genuine posts on subjects that interest you, and you attempt to interact with members in threads that are genuinely interesting to you, you have a very decent chance of earning a sufficient amount of merits to rank up over time - even though it could take a bit longer than it would have taken for you under the prior (pre-merit) system.

Surely, as the current merit system remains in play (or some variation as we have seen it already tweaked), there are likely to be identified some issues.. For example, if theymos recognizes a bit of a ranking up problem, then he might be able to make some further tweaks to what we already have in order to make that ranking up better, if the new system seems to be preventing some seemingly deserving members from ranking up in a reasonable timeline given their contribution(s) to the forum.

And the same story as previous continues....
If sMerits get refilled from time to time, what is the reason behind introducing it? Also, which areas are you talking about? Altcoin section? Merit Sources don't have enough time to find out 1 quality post among 100 posts. Sorry, but that's the reality.
Other than altcoin section, current number of Merit sources are quite enough.

Good to know it does not get decayed but it seems it also does not get refilled, it would be great if from time to time it gets refilled so people who are not posting in areas where merit sources are active have a chance or earning it.

That, alongside the possibility that the recently added merit sources are likely modest in terms of allowance, and may have emptied their pockets during the first week or two after been added. Well see if this allowance increases overtime, as I’ve read has happened to some Merit Sources in the past.

Huge drop! Seems abuers already has ranks up their alts

The referenced post author is himself. He is begging for merit. I just can't decide if he has delusions of grandeur and genuinely believes that post is the "best post ever made on the forum", or if he is so used to only being in threads with bounty reports and one line shitposts that a post with 4 whole lines to it is genuinely outstanding to him.

Then you still don't grasp what merit is all about, nor does the referenced post author understand how to use the search function. There is already a 49 page long thread on the topic: What happens to your Bitcoin when you Die? .

Your example is "classic report"  . If you dont break the mouse wheel flipping through the report, it isnt worthy of merit. Something like this, but even more.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46563212
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46563868

So lucky you got (bought? from your alts?) at least 1 merit in this bounty spam bs
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45742789

At least you can now wear signature and do more bounty!

https://youtu.be/LH-i8IvYIcg


(Try have a look at my sig.... i believe those are 3d worth some merits, cause are useful for the community providing informations on this crypto world. Matter of fact, i never complained if they got “fewer merit than expected”, cause i did those for spreading knowledge, not to earn any money)

What a load of horseshit. Oh my this generic, dribble hasn't received any merit in 9 hours oh my... Wish I had 50 to throw away before giving that even 1.

I probably wouldn't have tore it down so much if you weren't being a sniveling merit whiner. That has been discussed numerous times on the forum; hope you didn't really believe that was original in any sense. Try searching a little more.

I believe this is one of the best post have ever made on this forum but no one has really given any merit so far and it's really not encouraging to other users, I believe I should be getting like 50merit on this one https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46540318

Yep! That's the one! Thanks a lot!

Are you talking about Vod's BPIP project? Yes, it's quite interesting and useful. All logs are there of merited post.

There is at least one system that does that, I'm quoting the original post.
I remember I had found another site, with a more use-friendly UI but I couldn't find it in my bookmarks, sorry!