Topic: Merit & new rank requirements - page 76. (Read 167726 times)

To answer your question you should try to look what kind of posts get merits and where.

Is there a way to have a useful article for the community? I always try to use my knowledge to create value for the community but I have not been praised and granted a certificate of merit

Simply put, merit can be formulated as a social system that places rewards, positions based on ability or ability and not based on ascriptive factors.
In general, there is an assumption that merit is a system that allows the formation of a fairer and more professional order that will support the progress of the Forum.

Is there no policy that better assesses merit that must be observed in the merit system. As :
1. About organizing based on organizational functions through analysis
2. Oriented to the best talents, suggestions, answers that can be illustrated
3. Capacity building in reducing competency gaps
4. Appreciate appropriately with system changes, for example by applying things that are not burdensome and easy.

Well, as you may recognize, in late 2015, when I began with my participation in signature campaigns, BTC prices had been stagnant and going down for the two prior years, so accordingly during the beginning of my participation BTC prices were around $250 and they were going up during that time to peak in the $19k arena... so yeah, some of the campaigns were scrambling to figure out how to pay their participants when BTC were rising so rapidly (especially in 2017 and in late 2017).

These days, it would take a lot longer to earn 3 BTC through any kind of regular BTCTalk member (posting) participation in signature campaigns.

Nonetheless, I do understand also that signature campaigns can still constitute a fairly decent income for some members, depending on their local economies, and surely some of those financial incentives had ben screwing up the forum because of the incentive to spam or even farm accounts.. .so in the long run, if the forum is figuring out ways to filter out farmed accounts, then contributions will be better, and I also agree that a lot of members are likely giving merits based on quality of posts and the sharing of substantive ideas, rather than the turn off that comes from folks posting nonsense or directly seem to be attempting to scheme or scam other members.

The signature didn't play a role for the merit I got at all. In the very beginning I joined a project which turned out to be scam and of course I didn't got paid, lost a few months and decided not to join any campaigns as they were waste or time and the merit system came in the meantime. Then I was wearing no paid signature for a couple of weeks then joined one project of Tokensuite as I thought they were reliable, but unfortunately another disappointment.
Finally found  a campaign by izanagi narukami,  which was  only two or three weeks but I finally got paid.
During all that time I was receiving merit without any problems.
So the conclusion:  no matter if you are with paid signature for altcoins/bitcoins or without signature at all the merit are coming because of the content you are posting.

Well, i guess i did a mistake in choosing some word and made the sentences differ from what i mean.

Yes, signature campaign is used as many variable in the talks that happen in this forum, either it is good or bad. Well everybody has opinion on it but it is better if everybody can bring up evidence like you said JJG, i agree with you. Upon your experience, it is quite interesting if it is happened to me which came from a 3rd world country because with that amount, i can pay up my college fees till i graduated.

I agree, having a signature does not affect the number of merits that a person takes. Besides if we "accept" hundreds of accounts that are paid to write crap, I find better to pay more people who actually spend hard work when they write.

@everyone, If you look here, you can see how many people whit high merit also wear a signature. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=topusersat

You're already one step too far: it depends on the signature campaign. If someone wears a signature advertising some token for an ICO, and gets paid in tokens, I often don't read his post. If I don't read it, he won't receive any Merit for sure.
I know your signature campaign has a strict manager, mine too, but most of the ICO spammers don't care about anything. It's simply not worth reading all the crap that's posted.
FYI: I only started using a paid signature when I was a Full Member, and I'm currently only in my second campaign on this forum. If anything, these (strict) campaigns made me improve my posts, as I always feel like I'm going to be judged for what I post.

This may or may not have been a joke, but I don't think it's true. I don't have to agree with a post to Merit it, but I must believe the information is correct to do so. Example: this post of yours. I partially disagree, but it's worth reading.
The reason I merited JayJuanGee's post is explained here.

This isn't true. Only Merit sources aren't allowed to sell Merit.
Merit abuse isn't moderated, but you risk red trust from DT.

I thought that you had mentioned that you had the same signature campaign for the whole time.  Certainly, I was NOT questioning whether there is a bias against giving merits to signature campaigns.  I was only questioning your assertion of being on the same signature campaign for the whole duration of the merit system.


Exactly.  I agree, and I think that whiners and signature haters use the presence of a signature campaign as a nonsensical (and not supported by evidence) talking point.  I had various sponsored signatures for more than two years from late 2015 to early 2018, and I discontinued with signature campaigns largely because I was becoming irritated by their shifting around the payment amounts, and I considered that it was not really worth it for me to be hassled in keeping track about whether I was getting paid the proper amount... so without telling any signature campaign specifically, I just kind of became fed up with them from a personal management level.  Probably I did earn close to 3 bitcoins from my participation in signature campaigns in a bit over 2 years, so it was not a bad thing in terms of scraping together a few more bitcoins.

The current top 3 most merited user (LoyceV) is on ChipMixer's campaign.
The top 6, hilariousetc is also in the same campaign.
The top 8, Lutpin is using a paid signature.
The top 12, The Pharmacist is also with ChipMixer.

and the list goes on... actually, a big part of the top 100 most merited users are in a signature campaign. So, I think it's safe to assume that this doesn't mean a lot.

Yes, it is different. Back then i was on yahoo62278's campaign and now i am on a signature which managed by Zapo. Does it have any differences or bias or something? Isnt the talk is about someone not getting more merit just because they have signature on their profile? I am not saying me, but there are people who got many merits when they are using signature, so it is kinda different from rivange's hypothesis.

Yes.... exactamente..   My memory triggered further, too.

IIRC, it was the Yahoo8675309 campaign, or whatever those numbers are after Yahoo's name.

(don't ask why I remembered that - I'm kind of surprised myself...  )

Nice to see you’ve gone through the whole referenced thread, and not just to the referenced OPs, therefore getting the whole context.
To answer your questions:

A)   No, I did not separate personal signature from a campaign signature. I gave it a go, but there were so many distinct signatures that classifying them seemed rather painstaking. I believe I stated this in the original thread where the study was performed somewhere. Actually, what I really wanted at the time to group signatures by campaign and see where that led me, but since signatures differ per rank, and content of the signatures too, I had to give it a pass and settle for the simpler version of signature present/absent.

B)   The analysis only took into consideration merited members, so the considered user base is that of those that had achieved at least 1 sMerit at the time, thus disregarding all other users. That was the focus I intended really. I was therefore not concerned with forum members that has not achieved a single merit at the time, whether being active or inactive.

P.D. Thanks for the proper table format. I have since formatted data better, normally enclosed in code sections with padded spaces to align things properly (prior treatment on excel for the padding).

Well.. I merited your post from June 17th which states 76,97% of the merited posts, are merited within the 1st week! I like being on the minority of things I'm impressed with all the data you've gathered, I wasn't expecting those numbers!

I'm interested to know how did you calculate the following (I formatted for you into a table! ). I want to ask two things... A) Did you separate people wearing a personal signature and people wearing a paid signature? B) I'm sure a lot of registered members are inactive. Most of them, logically are inactive prior to 2017 and therefore prior to the boom of signature bounties, were you able to somehow filter these people out? Since they're inactive they're not going to get any merit!

Rank	%WithSignature	AvgTotalMerit_NO_Signature	AvgTotalMerit_Signature
Jr. Member	53%	3,52	3,11
Member	74%	8,67	9,71
Full Member	78%	10,20	12,31
Sr. Member	75%	16,11	15,71
Hero	74%	12,44	20,10
Legendary	74%	18,92	25,05

I won't dispute that you have been on a signature the whole time since the merit system was started, but weren't you in a different signature campaign in January/February, as compared with the one that you have now?

Back in June 2018, @ matthewoz101 opened a thread on the matter of the relation on merit and signatures (see Is it easier to earn Merit without a signature?). On the referenced thread, I checked out back then whether there was an influence on being merited depending on signature present/absent (see re: Is it easier to earn Merit without a signature?), and there did not seem to be one really.

In fact, for Heroes and Legendries it had a positive impact numerically, although it is likely due to the fact that for these ranks post more often and therefore gain more merits (there are obvious exceptions, but it is a plausible explanation for the 7 point difference in average merit for those using a signature).
Ranks below Heroes at the time seemed not to be influenced by wearing a signature in terms of average sMerit received.

The problem is not all the good posts were get merited so the merit distribution is not equal even the two good posts will get different amount of merits it based on how much people reading this and how much think that this is worthy to be merited.We are in scarcity for merit sources I think.
If you get caught for merit trading you will be negged so never try to use their service for rank up.

Merit buy sell is not permitted. If you see something like this, please report to the moderator. Then he will be banned.

Well, to  be honest. I was and am wearing signature since the day the merit was introduced back in January. I start this "new age" as a Full Member and now here i am with 341 merits, which mean i got 241 merits while i use signature. Maybe some people who read this will try and look into my merit history and will says that my merits are mostly from meta section. Guess what? People can post in meta but doesnt mean they will get merits, if the post is merited, then someone thinks that it is worthy enough to be merited. That is why i am proud of my merits where ever i got it from.

I guess, there is 2 different side of your case. While you got less with signature, some people just got the merit in a faster rate while using signature (i am not saying this is me).