Topic: Merit & new rank requirements - page 79. (Read 167726 times)

haha thanks for the help but i never liked cheat and ban from forums

You made me laugh, i didnt see this code since my child days and playing DOOM on my mighty PC in that time (just to reminder younger one 386 i 486 processors were killer in that time).
I gonna find this game again and play just for fun.

Easy: stop spamming!
But you won't do that. The only reason you want Merit, is so you'll get a higher rank, and earn more from spamming another useless ICO.

Confirmed! Let me try if quoting works too

You can use cheat codes. Anywhere within the forum type:
IDDQD to become immune from ban and remove limitations
IDKFA to fill up merit and activity

how to get merit quickly, i tried many ways but it still does not work, can any one give me some suggestions, please help me ...

Yeah, the merit system does nothing for bots or spam. It just stops them from rising through the ranks without getting merit. We should require some merit requirement to become Junior though because plenty of bots and spammers are still farming and spamming away on them which only requires 30 activity and anyone can get that by posting over a few periods.


This is never going to happen. We shouldn't be turning people away who actually want to come here for the forum's intended purpose to discuss or get help with things about bitcoin. We should look at tackling the issue with sig spam and bots in other ways though and with penalising or annoying regular users as little possible.

I am not entirely understanding your English, but are you suggesting that the site should temporarily stop allowing new users to sign up in order to combat spam?  Isn't that kind of like not allowing anyone to enter into a country (documented or not) because some of them might be terrorists?

I don't think ban for new users is a good idea since statistically in 10,000 accounts created someone will create an account only because he wants to actively participate in the forum.
The problem as usual is the bounty section, if you limit the bounty section to member + or jr with merit, a lot of spam will be removed as abusers will be no more able to join with 100+ accounts the same campaing like this one, he made 560 accounts only for abusing telegram / airdop campaing https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.42989933

There were few users in 2010,Then the user started to grow slowly. now the increase in the number of users has become much more. The increase in the amount of spam is increased due to the increase of the user, Because of which everyone is dissatisfied. Now spammer is not finished with this. There are many problems in the future.Now, for a limited time, it would have been better to turn off a new account open and ban spammers. then again start open a new account system entirely.
See the following picture, how fast the user has emerged since 2010

In the year 2018, the user is overflow

Yes, data distribution does change overtime, although not significantly for all ranks nor combinations. For example, if you delimit the dates to last running month (25/07/2018..24/08/2018) and compare the data to the full history aggregate we can see that:

-   Legendary (From Rank) barely has a variation of over 2 points in the sMerit awarded to any rank (in an other context 2 points is massive-  i.e. sales, but not here).
-   Hero on the other hand goes from awarding 19,81% of its awarded sMerit to the Member rank (Overall historical view), to 11,69% (one month view). That’s over an eight point decrease there. Hero’s assignment to Jr. rank goes from 6,13% to 10,11%, nearly four points increase more.

The above shows that distribution shifts overtime, partly due to causes I pointed out before, and that is why I would favour a view of last running month as a more accurate view (more aligned to day to day nowadays awarding habits).


Recently I created a topic called sMerit Senders & Receivers – Weight of top 100 and 200 weekly contributors. There we saw that the weight of the top 100 sMerit senders is massive (between 60% and 65% of monthly awarded sMerit as of late). Merit sources are likely within that group for sure, so taking them off the equation only covers 35%.40% of awarded sMerit by non-Merit Sources. The weight of Merits Sources is unfortunately such, that not considering them in the from/to rank sMerit awarding scheme would be a massive reduction from reality in my opinion.
On the other hand, If there were to exists a 100% non-equivocal list of Merit Sources, we could consider creating a flag to allow them to be filtered in/out (although you cound not distinguish between personal sMerit and source sMerit being awarded). Nevertheless, I can guess from the top 100/200 some of them, but not all of them (I often appear on the list too, not being a Merit Source).

@scrapers: If at all possible, limit scraping to new data only, to reduce forum load and get the data faster (the forum only allows one pageview per second). Try to use existing data scraped by other users. If I can provide some data, let me know.

The merits transactions are public: https://bitcointalk.org/merit.txt.xz

Then you can make your own script in any language(i don't know if there are ready tool, but i assume so) that grab the data from the forum profiles to get the rank or any other info you want.

How do you people scrap data from forum? Or is there some tools already built into
forum that do it automatically?

Btw, that application at

https://public.tableau.com/en-us/s/

is great find for me

After months and months, do you think anything is changed? Can you elaborate now a new set of datas without the sMerit spend from knowed sources to get a more truthful graph in the end?
Do you think if we only remove the knowed source merit (instead of removing them all since we do not know them all) do will have a similar graph?

@kvanko I will try to change on next update, ty for feedback!

First diagram is really bad, very hard to read, don't use this style, please. Liked other staff and the data itself tho. Keep it up.

I agree with that, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I also give a substantial part of my merits to other Legendaries. But maybe there's an effect that we Legendaries unconsciously value other Legendaries' posts higher than those that come from low-ranked members, even if they were of similar quality.

It's only an invitation to reflect on the practice. Not to propose to merit low-quality posts.

I disagree. Merit is meant to highlight good posts, no matter what the rank of the user is. That's why I give Merit to Legendary users too.
On the other hand, if you're a Member and have only a few sMerit to give, I can imagine they don't give them to a higher rank user, as it's "analogous to spitting over the railing at Niagara Falls".

Just a few comments to help contextualize the data and conclusions that may be derived:

- Rank is derived from the user profile, and is in a sense a snapshot of the user’s current profile. The ideal would be to have the implied ranks at the moment of the merit being awarded. Since we do not have that detail, what is used is the next best thing.
Nevertheless, this does imply, for example, that all sMerit to and from @Jet Cash are attributed to the Legendary rank, which is his current rank. In truth, he ranked-up a couple of weeks ago, so to be precise, most of his merit TXs should be really attributed to a Hero rank.

- The graphs cover all sMerit TXs since the Merit System start. Since there was more merit at the beginning, the initial TXs wheigh more than recent TXs.

- Both the above can be mitigated largely by delimiting the data to, let’s say, last running month or so (this can be done on the Merit Dashboard by narrowing the Date Range using the slider). This would be representative of what goes on "now" in the Merit System, kill initial TX wheight, and mitigate the change of rank effect mentioned above.
If the graph were to be redone with this criteria, the percentages would move up to 10 points in some cases, although I believe @d5000’s observations apply just the same.

It's interesting to see that users tend to favour users with a similar rank when they give out Merits. It seems defintively there's a kind of "division" between higher-ranked and lower-ranked users.

You said that merit sources are mostly Legendary Members, but then they give out most merits to Legendaries too. This may be related to the fact that some Legendaries are among the top quality posters, regularly earning big amounts of merits (e.g. with guides or posts about technical topics).

Interesting that Heros seem a bit more "egalitarian" than Legendaries, while lower ranked members prefer to give merits to other lower-ranked members.

The preference of lower-ranked members for other lower-ranked users may be related to the fact that many of them live mostly in the altcoin forums where merit sources and higher-ranked members are relatively scarce. But I'm only speculating.

My conclusion: Higher-ranked members who like the Merit system, should think about giving more merits to lower-ranked users to combat this "division". Maybe there is influence of some inconscient "group mentality"; that's counterproductive, I think.

Long time for this kind of update, keep in mind we can assune right now 80% of merit is given from merit source and 80% of merit source has the rank legendary, so the majority of the merit from the higher ranks is from sources!
For a perfect graph we need to remove sources.
I've removed data for admin, founder, mods, Vip and brand new since they have less than 0.0xxx % circulation of total merit.
Datas are from DdmrDdmr datas.


MERIT FROM -> TO