-snip-
Is there is a limit of Members Using merit source rank. From limit i mean to say that New application limit for merit sources
This is the requirements.
If you want to be a merit source:
1. Be a somewhat established member.
2. Collect TEN posts written in the last couple of months by other people that have not received nearly enough merit for how good they are, and post quotes for them all in a new Meta thread. The point of this is to demonstrate your ability to give out merit usefully.
3. We will take a look at your history and maybe make you a source.
I assume the "established member" requirement is not about ranking, you need to show your contribution and loyalty as a member.
Contribution is how your activities (posts) are spent in certain forum sections and consistently so that you are well known (in a positive direction). Maybe this will take years. Loyalty is how you spend your sMerit to appreciate the contributions of others to the forum. Your objectivity may also be considered.
You seem to be twisting words by getting into so many details noorman0.
Theymos left the term "established member" vague/ambiguous; however, you interpreted such words to have attributes of "contribution" and "loyalty".. then you further defined what that means - which goes further in the weeds of your own interpretation rather than anything that theymos had actually said.... I will say that I do agree somewhat that making contributions would likely help to provide evidence (through actions) in terms of any member showing level of "established"... .. even though such term is likely purposefully left vague by theymos.
By the way, there are thousands of members who likely fit the definition of "somewhat established," so being "somewhat established" seems to serve as a mostly directional requirement to be considered as a potential merit source member..... that requirement does seem to more clearly eliminate newbies from eligibility.. and as you seem to imply by your insertion of the not bad "contribution" framing, it could even eliminate longer term members if they do not post or long on very often.. .
If the merit system we are using now is working perfectly, I do not see any reason anyone should bring a proposal. What was merit meant for? To eliminate low quality posts and it is working perfectly, yet new members are ranking up.
"working perfectly" is a pretty strong concept. I doubt that any "serious" assessments would come to that conclusion. With most things, including the merit system, there are going to be trade offs.... just leaving matters to the discretion of various individuals (such as 111) is going to have trade-offs, and even a system that rotates the 111 more would have trade offs, too... remember at one point, theymos had said that the merit system may well allow for the elimination of the trust system, but 4 years after the merit system went into effect, the forum's trust system seems to still be "live and kicking".... until it's not.. hahahahaha
I’ve always been a defender of "the more eyes on the table, the better". Currently, the Merits Sources have a 34.139 sMerit allocation per 30 days. Looking
over the forum’s overall sent sMerits per month, we’ve been on a 24k-28k per month range sin July 2021’s Merit Source tweaks. That is a pretty stable range, and the charts on the Dashboard show the good the tweaks did in terms of sMerit awarding, since the prior months were in the 13k-16k range. There are more factors to consider, as this is not just a “sent” quantitate matter (number of receivers, content, etc.).
It’s clear that not all Merit Source’s sMerits are depleted each month, and even more so considering that the 24k-28k monthly factual range accounts both for Merit Source and regular user’s awarded sMerits. Hell, even with my awarding tricks I fall short, and although I could just double or triple my awarding habits beforehand, I find it hardish to do so. By that I mean that we shouldn’t expect Merit Sources to send all their sMerits monthly per se, as each one’s awarding criteria, amounts, time, will and interest will invariably be different both from one and other, and over time.
Could more Merit Sources be beneficial overall? Probably, from the point of view of diversity in criteria. Nevertheless, the greatest issue, I figure, is being able to precisely select people whom to trust (and have the time for it), and in addition, are indeed going to have a criteria that is diverse.
Thanks for that analysis and some of the data, DdmrDdmr.
In some sense, you seem to be providing justification for the point that perhaps some merit source members have been allocated way more smerits than they can handle....If the average per merit source member is more than 300 per month, but the merit source members are ONLY able to send around 200 per month, then it would seem justifiable that the quantity of their source is reduced to make it more practical for them to carry out their sending of smerits.
And, the other point about merit source members being sloppy with their sending of smerits likely has some truth to it, too....so if any source member is having trouble spending even close to his/her smerits each month on a regular basis, then maybe a reduction in half or even 1/3 would put fewer pressures on such merit source members.., it does seem a strange way of framing the matter, especially when there had been forum threads in which merit source members were proclaiming not to have enough smerits in their allocation... though we have not seen as many of those complaints recently, right?
Don't get me wrong. I understand how theymos may have some level of dilemma regarding choosing and/or adding to merit source members, so even if he has attempted to create some algorithmic assistant tools for himself, it is likely that he still finds a decent amount of manual labor that is involved in making tweaks to the merit system. There might be a need for a merit source czar.. but that would likely create another headache for theymos.. presuming that he is capable of getting headaches.... hahahahaha.
There was one more point that I was going to make, but I have typed myself into a state of forgetfulness... oh well.
... oh.. I think I remember my other point...
It seems to me that the monthly spending of smerits should at least meet, if not exceed the number of smerits assigned each month. Call me crazy or whatever, but surely smerits expire, and I would consider that a goal should be that any month, the overall average of source members spending their sources should exceed 90%, and surely I understand that on a sporadic basis, source members are not able to spend their smerits, but I have already made the point that if they are not regularly spending their monthly smerit allowance, then their source should likely be reduced in order that they are able to accomplish the spending of such smerits. Again, am I being too unrealistic because if smerit source allocations are reduced then there is work that is involved to identify and to assign new merit source members who are ready, willing and able to send out whatever smerits have been allocated to them.
By the way, I do understand that dynamic that a smerit source who has 100 per month, might show as having around 90% allocation if s/he were to always maintain 10 smerits in reserves - even if spending all of the assigned smerits before they expire. However, part of my point regarding the monthly spending of smerits should at least reach the number of smerits assigned is that each spent smerit has halvening abilities to be sent, even though those non-source smerits do not have any time limit on them in being sent, I still would like to presume that a decent amount of the rippling of non-source smerits end up getting spent in order to bring 90% of the merit sources up to each month being able to reach the smerit allocation amounts rather than consistently being 18% to 30% below that as your 24k-28k per month spending amounts seem to show, DdmrDdmr... I already, anticipate that I am going to be labeled as "unrealistic" when I assert that smerit spending numbers should at least meet the monthly allocation numbers.... call me stubborn if you must.
I am only seeing one merit source out of the 111 mentioned. What happened to the rest merit sources?
You don't need to see Merit sources, most users (shitposters excepted) can send Merit. You too can Merit good posts, and judging by the 3 sMerit you sent to
this post, you can definitely improve on that.
Hahahahaha
I had to laugh out loud to this response, Loyce. It seems some members seem to want to present ways that other members can improve upon their sending of smerits - and surely if we scrutinize how members send out smerits, some of "I am holier than thou" implications would not stand up to even basic scrutiny.