Merit reallocation based on activity?

Thirdspace

hero member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 738

Mixing reinvented for your privacy | chipmixer.com

Quote from: jambola2 on January 29, 2018, 08:13:27 PM

Quote from: flip4flop on January 29, 2018, 08:09:48 PM

I think there should be a review of someones account for after an extended period of time. If the person is making quality posts in a certain section and is just not getting merit I dont thinkt its really fair. If he is spamming that is one thing but if he is just forgotten about there should be some sort of QC process so good posters dont just quit.

Gah this really misinterprets what the forum seems to be looking for.

Should higher ranks be the only or primary motivation for being here? If so, then that's messed up.

I think users should generally be here for the discussion, and the merit system seems to slow the rate of rank advancement, and mainly stop users who are here just for that.

I agree with jambola2's opinion (second sentence) but disagree on the end part of third sentence.
If users stay here for the discussion, the merit system won't stop or slow them down
because up to Jr.Member or Member (req 10 merits) is still attainable by being actively posting
and limits on posting and PMs are based on activity not rank itself...
so even with low rank and high activity still able to join discussion threads with no problems
but for joining signature campaign with attractive payment rate, higher rank is needed (probably soon merit is required too)

jambola2

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1038

Quote from: flip4flop on January 29, 2018, 08:09:48 PM

I think there should be a review of someones account for after an extended period of time. If the person is making quality posts in a certain section and is just not getting merit I dont thinkt its really fair. If he is spamming that is one thing but if he is just forgotten about there should be some sort of QC process so good posters dont just quit.

Gah this really misinterprets what the forum seems to be looking for.

Should higher ranks be the only or primary motivation for being here? If so, then that's messed up.

I think users should generally be here for the discussion, and the merit system seems to slow the rate of rank advancement, and mainly stop users who are here just for that.

flip4flop

full member

Activity: 378

Merit: 135

I think there should be a review of someones account for after an extended period of time. If the person is making quality posts in a certain section and is just not getting merit I dont thinkt its really fair. If he is spamming that is one thing but if he is just forgotten about there should be some sort of QC process so good posters dont just quit.

B4RF

hero member

Activity: 813

Merit: 507

Quote from: Thirdspace on January 29, 2018, 04:43:17 AM

Quote from: B4RF on January 29, 2018, 02:37:11 AM

I was thinking the same and in addition to that I already posted my idea to even integrate the merit into the activity rank

Quote from: B4RF on January 28, 2018, 02:00:45 PM

Quote from: theymos on June 18, 2013, 03:44:42 PM

The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)

We would have used:
activity = min(time * 14, posts, merit)

your formula would make merit as higher importance than posting itself
while the idea of merit is appraising the quality of the post not the quantity of the post
with your formula, people will not raise in rank at all unless he gets merits

imagine someone's been posting one post/day for 1 year = 365 posts = 365 activity
with your formula he will be newbie forever if he hasn't received any merits
week2: min(14, 14, 0) = 0 and a year later week52: min(364, 365, 0) = 0
and for that reason, he would still have newbie limits for posting, PMs limit and can't post images
I would support fine tuning the merits with some limits just like putting a limit on activity gain/week

I understand your point but when someone actually has an account for one year and has never received any merit, maybe he doesnt deserve a different account then newbie because he never posted anything usefull?
And if no one ever gave him merit although his post quality is fine then he could easily ask in the meta thread for a merit source to check a selection of his posts.

Thirdspace

hero member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 738

Mixing reinvented for your privacy | chipmixer.com

Quote from: B4RF on January 29, 2018, 02:37:11 AM

I was thinking the same and in addition to that I already posted my idea to even integrate the merit into the activity rank

Quote from: B4RF on January 28, 2018, 02:00:45 PM

Quote from: theymos on June 18, 2013, 03:44:42 PM

The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)

We would have used:
activity = min(time * 14, posts, merit)

your formula would make merit as higher importance than posting itself
while the idea of merit is appraising the quality of the post not the quantity of the post
with your formula, people will not raise in rank at all unless he gets merits

imagine someone's been posting one post/day for 1 year = 365 posts = 365 activity
with your formula he will be newbie forever if he hasn't received any merits
week2: min(14, 14, 0) = 0 and a year later week52: min(364, 365, 0) = 0
and for that reason, he would still have newbie limits for posting, PMs limit and can't post images
I would support fine tuning the merits with some limits just like putting a limit on activity gain/week

B4RF

hero member

Activity: 813

Merit: 507

I was thinking the same and in addition to that I already posted my idea to even integrate the merit into the activity rank

Quote from: B4RF on January 28, 2018, 02:00:45 PM

Maybe it would have been best not to create a new value for the merit but simply use the activity the same as it is used for time and activity right now.

So instead of this

Quote from: theymos on June 18, 2013, 03:44:42 PM

The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)

We would have used:
activity = min(time * 14, posts, merit)

and everyone would have gotten the same initial merit as his activity at the time of the change.

This way nobody would have been affected in his current rank by a positiv or negative direction and we would still only use activity instead of an additional counter on all accounts.

tuanbct95

newbie

Activity: 168

Merit: 0

Quote from: iphmp159 on January 28, 2018, 11:25:00 PM

Agree! Admin should adjust merit allocated to each users based on both their ranks and their current activities. By now, only Hero members who have at least 775 activities are exception of original merit allocations.

Totally agree with your idea on re-allocation merit scores for users who have different number of activities.

iphmp159

member

Activity: 118

Merit: 10

Agree! Admin should adjust merit allocated to each users based on both their ranks and their current activities. By now, only Hero members who have at least 775 activities are exception of original merit allocations.

Yokonaumiyaki000

member

Activity: 308

Merit: 11

Quote from: flip4flop on January 28, 2018, 10:04:13 PM

I was just thinking about it today. While it does not truly affect me as I am still aways out from ranking up I know I see alot of the complaints about people who were very close to the next rank. While I truly support the idea of a merit system I think it would be a good idea to revisit what everyone started at. If you started with merit that was an overall percentage of how close you were to the next rank you would not feel as you were that far behind. I am not sure if that is something that has been talked about or is possible but I think with that in place it would ease some of the heartburn for guys who may have been just a few days or so away from ranking up.

I agree, although i just joined the forum, i know someone who's stoked about ranking up to sr member then the merit system was introduced. I missed the face he makes everytime he would tell me that he's only weeks away into becoming a sr member, it feels like he had lost all hope into gaining another 150 merits. This made me think that gaining merit would be hard, although there are some generous highranks who provide for the newbies. But for members and full members and even sr members. i think they're the most affected in this merit system.

flip4flop

full member

Activity: 378

Merit: 135

I was just thinking about it today. While it does not truly affect me as I am still aways out from ranking up I know I see alot of the complaints about people who were very close to the next rank. While I truly support the idea of a merit system I think it would be a good idea to revisit what everyone started at. If you started with merit that was an overall percentage of how close you were to the next rank based on activity you would not feel as you were that far behind. I am not sure if that is something that has been talked about or is possible but I think with that in place it would ease some of the heartburn for guys who may have been just a few days or so away from ranking up.

Topic: Merit reallocation based on activity? (Read 231 times)