Topic: Merit rewards for Signature Campaigns! - page 4. (Read 1953 times)
What a dreadful idea. I was tempted to put everyone who supports this idea on my ignore list. Campaign managers should have no rights to give merit or sMerit in my opinion.
Upon joining signature campaign the participants who doing their best just to post a quality in order to completed the given weekly task, i think the CM's had noticed about these problem to reduce shit poster member here in forum.
Exactly, and to the fact that the Campaign Managers have to review their posts in that specific week accordingly. The participants will now be able to engage into a more sensible quality posts. So the so called
Besides one of the goals of the new system is to patronize those people who're worthy to rank up, meaning their posts are qualified enough to receive such Merit. But the thing is, not every quality posters are being noticed at all. And by this, it will be just another motivation for them.
I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.
So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
I think this would be a great idea .So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
In my suggestion, the managers can just pick one suitable member to be given a Merit. Giving all of them are really a huge problem since there are a lot of members in a Signature Campaign.
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
The participants would have to post a good quality post to earn some merit while earning some stakes,
I think this would boost other forum users to make a good quality post instead of posting some nonsense replies.
Well, yeah. Take a look at over 90% of the altcoin bounty campaigns.
After some research, I have to agree with you. Its a shame for them to not doing their job, that suppose to be one of their responsibilities. So that much number of the campaigns with regards to altcoins have this issue.
There has to be some reason behind this: Is it because the number of participants are greater, that's why they don't have that much of the time to monitor or to review the posts of every members joined ; or are they just making this as an excuse just to make their work less tiring (sarcastically).
But then, since I've pointed out the Campaign Managers, guess I have also included the bounty campaign managers too. Well just to be clear, we know that the majority of ACMs(Altcoin Campaign Managers) don't have the reputation that of those BCMs(Bitcoin Campaign Managers) on the other side have. What I'm trying to say is that those people who've been gained their reputation as being a CM.
Yes I've totally separated the ACMs and BCMs, but that's not intended, its just simply a legend. Because there are BCMs that also manages Altcoin Bounty Campaigns.
Well, the system is still new so I think the members are still coping up with this new system. I think this will be normal after some time.
The members here adjusted with this new merit system, yes it is new for all and some are go with flow by admins decisions but there some opposed on this new merit system. Lucky for those who rank up last update of ranks, like Hero and Legendary rank they had nothing to worried about rank up besides it is the same profit when participating signature campaign.Upon joining signature campaign the participants who doing their best just to post a quality in order to completed the given weekly task, i think the CM's had noticed about these problem to reduce shit poster member here in forum.
Still participants shouldn't hold back their smerits,we can still see that people aren't ready to give their smerits easily.
Well, the system is still new so I think the members are still coping up with this new system. I think this will be normal after some time.
I don't understand the logic,all want merits from others but one isn't willing to give the other that easily.I think we all should change our mentality and give others merit more often.
People has their own interpretation of quality post and as I've say this system is still new for them. We don't need to push them to merit other people more often since they might take it in the wrong way. In the mean time let's just sit back and see where it goes.
Let's say a campaign has maybe 50 participants.So the campaign manager selects the best person to post the best quality posts in that particular week and he can ask the other participants of the Campaign to merit him 1 point each.
I think the CM can do that since he can give some examples of some posts he give Merits but I think asking the participants to Merit that member is kind of a little over the top? But yeah, I think they can Merit the member without the CMs saying it right?
Still, its the campaign managers decision on how they will give merits.
It really depends on them if they will be giving Merits or not. They always check their member's post weekly so I think it is common for them to encounter a quality post of 1 or 2.
Its also the responsibility of all the members to give merits on quality posts that they encounter daily in the forum which can also help.
That is the reason of the whole new system.
Don't just give all the responsibility to a person which they are not accountable. It will just reflecting on how you really eager to have merits over the forum.
He don't give anyone any responsibility, I think he is just pointing this out since the idea of the CMs is to check their member's post weekly and also this is just one of the suggestions you can read about the new System.
Let's say a campaign has maybe 50 participants.So the campaign manager selects the best person to post the best quality posts in that particular week and he can ask the other participants of the Campaign to merit him 1 point each.
I think the CM can do that since he can give some examples of some posts he give Merits but I think asking the participants to Merit that member is kind of a little over the top? But yeah, I think they can Merit the member without the CMs saying it right?
I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.
So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
Sir I think that your idea is really out of the box and is an excellent idea which should be implemented.Yeah the campaign managers mostly review each and every post of the participants,so they should consider giving merit points to the best posts.So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
In my suggestion, the managers can just pick one suitable member to be given a Merit. Giving all of them are really a huge problem since there are a lot of members in a Signature Campaign.
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
The limited number of smerits is a problem,but hey!! I have an idea which may solve this problem.
Let's say a campaign has maybe 50 participants.So the campaign manager selects the best person to post the best quality posts in that particular week and he can ask the other participants of the Campaign to merit him 1 point each.
Yes they have a right to merit their posters but no offense here it's not the manager's responsibility to give merits to their quality posters it's not their problem that some posters don't get merits and also, if a poster applied to join in that campaign right?
It might not be the CMs responsibility, then who has then? It is not their problem, true, its not really have to be a problem, in this case its just going to be an incentive to the participants for them to even strive more to have quality posts.
First, I think there should be a place where a post with no or very low merit count and few days age could be added for moderation and eventually awarded with merits. There always will be a chance to get merits for quality content.
Second, especially now early on there should be few merit sources searching for quality posts to award authors with merits.
I think this will be a lot easier to implement merit system with this two additional sources.
Score! Would you mind explaining about the second type of merit sources.Second, especially now early on there should be few merit sources searching for quality posts to award authors with merits.
I think this will be a lot easier to implement merit system with this two additional sources.
1. Which kind of ranked-users will be allocated the second merit sources?
2. Which purposes of the second merit sources?
3. How to ensure closely interactions between two type of merit sources in the forum?
Best regards,
I think this will add burden for campaign managers having 100 participants then will review 25 post each just for is to gain some sort of merits though they really try their best looking at the quality of our post but this one will require them to read deeper. How about those managers having 2 to 3 campaigns running? I also want some merits but there are really managers who give merits so O don't think this is necessary
Burden? Really? Are you serious right now - that is their job for God's sake, its their duty to monitor and review the posts of all the participants. Are you saying that not all CMs are doing their jobs and just looking at the start post count and the end post count - not the exact post of the participants? Man that's some serious issue right there.
Well, yeah. Take a look at over 90% of the altcoin bounty campaigns.
Yes they have a right to merit their posters but no offense here it's not the manager's responsibility to give merits to their quality posters it's not their problem that some posters don't get merits and also, if a poster applied to join in that campaign right?
It might not be the CMs responsibility, then who has then? It is not their problem, true, its not really have to be a problem, in this case its just going to be an incentive to the participants for them to even strive more to have quality posts.
I think this will add burden for campaign managers having 100 participants then will review 25 post each just for is to gain some sort of merits though they really try their best looking at the quality of our post but this one will require them to read deeper. How about those managers having 2 to 3 campaigns running? I also want some merits but there are really managers who give merits so O don't think this is necessary
Burden? Really? Are you serious right now - that is their job for God's sake, its their duty to monitor and review the posts of all the participants. Are you saying that not all CMs are doing their jobs and just looking at the start post count and the end post count - not the exact post of the participants? Man that's some serious issue right there.
I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.
So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
In other words you want the campaign managers merit their participants who posts very constructively? is that want you to say? Yes they have a right to merit their posters but no offense here it's not the manager's responsibility to give merits to their quality posters it's not their problem that some posters don't get merits and also, if a poster applied to join in that campaign right? so, he/she already accepted the rules and regulations of the manager. They must follow it in order to get paid. If the posters want to get merited then post constructive and helpful posts. This forum isn't made for earning money okay? Iust be happy that you are paid to post here in bitcointalk.So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
In my suggestion, the managers can just pick one suitable member to be given a Merit. Giving all of them are really a huge problem since there are a lot of members in a Signature Campaign.
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
I think this will add burden for campaign managers having 100 participants then will review 25 post each just for is to gain some sort of merits though they really try their best looking at the quality of our post but this one will require them to read deeper. How about those managers having 2 to 3 campaigns running? I also want some merits but there are really managers who give merits so O don't think this is necessary
Yeah i agree with this one and a example of that is yahoo.
I think this will add burden for campaign managers having 100 participants then will review 25 post each just for is to gain some sort of merits though they really try their best looking at the quality of our post but this one will require them to read deeper. How about those managers having 2 to 3 campaigns running? I also want some merits but there are really managers who give merits so O don't think this is necessary
First, I think there should be a place where a post with no or very low merit count and few days age could be added for moderation and eventually awarded with merits. There always will be a chance to get merits for quality content.
Second, especially now early on there should be few merit sources searching for quality posts to award authors with merits.
I think this will be a lot easier to implement merit system with this two additional sources.
Second, especially now early on there should be few merit sources searching for quality posts to award authors with merits.
I think this will be a lot easier to implement merit system with this two additional sources.
This seems wrong to me. If someone is a merit source, that shouldn’t give them the right to have other members advertising for them for free.
There's nothing wrong about this, as it is only a suggestion not a proposal. I am not even against the Merit System in fact I am very aware of it, but not all members of this forum do. So I've come up to the conclusion that I would create such topic.
As mentioned here, we wanted to give opportunities to those members that are not familiar and are confused about the Merit System.
You make an important point! This approach will give newbies opportunities to get more knowledge, information, to be more familiar with the mechanism of our forum.
If those ones dont come from farming accounts, they will readily to do that, I guess. Not bad!
If those ones dont come from farming accounts, they will readily to do that, I guess. Not bad!
Since Bounty Campaign managers are well known members of the community and each of them with his own reputation, it should be not too difficult to spot which Bounty Manager deserves to become a merit source and who not. This is actually a very good idea.
I don't think people will likely share sMerits. Also there is an issue that most of the users didn't understand Merits vs sMerits. This system should be told in a better way...
How would you explain the system? I believe it's fairly straightforward. All you really need to know is in theymos' announcement thread.
I do agree, however, that not many people are inclined to share sMerits yet. People who don't receive any aren't inclined to give any, and nor do they receive any additional sMerits. Maybe specific guidelines on its use will help?
I also think that sMerits should be displayed on the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=[userid] page. Some confused users might not know where to see them.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Why you guys think that this system is making everything hard? I mean we should have faith in ourselves so that we can contribute to the forum in right manner. Believe in the legends, and sources made by the moderators they will come across your quality work and will merit you surely.
Whats the hurry anyway? Just to rank up for the sake of money? I don't find that right way to go with it. You can seriously do your job and you will have some recognition sooner or later. Managers are not seating empty, they might have some more work to look after. FYI: Just the thought that came after reading your whole post, but this line made me confuse. Nothings hard in trying mate!
Jump to: