Topic: Merit rewards for Signature Campaigns! - page 5. (Read 1953 times)

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!

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...

It is one most amazing idea you have their buddy, I think it's okay if a bounty manager could give atleast 100merit point to everyone, I must quote everyone not to someone, based of course of the campaign rules. Of course depend also if the caliber of your post attract the manager's attention.

This seems very reasonable if you are thinking from the perspective of the camping participant. But as discussed already not everyone is familiar here and even with the signature campaign it will get tough for the managers to look through every single post and read it! Do you really think that it is practical approach? They do read every single post (or may be not  ) but the output couldn't be achieved as we think.

Instead of this, I think, we should ourselves start checking out the posts for those people who are in the same camping. For example, if I'm in the X campaign right now then I can focus on that group of people who are in the same campaign thus creating higher outputs as everyone in that campaign will focus on rest making the great odds to qualify.

Thus, if there are 50 participants in campaign then 49 can watch out the post of that 1 person (by checking the signature as identity while posting) and thus he is being getting evaluated by 49 different eyes and chances are there he will truly get rewarded and in faster ways yet quality wise.

This strategy can make focused groups according to the signature campaigns, however juniors, noobs will be ignored in the process. They can enrol themselves into sourced lists.

Or,

Newbie to Member ranked people should be allowed in the campaigns without the payment but for the sake of getting evaluated and earning the merits. This was everyone will be happy.

It might be unrealistic, mainly because managers of those signature campaigns might not have so many sMerits to send to pariticpants as a gift. Unfortunately, they might not be merit sources too. Hence, the idea is good, but unrealistic.

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.

Managers are not like theymos but I love the idea you have stated. If merit is just like payment then it would be great for all participants but rules are rule you get merit for genuine post. But now I think managers are requesting too have some merits before checking the application in every signature campaigns so it will be a good challenge. However, they can add some merit if the post is interesting and educative.

I've got a better idea...

Instead of rewarding with merits, reward for merits.

Campaign Managers could offer a bonus payment for campaigners that receive the most or a lot of merit over the term of the campaign (week, month, etc.). If you've earned the most merit you get a double payment. If you're in the top ten of people in the campaign receiving merit you get a 50% bonus.

That would further motivate signature campaigners to make the best posts possible!

You have the good point! However, there is a limited source of merit and campaign manager can't give lots of merit for the participants! Let's say, there are 30 participants with almost have idea and creativity in posting, how can campaign manager address merits in each of them?
For me, merit system is favorable for the person with lots of friend in BTT and who are superstars here in forum. Newbies who are starting to learn crypto will definitely cannot undergo with such changes.
In the end, we will follow the rules because this is for the goodness of the forum!

That's good buddy. At least we get a positive response from a campaign manager. 

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.


Yeah, that might be the consequence but I do think that even though this is not suggested there are still CMs that are giving Merits to their Members especially the worthy ones since they are always checking their members posts weekly.

Okay sorry for the 25 post I'd been on Alts more than Bitcoin threads. Merit contribute a lot to rank. So, if this is most likely to happen it will make Merit like tradable coins. Which I think is not intended so.

I wonder that Manager of those signature campaigns will have enough sMerits to send to all qualified-participants of their campaigns. That's the big problem, bro.

Even if they are merit source, they can not do that, personally.

Nice explanation TMAN, That's what i wanted to say smerits are not infinite as you can see. But.....but they are valuable for ranking up on this forum.
For example if you have 1.3k activity but not the required Merits then you will not reach legendary member status on the forum.

If you consider yourself a small campaign manager, what the hell are big campaign managers?

Managers should not be sources just because they manage campaigns.
Likewise, sources should not have to forfeit their position as one just because they manage campaigns.
Coming from a small campaign manager and small source.

If I come across a post I think deserves merit, I will give them some.
How I come across that post doesn't matter. I browse the forum for myself, I read posts during campaign payments.
Good posts are good posts to me, they are one and the same.

It depends on the manager but I think it does'nt make sense to gave merit to those members of his campaign because he is too busy doing that.They have no ability to gave it ,it was their rule and regulations ,,they paid us by working but they cannot gave merit to us.It was a conflict of interest in bitcointalk.

It's about time that we stop catering towards signature campaigns and start catering towards the discussion of cryptocurrencies. I would have to agree with Darkstar that campaign managers don't have a conflict of interest. In fact if they are reviewing the posts manually then they might be some of the best people to distribute points as they'll probably come across unmerited more often.

Disclaimer: Obvious bias, as I am a manager and a source

I fail to see how this is a conflict of interest. I gain no benefit by occasionally giving high quality posts I see while managing campaigns a merit. It's essentially the same as giving a random person a merit. Care to explain more?

I did suggest that campaign managers should not have the ability to award merit points. This avoids a conflict of interest. But we have to decide if Bitcoin Talk is a forum to talk about Bitcoin, or if it is a forum for the creation and discussion of crypto bounty.