Topic: My contribution to a near-perfect Merit-based ranking system for Bitcointalk (Read 349 times)

1. Concerning  your number 1 question "How are the reviewer selected?"
*Here are my Answers:
It can be similar to how they are  "selected" on this forum, meaning everyone is free to join or be part of the reviewers. We can however use their grading or what they write to determine the quality of their review and rank them according to their review quality. If someone is reviewing post/work on economy, his/her review should be true/accurate... that could be a proof he/she has good understanding of what is being reviewed and making accurate judgment. Ranking the reviewers is a great way to raise quality review without closing the review system or preventing people from participating. If someone is consistently making reviews that are proven to be wrong, their reviews won't have much power as people review power will depend on how well or badly they reviews and this will be proof-based by simply attaching the bad reviews that have been proven wrong to the reviews left by others in their reviews.



2. What is the reward? If it's cryptocurrency, token or fiat, who will pay the reviewer?

My answer: Reward doesn't necessarily have to be in Crypto, token or fiat. It simple should be in Points like the current Forum "merit point"... though my particular merit point will be used right and not that easy to earn so that people will find it valuable. It would be scare if it's only going to good quality posts or post that really solve problems properly without creating more problems, otherwise the points should not be too high. If merit point is abused, given too much or given wrongly, a reviewer can demerit post with proof that the given merit points are not deserved, then the point could go to the reviewer or is canceled.
#By the way, this is a proof-based merit/review system that I'm proposing

3. Is there anyone who can ensure/check quality of the review?

My answer:
The top ranked reviewers can always ensure review quality in the department they have strengths in. Refer to my answer to your number 1 question to see how reviewers are ranked. That will be used to ensure quality of reviews/reviewers

---

This post is already too long to accommodate multiple posts from different posters. Will hopefully reply some or most other posters on different post

Hello, ETFBitcoin and others. Thanks for the comments. Will hopefully reply you guys at the right time. I currently have alot on me. *the world on my shoulders*

If that's what you're suggesting, I'd say you're mistaken.  And why?  It's because of sig campaigns and bounties that this forum has a problem with so many low-quality posts to begin with, and the merit system is intended to ensure that only those members worthy enough have a chance to rank up and thus increase their signature space.  So it is kind of supposed to keep shitposters out of campaigns--and it'd be nice if every campaign manager would have some kind of weekly merit requirement, but that's not going to happen as far as I can tell.

And we've had this discussion many times since Jan. 2018.  It seems like a lot of old arguments are being brought back up, and unnecessarily I might add.

I don't see any points for merit to serve as a SEO factor. Google search ranking triggered by many factors but merit is not one of them.
Those articles have a good amount of words, a better optimized picture and most importantly the website is SEO optimized. The forum developers also have SEO in mind, so their forum posts come up in google search results.

Merit is structurally pyramidical, should serve as a rank-up system, I don't know if merit has the ability to increase seo? But I do see google results showing other forum topics on top because many members reacted to the topic by liking it or marking it as helpful.
With the numbers of posts here on different topics, having what I'd suggested could increase the site seo and also help people searching on google. Pointing them to this forum.

Yes you are right about this, X will have a good impression of me, but that doesn't mean I will merit him back on any average activity on this forum. But yes if I see anything good I won't hesitate to merit him back. Yet it doesn't manipulate or abuse the forum. Good feedback from X on my thread or post also motivates me to give merit him if I saw any good activity from X.
As I said, mods don't really have the time or will to moderate scam/abuse merit. It is the members who need to figure out the merit source for X is normal or a scam. Also, an Alt account can not be moderated by mods too, Anyone can create and use a different account with tor/VPN. In that case I don't know how mods can figure out an alt account.

Or just have merits, so you don't recklessly like everything.

It isn't a good analogy, because YouTube isn't a forum. People may have some serious concern on whether what they watch is clickbait, scam etc., and that's where dislikes can help the situation (again, if the creator doesn't want them, they can disable having both likes and dislikes). On the other hand, bitcointalk is just a place to have conversations. If you feel someone's a fraudster, use feedback.

And they did disable disliking. Imagine.

Merits already allow this to happen.

I didn't mean like that, but I do agree it could become a social manipulation tool, however this could increase the interactions between social groups, e.g, I could see which of my posts had the most likes and know what the community thinks of me, that'd encourage me to do better.
A kind of "was this helpful" 👍👎 yes or no question, that way the community won't be able to do behavioural engineering and show their agreements, disagreements about a certain political opinion.
Merit could have a single function which is ranking up, but again we are going to agree to disagree anyways.

Because when you get merited by X, it will increase the possibility you merit him back even though his post is just common sense or have same point with the other user. I don't think I'm wrong with this, anyone can easily spot it.

That's why I said it's need a decision from administrators or mods, but I don't think they will want to handle that because "scam" didn't even get moderated in this forum.

That would be a great option for members to judge the quality of posts and also a way to let OP know about his/her post. But instead of every post if only the main topic has that feature it would be great. Implementing a thumbs up and down button on every post will look bad and the feature will also lost its original value.

I don't know how you think that not knowing merit transactions is good for the forum or anyone else. It is the only and a great way of merit abusing.
Do you know what stops merit abusers from abusing merit? because now everyone knows where a user got merit and who sends them merit.
If the forum does not have the option to see merit transactions then 5alts accounts can share merit from each other's accounts and continue doing that abuse until theymos or any mod detects the abuse.

 

Or just stick with the Like-only for aesthetic purposes. Does the job well without adding another Merit competition. Similar to YouTube's comment voting sans the downvote.

Say if a person makes a post that's highly likeable or helpful, it would show something like this:

That assumes someone dictates what's "good post". We better have the freedom to merit whatever we want, even if there's some abuse.

I'll need a little more context about this.

Nope. Thumbs up and thumbs down reminds me of Reddit's toxic culture. Just because a group of people doesn't agree with someone, they don't have to penalize him. As long as he follows the rules, he should be free to comment whatever he wants.

Demerit is an option when someone feel the post that made is completely zero value but still bypassed all the forum rules so can't be considered as spam still not really any use to have one which is more effective too because it doesn't eliminate the spam but also create a fear among the users who doesn't contribute to the forum but to be honest its really too much to have in a public forum and also it may bring more hatred towards the fellow members so current system is doing its job and almost eliminated the spam and account farmers.

Lol you can never satisfy human. Sometimes you will just overlook what they want from you and do what please you. Your opinion and happiness first.
This idea is not really making sense in my own opinion here at all. Going by this idea would completely change the forum style to social media where people catch fun and cruise.
If I understand you correctly, you mean demerit should reduce the poster merit or how will it going to affect the poster? Well, if it should reduce the merit of the poster then the forum should be ready to accommodate hatred among members.

---

I think the current merit system is fair enough to cope with. But I see that majority of people are eager to rank up just for the sake of joining campaigns hence they see the present system as an obstacle.

What do humans what exactly? Merit has been decentralized to some extent and yet we aren't comfortable with that and now suggesting it get centralized even more?. I bet when your suggestions doesn't favor your account, you'll be among the first users coming back crying for it to be changed again. Why give power to a selected few to have total say on your post been worthy of merit rewarded or not. What's wrong with how the merit system has been designed so far? Right now, you owe nobody an explanation on why you merited a particular post, what theymos strictly advise was for that post to be worthy of been merited and that can be interpreted in so many ways like the post been informative, educative, etc

We all have a chance of encouraging quality contributions when we come across them, how does it benefit the forum to take that away from its members and only give a selective few such privilege when they mightn't even get paid and this might cloud their judgement. Majority of the things done on the forum are volunteering with little pay and this guys have real life too so instead of suggesting putting more duty on them, getting everybody involved more is the only way to go about it and the merit system is just a perfect example.

There is no guideline on what post deserves merit and what amount of merits should be allocated to posts, with that said you can only grade posts and give it the merits you think it deserves as it is subjective to you, same applies to other users. A universal scale or consensus based opinion of what constitutes quality would not be effective with the currency system.

It is capped at 50 per user for every 30 days.

I think having demerit button also will make the merit system as complete so we don't need to have another system likes/dislikes features of social media. But its quite hard for me to understand what OP is trying to say or I am missing something and I have a doubt how can we classify a post as no fault?

Already theymos clearly mentioned if you're willing to merit a post then you can and it has cap value of 50 per user so it stops the abuse so making it more perfect may create lot of confusion among users.

The OP has strange ideas, it's enough just to look at what he has proposed in the last few months, but personally I don't expect anything meaningful from him. I'm also not one of those people who look too favorably on someone reporting their own or others' posts in order to reward them with merit, especially because those who see such posts probably don't have time to read the whole thread, so "good post" can be completely out of context, or just repeating what other users wrote before that post.

There will never be a perfect system, but I think that the current one is not as bad as some may think - of course, except for those who think that they should have much more merit than they currently have, but that is a problem that cannot be solved by changing the system in any way.

Whilst I’m pretty sure that account names behind posts have a certain influence in general terms, both in earning Merits or not earning them, I believe that content is still the main driver for the most. The system is inherently subjective, as it’s down to each person’s criteria (and capability) what to Merit, and that’s why I prefer having more eyes on the board, diversifying the criteria overall, as well as the scope of read boards and posts.

I’m not a particular fan of submitting posts for review, though there are threads that currently already play that role. Having a system whereby people can submit a post for review at the click of a button, in an sort of anonymized fashion (or else), would incentivise some/many to simply submit all their posts one by one, creating a massive queue of posts to revise. I doubt I’d ever look at the queue, as I prefer to Merit what I see in its context, and not isolated from it.


Note:
Quite a few of us have racketed our brains at some point to try to improve the Merit System, without striking with the key. I was bold enough to propose something 6 weeks after joining the forum, something that I could have done without after a reread from a (my) today’s perspective.

You misunderstood me, merit should be in place for ranking up, the thumb up/down idea is for all members, it shouldn't have value for rank etc, more like a quality ranking by the community.