Topic: Posting in forums with moderators who give no smerit? Solutions? - page 5. (Read 2116 times)

I am not sure about this but 200 from let's say 150k active users as a percentage is under 2% right? is it not 0.13%  that's posted in the last month i think not since merit was introduced that would be far greater so this is being more than fair.

There is no way that if you remove the merit from the top 200 that comes from ONLY the top 300 (out of 150,000 lets not use the 2 million members)

So to if you leave out the top 0.13% of inner circle meriting and those merits from a tiny subsection of posters on the meta board it is natural that their merit scores plummet up to 95%?

Not sure how natural that is.

Never pay attention to suchmoon he simply does not abide by any kind of logical argument.


There are 150k posters in I believe in the last month. Just because such moon claims they are not valid to be considered for merit because they have not had any merit he leaves them out of his calculation. That is quite a crazy thing to say.

The link I posted is 100% valid.  

The facts

There are 2 million registered members
There are 150 posters in the last month

0.13% of that 150k circle 50% of their merits and have huge merit scores some as many as 1200 merits received.

Take merit that is being circled inside that 0.13% away and take also merit given on the meta board which is super concentrated by these 0.13% and their ass kissers and you will see for sure that most of them lose min 50% with most losing over 80% heading to 95%.

Simple observable fact. If they are out by a couple of % does not spoil the message that I present.

Anyone believing that 0.13% of posters spiraling away higher and higher in merit (gained from each other) who would lose 95% of their merits if that was not included along with their fav hang out meta is natural distribution of merit based upon objective analysis of the value of a post compared to others is wrong.

You're right, the list on the front page is wrong. This one is correct: https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited

I think the figure is really the top 2% of merit receivers. If I’m right I calculated some data some weeks ago where I stated:
BPIP seems to have me on it’s ignore list. I’m right in between @LoyceV and @hilariousetc really …

Cryptohunter meant 0.02% of all users, instead of 0.02% of all merit receivers. Ignoring the fact that 99% of all users didn't receive any merit because they don't deserve it makes it look like Merit is much more elite than it really is.

Except the numbers are off by orders of magnitude. That's the opposite of quality, especially considering that the whole subsequent argument is built on those wrong numbers.

There are ~25k users who received merits. So "top 0.02% of merit receivers cycle over 50% of their merit between them" would mean that the top 5 merit receivers (theymos, satoshi, LoyceV, hilariousetc, Last of the V8s) sent 50% of their merits between them. There is plenty of data on the Meta board (threads by DdmrDdmr, LoyceV, Piggy just to mention a few) to prove that false. Just poking around on BPIP can show you that e.g. satoshi is hoarding all his merits and not sending to anyone.

I meant any post, not only from this thread. I had read those three posts already, and didn't merit any of them, so I'm not going to do that now.
The thread stays a lot more compact if you post links to the posts instead of quoting the full posts.

I've given similar offers to a few people. Let's just say it's an offer that gets ignored most of the time

You're stealing my business LOL

I've had this type of offer open to ANYONE for three months now and it just doesn't work. Good luck to you though

The list of merit sources was never made public, but Theymos hinted that if we look closely we would eventually discover them,
and indeed a number of sources has become evident while some personally affirmed that they were sources.
But all moderators are not merit sources, and that is evident in the merit distribution of a couple of them.

@jetcash

it is actually 100% true you can test it for yourself.

also this bunch of stats provided by r1s2g3 after I asked if he could provide

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SAi_b3umCcFJO2dMoLYjWCjNz1JhOLWrsRHhYQK-nb8/edit#gid=429409603

demonstrates the scale of the merit cycling in the tiny fraction of a percent of posters

that is without meta subsection (highly concentrated merit club) being removed. My figure estimates I think will be found to be entirely correct. You can expect some of the highest merit receivers to take a 95% hair cut.
 
@loyce

It only makes sense the merit back slappers club that the top 0.02 retain 50% of all their merits cycled around internally and mostly in meta

I am clearly observing merit is mostly given for simply aligning your view with others whom are active in meta and have lots of merit to give. I am seeing merit given time and time again for the voicing of opinions that are actually clearly wrong based on observable events.

Trying to conflate high merit with high value posts is incorrect.

Let me say though this is not entirely negative and I see no reason not to merit people you agree with or a friend/pal posting something you find amusing etc...... merit is for fun as well it seems. Also in meta people will almost do things you ask and you feel justified in repaying with a bit of merit.

What is wrong is to imply merit is an indication of a posts value or rather having high merit qualifies you as automatically a better post than those with less merit.

Merit is helping stop lots of negative behaviour and is fun. Therefore a positive thing.

I am not encourage to claim moderators about send merit. On the other hand all moderators are not merit source so they should have enough smerit to send others. Secondly they should have enough time to read your thread because they are too busy. Moderating forum isn't easy work that we think.

Sometimes it's depend on board where you made post. If it's Bitcoin related, I mean if you made post on Bitcoin Discussion board then very low chance that gain merit. Especially Altcoin Discussion & Bitcoin Discussion board. Even sometimes I am looking for send few merit to newbie and demoted newbie I can't find most of day. Then how will moderators find quality post ?

However mod are not responsible for handle merit. Merit source and we are responsible for that. Most of people's don't want to spend merit especially who got from airdrop. Because they don't know how hard to earn merit. So we should encourage to spend our smerit instead of claim mod.

Moderators are not responsible for merit awarding neither are regular members, the only group charged with distributing merits are sources, and it's a voluntary task, so we can cut them some slack.

There are lots of problems presented as a reason for lack of efficient merit distribution across the boards.
High level of spam on some boards and very little moderation makes members unwilling to dig through the pile in search of quality posts.

The only immediate solution that can be implemented is the Reporter badge which has been discussed at length, and maybe additional incentives to clean up the forum.

The forum is overrun by spammers, so the number of posts in a thread doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of the thread.


You keep posting this as if it's a bad thing Quality posts deserve Merit, and the same posters have sMerit to give. It makes perfect sense that a large share of all merit goes around in a small number of users.

---

I'll make you a deal acarli: if you (and this offer is only valid for you) post links to 10 unmerited good posts in this topic, I'll merit them if I agree. And I'll comment on the "why". When you post the links, please quote (the relevant part of) this post so I receive a notification.

There are merit sources who are actively looking to award merits to those who qualifies. Keep doing the good works and merit will follow you. The mods are not responsible to give away merits. Don't expect any from them.

Moderators are just moderators,their work is to moderate the sections where they have been assigned.I don't know how many of the mods are merit sources here but giving out the merit is not the work of moderators its the responsibility of merit sources and all other forum members who have sMerits to send.

Whenever you find a good thread that didn't receive any merit, you can send the link to Suchmoon.
Take a look at his thread: * FREE merits - CLICK HERE!!! *
It is not going to solve the problem, but it can help.

I don't think that is true, and coupling that with the comment about meriting Meta posts, put me off awarding the merits that I was going to award in this thread.

You are indeed correct. However the real fault lies with the myriads of spammers and bots and puppet accounts because they make it far more difficult to locate good posters.

This will eventually be solved meanwhile don't worry too much about merit. If you are determined to get optimal recognition for good posts (in terms of merit) you will need to use the stats provided on meta to locate the best boards to post on. Sadly for you the fact is the top 0.02% of merit receivers cycle over 50% of their merit between them at this time. I calculated that if you were to remove merits given by the top 300 to the top 200 and removed all merits given in this meta sub board most people (except a handful) would only have got max 100/150 merits. Most of the top 200 saw reductions in the 50% - 75% range (that was without subtracting merits given on the meta sub board. With that you could be looking at reductions up to 95%.

So if you have got even say 10 merits and none from the meta board (except what I just gave you for noticing this and making a relevant post here) then you are doing very well actually.

If you are a good poster you will eventually get known on the basis of your work here and I would then not worry about the rankings and merits too much.

On top of all of that there is serious gaming going on. There was a case of a legend just giving 50 merits each to 2 other accounts for nearly identical post (not really deserving of any merit) when analysed all 3 shared an eth addy so looked like highly probably alts. I would think these cases should be treated a little more harshly but merit is subjective so not really possible to police to make it fairer right now.

There does not really need to be a solution  right now because merit is working to prevent a lot of negative behaviour ( as opposed to having no merit system) and also over time once the bots, account farmers, ico spammers vanish it will be easier to locate your posts and you would hope the merit system will balance out. I have suggested a few alternatives but nobody really liked them.