Topic: Re: LoyceV vs theymos (and get your own Merit graph: up to 20 users per graph) - page 7. (Read 14878 times)

This is a graph of the current 20 Top-merited users (which I needed for [TOP20] Most Merited Ranking History):


Be scared, AI won't back down for virusses.

If this is a request for LoyceV it isn’t done in the proper format.
I think this AI is not trained enough to parse it.
Otherwise, I would be scared.

EDIT:
SPOILER ALERT: I am not.
Adjusting the time frame to 12 months, maybe.

Mate, I don’t think anybody has stacked Merit at your rate over the last 18 months. You must be in the top 3-4 in that time period.

Nice graph.
A few fast earner here: some streak were really impressive.

My spreadsheet had a hard time making this

I was curious to see how this looked  


As well as these  


And those  


Thanks in advance

Reference.

Cheers, nice trend-lines by the way, that's what I was looking for 

Here you go:


All you need for 100 Merit is one good post

And here you go too:


Sure, what can go wrong


It's only earned Merit, that's why all graphs start at 0.

If it'd be possible to have the time-frame to include a few months in the future, that would be great. Any trendlines appreciated  
I realise you probably referenced this in 1 of the last 8 pages, but is this for total merit or earned merit? Guess I'll find out though 

Battling with another user distract you from the real target of merit system: writing good posts!

Just kidding:it’ because of my merit bracelet

Well, it seems.  
Don't relax too much, "nearly 100 Merit" ist not much (or at least it's not much left from these 100 Merit anymore).  

But we lost fillippone, he earned way too much Merit since our last update. ^^

Me and my homies in the Pilipinas thread  

Here you go:

Kindly requesting.


Just a refresh to this


It seems like I have been beating 1miau for a while now, nearly a 100 merit ahead (enough room for me to relax  ). Just kidding of course, beating your a** is not my primary goal despite the fact that I actually do enjoy it.

Nah, I wasn't referring to you. I'm not even that familiar with your merit history honestly, but I have seen you starting to adventure out in other sections of the forum recently. I don't tend to spend a lot of time in the WO thread. Its a little bit too wild for me.  Let me try, and make it clearer. I think a lot of low quality replies get merited in the WO thread that otherwise wouldn't be merited in other sections. However, the bruteforcing I'm referring to is the users that are creating a load of threads, because they've identified that they get more merit from a individual thread rather than contributing to others. These posts are the ones which I consider decent enough in terms of quality, but its fairly obvious that these posts can be condensed into a singular thread. Its not a criticism per say, its more of a observation that has been made by myself. Although, I think there's a few users here that have made similar observations.  Everyone knows that posts in Meta also get a lot of exposure, and a lot of merit for example. So, my observations aren't criticisms its just identifying that what Mikey said earlier in the thread is definitely true to some extent. It does help to post in certain sections of the forum. Although, I also wanted to bring up that its a combination of things such as activity of the user, and various other things.

I don't know if you are referring to me, but I think I could fit into that category.
First of all I would state that I am writing it for the sake of confrontation and exchange of ideas: I am now way offended/annoyed/irritated by your comments.

I have said how I feel about my merit history in a post a few row above.
I belong to one of those communities, WO thread namely (the hat might be an hint of that), but (it's a feeling, not based on numbers, even though it would be easily checkable) i am pretty sure that I gained the vast majority of those merits outside the WO.
So yes, I understand what you are saying, but "bruteforcing" seems quite a "strong" statement, considering you recognised the quality of post are "decent enough".

I think my graph would nicely fit in the void between the two groups! 

We can't have you embarrassing us now can we? Nah, honest mistake. Somehow missed you.

Yeah, I'll fix the "not" bit. I guess I must have been really tired when I wrote this! I think largely the merit system has been effective, but there are definitely users posting content which honestly isn't that useful, but still know that it will get merit.

Anyway, what's interesting to me on that graph is; as predicted many of its users are having very sharp gains in merit received, which also indicates that they are either posting very good quality or posting a lot. I might take a look at the amount of posts per week on the Chipmixer spreadsheet, and see if we can get interesting observations from that when used in conjunction with this data.

Unfortunately, the recent art contest merit dump is going to hit the merit received per post all out of whack for certain users. That could be something else to look into. How many users gained a lot of >20 merit in the art contest, but received 0 before that.

Thanks for the graph!

Since tinypic.com has ceased operations, I've created a new graph for the OP. And it was time to change the title.
I made another small improvement:

I feel left out

Sorry for the delay, this required a bit more time: I've increased the maximum to 20. Just prepare for a messy graph. Adjusting the table was much more work than expected, it's kinda big for the spreadsheet.
Here you go:


See above

I made a topic for that too: Percentage of Merit received on old posts, deleted posts, and average per post
From what I've seen, anything less than 0.02 Merit per post is a very bad sign.
You could argue I'm bruteforcing my Merit too: there are users who earn much more per post, and if I would post 10 times less, I would earn much less Merit too. Therefore, I think bruteforcing Merit is only a problem when users are posting hundreds of low-quality posts just hoping to earn a single Merit. But then the problem isn't the bruteforcing, the problem is they're borderline spammers.

I think you forgot the blue word, am I right?
I've noticed this too, but since Merit was introduced to stop spammers from ranking up many accounts, and the users in WO or Collectibles aren't the problem there and don't spam other sections either, I don't think it's bad at all.

After giving it a second thought, and after having checked my topic which I started 8 months ago, I found out that I did earn pretty much the same merit every 4 months or so, but I have also been a little bit more active in the last 8 months, my posts quality never changed, but where I mainly post changed after the first 4 months.


While I still earned almost the same merit being in boards where earning merit is more difficult, it's mainly due to being more active than before, while there is no guarantee that I would have earned more merit being active in boards where I could likely get more merit, I think more studies as you proposed would really give us a more accurate view.

@ LoyceV I'd like to compare those that are in the Chipmixer campaign with over 1500 merits total:

First graph:
84521
2033515
2143453
579628
487418
465017
85033
787736
1582324
359716

2nd graph:
1188543
140827
234771

(Its a shame there's more than 10 users so they don't fit on one graph)



I would say that where you post, and at what times matters, but I wouldn't say its the biggest cause. To be able to find a cause we would likely have to do a case study of over a thousand users. and ideally more  to have any sort of accuracy. A interesting statistic to cough up would be to determine how many merits per post since the introduction of the merit system users get. This would be able to help determine whether its a matter of activity versus where you post.

For example, I've pretty much always posted in the same sections since the merit introduction, but I haven't always been actively posting. Active on the forum yeah, but not posting. You can probably check this via the chipmixer campaign spreadsheet where I would have 0 posts some weeks. This is a mixture of reasons, but getting used to moderating, and trying to improve the way I moderate definitely had an impact. Some of you may have noticed that my public activity has been much greater recently, and as a result I've seen quite a growth in my merits. I'm sure LoyceV or someone else would be able to pull up a graph showing how I've stagnated for a little while, and having exponential growth when coming active again.

I think its become quite obvious that a lot of users are bruteforcing the merit gain, and although honestly I think their posts are decent enough to gain merit a statistic showing how many merits per post made would likely be a better indication of someone's overall quality. Of course, this can be inaccurate as well as there's no standards for awarding merit.

These are my observations (which may be inaccurate, and just personal opinion); Certain parts of the forum yield a much greater chance of merit not because of activity or the topic subject, but because there's almost a little mini community within Bitcointalk in certain sections. The collectible section, and the wall observer thread in my opinion are these little mini communities where it seems there's a lot of "back scratching". Although, I'd like to make it clear I'm not implying that the back scratching is unjust or wrong I've just made the observation that it's definitely easier to earn merit in these mini communities when considering the post quality. These are users that are not shitposting either, and in fact many of the users there are very good posters.