Sometimes I get the idea that either good posts made by people are not seen by merit source or are just ignored.
I am always actively on the lookout for good posts by newbies or other more junior members to give merit to, but honestly, they are few and far between. If you are coming across any posts which you think are good enough to be given merit, but haven't received any, please link us to them on this thread so we can review them: [self-moderated] Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source. 
Topic: Should we put a merit/post ratio? Like torrent site (Read 20807 times)
If a person does not get merit for every 20 posts he makes, that does not mean he is a shitposter or he should not be allowed to post on the forum. This is a place were freedom of speech is respected and should be.
There are many flaws in this.
1. People who are new here mostly don't get merits even after posting 100+ posts.
2. Most of the people are unmerited even after writing quality posts as they are just not detected by someone with smerits.
3. Some of the people just tend to post updates about there services here so that posts are obvious to get no merits.
4. If you check marketplace section much of the people just use there accounts to bid on some stuff there, so they usually earn less merits.
Much more...
All this things can make much worthy people of the forum to be banned from posting.
So, I think its not a good idea to put merit requirements to the forum members to post.
I definitely agree with you on this. The merit system is a nice regulatory initiative but I don't think its really working. I see it as the rich get richer scheme. Sometimes I get the idea that either good posts made by people are not seen by merit source or are just ignored. Looking at the nature of the merit system, its prefect to solve the spamming on this forum. There are many flaws in this.
1. People who are new here mostly don't get merits even after posting 100+ posts.
2. Most of the people are unmerited even after writing quality posts as they are just not detected by someone with smerits.
3. Some of the people just tend to post updates about there services here so that posts are obvious to get no merits.
4. If you check marketplace section much of the people just use there accounts to bid on some stuff there, so they usually earn less merits.
Much more...
All this things can make much worthy people of the forum to be banned from posting.
So, I think its not a good idea to put merit requirements to the forum members to post.
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 4282
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o
Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first.
Should I lock the thread? Or allow the discussion to continue on this new base ground?
<***>
Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first.
Should I lock the thread? Or allow the discussion to continue on this new base ground?
Topic shouldn't be locked yet but you should edit your topic body and update it with o_e_l_e_o suggestions so the discussion can be based on it since his suggestions is more appealing. The topic can be locked when you notice the discussion are been diverted to something else (off topic).
It's an interesting topic, and I just changed my mind from disliking the idea to liking it based on o_e_l_e_o quoted suggestion.
I like o_e_l_e_o's proposal a bit better, but with more time allowed (e.g. 3 activity period at least) to earn that merit, because if you're on a holiday or have something to do in real life for a while, you should not lose your merits because of inactivity.
Or, if we count only those activity periods, when the user has posted at least 1 post. This would not burn the acquired merits if someone is inactive.
As I said, I read this on another thread, and I've since gone to the bother of looking it up. It was stompix's suggestion here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49017143. His original suggestion includes what suchmoon is suggesting: 1 merit for each activity period in which you display a signature. If you don't want to be charged the 1 merit, then remove your signature. Or, if we count only those activity periods, when the user has posted at least 1 post. This would not burn the acquired merits if someone is inactive.
I like o_e_l_e_o's proposal a bit better, but with more time allowed (e.g. 3 activity period at least) to earn that merit, because if you're on a holiday or have something to do in real life for a while, you should not lose your merits because of inactivity.
Or, if we count only those activity periods, when the user has posted at least 1 post. This would not burn the acquired merits if someone is inactive.
Or, if we count only those activity periods, when the user has posted at least 1 post. This would not burn the acquired merits if someone is inactive.
But the signature is still visible on all the posts they made previously. They could remove it manually before going on vacation if they don't want to be charged.
This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o
I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it.
I like o_e_l_e_o's proposal a bit better, but with more time allowed (e.g. 3 activity period at least) to earn that merit, because if you're on a holiday or have something to do in real life for a while, you should not lose your merits because of inactivity.A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.
...I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it.
Or, if we count only those activity periods, when the user has posted at least 1 post. This would not burn the acquired merits if someone is inactive.
This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o
and DdmrDdmr data
- Had been merited on the 25/05/2018 (oldest merit snapshot I have without getting into backups, but it serves or purpose with over 7 months of data).
- Have created at least 200 posts since then.
I’ve created a merit per post ration for each of the above set of forum members (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nyaHbaz31aVf6dnnTjiPOuCflZv1UOxNSWTQVMMUt68/edit?usp=sharing).
In summary we get:
- There is an unknown (by me) number of users that have posted at least 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (unmerited ones I mean).
- 21.808 forum members had been merited on the 25/05/2018.
- 3.679 of those have posted at least 200 posts since the 25/05/2018.
- 1.219 of them have an average >= 0,005 merits/post.
So really, only 1.219 forum members meet the criteria of having 0,005 merits per post on over 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (*). That is a pretty reduced set …
(*) Well, really there is an additional set made up from those that had not been merited yet on the 25/05/2018, and have since then + created >= 200 posts, but I needed an initial snapshot to retrieve the post and merit count from.
Edit: One can also manipulate the merit per post ratio by deleting posts.
Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first.
Should I lock the thread? Or allow the discussion to continue on this new base ground?
I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it.
A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.
and DdmrDdmr data
<...>
I’ve drawn-up a quick merit per post ratio for forum members that:- Had been merited on the 25/05/2018 (oldest merit snapshot I have without getting into backups, but it serves or purpose with over 7 months of data).
- Have created at least 200 posts since then.
I’ve created a merit per post ration for each of the above set of forum members (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nyaHbaz31aVf6dnnTjiPOuCflZv1UOxNSWTQVMMUt68/edit?usp=sharing).
In summary we get:
- There is an unknown (by me) number of users that have posted at least 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (unmerited ones I mean).
- 21.808 forum members had been merited on the 25/05/2018.
- 3.679 of those have posted at least 200 posts since the 25/05/2018.
- 1.219 of them have an average >= 0,005 merits/post.
So really, only 1.219 forum members meet the criteria of having 0,005 merits per post on over 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (*). That is a pretty reduced set …
(*) Well, really there is an additional set made up from those that had not been merited yet on the 25/05/2018, and have since then + created >= 200 posts, but I needed an initial snapshot to retrieve the post and merit count from.
Edit: One can also manipulate the merit per post ratio by deleting posts.
Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first.
Should I lock the thread? Or allow the discussion to continue on this new base ground?
I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it.
Hey everyone,
I got the idea from LoyceV:
Now I know everyone only do very legal stuff, but for experiments only I've tried a few torrent sites and most of them have a seed/leech ratio. The idea is that if you download 10gb of files you must share at least 5gb of files so the site keeps being active.
I wondered, could this be done here too?
Not talking about a hard 1 merit / 1 post minimum of course. I'm the first one to go on in ridiculous debates on the P&S section that doesn't bring much more than my opinion in the forum and I would like to continue doing so.
But it seems to me that a 1 merit / 20 posts can't possibly be a difficult task unless you're a complete shitspammer... Thus you shouldn't be allowed to write.
I don't know if that seems like a good idea to you but I could easily imagine a ratio for everyone and the day you drop below a certain point you can no longer post on the forum. And why not warning you a bit before so you know you MUST post only extremely high value content or you won't post anything anymore.
Not all users here are Native English Speakers and you know about that. This forum is global so do not expect that all users could speak English language. Besides, even if there were local boards but still some of it are not that active and one should have to go to other sections like those SMT where they can reply posts in a simple way of manner of constructing English grammar which could not earn merits. I got the idea from LoyceV:
By the time a Newbie reaches 1000+ posts without earning a single Merit, it's pretty clear he doesn't contribute anything to this forum.
Now I know everyone only do very legal stuff, but for experiments only I've tried a few torrent sites and most of them have a seed/leech ratio. The idea is that if you download 10gb of files you must share at least 5gb of files so the site keeps being active.
I wondered, could this be done here too?
Not talking about a hard 1 merit / 1 post minimum of course. I'm the first one to go on in ridiculous debates on the P&S section that doesn't bring much more than my opinion in the forum and I would like to continue doing so.
But it seems to me that a 1 merit / 20 posts can't possibly be a difficult task unless you're a complete shitspammer... Thus you shouldn't be allowed to write.
I don't know if that seems like a good idea to you but I could easily imagine a ratio for everyone and the day you drop below a certain point you can no longer post on the forum. And why not warning you a bit before so you know you MUST post only extremely high value content or you won't post anything anymore.
If we will going to have a ratio for the Source merits over the number of users in this forum then earning merit is just like difficult as hell.
Unlike torrent websites where you can make a ratio because you can create a torrent and seed, in this case, you won't be able to earn merits if you can't post.
So once you reach the quota/ratio whatsoever basically it's one false move and it's goodbye for that account.
In this way you won't silence spammers, you'll silence all the forum, in the end, the only one who would be able to post here would be theymos.
Introduce the merit decay while having a signature at whatever rate and we will get rid of sig spam.
They can still post and if they want to shitpost for free that's it, hit the ignore button but I seriously doubt they will.
So once you reach the quota/ratio whatsoever basically it's one false move and it's goodbye for that account.
In this way you won't silence spammers, you'll silence all the forum, in the end, the only one who would be able to post here would be theymos.
However, I believe that signatures should be disabled for users which never earned at least a few merits.
You don't need to ban shitposters from posting, but they should never receive in incentive to shitpost.
You don't need to ban shitposters from posting, but they should never receive in incentive to shitpost.
Introduce the merit decay while having a signature at whatever rate and we will get rid of sig spam.
They can still post and if they want to shitpost for free that's it, hit the ignore button but I seriously doubt they will.
I don't know if that seems like a good idea to you but I could easily imagine a ratio for everyone and the day you drop below a certain point you can no longer post on the forum.
I don't like the ide to prevent an user for posting. First because he can create a new account and spam again, and also because of the censorship philosophy which I don't like.
A guy may never been merited and is a complete shitposter like pethesteman friends... You can just ignore him.
However, I believe that signatures should be disabled for users which never earned at least a few merits.
You don't need to ban shitposters from posting, but they should never receive in incentive to shitpost.
<...>
I’ve drawn-up a quick merit per post ratio for forum members that:- Had been merited on the 25/05/2018 (oldest merit snapshot I have without getting into backups, but it serves or purpose with over 7 months of data).
- Have created at least 200 posts since then.
I’ve created a merit per post ration for each of the above set of forum members (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nyaHbaz31aVf6dnnTjiPOuCflZv1UOxNSWTQVMMUt68/edit?usp=sharing).
In summary we get:
- There is an unknown (by me) number of users that have posted at least 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (unmerited ones I mean).
- 21.808 forum members had been merited on the 25/05/2018.
- 3.679 of those have posted at least 200 posts since the 25/05/2018.
- 1.219 of them have an average >= 0,005 merits/post.
So really, only 1.219 forum members meet the criteria of having 0,005 merits per post on over 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (*). That is a pretty reduced set …
(*) Well, really there is an additional set made up from those that had not been merited yet on the 25/05/2018, and have since then + created >= 200 posts, but I needed an initial snapshot to retrieve the post and merit count from.
Edit: One can also manipulate the merit per post ratio by deleting posts.
My trust stands i am afraid, you have no right being a manager if you believe that those posters are "decent crypto collectors". Your Judgement is flawed and I am pretty sure it wont be the 1st tag you see by the time you answer the posting gap question!
Firstly there is nothing like right to be a BM. And I am not supporting the user to be a very important member of the forum or anything else just trying to say that he has done nothing for which he should be avoided from posting on the forum.And there should be some basis for the tag and I in no way did any thing which makes me untrustworthy.
Actually it can depending on what they try to do afterwards.
I don't think I have done something scammy if I have please explain me. 
Can you or can you not sign a message from an old address?
No, I cannot as I mostly convert the crypto to fiat and used different address. Still I can sign one from the recent one from which I signed a message already.1JywwXphRygZ42KPvP7qtQYccXM2L8hpTu
NoThere are many people here who have posting gaps that does not mean they should get a red trust on the basis.
Actually it can depending on what they try to do afterwards. 
@TMAN
Please check my my previous post I was letting the OP know that such type of users should not be banned from posting. Please remove your negative trust it has no basis here.
Please check my my previous post I was letting the OP know that such type of users should not be banned from posting. Please remove your negative trust it has no basis here.
My trust stands i am afraid, you have no right being a manager if you believe that those posters are "decent crypto collectors". Your Judgement is flawed and I am pretty sure it wont be the 1st tag you see by the time you answer the posting gap question!
Can you or can you not sign a message from an old address?
No, I cannot as I mostly convert the crypto to fiat and used different address. Still I can sign one from the recent one from which I signed a message already.1JywwXphRygZ42KPvP7qtQYccXM2L8hpTu
NoActually the trust might be appropriate given your statement, given the posting gap and you labeling yourself as a BM (while making such statements).
There are many people here who have posting gaps that does not mean they should get a red trust on the basis. Just... How do you do that? Oo
How do you find a 2014 message so fast?
Huge posting gap with this one; it was easy to find by just going into the history because of this.How do you find a 2014 message so fast?
I would really like my account deleted for personal reasons. As if I never even posted. Not a permanent ban but a deleted account.
Something is fishy here.
1JywwXphRygZ42KPvP7qtQYccXM2L8hpTu
This one for example.@TMAN
Please remove your negative trust it has no basis here.
Actually the trust might be appropriate given your statement, given the posting gap and you labeling yourself as a BM (while making such statements). Please remove your negative trust it has no basis here.
@TMAN
Please check my my previous post I was letting the OP know that such type of users should not be banned from posting. Please remove your negative trust it has no basis here.
Please check my my previous post I was letting the OP know that such type of users should not be banned from posting. Please remove your negative trust it has no basis here.
@vod could you do something on your site?
Posts since merit system/merits received = meritworthyness?
Posts since merit system/merits received = meritworthyness?
No, I do not have a record of old posts.
just to confirm - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/cumakoff-732010 this is the user I am discussing
Yes, I confirm I am talking about the same account.What Value or entertainment does he provide on this forum? how is he a "decent crypto collector" ?
I would really like my account deleted for personal reasons. As if I never even posted. Not a permanent ban but a deleted account.
Something is fishy here.To start with, 25.809 people have received any merits at all.
That would mean that, all the rest of currently active posters have earned 0 merits per day (and per post), leaving the vast majority out from being able to post. There are also plenty of people who post sporadically and/or in boards that are not showered with merits, and who may well be decent content generators when they post.
That would mean that, all the rest of currently active posters have earned 0 merits per day (and per post), leaving the vast majority out from being able to post. There are also plenty of people who post sporadically and/or in boards that are not showered with merits, and who may well be decent content generators when they post.
But do those 26k people have reached the 200 posts limit? Seems normal to me that a newbie with 5 posts might not have received any merit?
Vast majority of users are probably not even active. But if you make the same calculation with a merit/post ratio I doubt you'll find 90% of user under a 0.005 limit.
Jump to: