I think this idea could be a great help for those who are in the lower rank that is striving hard to earn merit.
But, does it seems like selling merit indirectly? All I am hoping is for the greater good and not opposing the idea.
Topic: Signature Campaign which pays for merits? (Read 446 times)
this is as clearly as it should be, it simply means they don't want Jr members on their signature campaign, they only need member rank and above, to get member rank you must have up to 10 merits
A fake use of merit as I said and Kenzawak have explain.
The bounty managers are paid anyway. Their payment doesn't depend on the quality of the posts of the participants.
If they are lazy enough, they won't care about the post quality...
If those who advertise with the signature campaign would differentiate the payment of the manager based on the post quality, that would be a motivation for the bounty manager to care about quality too.
But, unfortunately those who advertise with the bounty managers, also don't care about quality, just quantity....
If they are lazy enough, they won't care about the post quality...
If those who advertise with the signature campaign would differentiate the payment of the manager based on the post quality, that would be a motivation for the bounty manager to care about quality too.
But, unfortunately those who advertise with the bounty managers, also don't care about quality, just quantity....
Those who advertise with the signature campaign pay the most well knows, nothing else.
Open your eyes guys, merits are only under test and need adjustment -theymos said.
Couple of days ago, I have seen someone sharing such kind of idea. I'm sharing it here just for having some discussion.
I'm not affiliated with this campaign.
Link to the campaign- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annsem-semux-official-thread-2159012
Here are some texts from the campaign.
It's true that there will be less participants as it requires having 10+ merits.
If most campaign managers follow this strategy, will it be efficient for forum or increase merit abusing in the long run?
this is as clearly as it should be, it simply means they don't want Jr members on their signature campaign, they only need member rank and above, to get member rank you must have up to 10 merits I'm not affiliated with this campaign.
Link to the campaign- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annsem-semux-official-thread-2159012
Here are some texts from the campaign.
Quote
Signature campaign
## Rules
1. This event starts from July 1, 2018 until December 23, 2018; you can joint at any time.
3. Participant requirements:
- Your bitcointalk account must be registered before June 25, 2018;
- Your bitcointalk account must have 10+ merits;
- You need to follow @semuxproject on Twitter;
- You need to make at least one new post every week on bitcointalk forum (we measure your posts point on Sunday);
- No spam/multi-account.
4. The rewards will be distributed to participants based on their merit scores:
- The reward allocation is 20,000 SEM per week;
- Payments are processed on Sunday.
5. We reserve the right to modify or cancel this event at any time. We reserve the right to refuse participants for any reason.
## Rules
1. This event starts from July 1, 2018 until December 23, 2018; you can joint at any time.
3. Participant requirements:
- Your bitcointalk account must be registered before June 25, 2018;
- Your bitcointalk account must have 10+ merits;
- You need to follow @semuxproject on Twitter;
- You need to make at least one new post every week on bitcointalk forum (we measure your posts point on Sunday);
- No spam/multi-account.
4. The rewards will be distributed to participants based on their merit scores:
- The reward allocation is 20,000 SEM per week;
- Payments are processed on Sunday.
5. We reserve the right to modify or cancel this event at any time. We reserve the right to refuse participants for any reason.
It's true that there will be less participants as it requires having 10+ merits.
If most campaign managers follow this strategy, will it be efficient for forum or increase merit abusing in the long run?
The bounty managers are paid anyway. Their payment doesn't depend on the quality of the posts of the participants.
If they are lazy enough, they won't care about the post quality...
If those who advertise with the signature campaign would differentiate the payment of the manager based on the post quality, that would be a motivation for the bounty manager to care about quality too.
But, unfortunately those who advertise with the bounty managers, also don't care about quality, just quantity....
Wouldn't this require the advertiser to check post quality too, though? Kind of defeating the point of having a campaign manager "manage" the campaign. Well, I guess they still send out payments, but I'm sure if the advertiser is willing to check every single post then they would be willing to send out the payments too, and save themselves some money in hiring a campaign manager. If they are lazy enough, they won't care about the post quality...
If those who advertise with the signature campaign would differentiate the payment of the manager based on the post quality, that would be a motivation for the bounty manager to care about quality too.
But, unfortunately those who advertise with the bounty managers, also don't care about quality, just quantity....
Why is all this necessary ?
How about the BMs just do their jobs, check the posts like they're supposed to and ban the spammers from their campaign ? They're pretty easy to spot.
I don't know how much they're paid but I'm sure it's enough for them to do that simple effort.
You see a guy posting useless stuff in megathreads, you remove him, you see someone saying "great project" or anything similar, you remove him etc...
Why create a rule that will lead to more cheating obviously ?
The bounty managers are paid anyway. Their payment doesn't depend on the quality of the posts of the participants. How about the BMs just do their jobs, check the posts like they're supposed to and ban the spammers from their campaign ? They're pretty easy to spot.
I don't know how much they're paid but I'm sure it's enough for them to do that simple effort.
You see a guy posting useless stuff in megathreads, you remove him, you see someone saying "great project" or anything similar, you remove him etc...
Why create a rule that will lead to more cheating obviously ?
If they are lazy enough, they won't care about the post quality...
If those who advertise with the signature campaign would differentiate the payment of the manager based on the post quality, that would be a motivation for the bounty manager to care about quality too.
But, unfortunately those who advertise with the bounty managers, also don't care about quality, just quantity....
I like how the poster received over 143+ merits from that post alone.
Why is all this necessary ?
How about the BMs just do their jobs, check the posts like they're supposed to and ban the spammers from their campaign ? They're pretty easy to spot.
I don't know how much they're paid but I'm sure it's enough for them to do that simple effort.
You see a guy posting useless stuff in megathreads, you remove him, you see someone saying "great project" or anything similar, you remove him etc...
Why create a rule that will lead to more cheating obviously ?
How about the BMs just do their jobs, check the posts like they're supposed to and ban the spammers from their campaign ? They're pretty easy to spot.
I don't know how much they're paid but I'm sure it's enough for them to do that simple effort.
You see a guy posting useless stuff in megathreads, you remove him, you see someone saying "great project" or anything similar, you remove him etc...
Why create a rule that will lead to more cheating obviously ?
Indeed !!
And check guys who are red trust by DT. Most don't. (rules say they do it, but you know how it is..)
About twitter ? they don't care, nothing else, 90% twitters posts are made from bots. (yes I know it's not bitcointalk).
And yes... what's about translation ? How many times did I report automated translations..
Reality is that most BM don't have the time to really do their job.
Why is all this necessary ?
How about the BMs just do their jobs, check the posts like they're supposed to and ban the spammers from their campaign ? They're pretty easy to spot.
I don't know how much they're paid but I'm sure it's enough for them to do that simple effort.
You see a guy posting useless stuff in megathreads, you remove him, you see someone saying "great project" or anything similar, you remove him etc...
Why create a rule that will lead to more cheating obviously ?
How about the BMs just do their jobs, check the posts like they're supposed to and ban the spammers from their campaign ? They're pretty easy to spot.
I don't know how much they're paid but I'm sure it's enough for them to do that simple effort.
You see a guy posting useless stuff in megathreads, you remove him, you see someone saying "great project" or anything similar, you remove him etc...
Why create a rule that will lead to more cheating obviously ?
The requirements is just too much, they ought to consider lower members
Merits are reasons to spam the forum, really? I don't think so, mate.
Spamming, and showing your shits via shitty threads will never help you earning merits, regardless of abusing the merit system by merit exchanges.
Real users will definitely not give their sMerits away for shitshows.
As @The Pharmacist wrote in previous thread, it should be earned merits, not automatically allocated merits at the launch day of merit system.
Earned merits mostly show that accounts which got merits are constructive users, but managers of campaigns should check all cases carefully to avoid acceptance for merit abusers.
Further careful screening procedure through post history of applicants is next essential step after looking at their merit points.
Spamming, and showing your shits via shitty threads will never help you earning merits, regardless of abusing the merit system by merit exchanges.
Real users will definitely not give their sMerits away for shitshows.
I think the idea is nonsense. Merits will be just another reason to spam threads, make shit posts and make repeated threads just to complete a quota.
I don't really understand what you meant, honestly.I don't think merit should be a determinant to joining a bounty campaign, irrespective of how time consuming it might be to the bounty managers, taking a good look at an applicants post history says more than judging by their merit count.
Agree with you, mate.As @The Pharmacist wrote in previous thread, it should be earned merits, not automatically allocated merits at the launch day of merit system.
Earned merits mostly show that accounts which got merits are constructive users, but managers of campaigns should check all cases carefully to avoid acceptance for merit abusers.
Further careful screening procedure through post history of applicants is next essential step after looking at their merit points.
Quote
There are people who got merit for saying non reasonable things and those who paid for it and those whom their friends merited their posts irrespective of its low quality. Post quality should be checked not merit count. My opinion though.
I have a better question: Why did all those people give semux that many merits? It almost seems to me like people are trying to bribe him or something.
I'm pretty sure they will have a group on telegram which mandatory requires their participants to give some merit to the ANN thread. This shows merit isn't a right metric to prove a good quality poster. People are stupid, meriting such services is useless as they are only here for the project and don't really care of their account's rank. Those merits could have utilised in a better way to rank some newbie up who actually puts efforts in writing something descent. 
I don't think merit should be a determinant to joining a bounty campaign, irrespective of how time consuming it might be to the bounty managers, taking a good look at an applicants post history says more than judging by their merit count. There are people who got merit for saying non reasonable things and those who paid for it and those whom their friends merited their posts irrespective of its low quality. Post quality should be checked not merit count. My opinion though.
To be honest, merit shouldn't be a requirement for anything other than ranking up. There are good posters that haven't received a reasonable amount of merits or merits at all, and they exist, but just aren't visible to the active merit givers.
And a wise man once said, "Judge a person by his post quality and not by his merits".
I don't know who that guy is tho.
It kind of makes sense from an advertiser point of view though. Especially, if some sort of filter for only displaying posts that have been merited gets implemented. Advertisers want as much exposure as possible, and accepting someone who posts a lot of posts, but also posts good posts from time to time should[/]appeal to them. I've put that in italic just because I know that they only care about quantity rather than quality. But, we are seeing certain managers trying to fight against the quality>quality epidemic. And a wise man once said, "Judge a person by his post quality and not by his merits".
I don't know who that guy is tho.
Whats wrong with merit in Russian or Chinese ?
As far as I know, there's a lot of Merit sales in the Chinese section. But my conclusion wasn't based on the merit given to those sectors, I can't read the posts.OK I didn't know that. Apparently Chinese's and Japaneses cheat a lot.
I'm not sure to understand this point :
Code:
your_stake = Math.min(500, your_merit_points + 50)
your_reward = your_stake / total_stake * 20000 SEM
your_reward = your_stake / total_stake * 20000 SEM
It's 500 min or merit+50 if more than 500 merit ?
To be honest, merit shouldn't be a requirement for anything other than ranking up. There are good posters that haven't received a reasonable amount of merits or merits at all, and they exist, but just aren't visible to the active merit givers.
And a wise man once said, "Judge a person by his post quality and not by his merits".
I don't know who that guy is tho.
And a wise man once said, "Judge a person by his post quality and not by his merits".
I don't know who that guy is tho.
I think the idea is nonsense. Merits will be just another reason to spam threads, make shit posts and make repeated threads just to complete a quota. I would not like merits to be wasted and it is JUST to make merits hard to earn so that less people abuse opportunities given If they prove themselves worth the merits then they will surely be noticed and efforts will be credited. Patience is also the key.
It's better than no merits at all. However, my personal opinion would be that requiring users to earn a certain amount of merits per payment period would be better. Requiring a flat out requirement before accepting them means in the past they have made good quality posts, however that doesn't mean that they'll continue in this pattern once they have been accepted. A combination of the two would likely be the best approach. It doesn't need to be too strict due to the limited merit being distributed currently, but it's certainly something that should be considered. Perhaps not for every single payment period, but every other.
Whats wrong with merit in Russian or Chinese ?
As far as I know, there's a lot of Merit sales in the Chinese section. But my conclusion wasn't based on the merit given to those sectors, I can't read the posts.Quote
Also they ask 10+ merit, it would be easiest to say they don't accept people under Member rank, as many BMs already does...
A Newbie who really earned his Merit can be a valuable asset for advertising, although he'd need to buy a Copper Membership to be able to wear a bigger signature. Just checked the list of participants and got lots of people have been accepted in semux's list. Here is the list of participants listed by semux where people with airdropped merits accepted.
Let me check the first 5:Code:
2884. 11 Merit received by liotmaan (#689832) from 1 unique users in 2 transactions
13918. 1 Merit received by crimealone (#206556) from 1 unique users in 1 transactions
170054 received nothing
181270 received nothing
8206. 3 Merit received by investgarant (#1108727) from 2 unique users in 3 transactions
Now let's check their Merit history in details:13918. 1 Merit received by crimealone (#206556) from 1 unique users in 1 transactions
170054 received nothing
181270 received nothing
8206. 3 Merit received by investgarant (#1108727) from 2 unique users in 3 transactions
liotmaan (#689832)
2 Merit for a link that redirects to a referal link > Reported to moderator.
9 Merit from the same user for saying "Where's the github".
crimealone (#206556)
1 Merit for a post in Chinese
investgarant (#1108727)
3 times 1 Merit for 3 posts in Russian.
I think it's safe to conclude requiring merit is NOT a solutation against spam, if it's an automated system that accepts anybody.
Whats wrong with merit in Russian or Chinese ?
Also they ask 10+ merit, it would be easiest to say they don't accept people under Member rank, as many BMs already does...
I think it's safe to conclude requiring merit is NOT a solutation against spam, if it's an automated system that accepts anybody.
When anyone who can convince a team to hire them can become a manager the system will fail. Likely it will lead to more abuse down the road... where does the "bribe" taker drop the Merits off?
I have been in a few of Yahoo's campaigns and while not requiring merit for everyone, if you had a certain amount it netted you better payment. There are countless ways to try and improve the system but without there being any enforcement behind it they won't matter. It would be nice to require a certain amount of received Merit to carry a paid SIG, but again that would require further moderation, which genrally isn't going to happen.
Jump to: