Topic: Some good users awakened by Yobit - page 2. (Read 919 times)

Seems you misunderstood @Welsh statement as he never meant merit should be used as a factor for behaviors not relating to the post habbit. Trusting someone just because of their earned merit is stupidity as it might backfired badly like we have recorded in the past with loan defaulters/scammers. Trustability and reputation should be separated from merit earned instead the general activity of the user on the forum is a better criteria.

Although merit earned doesn't tell you all about a users contributions to the forum, it gives you an idea on how visible the contributions of that user has been.

Very well said, it doesn't matter whoever user it is and if he didn't receive any merit since the merit system has been implemented, as long as he is posting good quality stuffs, merits would be on his way. The position in this forum, the green trust, and all of his merits would only come in second.

That sucks. On the bright side however, you have one less to worry about since there are so many campaigns out there with better offers.

Yes, I told them that my post count might drop for a week, possibly 2 till I reworked my schedule. The response was more or less "It's been nice, you're outta here"

-Dave

Personally I have no problem with that whatsoever, as long as they make good posts.  I don't know Diamondcardz, but I was aware that he's a long-time member and I was suprised to see him back here in the cryptotalk campaign.  Again, I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all.  Assuming he's the original owner of the account, it's great that he's still into crypto after all this time.

OP's list might be the good posters who've recently woken up, but it's not a comprehensive list of all the posters in the cryptotalk campaign who are at least decent members of the forum.  I've been reading a bunch of posts by members in that campaign, and they're not all bad by a long shot.  Definitely better than when Yobit launched its last campaign without a manager--Yahoo62278 is running a tight ship, and Yobit chose correctly when they hired him IMO.

IINM, repeated non-performance usually gets you kicked out without warning.

Did you inform the campaign manager back then though? If you did, you could have exited with grace.

Makes me wonder if it's the other way around. YoBit is paying people so good posters who might not have been motivated before now are.

I know the last time the YoBit campaign was active I joined.....Because I was going to be stuck in the office for close to 5 days @ 15+ hours a day.
It was going to be (and was) dead due to the holidays. Phone not ringing, emails that had to be dealt with were few and far between.
So why not join and make some BTC. I was going to be posting so I might as well get paid for it.

No long term requirements, no filling out a form and waiting to hear back if I was accepted.
Add profile to the YoBit page, sig and text and go.

Right now I am wearing the MintDice sig and have been for ~2 months because I knew I was going to be on a lot.
If I was not sure if I could make the 25 posts I probably would be wearing YoBit.

Same as a while ago, late 2016 early 17. I was working on a project that required a lot of time, but there were many many breaks.
Start process, enter info, wait 45 minutes......enter more info....wait again. I was stuck in the fact that I could not do field work or much else since you kind of had to be aware of when you had to start the next step. So I was here and on the car forum A LOT for 6 weeks. So I wore a sig. The moment the project ended and I was not able to make the post count I was booted from the campaign not even a "you need to get back up" just a "thanks for the last few weeks, you're gone"

-Dave

Sometimes, merits are easy to earn, sometimes are very difficult to earn.

---

Merits and merit-received posts are quality enough and deserve merits or not are very controversy problem, somehow endless one.
We all know that sometimes merits used as a tool to show agreement. It is surely opposite to what theymos wanted merits should be used.
Anyway, it is the fact in the forum, and there are hundreds of posts received merits that way, but the important thing is nobody will judge such posts are merit-abusing posts.
To judge posts which received merits are merit-abusing, lots of things should be considered before making any kinda causal inference.
I know there are lots of users received hundreds of merits for their posts in WO (Wall Observer) topic, but I will never call them as merit abusers.
If you notice, most of them don't wear signatures (paid ones, I meant). So they don't get any kinda benefits, especially financial benefits from any merit they got.

---

I can not disagree with you. There is nobody pointed out that Yobit already reduced the maximum of daily post-cap to 10 for Cryptotalk's signature campaign. They likely do this due to their limited funds for that campaign, or that forum basically achieved early results that they expected at the beginning or they really listened to complaints from the community.

I get the point you are trying to make but these members listed here are those that were not active and have returned because of the signature campaign. There are many members in the campaign that are good posters and even better posters than some in other campaigns but they get drowned out by  the spammers in the signature. Introducing the merit requirement would reduce this significantly and would probably benefit Yobit now that they have had their mass exposure they could refine their reputation by only including those that are substantial merit earners.

I disagree that merits are easy to earn though and its as simple as making 50 quality posts to get 50 merits. If that was true we would see a lot more members that have ranked up but that is not true. We are seeing members who have been here a long time make hundreds of posts every month and not earn a single merit.

I agree with what you wrote, we all know how easy it is to abuse merit system, especially those who owned few high ranked alt accounts and get a few hundred of sMerits at the very beginning. What to do when you see some one-line post completely irrelevant get 30 or 50 merits, and some others (including me) need to post maybe 50 quality posts to get the same number of merits.

---

Back to the OP and his list, if he was able to find only 8 good posters from Cryptotalk campaign, and a week ago there was 500+ of them active, this only show that we are even far from 10% of them worth something. In the case of a normal campaign with selection, most good campaign managers would not accept more than 50 of them, which would be quite a sufficient number of participants.

You'll see that on many boards. A user suddenly keeps making new threads, discuss one or two things, went out of topic and prolonged the discussion just to increase the post count. Asking little things or adding a new point that was not necessary at all.

I tried to report as many as I can but the rate of spam is way too much. At least not every participant did that.

Yes because people are always going to post more just in case some of their posts don't get counted. At least that is what I think the mentality of these members is. I would say that the merit earned should be on a weekly basis and have a requirement that their posts need to have 1 merit every 5 to 10 posts to be able to carry on in the campaign. I would agree with both of you and say earned merit is the best way to judge an account the only issue with that is because I only have 602 merit and if my activity and posts were above 500 people might assume that I started off as a hero member and have only earned 602 merit because they can't check beyond the last 120 days. That is the only problem I see when judging someones earned merit. There are websites and statistics posted around the forum to show earned merit but its not immediately obvious when looking at someones profile and I think I would like that added to the forum.

In Turkish section, this was pretty much what I was pushing for. No matter how low you drop the maximum post amount per day, there are still people who do not really pay attention to that and continue to spam the forum. Even when the maximum post was 20 posts per day, there were still people who were posting about 40. Just random stuff, replying to threads without even reading the original post, making their reply senseless and gibberish. Unless there is a minimum merit requirement to join a campaign and/or minimum merit earned in X days, I believe this trend is going to continue. As Welsh has mentioned previously, merit is one of the most important factors to take into account when trying to comprehend whether an account is trustable, reputable, sharing informative posts etc.

Would be appreciated if you also noted that I recently verified my staked address (see profile) to prove I wasn’t hacked. In case anyone else has any doubts (cause obviously private keys can be sold!), I can verify using ID that correlates to my physical address given to other members of this forum in the past Happy to do that for anyone on DT1.

^^ To be fair, adding onto that, I’ve also had recent discussions with other old bitcointalk members and showed knowledge of stuff from years and years ago that is pretty much unfakeable

I didn’t come back because of Yobit, though, I came back and just happened to see its signature campaign.

A lot of members were suggesting ways of keeping older members and who would have thought that a campaign hated by most would be a contributing factor of getting old substantial members back to the forum. However the Yobit campaign has 500 participants and I would say only around 50 of those are substantial. If there is any hope in the yobit campaign from continuing on the forum I think a lot of members should be removed still. Theymos is probably looking at the campaign closely.  

Yobit look to be listening to the majority of members here on the forum and probably have had some input from Yahoo. They have cut the maximum post count in half and I think a maximum merit requirement will soon be introduced with Yahoo pushing it. That should cut down the total participants to only a small few and I invite that change as currently how it stands I think the campaign would eventually be banned and theymos might take a look at the signature campaigns as a whole being banned on the forum.

Well-done, sometimes we get too carried away that we forget to look at the bright side of every situation. The signature industry in regards to participants getting an opportunity to promote a campaign is a very competitive one and just as you have highlighted cryptotalk have given an opportunity to those won't aren't spammers per se but luck haven't been on their side like others in regards to getting merited for then to have higher chances in getting accepted in paid bitcoin campaigns.

We have some very decent posters in the campaign and I'm quite sure no one is against them promoting Cryptotalk. I believe the issue here isn't about what's been promoted instead how it's been promoted. The fight per se is against spammers and not the decent forum members.

OP you were faster than me. I noticed a handful of quality posters from the Yobit campaign who make positive contributions and wanted to make a similar thread, highlighting their posts and not the campaign itself. I think it is a good thing that there are at least a few members who know what they are talking about and are trying to be helpful.   

Earned merit would be at the very top of the list when assessing someone's post quality. Earned merits means more than total merit as a lot of users got free merit for having over a certain amount of activity. In fact, I would think that a lot of users here disregard total amount of merit, and look at how much the user has earned in the last 120 days. Of course, is is combined with taking a look at their post history personally, but is normally the #1 indicator that someone is posting good quality content.

Earned-merits or trust points are not determinant factors for post quality of posters. They are only one of componental factors and they serve as supplementary inclusive factors for poster's quality assessment. Generally, to assess post quality of one user, readers have to consider lots of things:
- Most important thing is average quality of posts: by checking post history. Without statistics on earned-merits. For example, if we assume that statistics disabled by admin, we all can assess post quality through post history.
- Total earned-merits. They are important, just behind average post quality over post history. Good posters tend to receive significant merits in total, over time. That statistic give us a quick overview on post quality of posters. Then next step will be checking whole post history or at least very recent posts.
I meant if there are two users with nearly same earned merits, we have to look at post history to see how different their post qualities are.  It is clearly that readers can flip between two things: post history and earned merits, in orders of priority. There is nothing wrong because at the ends, readers have to combine two things in order to have a final overview on post quality of posters.
We should not totally rely on earned merits.
- Trust points (that are a little bit unncessary because trust was initially designed for exchanges, not post quality). However, somehow readers can take a quick look at trust points, and feedbacks, and use them as supplemental factors.

I edited the OP.  DiamondCardz has 9 positive trusts not teosanru. It was my bad.
DiamondCardz is a trusted user who was inactive for more than a year, but earned 24 merits only in 5 days.
Only 43 posts from June 28 to 2016 to April 1, 2018,
No post from April 2, 2018 to October 15, 2019
79 posts from October 16, 2019 till now and 24 earned merits.