Topic: Suggestion to make rank-up more difficult - page 3. (Read 2314 times)

@OP,

From DdmrDdmr data (on the day your snapshotted the photo), there are 15665 ranked up users.

From my latest update in my thread - At-least-1 sent & earned merits users , excludes autobanned/ nuked. Stats!, we have something to think of, I only quote main parts:
You see it. There are 18971 users who earned at least 1 merit till the last Friday's merit data dump. After took into consideration only users who earned AND sent at least 1 merits we have 14547 users. Next, after excluding users who have been banned or nuked, we have only 12040 legit users left.
Let's make a very raw calculation to have percent of legit users on total users on the forum:

• Total users: 2775211
• Total legit users (from my definition): 12040
• Percent of legit users: 12040/2775211*100 ~ 0.43%

In addition, from my observations on weekly new legit users, the number increases very slowly weekly. Details.

I don't support the idea to make ranking up more difficult. 

In my opinion, making the rank up more difficult is necessary. It is true that some of your merits are from joining bitcointalk art competition which is far for faster than earning merit without ths competition. Also, this is not a forum where people visit this site just to rank up. Remember, this forum is for discussions not ranking up accounts.

Lol... You can only imagine that scenario. Glad it cracked you up to the point of you shilling it some merits. I appreciate.

Nullius deserves a rank by his name.

He writes very well. He put so much effort in his posts. It is a privilege to have a member such as him in this forum. He has knowledge, will to share, time, patience... He can't be an example for anything.



I agree with this.
You can create a new rank for those 3000k merited members, or members who are here for a long time (i.e, very high activity).

But to become a legendary you need 1000 merits, which was done only by 83 members in this forum is already very unobtainable.

Maybe there should a badge or something for each 1000 earned merits.

Now we're getting somewhere About removing the airdropped merits I'm with you, if you want to start a riot.

Of course, if we take Bossian's exploits of the merit system as being granted, even these 10 merits seem too few. But it could me a start.

For the lulz, let's remember how Bossian "hacked" the system:



Maybe avoid such situations as thoroughly explained by Bossian? But of course, not 2x.


Lol as a matter of fact that remembered me of something: 6000+ posts and 0 merit...and the winner 🥇 is.... But I see that guy Rimidalv managed somehow since then.

Indeed I took an extreme as an example. But did you read also that extreme's suggestion? Meaning what I quoted from nullius.

Of course that it is not your fault to have certain skillset/inclinations, but having it make it very easy for you to rank up on this forum. And what is easy for you might be very hard for someone else, and I really don't understand how can't you see that? Do you think it is smart thing to do, to base things like that on top 1% of the members?  

I really don't see what would this forum gain from increasing merit and activity requirement 2x. That  increased  merit requirement could only lead to more merit abuse,and people would trade merit way more than they are now.  At the time when forums in general  ain't popular as they used to be, and while there are a lot of other platforms. After all, point of merit system was to stop shit posters and spammers, and not turning ranking up on this forum into heavy grind for an average user.


You are taking things to extremes, using  one way way above average member as an example.  Equivalent of that would be using  bounty hunter shitposter with  400 activity, 5k posts in Bounty section and 0 merit as an example how hard it is to reach Jr Member rank.

Anyone who is able to consistently earn more merits than activity over a prolonged period of time will be, as you say, a good contributor. Users such as these are unlikely to be here simply to spam for some signature or bounty campaign, and are instead here due to a genuine interest in bitcoin. They are unlikely to stop posting and just wait due to some arbitrary activity number.

Not including theymos and satoshi, there are only 83 members who have earned 1000 merit ever, in the >2 years since merit was introduced. That's not even 1 new legendary a week. I don't think that's an unreasonable position. Increasing the limit to 3,000 would give a grand total of 5 legendary members on the entire forum (again, not including theymos). I don't see the benefit of doing that. The merit system was supposed to prevent spammers from ranking up, not create a new rank which is only obtainable by <0.001% of the forum.

I would agree, however, with increasing the threshold from Junior member from 1 merit to 10 merit. It is still too easy for spammers and account farmers to beg, buy, trade, use alts, or plagiarize their way to single merit and then start signature spamming for some meaningless altcoin. I'd also agree with removing airdropped merit for the same reason.

Indeed, I was not someone who did not know a thing about crypto when I joined this forum. Quite the opposite. Indeed Rikafip, you remembered well - I'm running a Romanian crypto portal. I'm still learning though, as many still do. But it's not a fault to have a skillset, is it? Some people have this skillset and don't share it at all, what about them?


None taken, don't worry. However, you contradict yourself a bit with these two sentences. Either you implied that I "gamed" the system, or if you talked in general, in the second sentence appears the contradiction. Because in the second sentence you state that the member who helps the community and earns fast merits for ranking up deserves them.
And about the possibility of "gaming" the system, no offense, but it's funny I'm not even in the Merit Cycling Club; can't imagine what you would have said if I was a member of that select gang


Did I ever say it's unfair? I just stated that seeing the generosity and the multiple possibilities of earning merits (giveaways, contests, predictions plus, of course the well documented topics etc), they are earned a bit too easy. And there should be required more merits for ranking up. About the hours spent writing good posts and being active: that's what I stated in OP: "practically, all you need in order to rank up is to be a honorable person and to wait. Honorable person means the following: to not spam, to not scam, to not plagiarize and post what you think is helpful here. To act as a normal person. And users will appreciate your work. They will give you merits if you post useful consideration and if you don't try to cheat the system. So merit barrier is not a real barrier at all if you act with good intentions."


I fully understand you regarding the time you spent for writing them; I also mentioned that in a previous post. That means you are a honorable person Btw - just this reply post took me about 2h.


Thank you so much! You are my fellow cinephile as well


Thank you for the kind words, I really appreciate!


In my case, as I earned my first merit on Oct. 25th, 2019 (and also my first activity points), the activity system would allow me to become Legendary somewhere between Sep. 22nd, 2021 (when I'll reach 775 activity points) and Jun. 6th, 2022 (when I'll reach the maximum of 1030 activity points required for being Legendary). Taking as an example the minimum period for becoming Legendary in my case: since Oct. 25th 2019 and Sep. 22nd, 2021 there are almost 23 months. Mathematically speaking, it would be expected to reach - theoretically - the half of merits at the half of the time interval - that is in Oct. 2020, after ~12 months. I reached the half of the merits in 5 months. And that was in a best case scenario, of 775 activity. In worst case scenario (1030 activity points) - from Oct. 25th 2019 to Jun. 6th 2022 there are 31.5 months. The half of the interval is ~January 2021 (15 months). And still, that would mean that I reached half of the merits in 5 months instead of 15.

Now let's take another example: did you take a look at nullius? He is the best example. Not to mention anymore that he also had a topic on a similar matter - Suggestion: Raise merit requirements at the lower and highest ranks (@theymos). Let's remember some of his words from that time:


Meanwhile, nullius has 1517 merits and 1260 posts. Posts, not activity! His activity is 280.

Getting back to his suggestion:





Not a problem with ranking up by being normal. Just a bit too easy. About the deletion of the airdrops, I suggested that too in the past:



Well, that's the problem, stated also in the OP - you have to wait. You reach already your merits (if you are a good contributor) and you wait. If more merits were required, you would be incentivized to contribute more and more, instead of just waiting.


Lol...sry, I didn't understand the saying it but it sounded funny. And somehow painfully. Can you try with other words, please?

True,  I can not image wheeling my testicles in a wheel barrel.  I can only say it must be terrible.

That is a situational irony you've got here, OP. That you your merits easily thrown at you doesn't mean it's that easy for others or that you're a better poster than they are. Just count your blessings and be mutely grateful to the community.

In addition, your post brings to the fore of a popular saying in my tribe, this I will loosely translate here - A man with a healthy penis doesn't know the travails of one with the elephantiasis of the scrotum.

And what's really the problem if people rank up by "being normal" and "not spammer" as you said ? xD

It's already too hard to rank up, and making it harder would just kill the cause! 2 years is still fine to be a legendary, and tbh it takes more than that time, 2 years is just an estimate.

If the forum really needs tighter ranking up rules, I would say to delete the airdropped merits that people recieved as they ranked up before the merit systems were introduced and they got it by default. So many people who ranked up by virtue of their activity has never earnt a single merit after that and many of them are the real spammers and scammers!

I couldn't agree more. I read your comment after having merit a bunch of posts talking about merit... I felt so idiot.

A good answer talking about bitcoin in the Beginners & Help board will earn 1-3 merits, while making some images about the forum awards 100-300 merits... forum politcs, trust, etc earn dozens...


However, It is ridiculous to say where should people spend their merits. But it amazes me to see that crypto related discussions are not the best place to "farm" merits.

The thing is, newcomers lack the knowledge of cryptocurrency which basically means the chances of them earning a Merit decrease substantially. Looking back to my first hundreds of posts on this forum will give you a strong idea of the fact that it takes some time until someone finds out what this forum truly is for and why it's much harder than it is thought for a newcomer to share ideas related to Bitcoin that are worth some Merits.

Hence, ranking up already is difficult imo. If someone has enough knowledge about BTC or does enough work for the community to earn the Merits required to be a Sr/Hero Member in a matter of months, that means they truly deserve it imo. No offense to Gazeta (I truly mean no offense) but if this system can easily be gamed and it's unfair to have users "cheating" it, then it means you've played it too and got hundreds of merits in a relatively short time - why would it be fair for a new user not to have the chances you've had to rank up? Someone will have to work more than you've in order to get the same Merit count.

Now imagine you've had this account without knowing a single thing about the way Bitcoin works, about anything related to cryptocurrencies. Consider yourself a complete newbie in this sphere for a minute. Who'd get the merits? You, or would someone who actively corrects your mistakes and teaches you the right things about BTC? Who deserves them more?

The only "fair" thing imo would be the possibility of only sharing merits with people who write things related to BTC. This way, the merit would be 100% deserved as you cannot get it for some off-topic bullshit replies (later edit: did not mean bullshit, as these are more than likely NOT merited) you write or for saying a little "thanks" to BTCTalk @Meta after ranking up. There's, however, probably no way you can create such filters and make only BTC-related posts qualify for Merits.

Think of all the hours you've spent trying NOT to write nonsense and actively participating in as many topics as possible out here. All the hours you've spent translating other users' threads. You're probably one of the lucky ones who've enough free time and are willingly spending it on this forum. Do you really think it's unfair to receive hundreds of merits?

EDIT: It takes me ~15 minutes to usually write a post. I write posts which take me at least 20 minutes almost every day. Now remember I've received ~350 Merits since mid-January. Do I deserve them or not, considering I pretty often happen to write +80 posts/week which account for +18hrs/week spent ONLY on writing my posts?

This is not entirely true.

You need to be really active. You are a heavy forum user. You spend hours and hours here each day. This is not common, this is not an easy thing to do. Most of the honorable people don't have time to do that.

To become a legendary you need to earn 1000 merits. To earn 1000 merits, unless we had art contests often, you need to make thousands of posts. I don't know a single user who has more than 1000 earned merits and less than 1000 posts.

Writing thousands good posts is a LOT. This demands time, effort, knowledge, patience... We make some money with all that effort here, which gives us some incentive. But that's a hard job to keep our activity here.

I don't think that ranking up is easy. It was very hard for me to earn my 1300 merits. Actually, it is still a great please for me to receive a single merit, even now. it is a recognition of all the effort I put in my contributions.

What you keep forgetting is that an average bitcointalk user doesn't have experience of running crypto portal for a couple of years (I think  you mentioned somewhere that GazetaBitcoin is also Romanian crypto portal) and don't have adequate English level to translate texts to their native language, like you did for Romanian local board.

What might be easy for you, could be very hard for someone else without certain skillset. Just keep that in mind when asking to make something more. demanding.

Btw, congrats on merit achievement, well deserved my fellow cinephile!

Interesting concept. The problem is when a new guy comes around and earns merits quickly.  correct?

Your above mentioned details doesn't effect ranking in anyways as you would still need to wait for your activity to reach 500 to become a Hero. I mean activity and merits together gives desired effect to the ranking system of putting both efforts and time as an criteria, leaving no need for an edit in the ranking system or making it more difficult until.

In addition to my previous post, today at 17.24:21 I just reached the necessary merits for becoming a Hero, while I'm still a Full Member, having a merits vs activity ratio of 2.12.

As my first merit was received on Friday, Oct. 25th, 2019, at 11:55:50AM, it means it took me only 163d 5h 28' 31" to earn the Hero threshold, earlier with 240d 7h 8' 59" than the moment when my activity would allow me (I'm supposed to reach 480 activity on Dec. 2nd, 2020 at 03:33:20).

Given the above mentioned details, I still believe that the rank-up should be a bit more difficult.

I think adding a merit limit for each post is something that the forum should avoid on implements simply because of two reasons. One is it will be harder to catch merit abusers because they can easily allocate their merits on each posts using the limit as a guide. The second one is adding a merit limit for each users will just be unfair for a high quality post made by a member because certainly there are posts out there that is worth more than 10 merits from at least one or two members. The merit system already proves that is already hard enough for any normal members to rank up and I don't think the ranking system needs another major change like what is suggested in the OP.

What you consider bullshit might be the key solution to someone else's problems. Hence, I believe the 50 sMerit limit per month is fine. Some of the users here have had some priceless ideas or found critical bugs in different softwares/wallets which have saved a lot of users' funds.

It's pretty unfair if someone considers my thoughts worth 4 sMerit and meanwhile someone else finds something never discovered before that had laid for years in some software's code and you just can't give that guy as much sMerit as you could for preventing a huge exploit. The chances of receiving 50 sMerit for just some opinions are slight, so nobody would send me that much for a post that didn't deserve that much merit. Makes sense?