I really appreciate all the feedback and insight everyone shared in this thread. From now on I'll take a few extra looks on the merit that my potential participants have earned and if I ever suspect they've abused the system by buying/trading merit I'll give them a neutral tag and send in to a few people that could look into it further.
I'll also get going on applying as a Merit Source shortly to start awarding good posts that participants in my campaigns are making. Hopefully this would also lead to me not having to enforce specific merit requirements when launching new Campaigns and instead look at their posts more (although I already look at it, but I'll get better at it in the future).
Will now lock this thread as I feel it served it's purpose, again thank you guys!
Topic: What can I do about possible merit abuse? (Read 1076 times)
That really might be getting much challenging for you to even judge good standing accounts including green trust. You should simply go through the post on which they recieved merit and judge that post according to your point of view and see if it seems a genuine merit transfer. If you feel anything fishy then you can reject the application maybe.
Even i am confused what can be done against such merit abuse but you are well trained and wise enough to judge peoples so i really hope you undergo this much wisely. I would love to hear your results as it would be exciting for me..
Even i am confused what can be done against such merit abuse but you are well trained and wise enough to judge peoples so i really hope you undergo this much wisely. I would love to hear your results as it would be exciting for me..
Now to the issue, more than once (both previously and right now), I have people applying in my Campaigns and when I go to check their merit received I can see that they just received enough merit to hit the requirement, in some cases it was done just minutes before they apply. Now, this is probably merit abuse as I don't buy that it happens as a coincidence. However, how can I prove it? Do I just deny these people due to the fact it's just assumption, do I take any other action against it? It happens with accounts in good standing too, green trust & very active users so I'm a bit torn.
In my opinion it's a clear abuse of merit system and I won't accept those members in my campaigns if I were a campaign manager.
You can't say it's coincident, because they are receiving merits right after you have announced the campaign. So its a clear sign of merit abuse in order to get into a campaign.
But the accounts with good standing must be checked with special care because I don't think they will take the risk to harm their rep.
From whom they received merit and for which posts it should be checked and you are no doubt an experienced one in this field.
All the above replies are salutary and you have the choice to implement whatever you want. I also have an idea which could result in less merit abuse.
How about creating a list of people who are possible merit abusers ? Like how you think that some people are abusing merit, just adding them up to the list will do the job.
Few people like the Pharmacist, Lauda and few more who are too good in investigating accounts can find out if the person is a merit abuser or not.
Or lets say anybody who identifies and proves that the person is abusing merit will be rewarded with merits. If the person will actually be abusing the merit then it's his 'Endgame'
Just a thought :-)
I was abt to write the same suggestion, but you wrote it. How about creating a list of people who are possible merit abusers ? Like how you think that some people are abusing merit, just adding them up to the list will do the job.
Few people like the Pharmacist, Lauda and few more who are too good in investigating accounts can find out if the person is a merit abuser or not.
Or lets say anybody who identifies and proves that the person is abusing merit will be rewarded with merits. If the person will actually be abusing the merit then it's his 'Endgame'
Just a thought :-)
I think it will help campaign managers a lot in regards to time saving.
All the above replies are salutary and you have the choice to implement whatever you want. I also have an idea which could result in less merit abuse.
How about creating a list of people who are possible merit abusers ? Like how you think that some people are abusing merit, just adding them up to the list will do the job.
Few people like the Pharmacist, Lauda and few more who are too good in investigating accounts can find out if the person is a merit abuser or not.
Or lets say anybody who identifies and proves that the person is abusing merit will be rewarded with merits. If the person will actually be abusing the merit then it's his 'Endgame'
Just a thought :-)
How about creating a list of people who are possible merit abusers ? Like how you think that some people are abusing merit, just adding them up to the list will do the job.
Few people like the Pharmacist, Lauda and few more who are too good in investigating accounts can find out if the person is a merit abuser or not.
Or lets say anybody who identifies and proves that the person is abusing merit will be rewarded with merits. If the person will actually be abusing the merit then it's his 'Endgame'
Just a thought :-)
If they have met the Merit Requirement but the Merits they've received are all very new (it probably isn't an issue if they reached the requirement recently by earning a few Merits, legally), then simply open their post history, check if their posting behavior convinces you. If it doesn't, then you can outrightly reject them since you are the manager and you want constructive posters for the campaign (that is why the Merit requirement is added, right?), but if it does convince you, then you can open their Merit history, look for the post they've received the Merits for, and see if the post deserves to get that many Merits and they've not earned them in a wrong way. If they're all earned legitimately, it can be a coincidence and they don't deserve a rejection for it, and if they are not, you are the boss. 
Thanks for the tools
I hope that my topic can be helpful for you, manager.I think I made a summary from all available solutions raised by some users, there:
Tools for managers to check quality of posts (both merited & unmerited posts)
Feel free to leave your comment if you think I should improve the topic's contents, please.
Tools for managers to check quality of posts (both merited & unmerited posts)
Feel free to leave your comment if you think I should improve the topic's contents, please.
I don't think it is necessary, all rights to accept or deny applying participants made by manager.
I don't agree at this point.
You should adjust it like 'earn 20 merits for non-sense, low quality works (posts or topics).
If you're concerned about possible merit abuse mainly for the purposes of choosing participants for a bounty campaign - couldn't you just add a catch all sentence along the lines of 'I can accept or decline any participant for any reason at my discretion at any time during the campaign, including for possible merit abuse' etc.
'For any reason', really? Even posts or topics merited because they are really constructive.I don't agree at this point.
You should adjust it like 'earn 20 merits for non-sense, low quality works (posts or topics).
Quote
You probably already include something like that but if it's right there in black and white then you're good to decline someone who 'earned' 20 merit for any reason.
Abusements, when founded should result in rejections on applications. I don't think that recently abusements should lead to rejections, whilst past abusements (weeks or months ago) should be ignored. Abusements are always abusements. Quote
Will also mean that any last minute merit abuse will be somewhat wasted on the person who is trying to sneak into your bounty campaign - so that's a small win.
If you're concerned about possible merit abuse mainly for the purposes of choosing participants for a bounty campaign - couldn't you just add a catch all sentence along the lines of 'I can accept or decline any participant for any reason at my discretion at any time during the campaign, including for possible merit abuse' etc.
You probably already include something like that but if it's right there in black and white then you're good to decline someone who 'earned' 20 merit for any reason. Will also mean that any last minute merit abuse will be somewhat wasted on the person who is trying to sneak into your bounty campaign - so that's a small win.
You probably already include something like that but if it's right there in black and white then you're good to decline someone who 'earned' 20 merit for any reason. Will also mean that any last minute merit abuse will be somewhat wasted on the person who is trying to sneak into your bounty campaign - so that's a small win.
Thanks for the tools, but I just go to peoples profiles and press Merit and that shows me what they've sent and received in the last 120 days. Are those numbers not accurate?
There you go, @Vod already replied. More adjustments will come soon.It's time to use the tool to help you more effectively check your campaigns' applicants.
120 days ago would be about this:
https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=Hhampuz&from=&start=11/27/18&end=&min=&max=
I now show number of records on the bottom
still working on the summation.
https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=Hhampuz&from=&start=11/27/18&end=&min=&max=
I now show number of records on the bottom
still working on the summation.
Furthermore, DdmrDdmr gave another option with his Merit Dashboard.
I have not tried using it, but you can take a look at it.
The Merit Dashboard does that. Simply go to the "Received Merit" tab, and adjust the date range slider to the date interval required (i.e. between date x and date y), be it 120 days or other. By default it shows all history. Then enter the user name or user Id on the boxes on the right side of the screen.
You should see:
- the total amount of merits earned by the forum member in the timeframe (on the right side of the screen, under the name).
- the amount received per rank in that timeframe.
- a breakdown by month.
- a breakdown by day.
- a summary of the forum names that merited the profile, and amounts, in the timeframe.
To change the username or id, just click on the parameter box, press the "x’ to delete current parameter, and type in a new name.
Note that the software, Tableau Public will timeout after around four minutes of inactivity, so if that happens, the date range may need to be provided again.
You can also see (on the rankings tab) the most merited profiles in a given timeframe and board.
You should see:
- the total amount of merits earned by the forum member in the timeframe (on the right side of the screen, under the name).
- the amount received per rank in that timeframe.
- a breakdown by month.
- a breakdown by day.
- a summary of the forum names that merited the profile, and amounts, in the timeframe.
To change the username or id, just click on the parameter box, press the "x’ to delete current parameter, and type in a new name.
Note that the software, Tableau Public will timeout after around four minutes of inactivity, so if that happens, the date range may need to be provided again.
You can also see (on the rankings tab) the most merited profiles in a given timeframe and board.
Thanks for the tools, but I just go to peoples profiles and press Merit and that shows me what they've sent and received in the last 120 days. Are those numbers not accurate?
Yes that's 100% accurate. External script or tools will give you total merit transaction details. I mean lifetime merit details. So I don't think you need to use any external script or tools in order to check only 120 days merit history.
Thanks for the tools, but I just go to peoples profiles and press Merit and that shows me what they've sent and received in the last 120 days. Are those numbers not accurate?
I have a news for you, manager Hhampuz.
Vod created new feature for BPIP site, that gives new tool to sort out received merits in last 120 days.
Please check it there:
Thx.
Already done:
https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=&from=&start=&end=&min=&max=
Just put profile name after to= and 120 days ago in start=
For instance, your received merits in last 120 days
https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=Hhampuz&from=&start=120&end=&min=&max=
Edited: Something works incorrectly, please wait for Vod's reply (I already asked him).
Vod created new feature for BPIP site, that gives new tool to sort out received merits in last 120 days.
Please check it there:
You forgot about @Vod, who created the BPIP site for bitcointalk community months ago.
He can do it for sure if he want.
He can do it for sure if he want.
Thx.
Already done:
https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=&from=&start=&end=&min=&max=
Just put profile name after to= and 120 days ago in start=
https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=Hhampuz&from=&start=120&end=&min=&max=
Edited: Something works incorrectly, please wait for Vod's reply (I already asked him).
I've been meaning to but then things just kept coming in the way. Is theymos actively adding new merit sources, if you know?
He's been adding some and/or reshuffling merit allocations every 3-4 months. Last change was in January IIRC.
Copy that, as soon as I'm back home from my vacation I'll stop dragging my feet and get to it. Thank you!
I've been meaning to but then things just kept coming in the way. Is theymos actively adding new merit sources, if you know?
He's been adding some and/or reshuffling merit allocations every 3-4 months. Last change was in January IIRC.
I've been meaning to but then things just kept coming in the way. Is theymos actively adding new merit sources, if you know?
For those reasons mentioned below, I don't think theymos will add new merit sources in short- or medium-term.I don't think theymos will consider to add more merit sources soon, maybe till the end of 2019, or even never consider about this.
Some potential reasons that led to theymos' hesitation are:
- Some abusements from limited merit sources.
- The admin don't want to generate more merits and sMerits to all merit sources (both current sources and new ones). Because, more monthly generated merits and sMerits will in turn lead to higher sMerits circulations in the forum. That, in turn, gives forum users more chances to be promoted, much faster, and in other side might create more potential incorrect usages of allocated sMerits.
- Limited merit sources, and limited monthly generated merits and sMerits will force the general quality of posts/ topics, users higher than adding more of them. Because users have to fight hard each other with their posts, their contributions to get sMerits from merit sources.
In general, I think theymos has lack of interests in adding more merit sources.
The admin might only consider about this if more than 10% of current merit sources kicked out (due to abusements, for instance).
Some potential reasons that led to theymos' hesitation are:
- Some abusements from limited merit sources.
- The admin don't want to generate more merits and sMerits to all merit sources (both current sources and new ones). Because, more monthly generated merits and sMerits will in turn lead to higher sMerits circulations in the forum. That, in turn, gives forum users more chances to be promoted, much faster, and in other side might create more potential incorrect usages of allocated sMerits.
- Limited merit sources, and limited monthly generated merits and sMerits will force the general quality of posts/ topics, users higher than adding more of them. Because users have to fight hard each other with their posts, their contributions to get sMerits from merit sources.
In general, I think theymos has lack of interests in adding more merit sources.
The admin might only consider about this if more than 10% of current merit sources kicked out (due to abusements, for instance).
Two main things:
- Checking merited posts or topics to assess it's quality in your own perspective.
- Checking the whole post history, especially within last 120 days.
From those two essential checking steps, the overview on quality of posters as well as potential merit abusements will become clearer.
For me, it is too easy to identify if that merit was given freely or abusively. As you have said you are a campaign manager and among others you should understand way more better what a constructive post to not and if it deserves a merit.
Tho, finding proof that it is a purely abused is a different story. Even tho, that merit is given from the time they applied you can still identify it's authenticity by reviewing the post.
Tho, finding proof that it is a purely abused is a different story. Even tho, that merit is given from the time they applied you can still identify it's authenticity by reviewing the post.
I'm wishing that I'd be a merit source
Have you applied? If not - do it, you have a good reason right there since you're reviewing posts as part of your job.
I've been meaning to but then things just kept coming in the way. Is theymos actively adding new merit sources, if you know?
For me, it is too easy to identify if that merit was given freely or abusively. As you have said you are a campaign manager and among others you should understand way more better what a constructive post to not and if it deserves a merit.
Tho, finding proof that it is a purely abused is a different story. Even tho, that merit is given from the time they applied you can still identify it's authenticity by reviewing the post.
Tho, finding proof that it is a purely abused is a different story. Even tho, that merit is given from the time they applied you can still identify it's authenticity by reviewing the post.
I'm wishing that I'd be a merit source
Have you applied? If not - do it, you have a good reason right there since you're reviewing posts as part of your job.
but with a balance of 10-20 merit at any given time I am very limited in what I can do.
maybe report them here > https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/self-moderated-report-unmerited-good-posts-to-merit-source-5093271
Quote
I also usually have different requirements for different campaigns as if I were to set it at 50 I'd hardly get any applications as most people with 50 or more earned merits are already in some other Campaign.
OK maybe 50 is a bit too much, but you get the point.
you are right, it depends on the campaign, you can't have the same "strict" requirements for every campaign, but for those with high pay rate where you have more on the waiting list than what you can accept, it makes sense to be a bit more strict.
anyhow i think you are doing a great job, it's great to see some camping managers being open for community opinions ,and actually care about the overall performance of the forum. good luck.
increasing merit requirement specially for higher ranks will help you filter merit abusers, having 5 or 10 merit for as a requirement is as good as useless, those a few merit can be easily obtained by many "abusive" ways, plus it only makes sense that if someone has a hero rank for example and have not earned 50 merit for example then probably his/her posts are pure shit which you wouldn't want to have in your campaign.
Although I can agree to some extent you should see the amount of people that apply in my campaigns with 0 or just a couple of earned merits during their entire stay here. I always check their posts and you'd be amazed at how many of these people actually post some good shit but more often than not they post it in the "wrong" sections where the merit is not flowing as much. A lot of them perhaps never visit Meta, never pursue any scams/abusers or never posts any guides while still holding a good tone and adding to the discussion.
Everytime that I'm counting posts in my Campaigns I'm wishing that I'd be a merit source so that I could award these people a few merit (and I try, believe me), but with a balance of 10-20 merit at any given time I am very limited in what I can do. I also usually have different requirements for different campaigns as if I were to set it at 50 I'd hardly get any applications as most people with 50 or more earned merits are already in some other Campaign.
My beliefs are that if someone is here, actively participating in discussions and trying to make the community better they deserve to get a chance to earn off of it just like everyone else.
Jump to: