|
Title: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: akamit on April 12, 2019, 03:39:38 PM Source: LoyceV's Merit Data Analysis (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3078328.msg50480825#msg50480825)
According to Loyce's weekly data we can see Merit Sources and other members are distributing sMerits to the quality posts and the numbers are quite impressive as I've thought to be. Total number of users who gave away 1 or more sMerit: 19903 Sample Code: 1. 13111 Merit sent by suchmoon (#234771) to 989 unique users in 3212 transactions Merit per day of the week Monday 48824 (13.73%) Tuesday 51085 (14.36%) Wednesday 49706 (13.97%) Thursday 63080 (17.73%) Friday 52370 (14.72%) Saturday 45925 (12.91%) Sunday 44601 (12.54%) Total: 355591 Now to my question, Is merit requirement per rank excessive? We can see lots of hate, disappointment towards the merit system almost daily. The reason is, users are not ranking up (except some) and they are accusing Merit sources, DT. Saying they are not fair, they are distributing to their pals only, etc etc. But the above stats show that everyone is doing their job perfectly and the numbers are the evidence of the work done on a weekly basis. However, after all the works by merit distributors, it is true that the users are not ranking up even if he/she is a quality poster. There are probably two reasons for this, (1) Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive (2) Merit Sources are low in number in comparison with the members this forum has. Merit Requirements Per Rank. Jr Member: 1 Member: 10 (x10 required from Jr. to member) Full Member: 100 (x90 required from member to full) Sr. Member: 250 (x150 required from full to senior) Hero Member: 500 (x250 required from senior to hero) Legendary: 1000 (x500 required from hero to legendary) Beside my base question, I also want to point out one more thing. "Day by day peoples make themselves better or worse?" My point for Senior to Hero to Legendary. Please correct me if I'm wrong or if you think my points are valid then share your opinion. Not sure if it has been discussed before. Let me know if it is discussed before, I will lock this thread right away. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: bitcoin revo on April 12, 2019, 03:46:22 PM Obviously I'm biased with my rank, but I don't see any reason why riding the good life as a Senior Member for a few more months than your activity says you should matters - unless you're solely here for signature campaigns (in which case I kindly ask for one to GTFO).
Also, yes, it has been discussed more than its fair share. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: suchmoon on April 12, 2019, 03:53:45 PM After 5+ years I'm still not sure why people care so much about ranks and other badges. If it's for money-making purposes (e.g. sig campaigns) - the forum doesn't control that. If the ranks would be easier to attain then there would be more users competing for the same campaigns and then it's up to each manager how they deal with that. Some managers already have merit requirements.
Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: mk4 on April 12, 2019, 03:53:57 PM Nope. I don't think so. I think the merit requirements per rank is already is in their sort of "sweet spot" whereas it isn't excessively high, and at the same time, not too easy. Ignore those people who are complaining. They aren't receiving merits? Simple. It's highly likely simply because they don't deserve it. It's pretty much like janitors complaining why they aren't being promoted to a manager position in a company even if they know little to nothing.
Yes, 1000 is definitely A LOT of merits for a certain rank(legendary). But it isn't called "legendary" for no reason. It should be very hard to attain in the first place. It isn't even excessively difficult to attain to be honest, it's just going to take a while. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Quickseller on April 12, 2019, 03:56:04 PM I am currently the 95th most merited person on the forum and in the just under 16 months since the merit system was introduced, I have not yet received sufficient merit required to become a hero member. I was around when a lot of sMerit was airdropped to everyone and a lot of merit was being given out by a lot of people. There are more merit sources now, but much fewer people are now giving out merit.
The above means less than 95 people have become hero members, I know only a small handful of people have become legendary. I don’t know off hand how many have become senior members but I am pretty sure it isn’t many. Based on the above, I think the merit system needs to be tinkered with a little bit. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: stompix on April 12, 2019, 04:04:30 PM No.
And I personally think that theymos should increase the jr requirement to at least 3 or 5 and member to 25. That should get rid of a lot of merit sales and shares as it will simply become too expensive and far to easy to spot. Also, I would love to see merit decay, even if it's only for the airdrop merit. I saw in the last days in China bans mining topics a lot of people with ranks from hero to jr that had no clue how mining works, how bitcoins are mined, how transactions work, but still felt the need to spread their knowledge... Burning 1/2/5 whatever airdop merits per activity period, that would be so nice!!!!! Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: DireWolfM14 on April 12, 2019, 04:15:01 PM I am currently the 95th most merited person on the forum and in the just under 16 months since the merit system was introduced, I have not yet received sufficient merit required to become a hero member. I was around when a lot of sMerit was airdropped to everyone and a lot of merit was being given out by a lot of people. There are more merit sources now, but much fewer people are now giving out merit. The above means less than 95 people have become hero members, I know only a small handful of people have become legendary. I don’t know off hand how many have become senior members but I am pretty sure it isn’t many. Based on the above, I think the merit system needs to be tinkered with a little bit. I don't see that as a big deal. After 16 months, and you're almost a self-made Hero Member. That seems like a reasonable time frame. I had zero experience with cryptocurrency when I joined the forum a year ago, and that last time I did any coding was over 25 years ago. I try to be helpful, courteous (mostly,) and share what I learn, and despite my lack of technical knowledge I was able to attain Sr. Member status in about 11 months. I don't know what a reasonable time frame for ranking up is, but it's bound to take some of us longer than others. Some of the members that rank up quickly are spending many hours a day on the forum, and making hundreds of posts a week. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Quickseller on April 12, 2019, 04:25:23 PM I am currently the 95th most merited person on the forum and in the just under 16 months since the merit system was introduced, I have not yet received sufficient merit required to become a hero member. I was around when a lot of sMerit was airdropped to everyone and a lot of merit was being given out by a lot of people. There are more merit sources now, but much fewer people are now giving out merit. The above means less than 95 people have become hero members, I know only a small handful of people have become legendary. I don’t know off hand how many have become senior members but I am pretty sure it isn’t many. Based on the above, I think the merit system needs to be tinkered with a little bit. I don't see that as a big deal. After 16 months, and you're almost a self-made Hero Member. That seems like a reasonable time frame. I had zero experience with cryptocurrency when I joined the forum a year ago, and that last time I did any coding was over 25 years ago. I try to be helpful, courteous (mostly,) and share what I learn, and despite my lack of technical knowledge I was able to attain Sr. Member status in about 11 months. I don't know what a reasonable time frame for ranking up is, but it's bound to take some of us longer than others. Some of the members that rank up quickly are spending many hours a day on the forum, and making hundreds of posts a week. I would also point out that I had extensive knowledge about bitcoin when the merit system was introduced, which probably increased the amount of merit I received. This would not be the case for the average person. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: LoyceV on April 12, 2019, 04:27:58 PM The above means less than 95 people have become hero members It's much less: many of those (less than) 95 users had a high rank already and didn't rank up.My weekly Merit update isn't finished yet, but here's a sneak preview with this morning's data: 17 users earned 1000+ Merit 76 users earned 500+ Merit 204 users earned 250+ Merit 607 users earned 100+ Merit 7336 users earned 10+ Merit 27732 users earned 1+ Merit Ranking up is no longer for everyone, and I think that's a good thing. I haven't seen too many good users who are being limited by Merit, but if you find them, please report their posts their good posts here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093271.0). There are hundreds of thousands of people who use the forum every month, most probably won’t participate continuously for 16 months, but I would expect for at least thousands to have enough activity to be a hero. I don't think it's realistic to expect thousands of users to earn more Merit than Activity. And I think you're off on the total number of real users, hundreds of thousands of active posters doesn't mean they're all unique users. I expect many alt accounts, and ranking up more than one account is virtually impossible (empirical evidence here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1903546)).Quote I would also point out that I had extensive knowledge about bitcoin when the merit system was introduced, which probably increased the amount of merit I received. This would not be the case for the average person. I'm pretty sure your red trust discourages people from meriting you, otherwise you'd probably have had much more by now.Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Steamtyme on April 12, 2019, 04:40:45 PM The above means less than 95 people have become hero members, I know only a small handful of people have become legendary. I don’t know off hand how many have become senior members but I am pretty sure it isn’t many. Rank up thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5024849.0) - This thread documents users who have ranked up, usually updated weekly I believe. Legendary - 11 Hero - 43 Senior - 108 Full - 183 I don't know that we need to change the requirements. So what if you don't get to Hero in under 2 years. You can still actively participate in all aspects of the forum. There are also a lot of resources out there to gain merit, even coming to Meta and bitching about it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125630.0). The key is as long as people can review your posts and find something objectively good you will receive some merit. I would keep the requirements where they are but might consider adding some more sources for a more concentrated effect. I'm sure we could see statistically where merit doesn't flow, perhaps we could find out first if the board has anything merit worthy. Next maybe nominate a source who frequents that area, better yet who only really frequents that area. Some local boards could benefit. Quote I would also point out that I had extensive knowledge about bitcoin when the merit system was introduced, which probably increased the amount of merit I received. This would not be the case for the average person. I'm pretty sure your red trust discourages people from meriting you, otherwise you'd probably have had much more by now.I would have to agree with that. It probably doesn't help that QS does tend to have a differing opinion with quite a few of the most generous merit givers. Which can lead to overlooking a quality post due to disagreeing with the message. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: The Cryptovator on April 12, 2019, 04:45:00 PM I believe according to activity merit requirement if fine. I have joined this forum after implementation of merit system and now I am the top 57th merited user (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Coolcryptovator) all time. But unfortunately still I am Sr. Member due to lack of activity even I have earned 604 merit. I think merit should increase for Jr. Member. I believe most of contributor earning enough merit. But its true day by day merit distribution is decreasing because of spent airdrop merit. Whoever can't earn merit he will not able to distribute smerit if a user already spent his/her smerit. So its very important to increase merit source regularly. And also need increase monthly budget of source. Then merit system will be remain fresh always. Admin should assign merit source consistently like every three month 10/15 merit source.
Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: DireWolfM14 on April 12, 2019, 04:45:47 PM ~but I would expect for at least thousands to have enough activity to be a hero.~ That's why the merit system was implemented. You now need to actually contribute to the forum rather than just stay logged-in for the requisite time period and spew enough off-topic shitposts to rank up. Again, I don't know what's an acceptable number of members that the community thinks should be ranking up, but as Loyce's data shows 76 members were able to earn enough merit to reach hero. Now, I don't know what your idea of a "Hero" is, but I've always used the word in an rather exclusive manner. Not to mention "Legendary." Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Quickseller on April 12, 2019, 05:00:34 PM The above means less than 95 people have become hero members It's much less: many of those (less than) 95 users had a high rank already and didn't rank up.My weekly Merit update isn't finished yet, but here's a sneak preview with this morning's data: 17 users earned 1000+ Merit 76 users earned 500+ Merit 204 users earned 250+ Merit 607 users earned 100+ Merit 7336 users earned 10+ Merit 27732 users earned 1+ Merit Ranking up is no longer for everyone, and I think that's a good thing. I haven't seen too many good users who are being limited by Merit, but if you find them, please report their posts their good posts here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093271.0). Quote There are hundreds of thousands of people who use the forum every month, most probably won’t participate continuously for 16 months, but I would expect for at least thousands to have enough activity to be a hero. I don't think it's realistic to expect thousands of users to earn more Merit than Activity. And I think you're off on the total number of real users, hundreds of thousands of active posters doesn't mean they're all unique users. I expect many alt accounts, and ranking up more than one account is virtually impossible (empirical evidence here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1903546)).Quote Quote I would also point out that I had extensive knowledge about bitcoin when the merit system was introduced, which probably increased the amount of merit I received. This would not be the case for the average person. I'm pretty sure your red trust discourages people from meriting you, otherwise you'd probably have had much more by now.I do think that merit sources tend to get much more merit than most other people. Look at Vod for example, he is a merit source, but makes very few if any “objectively good” posts and nearly zero (if any) helpful posts, but he is one of the most merited people here. Legendary - 11 Hero - 43 Senior - 108 Full - 183 I don't know that we need to change the requirements. So what if you don't get to Hero in under 2 years. You can still actively participate in all aspects of the forum. There are also a lot of resources out there to gain merit, even coming to Meta and bitching about it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125630.0). I think the above number of people who have ranked up is too low. Quote Quote I would also point out that I had extensive knowledge about bitcoin when the merit system was introduced, which probably increased the amount of merit I received. This would not be the case for the average person. I'm pretty sure your red trust discourages people from meriting you, otherwise you'd probably have had much more by now.I would have to agree with that. It probably doesn't help that QS does tend to have a differing opinion with quite a few of the most generous merit givers. Which can lead to overlooking a quality post due to disagreeing with the message. ~but I would expect for at least thousands to have enough activity to be a hero.~ That's why the merit system was implemented. You now need to actually contribute to the forum rather than just stay logged-in for the requisite time period and spew enough off-topic shitposts to rank up. Again, I don't know what's an acceptable number of members that the community thinks should be ranking up, but as Loyce's data shows 76 members were able to earn enough merit to reach hero. Now, I don't know what your idea of a "Hero" is, but I've always used the word in an rather exclusive manner. Not to mention "Legendary." Edit: bb code. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: mk4 on April 12, 2019, 05:22:33 PM There are only 94 people with more merit than I have. There are hundreds of thousands of people who use the forum every month, most probably won’t participate continuously for 16 months, but I would expect for at least thousands to have enough activity to be a hero. It just unfortunately shows how big the number of people here are solely for bounties(most probably more of altcoin bounties) and aren't even to spend a bit of time learning about bitcoin or cryptocurrencies in general. It honestly doesn't even take to be an intermediate/expert to earn a few merits from time to time, but people are complaining on how to earn them. The problem is obviously more on them, rather than being the fault of the current merit system. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: amishmanish on April 12, 2019, 05:25:10 PM I ranked up to senior member pretty quickly back in the initial days. The starting times were a bit disappointing till I got to the thread by QuestionAuthority where he gave me 20 merits. Things started to feel much better after that. I was a regular at the forum back when nullius was breaking the records for merits and demonstrating to everyone what a great new user should be like. (The forum sure misses him i guess).
I ranked up just when the coinpayments campaign was coming to an end. While trying to fulfill the 30 weekly requirements for coinpayments, I often found myself saying the same thing over and over again. I also realized that most of my posts were only in the "Bitcoin Discussion" and "Economics" section..The main hunting ground for shitposters and Sig spammers..lol.. I felt embarrassed and felt like i had nothing to add without some real technical information. I used to frequent r/bitcoin and twitter accounts of all the devs to stay abreast of whats new. This used to help in adding to discussions. Yet, It gradually became clear to me that based on pure "discussions", A Sr. Member rank is the most that you can get to now AND the most that you should get to. If you want to be a Hero, you must have enough technical know-how to contribute frequently to the Dev & Technical discussion. (I presently have to remain content with lurking). If you want to be a legendary, you must be a big contributor in at least one of the sections like Mining or Services or Market. That i feel is the only way now to get to Hero/ Legendary. I agree that its a lot of work but then it'll really be worth it. Of course, its quite a source of heartburn to see a lot of braindead people from the old days who get have the Hero/ Legendary status :P but that is something we cannot help. Its like all those drug suppliers and arms-dealers that must have gotten wealthy with bitcoin. It is just part of the unfair dichotomies of Bitcoin. In short, No the merit requirements are not excessive. Increasing them for Jr. Member could be taken into consideration too. Most people who really engage eventually do get to member status. The problem with the low requirement is that it has resulted in merit-trading and alt accounts. I think one solution could be that some percentage of merit required for ranking upto Jr. Member and Member should come from a Verified Merit Source. Verified Merit source should fulfill the following requirements: 1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits. 1.) Be randomly selected from this group 2.) Anonymous in Merit History 3.) Change cyclically A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers. Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on.. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: DdmrDdmr on April 12, 2019, 05:30:57 PM I’ve just updated the Merit Dashboard, and make the amount of people that have ranked-up at some point, needing Merits to do so, the following:
https://i.imgur.com/f6bj0LR.png The reading of the above table indicates that we’ve got: - 11 Heroes have made it to Legendary - 25 Sr. Members have made it to Hero Member. - 13 Full Members have made it to Hero Member. - 5 Members have made it to Hero. - 1 Old Era Newbie has made it to Hero. - On aggregate, that makes 44 accounts that have ranked-up to Hero. - There are also 106 people that have reached Sr. Member, 185 Full Member, 3.228 Member and 9.945 Jr. Member. As we can see, there is not much of an issue to get to Jr. Member or Member rank, at least from a numerical point of view. Anyone that makes a bit of an effort and is slightly above par can do it. Ranking-up to Full Member and above are rather more scarce, as one would expect. Given the size of the forum it seems that numbers are smallish, although this my subjective view. The ranking-up pipeline on the Merit Dashboard places most people still pretty far away from their next rank ... Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: bones261 on April 12, 2019, 05:39:58 PM I think one solution could be that some percentage of merit required for ranking upto Jr. Member and Member should come from a Verified Merit Source. Verified Merit source should fulfill the following requirements: 1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits. 1.) Be randomly selected from this group 2.) Anonymous in Merit History 3.) Change cyclically A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers. Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on.. As one of the people who would currently qualify to be a "verified merit source," I'm not sure that I want the added responsibility of only meriting newbies. However, I believe that my current allocation of source merit allocation is probably in the top 10, if not top 5, so it would be much more work for me than many other merit sources. I could end up giving a handful of newbie posts an insane amount of merit; however, people tend to notice when the amount of merits given is a two digit number, and I am sure the "merit abuse" allegations would crop up (although only the administrators would know who the merit source is, people could figure it out by noticng that such and so merit source isn't giving out any merits anymore.) When you say "anonymous" do you mean the merit score goes up with no other record or do you mean it will have a label like "anonymous" or "Verified Merit Source?" Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: suchmoon on April 12, 2019, 06:04:18 PM There are hundreds of thousands of people who use the forum every month ::) ~50k users have been active in the last 30 days. That includes those who just logged in and didn't post, bounty-hunters, bots, sockpuppets, etc. I would have to agree with that. It probably doesn't help that QS does tend to have a differing opinion with quite a few of the most generous merit givers. Which can lead to overlooking a quality post due to disagreeing with the message. No, it has a lot more to do with posting made-up stuff like above and pretending it's a fact that supports his account-farming ideology. Also spuriously attacking users (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5128907.msg50569045#msg50569045) with conspiracy theories. Also his recent cringy sig-induced hyperactivity while claiming to be one of the best posters (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50544674#msg50544674)... that's not how it works. Those are not meritorious posts regardless of fancy words and legalese phrases. Disagreeing with someone or even being an outright asshole doesn't prevent one from gaining merits, I mean look at me LOL. Being nice may help though, I mean look at LoyceV. I would say this is additional evidence that the merit system is a way to get people to agree with you, and it encourages groupthink. Any merit sources that withhold merit because they disagree with what is being said, is effectively censoring the person because they are being forced to either say what they agree with or not be able to rank up. Projecting as usual. Count the merits you sent to people you disagree with vs merits you received from the same people. Still haven't seen a coherent explanation of how making it easier to rank-up would benefit the forum. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Findingnemo on April 12, 2019, 06:48:45 PM Since the implementation of merit system there is no changes made for the number of merits required to rank up other than Jr.rank,even theymos mentioned that there will be some tweaks on the merit system soon when it was implemented but nothing changes yet so I think he is happy with the current system so we are not going to see any changes in the requirement to rank up. :)
Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on April 12, 2019, 08:43:28 PM The Merit system was put in place for the good of the forum so no, I don’t think the Merit requirement to rank up is excessive. If you’re a good poster you WILL be able to rank up.
There are a number of self made Legendary & Hero Member accounts since the Merit system was introduced. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: akamit on April 12, 2019, 08:48:52 PM At first, I want to clear one thing,
The purpose of creating the topic is not meant for my benefit. It was for everyone. I wrote what I was thinking about lately (my point of view), by writing something and getting some point of views gets thing clear and most importantly the brain relaxes well. The topic was about rank ups and achievement difficulty, not about sig. and bounty campaigns earnings. But some fellow members mixed the topic purpose with forum earnings as it is related to it. One thing to point out again, Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? I was indicating the senior, hero accounts not jr, member, full member. Why should we always need to underestimate sig. campaigns participants and the bounty hunters? Not all people in the world are rich, some peoples are middle class and poor. I've seen some people say that they rely on the income from this forum. I'd say that theymos has given a great opportunity to worldwide peoples to earn some money from this forum and he is contributing to making the world a better place. Average income around the world (https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php). Lowest monthly income is $33 for Madagascar peoples, can you imagine how tough is their life? So I don't see an issue (unless that someone is spammer/shitposter, abuser, scammer) if someone from Madagascar earns some extra money through this forum and gets a better life. Another good thing about sig. and bounty can be added, what QS said, and I pretty much agree with him. Quote The forum is after all a place where people can learn about bitcoin. A lot of people also earn some money while learning (such is what I did). I never needed the money, but I probably wouldn’t have taken the time to learn as much as I have if I wasn’t earning money here either via conducting business or signature advertising. Those who don't like sig. campaigns and bounty hunting then they can ignore it but should not underestimate others (those who need it) by writing some kinda insulting phrases imo. Instead of underestimating the needy ones, it is better to shut down the sig. and bounty campaigns. By doing this, at least we won't be hurting anyone's dignity. My above statement is no way encouraging spammer/shitposter, abuser, scammer. We all have ZERO TOLERANCE on that. I know some of us trying our level best to keep those shits out of the forum. I even consider someone as a contributor who has at least helped to remove a spam post. After 5+ years I'm still not sure why people care so much about ranks and other badges. If it's for money-making purposes (e.g. sig campaigns) - the forum doesn't control that. If the ranks would be easier to attain then there would be more users competing for the same campaigns and then it's up to each manager how they deal with that. Some managers already have merit requirements. If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity?For me, it's like a badge of honor from the forum after spending much time learning bitcoin, learning good things. Or can be said Certificate ::) Frankly speaking, I learned about the real virtual world by joining this forum. The good things, the bad things, how-to, knowledge... I'm still learning though... there is no end of it. The key is as long as people can review your posts and find something objectively good you will receive some merit. You cannot deny that tons of posts on a daily basis also gets unnoticed.The merit system was created to prevent spammers from being able to rank up. I think it is spilling over to also prevent legitimate users who do make an effort to contribute from ranking up. I agree with you.No. I agree with you. The test should be given at the beginning to proof one is worthy but not at hero rank I think (except spammer/shitposter, abuser, scammer). And I personally think that theymos should increase the jr requirement to at least 3 or 5 and member to 25. @Those who wrote about your achievement, Your knowledge helped you achieve the position where you are now, but it is not possible for everyone, I mean the avg peoples. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: suchmoon on April 12, 2019, 09:39:07 PM If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity? For me, it's like a badge of honor from the forum after spending much time learning bitcoin, learning good things. Or can be said Certificate ::) Frankly speaking, I learned about the real virtual world by joining this forum. The good things, the bad things, how-to, knowledge... I'm still learning though... there is no end of it. Then wouldn't you want your "certificate" to be more valuable and rare and indicative of your contribution, not merely handed out to everyone who registered on the forum and made a few hundred posts? Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: akamit on April 12, 2019, 10:05:21 PM Then wouldn't you want your "certificate" to be more valuable and rare and indicative of your contribution, not merely handed out to everyone who registered on the forum and made a few hundred posts? I was expecting at least a reply of this kind.Not really, I'm not a special one nor anyone here. Every legitimate person should be weighted equally. If it is the thing to "merely handed out" then something unique I would demand if I have an option to ask theymos. Quote If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity? You haven't answeredAnd stop criticizing, the way you replied it seems I've asked for Legendary. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: r1s2g3 on April 12, 2019, 10:05:36 PM I think they are excessive for attaining high ranks but they are still achievable.
Somebody from Madgascar is depending for income in this forum then we expect that "somebody" to post something worth reading. Sound technical knowledge is plus point but merits are not limited for technical knowledge. Even sensible argument can fetch merit that have 0 technical content. I am not looking at Merit Statistics now but the reality 6-7 month back was that Merit Sources were not using the source Merits completely because they are not finding enough quality post. I think you will interested in reading below: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5041469 Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Steamtyme on April 12, 2019, 10:21:28 PM Quickseller- I'm not saying sources per say. Just a feeling that people who have given out a large amount of merit may tend to merit posts that agree with them more than they would a post they disagree with. Nobodys perfect and I believe most try to merit objectively.
The ranked up number may be low, but I'm not hearing from these members stuck in limbo worrying about it. Like I said when people do come here, there may be the odd brushed aside remark, but most will go through the post history and evaluate themselves. The case of the member I linked, they did pull in a large amount of merit quickly, just because sources thought they should be legendary - merit wise - doesn't mean they were obligated to dump the maximum amount on them. I imagine a few will go back over the next couple of months and drop more as they see fit. I would have to agree with that. It probably doesn't help that QS does tend to have a differing opinion with quite a few of the most generous merit givers. Which can lead to overlooking a quality post due to disagreeing with the message. No, it has a lot more to do with posting made-up stuff like above and pretending it's a fact that supports his account-farming ideology. Also spuriously attacking users (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5128907.msg50569045#msg50569045) with conspiracy theories. Also his recent cringy sig-induced hyperactivity while claiming to be one of the best posters (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50544674#msg50544674)... that's not how it works. Those are not meritorious posts regardless of fancy words and legalese phrases. Disagreeing with someone or even being an outright asshole doesn't prevent one from gaining merits, I mean look at me LOL. Being nice may help though, I mean look at LoyceV. I understand what your saying. I was really referring to I guess was more in line with how others perceive QS. I can't say I've had many reasons to interact with them but have read quite a few threads where a post could be deemed meritworthy, generally this was when I had none ( I try to unload them as quick as they come in). I don't think that most users worry to much about it but I think some do, whether they realize it or not. See when you're an asshole I laugh and find it funny, this is generally because the target may deserve it IMO. If QS were perceived to be an asshole at some point most would see him as the villain, regardless of if his point of view is valid. This is me just talking about my perception, I have nothing to back it up and could be off the mark. At first, I want to clear one thing, The purpose of creating the topic is not meant for my benefit. It was for everyone. I wrote what I was thinking about lately (my point of view), by writing something and getting some point of views gets thing clear and most importantly the brain relaxes well. The topic was about rank ups and achievement difficulty, not about sig. and bounty campaigns earnings. But some fellow members mixed the topic purpose with forum earnings as it is related to it. This does often get intertwined. Mostly because a lot of the people that complain about it show through their history that they are here mainly to earn. You can tell when someone genuinely wants to learn, and grow. These members generally don't care about rank at first but over time I could see why they would want to advance in that way. To help with that I fully encourage all the merit giveaway threads for quality posts, I would like to see a few more allowed to operate in different boards on the forum, so they are visible to users. That would have to be worked out with the MOD of that board though. Quote The key is as long as people can review your posts and find something objectively good you will receive some merit. You cannot deny that tons of posts on a daily basis also gets unnoticed.That's true, like I said though threads for reporting good posts go a long way to help that. That or more people can apply to be sources based on posts they find deserving and under merited. Quote @Those who wrote about your achievement, Your knowledge helped you achieve the position where you are now, but it is not possible for everyone, I mean the avg peoples. I learned on this forum. I had been mining for a 2 months before I found this place. I had enough knowledge to set up an antminer... in 1 hour. That should say it all. So I'm a pretty good example of someone who can come here engage and learn then contribute. Considering my computer skills are laughable beyond the basics (maybe a little better now), I believe if people are focused on that anyone can grow that way. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: suchmoon on April 12, 2019, 10:42:31 PM Quote If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity? You haven't answeredSounded like a rhetorical question. I don't know what the original intent was but I doubt it was designed to become a source for anxiety the way it is often perceived these days. It's just a word on the screen. And stop criticizing, the way you replied it seems I've asked for Legendary. I'm a self-diagnosed asshole. You should be worried if I start being nice to people, that would mean I'm up to no good :) All I'm saying that your Hero rank is almost as "exclusive" as Legendary would be if the merit system hadn't been implemented. Same applies to other ranks as well. If you care about ranks as a measure of achievement in your forum contributions then lowering merit requirements would not make everyone achieve more, just like printing more money doesn't make everyone richer. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: tranthidung on April 13, 2019, 02:49:57 AM Quality posters will definitely rank up. Each quality poster has his/her own pace of merit earnings, but finally they will all to be ranked up.
Someone might need 1 year to move from Junior Member to Full Member. Someone else might need longer period (2 or 3 years) to move to Jr. Member to Full Member. Quality posters deserve to rank up and they will certainly rank up when they collect enough merits, even years does not a serious matter. However, after all the works by merit distributors, it is true that the users are not ranking up even if he/she is a quality poster. I think current requirements are acceptable to prevent shitty posters to move up to higher rank fastly.Quote There are probably two reasons for this, (1) Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive I thought it is another wrong point. Merit sources have enough merits to send to good posts, but good posts are hardly to find. It's the matter, merit sources, total merits of merit sources are not matter.Quote (2) Merit Sources are low in number in comparison with the members this forum has[/b]. I don't suggest to decrease merit requirements on ranks, but if such merit requirements decreased adjustments implemented, what should be treated with old generations, who simply ranked up with old rank requirements, without merit requirements. They even can not earn themselves a single merit so far. Let's envision furthere, such as 5 years later, what happen if a old Legendary who will remain actively posting in the forum next 5 years (more than six years in total since merit birthday) won't be able to earn a single merit from 100, 1000 posts during 6 year period. There are some users who selfmade 1x, 2x of required merits for Legendary rank (LoyceV, DdmrDdmr). For users who are inactively in the forum for years, it is obviously that they don't care about their ranks. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on April 13, 2019, 03:07:29 AM The less easier it's to rank up the more the forum ranks status are appreciated. The less easier it's to build up an alt account to abuse signature and other forum system. For a start we don't need more legendary members, that rank should come with some respect and only deserving member should achieve that status that'll motivate Aspiring members to improve in their contribution to the forum if they want to be identify with that status. Personally I don't see any difference between the legendary rank & hero rank. If the system can produce lesser rank up users yearly then people will value the system. We have 365 days lets say deserving members recieve at least 1 merit daily a situation where we have more less rank-up users would be fun to watch especially in the top 3 ranks.
Also maybe your contribution to combating spam (via good reports) should be considered too before you're given a legendary status, lets put some respect on it. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: libert19 on April 13, 2019, 03:07:32 AM There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system.
I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: amishmanish on April 13, 2019, 03:37:50 AM I think one solution could be that some percentage of merit required for ranking upto Jr. Member and Member should come from a Verified Merit Source. Verified Merit source should fulfill the following requirements: 1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits. 1.) Be randomly selected from this group 2.) Anonymous in Merit History 3.) Change cyclically A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers. Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on.. As one of the people who would currently qualify to be a "verified merit source," I'm not sure that I want the added responsibility of only meriting newbies. However, I believe that my current allocation of source merit allocation is probably in the top 10, if not top 5, so it would be much more work for me than many other merit sources. I could end up giving a handful of newbie posts an insane amount of merit; however, people tend to notice when the amount of merits given is a two digit number, and I am sure the "merit abuse" allegations would crop up (although only the administrators would know who the merit source is, people could figure it out by noticng that such and so merit source isn't giving out any merits anymore.) When you say "anonymous" do you mean the merit score goes up with no other record or do you mean it will have a label like "anonymous" or "Verified Merit Source?" You're right bones that it could be quite a load. That is why responsibility should be cycled between those people. 10-15 members every week would be enough to merit ongoing good posts. Considering there are 200+ people with 250 earned merits, the responsibility would cycle to you approximately every 28 weeks. That should be doable imo. As far as allegations are concerned, they will crop up no matter how fair everyone tries to be. This shouldn't be a reason for policy paralysis. By anonymous, i meant it should appear in the merit history but the name shouldn't. Like you said, it could be something like "Verified Merit Source" or some cool acronym with an LOTR reference maybe. Maybe it could appear as "Wizard Council finds you worthy" or something.. 8) If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity? Ranking systems are generally meant to be hierarchical so that there is an objective way to decide how much importance you give to people's opinions here. Merit was an evolution in this and it is now part of that ranking system and hierarchy. You can be sure that "activity" alone doesn't count for anything much now.Then wouldn't you want your "certificate" to be more valuable and rare and indicative of your contribution, not merely handed out to everyone who registered on the forum and made a few hundred posts? I was expecting at least a reply of this kind.Not really, I'm not a special one nor anyone here. Every legitimate person should be weighted equally. If it is the thing to "merely handed out" then something unique I would demand if I have an option to ask theymos. This is sort of an ideological issue. You say that "I'm not special nor anyone here". In reality, there are subject-experts and then there are noobs. The subject-experts ARE special, whether we like it or not. All men are born equal only when it comes to Liberty and Justice. This cannot be the case when it is a particular subject matter. For example, I don't think my physics teacher was an equal of Stephen Hawking just because they were both physicists. If you strongly feel that merit is about equality/ equal opportunity, I request that you please do read this once: Harrison Bergeron (https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt) Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Findingnemo on April 13, 2019, 11:08:04 AM There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system. Definitely we need some tweaks because not all the good posts are going to get merits so if someone posting meritable posts but on the wrong boards (where merit sources are not available) then how he is going to rank up?I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave. He should have to change his posting habits for to rankup? Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Sutters Mill on April 13, 2019, 12:01:47 PM After 5+ years I'm still not sure why people care so much about ranks and other badges. If it's for money-making purposes (e.g. sig campaigns) - the forum doesn't control that. If the ranks would be easier to attain then there would be more users competing for the same campaigns and then it's up to each manager how they deal with that. Some managers already have merit requirements. I think it's fairly obvious that people only care about ranks and therefor merit for signature space. The higher rank you are the bigger signature you have and the easier it is to get onto a signature campaign therefor more money you can potentially earn. It's probably like wondering why do people care about more qualifications or being a higher position in a company. More money and respect is the answer. I do have to agree with op however that the rank requirements are probably excessive.... or maybe not excessive but due to the little merit people send to others because of its scarcity it's very hard to achieve high ranking. Personally I don't really care about merit as I'm lucky enough to have been early in the game to get airdropped the required amount to become Hero which is a level many new users will likely struggle to achieve, but I rarely receive merit from people and I don't believe it's because my posts are bad.... far from it. In the past 120 days I've received 11 merit. Because I receive little merit I can send little on to others so I'm limited in that respect and I think that's the same case with everyone else. I've sent my only two remaining merit to two users in this thread but personally I think there's many others in this thread that also deserve it (some moreso) and that I would have merited had I been able to. Maybe there are other factors involved in sending merit however. Maybe it's because I don't really need it that people are less likely to send it to me and save it for those that need it more, but on the flipside I wonder how I would get on if I made a new account from scratch but made the same sort of posts. How long would it take me to achieve Hero then?? I think I would struggle personally but that's something I'm not willing or care enough to try find out :D. The merit system doesn't seem to be set in stone so I'm sure the limits could be ajusted in the future if they're clearly too difficult to achieve. Nope. I don't think so. I think the merit requirements per rank is already is in their sort of "sweet spot" whereas it isn't excessively high, and at the same time, not too easy. Ignore those people who are complaining. They aren't receiving merits? Simple. It's highly likely simply because they don't deserve it. It's pretty much like janitors complaining why they aren't being promoted to a manager position in a company even if they know little to nothing. Yes, 1000 is definitely A LOT of merits for a certain rank(legendary). But it isn't called "legendary" for no reason. It should be very hard to attain in the first place. It isn't even excessively difficult to attain to be honest, it's just going to take a while. I don't think it's as simple as that. There are sure a a lot of people who don't deserve much merit complaining about it but I also think there's a lot of users that also go overlooked and even active users who contribute a lot will maybe nebver achieve Legednary or take many years to do it. There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system. I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave. I think there's a third too: The ones who were here before the merit system and achieved rank without achieving merit and therefor have nothing to complain about. Some people will have deserved their rank from prior posts but others certainly haven't and it was just the luck of being an early adopter for them. I don't think the merit system is perfect and it's healthy to constructively criticize it's positives and negatives and suggest improvements. A sweet spot should try to be found if it hasn't already but that is certainly open for debate). There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system. Definitely we need some tweaks because not all the good posts are going to get merits so if someone posting meritable posts but on the wrong boards (where merit sources are not available) then how he is going to rank up?I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave. He should have to change his posting habits for to rankup? I agree with you. Some boards obviously recieve more merit than others and its potluck as to whether you receive any at all. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: coinlocket$ on April 13, 2019, 12:23:20 PM Short personal answer, probably no and the amount of merit required for Jr should be increased to 3-5
Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: NavI_027 on April 13, 2019, 01:08:28 PM Oh! Is the merit requirements per rank excessive? Hmm, it depends.
If we are talking about Newbies up to Members then I will say NOT because getting 1 to 10 merits is easy in a sense that you know that it was feasible to achieve. On the other hand, for those Full Member and up, I think it is already excessive. The moment I heard that I need hundreds of merit first in order to rank up, it already makes my knees shaken up; the feeling that you are hopeless and just choose to surrender. Actually, sometimes I'm having an introspection and just came to the point where I tell to myself "Much better if I will be contented where I am right now" ;D (I know some members out there feel the same way). I know to myself that I am a good quality poster somehow, I make sensible opinions and help others as much as I can and yet I'm still here, stuck as a Full Member. Yeah! I know that I was able to get some merits but those are not enough. While running these things into my mind, I became less motivated as time goes by (for ranking up only) which leads me to giving up my dream of becoming a Legendary. My dream of becoming one of the highest ranked member here is not all about getting more money through sig campaigns but mainly because of pride. I am aiming for such thing because I want to boost my self esteem, I want to feel that I'm significant even within my local board at least and pay forward of course by means of helping others especailly my fellow Filipinos. But unfortunately, I guess it remains a dream forever. Nevertheless, no hurt feelings at all. I live under theymos' house (this forum), I live under his rules :). I understand that fact. And besides, I already learned to embrace the system as I stay here so it's not a big deal for me any longer. Here's one thing, as long as I can see that Merit System is keeping our forum peaceful and do not hinder iall of its members to grow then there's no problem with me at all. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on April 13, 2019, 01:43:45 PM However, after all the works by merit distributors, it is true that the users are not ranking up even if he/she is a quality poster. I would contest this statement. Good posters are the ones who are ranking up, even if it still takes a lot of time to do so. There might be some exceptions to that, but I can't think of any examples--and if you can, please tell me who they are so I can give them some merits.The people who complain the loudest and most often about the merit system are precisely the ones the merit system was designed to keep from ranking up. It's mostly the shitposters who whine about not getting any merits, although certain members like cryptohunter et al aren't strictly shitposters and still complain constantly. More merit sources definitely could help spread out some more merits, but the real problem is and always has been that there just aren't enough really good posts deserving of merits. You'd think people would step up their game in sections like Bitcoin/Altcoin Discussion, but no. They're perfectly happy writing one-line shitposts for their bounties, which they can keep doing at Jr. Member rank. Ultimately, the system is working pretty well right now. We've got more merit sources this year, and it seems to me that the worthy members are earning merits. It's not supposed to be easy to rank up anymore. It's going to take time even for outstanding contributors, so people need to be patient. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Pmalek on April 13, 2019, 07:55:47 PM There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system. There is another group. Those who stay under the radar because they are interested in altcoins and their posts don't get a lot of attention and aren't visible to merit sources.Remember the user who made a thread in Meta a few weeks ago where he states his reasons why he thinks he deserves to rank up to Legendary? He is a quality poster, but he is posting about Altcoins and merit sources don't go there (one does now). If a user is interested in an X Altcoin for example and writes only in threads regarding projects based on that Altcoin - he is going to have a tough time earning merits. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: libert19 on April 14, 2019, 03:50:09 AM There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system. There is another group. Those who stay under the radar because they are interested in altcoins and their posts don't get a lot of attention and aren't visible to merit sources.Remember the user who made a thread in Meta a few weeks ago where he states his reasons why he thinks he deserves to rank up to Legendary? He is a quality poster, but he is posting about Altcoins and merit sources don't go there (one does now). If a user is interested in an X Altcoin for example and writes only in threads regarding projects based on that Altcoin - he is going to have a tough time earning merits. Yes but usually there are shitposts in altcoins discussion section and merit sources might not feel like to go through garbage pile to find the gems. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Jet Cash on April 14, 2019, 06:47:35 AM I constantly see merits associated with ranking for signature campaigns, and for this reason I think that the Junior requirement should be raised to 10, and the member requirement raised to 25. For me. I believe that merits should be an indication of the opinion of the community about a post or topic. I use merits I receive, as well as replies, to decide if I should continue or expand a project or opinion. Upranking should be a consequence, and not a reason for the receipt of merits.
It isn't difficult to earn merits, I've got 3 alts with member status, and I have received the 1,000 requirement for a Legendary. I believe that one of my alts is the faster to achieve member status in this forum. My level of technical knowledge is far inferior to a large number of the members here, but I believe in Bitcoin and the Bitcoin Talk forum. I'm also convinced that Bitcoin started a banking revolution that is as important and far reaching as the creation of Central Banks. If you believe in the crypto economy, and you support this forum in its aims to help people to adjust to the dramatic changes that affect everybody, then merit will find its way into your profile. What is more important though is that you will be helping "ordinary" people to escape the tyranny of the current political elite. The Fit to Talk English translation projects (https://fittotalk.com/english-talk/index.php) are pretty inactive at the moment. There are still merits to be awarded for members who would like assistance in starting quality topics in this forum. I created the Mobile Image gallery (https://www.mobileimg.com/mypictures/) for members to post pictures of local political events or traditional activities, and tell us about them in this forum. I believe that sovereignty and traditional values are important, and by understanding more about other countries and customs, it is easier for us all to work together in harmony. The receipt of merits for the above projects should be of secondary interest. Maintaining Bitcoin Talk as an important international forum is far more important in my opinion. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Pmalek on April 14, 2019, 07:24:52 AM Yes but usually there are shitposts in altcoins discussion section and merit sources might not feel like to go through garbage pile to find the gems. I know and I totally understand that. I wouldn't want to either. It's a tiring process and hats off to those that try. It is not just about finding quality posts but you see also all kinds of spam, advertising and off topics, you report those in one thread only to find that a new thread was created with even more of the same. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: finaleshot2016 on April 14, 2019, 07:30:07 AM I have 256 merits, 100 airdropped merits since the start of the merit system and 156 received merits from random persons that liked/amazed or what so ever. So what's my point of this statement?
Those 156 merits that I've received did not come from any merit source or a DT(a few maybe). I started creating big threads that might help our local and that's where I started to earn merits. I'm just a full member way back 2017 but look me now, reached the rank of Sr. Member because of hard work and dedication. If you're really interested in cryptocurrency, it will automatically show your ideas on how you'll create topics, sub-topics or anything that provides information. Basically, those who show negative opinions regarding the merit system was a mere bounty hunter who just wanted merits for additional payouts. There are also people I know, my fellow citizens, that are very fluent in English, skilled in BBcodes or other programming languages, and good at business and market strategy. They tend to boost their skills in this forum and able to received merits too. The merit system is normal, being a passionate member here will make you receive merit. To those people saying that they're creating quality topics but didn't receive any merits. I checked some of your posts and I don't think repetitive topics can't be considered as high-quality topics. Show some extraordinary way how to deliver your chosen topic, there's a lot of ways to provide information in the viewers. Also, making another version of existing topics does not make it as a quality topic, it's just showing that you really lack idea and just taking advantage of it to do better. In an actual forum, committees will open a topic that all of the members will provide information about the said topic. If you're a member of an actual forum, you should abide by the regulations and participate in the existing topic. Comparing this forum to the actual forum, you're just discussing it only to your seatmates instead of contributing to the whole forum. I'm finaleshot, proven that the merit system was fair and normal to a simple member like me. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: tranthidung on April 14, 2019, 01:11:24 PM I'm just a full member way back 2017 but look me now, reached the rank of Sr. Member because of hard work and dedication. I understood you feelings, because I started from zero (all of my 272 merits are self-earned), not from Full Member like you, but finally I have become a Senior Member from all my hard works, and my dedication to contribute the forum in my limited ability. The new era of self made users started in January of 2018, and please look at the fact now. In highest paid campaign in the forum, except Chip Mixer, most of participants are self-made users. I think it is the big rewards of merit system and the current rank requirements, the gift is not only merits as well as promotion, but it also is the higher competitive indicator of your account when you rank up with merit system.Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: erikalui on April 14, 2019, 02:13:04 PM When people have taken 2-3 years to get the Legendary rank, why should 1000 merit be too much to ask for? Not to forget, a person can get merited by many people for just 1 post as well. It's like a free bonus. However, I don't still agree with the merit system but people always have a problem.
Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Jet Cash on April 14, 2019, 02:45:56 PM I'm fired up this month, so how about letting us have custom titles if we can get to 2,000 merits. It's always good to have new levels for our ambitions.
Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: finaleshot2016 on April 14, 2019, 03:13:04 PM When people have taken 2-3 years to get the Legendary rank, why should 1000 merit be too much to ask for? Not to forget, a person can get merited by many people for just 1 post as well. It's like a free bonus. However, I don't still agree with the merit system but people always have a problem. Merit system didn't affect you since you're a Legendary when it's release. Do you think it's good to have a lot of Legendaries that has no talent, skills, ideas, and knowledge about the blockchain especially in the bitcoin community? I'm not saying that all of the new generations will become like that if there's a chance, most of them will just focus on the bounty and earn a profit without any contribution to our community. The merit system wasn't created to make people's life worst but to act as a barrier, the legitimate and strongest individuals can enter easily instead of those bounty hunters and shitposters. In your generation, I can say that some of the Legendaries are not quite good and just making money through this platform without any threads created for the development of the community and the blockchain. I'm expecting that if you're a legendary, I should learn something extraordinary from you because you have the experience and you already said that it takes 2-3 years to be a Legendary, that's quite long to have a high level of innovation. If I'm not seeing you as an information giver, do you think the title of being Legendary is worth it? Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Quickseller on April 14, 2019, 06:55:16 PM For me, it's like a badge of honor from the forum after spending much time learning bitcoin, learning good things. Or can be said Certificate ::) I would encourage anyone who questions the value of being a higher ranking account to review this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1226681.0) thread. Quickseller- I'm not saying sources per say. Just a feeling that people who have given out a large amount of merit may tend to merit posts that agree with them more than they would a post they disagree with. Nobodys perfect and I believe most try to merit objectively. At the very least, this shows a hidden bias. I personally try to remove as much of that bias from the merit I send by soliciting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124376.0) people to make submissions to me of examples of high effort posts, made over a period of time, although I do make some exceptions to this, for example, if one person gives an accurate answer after many people have posted nonsense (so to highlight the accurate answer). The above also gives the maximum benefit of the doubt to merit sources, that I don't think is necessarily appropriate to give all of them. For example, I have seen at least one merit source make subtle efforts to get rid of certain forum members they do not like, or get along with -- if you accept my conclusions of this at least one person's behavior to be "trying to get rid" of the person, then it would probably not be unreasonable to say they also make an effort to de-facto censor those who they do not agree with. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: erikalui on April 14, 2019, 07:22:50 PM Merit system didn't affect you since you're a Legendary when it's release. Do you think it's good to have a lot of Legendaries that has no talent, skills, ideas, and knowledge about the blockchain especially in the bitcoin community? Merit system did not affect me but there were many things that affected me on this forum from the time I joined till now and the forum was much worse and it's quite better now. 99% members out here have alt accounts to hide themselves. Legendary members according to you may not have any talent or skills but why do you feel they don't deserve being a Legendary? Why is it such a big thing being a Legendary? For me, Legendary is just a rank and I did not chase down the rank or be desperate to get it nor did I nor anyone else earns it. It's not a degree or a certificate to be proud of. This is just a normal forum for me so I don't really appreciate my rank as much as others do. There are many Signature Campaigns that accept even such members if they have been reputed and quality posters and I have seen such members even becoming staff members so nothing is impossible here but still people keep complaining. Hence, according to me nobody actually gives so much importance to the rank except for Signature Campaigns. Quote I'm not saying that all of the new generations will become like that if there's a chance, most of them will just focus on the bounty and earn a profit without any contribution to our community. Also, can you define what comes under contributing to your community mean? Sharing guides or something? Quote The merit system wasn't created to make people's life worst but to act as a barrier, the legitimate and strongest individuals can enter easily instead of those bounty hunters and shitposters. Now this merit thing was introduced to increase quality posting but I have seen nonsensical posts getting merited as nobody has to justify it just like positive feedback which was and is a craze even today. Quote In your generation, I can say that some of the Legendaries are not quite good and just making money through this platform without any threads created for the development of the community and the blockchain. What's my generation and your generation like lol I have been using bitcoins since it was 5 years old and now it's 10, that's the main difference. I have helped many members who were clueless about trading and were trying to be trapped by scammers. And everyone in the world wants to make money which is not wrong and this forum gives you and many others to share information you get. It's not necessary that a Legendary has more information than you have and vice versa. Yes, there may be things you don't understand and know and I may be able to answer them which I do when anybody asks me. Quote I'm expecting that if you're a legendary, I should learn something extraordinary from you because you have the experience and you already said that it takes 2-3 years to be a Legendary, that's quite long to have a high level of innovation. If I'm not seeing you as an information giver, do you think the title of being Legendary is worth it? Being a Legendary member, I have information that I share at times with the community but doesn't mean that I have hardware knowledge etc. as I haven't been into mining or using hardware wallets or created my own coin. When I was a newbie, I was scammed of $200 and that happened on this very forum where I couldn't find the one who scammed me. I just learnt to be more alert and find scammers. There was a time illegal goods and accounts used to be sold openly and that's been stopped to an extent now. Most trustworthy members have gone to jail and turned out to be the biggest scammers. So what kind of extraordinary information are you searching for from Legendaries here that you can't find in so many bitcoin-related guides available online? This is a forum used to share information and everyone can share whatever information they have and no qualification is required. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: tranthidung on April 15, 2019, 01:43:08 AM I'm fired up this month, so how about letting us have custom titles if we can get to 2,000 merits. It's always good to have new levels for our ambitions. I don't think theymos will add new custom title for users who earn above 2000 merits in the near future. There are some potential reasons for this hesitation:(1) Currently, there are very limited users who actually received more than 2000 merits, only three for now, including theymos. Theymos might consider to add new title if there are around 100 or 200 or more than 200 users reach that club of above 2000 merits-earned, in my opinion. Update: CLUB OF ABOVE 2000 MERITS-EARNED
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115154.msg50583660#msg50583660 (2) There will be potential conflicts between Hero, Legendary and above Ledgendary ranks. It's just a potential conflicts, who knows when the new rank has not yet added? Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: manfredmann on April 16, 2019, 03:12:25 AM I am currently the 95th most merited person on the forum and in the just under 16 months since the merit system was introduced, I have not yet received sufficient merit required to become a hero member. I was around when a lot of sMerit was airdropped to everyone and a lot of merit was being given out by a lot of people. There are more merit sources now, but much fewer people are now giving out merit. I always look upon your ideas especially in the some serious discussions like this. I agree with you and not only for higher members but also to low rank users. Not, all can create a good or constructive post that can be merited. The above means less than 95 people have become hero members, I know only a small handful of people have become legendary. I don’t know off hand how many have become senior members but I am pretty sure it isn’t many. Based on the above, I think the merit system needs to be tinkered with a little bit. And I am one of the proof to it. LOL Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Jet Cash on April 16, 2019, 06:08:01 AM (1) Currently, there are very limited users who actually received more than 2000 merits, only three for now, including theymos. Theymos might consider to add new title if there are around 100 or 200 or more than 200 users reach that club of above 2000 merits-earned, in my opinion. Custom titles is just one possibility. A non-intrusive image in signatures is another possible incentive. I don't like animated avatars, so those could lead to the blocking of avatars, and would be counter productive. Changing the colour of profile names would be very easy to implement, and it probably wouldn't even require much of a change to the software. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: tranthidung on April 17, 2019, 08:38:53 AM Wrong, the kind of approach seriously destroys the main purpose of merit system. Merits are rewards for good, high quality, helpful, constructive things; and constructive posts are always constructive ones because it is the fact, no one can deny constructive posts are not constructive ones, no matter what those posts composed and published by whichever ranked users in the forum.
At the moment many members think that giving Legendary members merits is a waste. I'm hoping that this system will increase post quality by: - Forcing people to post high-quality stuff in order to rank up. If you just post garbage, you will never get even 1 merit point, and you will therefore never be able to put links in your signature, etc. - Highlighting good posts with the "Merited by" line. While we will not be directly moderating this, I encourage people to give merit to posts that are objectively high-quality, not just posts that you agree with. Merits, in reality, is not a ranking tool. In my opinion, merits and merit system play important role to prevent shitposters move up, but the merit system should be called as high-quality-motivative tool. Quote This implies that the only use for merits is as a ranking tool. I agreed with your suggestion, and the key point here is whichever titles or priviledges for potential new rank, it should not give them any financial benefits, that might cause another kind of abusements.Quote Custom titles is just one possibility. A non-intrusive image in signatures is another possible incentive. I don't like animated avatars, so those could lead to the blocking of avatars, and would be counter productive. Changing the colour of profile names would be very easy to implement, and it probably wouldn't even require much of a change to the software. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: Jet Cash on April 17, 2019, 09:06:30 AM it should not give them any financial benefits, that might cause another kind of abusements. So that leaves colour changes for profile names. How about purple or gold? Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on April 17, 2019, 10:00:42 AM At the moment many members think that giving Legendary members merits is a waste. It's never a waste as it highlighted the quality of the post and make it stand out among other posts on the board or replies in that particular thread although in the spirit of helping low rank users (trying their best in contributing positively to the forum through quality posts), if I was to be given the opportunity of having more smerits at my disposal, more allocation will go towards lower rank users but until then, most quality posts from members irrespective of their rank gets +1 from me. Title: Re: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? Post by: tranthidung on April 17, 2019, 10:03:50 AM So that leaves colour changes for profile names. How about purple or gold? I would like to choose Gold color. Bitcoin is a gold, so users who are real asset of the forum should be highlighted with Gold color. |
