Bitcoin Forum

I would love to check the opinion of the community regarding this subject. I think more trustworthy merit sources would be good for the system but maybe some people don’t think so.

So, I’ve opened a poll and let’s see what happens.

Yep, I think more sources are needed.  Again, this is another Theymos problem that likely doesn't depend on what the community thinks about it, kind of like the perceived need for more moderators.

Right now it seems like decent posters are having to wait a hell of a long time to rank up, and I think it ought to go a little quicker for them and that having more merit sources would help that.  I forget how many members bitcointalk has, but I think it's over a million or so.  If we don't even have 100 merit sources, there are definitely not going to be enough to give sufficient merit to those who deserve it.

If I'm not mistaken, hilariousandco stated that Theymos hasn't been looking at new merit source applications.  I occasionally see some application threads getting bumped from months ago, so I have a feeling that it's not Theymos's priority or that he doesn't think more are needed.  In any case, I don't recall him voicing an opinion on the matter lately and it'd be nice if he did.

If you mean you should lower your standards, I would advise against that.  This problem is not all on your shoulders, either, and you're a very conscientious merit source who probably needs to give himself a break.  The fact is that it isn't easy to find posts worth meriting.  IMO you shouldn't feel pressured to get rid of your sMerits just to get rid of them.  That goes against the spirit of the whole system.  I know you spend a lot of time on the forum, as do I.  When good posts pop up, you'll see them.

I still have trouble finding posters to merit. Maybe I need to review my standards. The reason that I created my chatroom was to do this in private discussions, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside, so I'm on my own with my decision making.

Of course. Merit source number should be increased to match the number of forum's member because there are some of high quality members left unmerited because the coverage of  current merit source is not that wide. I suggest it should be added based on region/local board activity, because there are gems hidden in the local boards, and some of them are not good at english. There are no rule stated that a meritorious post should be in english right?

Maybe 100 merit sources needed as a start, for now?

BPIP (https://bpip.org/) shows 376,866 active accounts, which means they've logged in within the past 3 months. But only 19453 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3078328.msg45710025#msg45710025) accounts have received 1 or more Merit points. Many of these got it through Merit abuse.
I think it's an optimistic estimate to say that only a few thousand accounts deserve to rank up, and that would still take one order of magnitude more sMerit than sources currently generate.
Based on this, I'd say more sources would be needed. I have seen a few users with more Merit than Activity, which means the best of the best aren't restricted by Merit, but I think anybody who isn't a spammer shouldn't be limited by Merit either.

It took me 3 months of daily bumps and many endorsements to become a Merit source. Since then, the total number of sources went up from 80 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2851620.msg37645060#msg37645060) to 84 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=sources). That's about 1 new Merit source per month.

Beautiful--that's exactly what I was looking for.  I really ought to learn how to use Vod's site, eh?  I now feel like a dipshit for not finding that info myself, and I have that page bookmarked so it's not like I don't visit it.

I think that was way too long to get approval, and as I said in another thread, I think there should probably be at least 250 merit sources, but that's probably too optimistic.  You kind of have to be trusted in order to be a merit source.  There is certainly potential for it to be abused, given how valuable merits are.  I'm not sure if the forum has 250 members who are active enough AND could demonstrably be trusted with the responsibility.  I could be wrong.

That would be a good start, I think.  There's only 84 right now, so it would certainly help.

Does anyone think giving out more sMerits per good post would help?  If I'm not mistaken, merit sources get topped up pretty quickly so giving out 5-7 merits for a good post shouldn't put much of a ding in their supply.  I don't really know how many the sources are giving out per post, and I also don't think the number of members who truly deserve to rank up is all that high. 

If that ranking up pipeline (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4839318.new#new) thread keeps getting updated, that would be a good place to look for members needing merits.  I have that one bookmarked, but not all of those people make good posts.

I think that frequently giving 1 merit per post is a much better motivation than 5+ merits per posts but less often. From the psychological point of view people who write good posts but are left forgotten without any merit will get frustrated and give up. At the same time people who have a couple merit points know that it's possible to rank up, that their work got rewarded.

Yes, 100 would be a good start. With that being said, i think that giving out more sMerits per good post would be a great help and it can (slightly) solve the problem which DdmrDdmr's stated in his new thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5029372.0).

I hope that thread can help a lot of people in the future, maybe including myself  ;D (no joke)

If that becomes a thing, I'll be automatically out of the equation (if I ever decide to become a local source in a local section that I've been inactive for the past few years).
- The main factor should be the ability to distinguish high quality posts from the rest...

Correct + this:

---

Slightly "YES" but having more merit sources should still be the solution (different views, subjective).

IIRC, it's exactly 30 days (based on when you've sent them).

---

To OP: Obviously, I voted for "YES".

I think a better idea would be to create more merit sources and thereby keep the system as decentralized as possible, but as theymos seems uninterested in adding new sources, this is maybe the best idea in the meantime.

5-7 in place of 1 seems excessive, however. Perhaps the sources who regularly have lots of merit left at the end of a month should just double how much they would have given.

I believe I'm creating decent posts but one of the issues I'm facing is trying to make my posts visible. For example, I've created this topic in Trading: [Guide] Best/Top Crypto Exchanges: Fees & more  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5023857.msg45339579#msg45339579) and it was buried instantly by spam... I see it has begun to pick up attention lately, so all is not lost yet  ::)

Yes, it's true, the merit sources are not seeing all the posts especially the ones in the local boards. They're only 84, they can't see everything obviously...

Another thing is that some local boards do not have merit sources at all which is very bad if you ask me. I've create a post in Serious Discussions about this here: Revitalizing the Local boards (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5012232.msg45224574#msg45224574) about the fact that some local boards are also dying down and maybe we could use merit to stimulate posters there as well.

Yes, you are right. The original idea with the merit system as proposed by Theymos was that merit was to be received almost as fast as activity (about 1 per day) for me, this has worked fine while we had the initial merit circling around but nowadays it has been increasingly hard to earn merit (although I believe I'm posting the same quality) and from what I've seen here it's not just me.

  I'll suggest something different. From what Jet Cash has written, some sources of merit may see the function of distributing merits almost as a professional activity. They spend time looking for what to merit. Without them receiving almost anything in return, and this seems to be a stressful activity since the forum is flooded with spam. Other sources prefer to use these merits to distribute among people they already know and other legendary members. Creating a deflationary effect. And to be honest, I do not see a gain in the community if the activity of distributing merit becomes such a burden to some people.

In addition, in all systems, there is the possibility of a group gamify the process to its own advantage. This not only alters the entire initial purpose but also makes it difficult for other users.

Meritocracy is a very complicated system to analyze. And what we have here in the forum is a great experiment of this system.

In most researches and experiments it is necessary to add a random element. If you want to research the effectiveness of a drug, you add a control group that will take a placebo. It is very difficult to understand the efficiency of something if its distribution is centralized and fully controlled.

Therefore, I believe that Temporary sources of Merit should be added. It would last only 14 days. What he did not use would be burned. And his choice would be by a random algorithmic. Of course, so that it is not a total waste sending sMerit to a ghost, some elements in the equation would be added. The user would have to receive at least 1 merit in the last 120 days and have written something in the last 14 days, at least.

For those who are curious about the lucky element in a meritocracy, there is a recent study on this.
If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance. (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/)

I tried that a few times, but every time I go to patrol (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent;patrol) or Bitcoin Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=1.0), I end up reporting posts and getting users banned instead of meriting them.
What I do, is Merit posts that I read anyway. I more or less gave up on searching for good posts, except for going through someone's post history once in a while.

Merit is not only meant to stop spammers from ranking up, it's also meant to highlight good posts. That's why I merit posts of any rank
For the record: I don't "know" anybody on this site :D

I estimate that thousands of spammers have traded or bought Merit. This would give them the chance to rank up their alt accounts again, which goes against everything Merit was supposed to do.

If the above statement is correct then I think it needs to be readdress. As big as Facebook is, majority of it's discission making is based on the respond gotten from it's users why? Because it's a community just as bitcointalk is. Therefore if the community members decides new merit source is needed he should look into the case and give a solution.

You know why?, merit source don't get rewarded for this act that's why they're finding it difficult to see post worth meriting and most time when they do, they only give 1merit which is very discouraging.

All greetings and appreciation to you  :)
And for this very distinctive participation
My friend you know that BTC is the future of all humanity
Not only English speakers
Therefore,  should be taken care of local boards.

More merit sources will meant that more merit is chasing the existing meritable posters. The zero-posters will still be zero-posters,unless they work to imprve their posting of course.

I see that some people voted for the “no” option. It’s a pity that they didn’t express their opinion on the thread.  :'(

That is true, given merits are only given to post which are worth, if there are 100, 1000 or 10000 merit sources there shouldn't be any catastrophic consequences. However you get the big advantage of having more eyes looking around, maybe also on those boards which seems to be lacking merits, those about mining is one i recall for example where mentioned more than once.

The problem will be oversight. With 1000 merit sources, it will be virtually impossible for Admin to keep an eye on them. One or more rogue merit sources can result in spammers ranking up again.

It's a good idea adding more merit sources but having more merit sources than right now will be the same as it is because it's not up to merit sources alone to reward merit but the poster also as posters are the one to receive or earn his/her reward.

10,000 merit sources are too many, do not need so many merit sources, I think 1000 is enough, I have a good suggestion, if there are more merit sources, whether to consider Public merit sources, then all the forums members will naturally supervise them. If find out that they have abused, we can report to the administrator to cancel their merit sources, and DT members will also give it a red trust.

Yes, for sure, as part of the solution (I can for once spare you all from a lengthy explanation since I have already done so on another recent thread). The only thing I would add here is that we may need to take a bit of risks in the appointment of Merit Sources in benefit of the majority, albeit it being a trust related concern in principle.

Everybody knows there's not enough merit sources (apart from the three that said no) and more and more will need to be added over time, but if theymos isn't going to be restoring accounts then I doubt he's going to be that active in adding more merit sources either and almost certainly won't be able to keep up with demand. If so, he should probably grant some staff or even trusted members of the community the ability to add them, or make more admins who can do this. We could even put them up to a vote between certain members of the community once someone requests to be a source. They could all vet the user and check for any signs of merit abuse and then put it to a vote. If the community votes yes then they could either be made a source by whoever has access to that if that power is granted to others or the info passed on to theymos to add them.

Yes we need more sources, we added 4-5 on last 2 months but the overall merit is decreasing more and more this means that most of them are no longer active for whatever reason, busy on real life, they don't have time, they don't care anymore about it, they don't find posts.

My answer is YES but do you think your and my concerns makes any difference? We are here making pages of pages topics/comments and the person who has the real power to pick up merit sources is very much silent. Not only picking merit sources but also with most of the things that need attentions. I get it that running a forum of few hundred thousands active members is hard but if someone makes it harder for themselves then what could we do?

---

Alt of theymos I guess  :P

---

I guess we are making theymos paranoid with all these suggestions/data etc. Pretty soon I will be silent to give him some space (from my side of-course). Concerning about the forum seems waste of time.

It is like hit and run, right? I guess if they do share some of their opinion, there would be a great deal of discussion going around here.


Couldn't agree more with you hilarious. Theymos should give this kind of authority to a person who can help him in this merit matters. I believe the authority is not as high as giving someone the ability to restore account, because it is a different job, way different, so i think it is not a problem if Theymos give this "merit sources authority" to some trusted person/member.

Voted yes, but I do not mind if they are being left as it is now.

I do not think chasing ranks is a good thing in general, nor motivation to be an active user and to contribute in whatever way you want/can should necessarily be justified by receiving 'points'. Good posters are being merited and will continue to be rewarded regardless of the volume and quantity of merit sources.

I have a slightly different/crazy idea though,..what about instead of increasing merit sources to actually cut them in half to 40 or 50. The main complaint to some of them is that they are not active enough, regardless of the reasons. How about giving 30% or 50% more sMerits to those active ones? I've noticed that by the end of each month certain MS of are being left without sMerits to give, that would definitely help.

It's better to have more eyes on the game field than less in order to increase chances of decent posts being spotted, as well as counterbalance inactivity periods that sources may have.

Have you tried electing someone for your local board to become a merit source? Maybe you need to talk to some other people of your local section who are active and willing to take part in a voting? I know its difficult for the non-english posters to gather merits in the English sections but the easy solution to that is to decide among yourselves a local merit source who can take up this responsibility.

Thanks for pointing this out because this post of yours is a perfect example of the generic posts that dont deserve any merits.

I don't necessarily agree, more people/eyes does not guarantee you good posts being seen/acted upon.

But sure does mean more work for theymos to select/approve and monitor these new merit sources.

Yes but only if they give merits to people who actually deserve and need them.
Tired of seeing legendaries sending merits to other legendaries, or members sending them to theymos or to bounty managers. There's no point doing that.

Merit sources should try to send out all of their source sMerits. There is no reason to not do that, given the nearly unanimous concern about merit shortage and the onset of merit apathy. If that requires lowering some standards or increasing the number of merits per post... well, it's a tough first world problem but I have faith in you guys and gals.

Adding more merit sources is a different issue, and yes that needs to happen too. But it won't help if we keep hoarding those sMerits.

The Merit system is working just fine! What you call "people who need them", I call spammers. They are the reason we have the Merit system, and it's designed so they won't rank up.
To me, it doesn't matter whether or not someone "needs" Merit, I give Merit if the post is worth it.

Thanks to DdmrDdmr's post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5029372.0)(and similar topics) I think we the data proves that their is really a decline in merits being sent on a weekly basis, and the quickest solution here is by adding more merit sources to satisfy the growing demand for merits, I am not saying that people needs to rank up fast but the data really proves that merits being awarded each week is declining. The more merits being produce and the more often normal users will receive merits will mean that normal users will not hoard their merits and share it to the public knowing that it is the right thing to do, it would simply boost their confidence as they know their worthy post is now being rewarded as they should.