No crusade simply assisting you make sense of the merit system.
I have 50 sMerits I need to send. Since I can't make sense of the merit system can you tell me which posts I should merit? That would be like asking your math tutor for the answer to the test you have been set. I will observe closely to see if you are doing well or there is still room for improvement. Read over this thread a few times and I almost feel confident you will be able to handle it alone in the mid to long term. Also just worth a small mention... you know how that guy likes to just fire up bitcointalk and open up his buddies list to shoot off a few early morning merits within a few seconds. Well, don't be like that. Don't fire up bitcointalk look for my latest posts and just decide to shoot off a few aggressive comments or some ludicrous fantasies in my direction. Give others a chance to enjoy talking to you. I don't feel you should focus all your positive energy towards me. I mean it will be nice to hear from you now and then of course. This is not a rejection. |
|
|
|
The problem is that I'm not sure if it is going to grab a hang glider, and soar off up into the blue skies.
Bitcoin was new and unique and interesting. But now there are so many better alternatives. I think Bitcoin will always be worth something due to a following - but it will never hit the levels it did in the past. I find this an interesting post. Can you tell me about the better alternatives and what is better about them. I am always interested in opinions of those that have been around a while. |
|
|
|
Of course there is a legitimate excuse reason why a merit history can look like that. I have no doubt you will be able to explain it all in a way that sounds reasonable and convincing (to you anyway).
Such shiny goalposts. Are these new by any chance? Of course there are reasons. Like using the post history page and/or tabs and/or bookmarks and/or any other methods merit sources use to do their job. I guess it's a good sign that this is all you can come up with in your crusade. It is apparent that you're unwilling/unable to face the fact you make ludicrous statements so it is easier for you to deny you made them even though they are there in black and white. That's fine. Ignore my questions/posts directed to you and just jump to other posts you feel more comfortable engaging. Nothing wrong with opening up your pals post history and shovelling merits into it every few seconds. Never said there was. That sounds as you say far more fun than naturally reading the forum and meriting good posts that you happen to come across from a wide spectrum of good posters. No crusade simply assisting you make sense of the merit system. I don't mind spending time discussing things with you at all but try to remain calm, and be open to changing your opinions if observable events dictate it is required. Also if you say something you later realise is ludicrous do not deny you said it or ignore any later reference to it just say okay I realise that was a crazy thing to say actually and that is no longer my opinion. |
|
|
|
Imagine 28 seconds between naturally browsing the board (not searching for your fav merit buddies at all just per chance your machine accidentally flys from you buddies post to his next one deserving more merit) reading the post (in full context of the thread)digesting it deciding on a sensible merit score and then just leaving that thread (cos it got boring after reading merit buddies post) and browsing the board naturally again (not searching for merit buddies)and finding another great post (just pure chance it is same buddy posting again) to read in the middle of a thread reading it and deciding on another senisble merit score. This just happening over and over.
Then they tell me --- if i happen to cross a good post I merit it simple as that. It's not like I just go searching for my merit buddies posts and taking 28 second or 30 seconds average to just plaster more merits to them.
edit there is a 27 second one too... those 28 second ones are simply inefficient discovery/evaluation/rewarding incidents.
I totally agree, 28 seconds is very slow and inefficient. IIRC LoyceV had an example with two merits sent within one second. That surely means he was able to browse, read the post, and decide to merit it within one second. Super manmeritsource. You're a fucking delusional lunatic. Please take your meds then come back and address the previous questions I have already asked you. It is clear to see that you are avoiding them. Your denial of things you have said only moments before is worrying for you I would expect as much as they are for me. Let's move one step at a time. I think that is the safest method for you. click this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5081670.msg48558480#msg48558480 and take your time i know you like to deliberate long and hard over replies. I am here to help. Remain calm and we will work thought this together. Do you have a blood pressure monitor can you read it and keep me updated because I do not want to be responsible for the board losing such a vital member. That is not a joke I am serious. You know I appreciate your work. We can move on to your unreasonable explanations for giving out merit every few seconds to the same person after we bring you up to speed with all the other points you have left hanging. Of course there is a legitimate excuse reason why a merit history can look like that. I have no doubt you will be able to explain it all in a way that sounds reasonable and convincing (to you anyway). |
|
|
|
@cryptohunter Instead of bitching about how us merit sources are doing a piss poor job and only meriting people in our clique; please do go out and find some good posters for us to merit. I do my best; however, there is not enough time in the day to read every single post. (I wouldn't even understand the posts in the local boards.) I admit it, I usually stick to boards and threads that happen to be interesting to me. However, I will be happy to merit some neglected posters who are putting out fabulous posts and not getting the recognition that they deserve.
Please go back and reread the entire thread before posting nonsense based upon strawmen you are inventing. I mean you may want to start with just my first post in this thread actually the first line. I see you must have missed that (along with the other multiple times i have reiterated that sentiment in different ways so all can understand) No need to change anything about merit as again i have said perhaps 10x it is working well now so long as people don't start creating misleading meanings to their merit scores. Well, what the OP states and your recommendations are very true. I usually avoid the megathreads, since it has a good deal of trash to sift through. There is one exception. That is the Wall Observer thread. And it is no secret that people who frequent Wall Observer posters are part of a clique. After all, most of us have hats as an avatar. However, in the mean time, before everything starts to even out, many volunteers can point out all these good posts that are being sorely neglected. I will be happy to merit a nice gem and give people the recognition they justly deserve. edit: Here is another possible solution to the dilemma the op is talking about. (although I doubt it will ever be implemented.): If someone presses on the +merit, but has no smerit to give, then it gives the user the option to "report to merit sources." This would place the post in some kind of database that all of us merit sources would have access to. It would work similar as the "report to moderator" function. There may be a good deal of "bad" reports. However, with 119 merit sources, we can make short work out of it. This is a very reasonable reply. I of course accept many of the top merit holders are net positive and do good work. Your merit giving seems quite reasonable and indicates a person that probably browses the boards he likes to visit and sees a good post and merits it. Fair enough. However when I notice a merit history like this Today at 13:50:34: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: account blocked today over a year old and 1500+ posts Today at 13:50:00: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: What's happening with Bitcoin losing more than 10 per cent of its value? Today at 13:49:32: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: What is this forum for? Today at 13:49:00: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: Trust abuse! Injustice! Fake trust by winter! Much butthurt I am! Today at 13:48:33: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: Is the new ERA of merit dying again? Today at 13:47:59: 3 to The Pharmacist for Re: DT1 list alternation: add me on it Today at 13:47:16: 3 to The Pharmacist for Re: I need merit badly . Imagine 28 seconds between naturally browsing the board (not searching for your fav merit buddies at all just per chance your machine accidentally flys from you buddies post to his next one deserving more merit) reading the post (in full context of the thread)digesting it deciding on a sensible merit score and then just leaving that thread (cos it got boring after reading merit buddies post) and browsing the board naturally again (not searching for merit buddies)and finding another great post (just pure chance it is same buddy posting again) to read in the middle of a thread reading it and deciding on another senisble merit score. This just happening over and over. Then they tell me --- if i happen to cross a good post I merit it simple as that. It's not like I just go searching for my merit buddies posts and taking 28 second or 30 seconds average to just plaster more merits to them. edit there is a 27 second one too... those 28 second ones are simply inefficient discovery/evaluation/rewarding incidents. The vast bulk of his merits are given out to a few people. To be honest though as I have said. I feel merit is working well for reducing negative behaviour and if people like to give some to their friends it's not hurting anyone really i guess. Some use it more as per the guide theymos has instructed some do not. Either way people get to post their views on this board with equal standing regardless of rank or merit score and each post should be evaluated on the content contain and no weight added for merit score. High merit does not mean you are a better poster than if you have low merit. Predominantly the fault of spammers and bots but some people are not really treating merit in the spirit others are. I like your idea actually - could be refined with accuracy so like reporting spam you get accuracy score and the more accurate suggesters for merit worthy posts are put to the top of the pile for review the less accurate don't get reviewed as much or if at all as time progresses.Very good idea I think you should create a poll I would vote for the implementation of it. |
|
|
|
@cryptohunter Instead of bitching about how us merit sources are doing a piss poor job and only meriting people in our clique; please do go out and find some good posters for us to merit. I do my best; however, there is not enough time in the day to read every single post. (I wouldn't even understand the posts in the local boards.) I admit it, I usually stick to boards and threads that happen to be interesting to me. However, I will be happy to merit some neglected posters who are putting out fabulous posts and not getting the recognition that they deserve.
Please go back and reread the entire thread before posting nonsense based upon strawmen you are inventing. I mean you may want to start with just my first post in this thread actually the first line. I see you must have missed that (along with the other multiple times i have reiterated that sentiment in different ways so all can understand) No need to change anything about merit as again i have said perhaps 10x it is working well now so long as people don't start creating misleading meanings to their merit scores. |
|
|
|
Today it is unthinkable some of the 99.87 percent of this board are capable of making posts as good or better than the 0.13 percent.
I can't wait for tomorrow. What will you say next.
Well, considering that I never said the above it's probably going to be something new that you'll make up. Here is what I did say on the subject of 99.87%: Really that's strange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5081670.msg48544710#msg48544710 read that then read back on the post you are replying to and the one previous. Was your account compromised by and you never made these posts? You are going full manic now. Please ensure the correct dose of your meds is being administered to you. Next you will tell me you never said "most" pre merit legends are spammers. Then stuck to this crazy statement even when called on it. All just stuff I make up. I mean between you ignoring questions, swearing and getting angry, and denying you said the things that your account keeps posting it is hard to have a sensible debate. |
|
|
|
@loyce second account how long until another big bucks sig gets attached to it? Try to stay on topic. what is your merit score again once you remove the inner circle votes and meta club merits? please answer I don't really feel like spending a few hours digging up data, so that you can abuse it to support your claim that Merit from the top200 Merit receivers is some how worth less than Merit from others. As I said before, you're free to dig it up yourself. Or if you're not into that, you can review all my Merited posts (356 (and 2 deleted)) and list the ones that you think don't deserve Merit. Please come up with some new, solid and complete data instead of asking me to provide data that in my opinion has no value. Roughly translated 1. i don't want to see my earned merit score revealed to be 90% less after it is demonstrated my pals merit and meta club merits removed. 2. I can't back up my statement that you are using biased data so i'll ignore the question 3. I can't back up my claim of there being flawed logic so i'll skip that bit too. 4. I just say things without thinking and when called on them I have no explanation or reasoning that will stand up to scrutiny. thanks for your help loyce. Now when you are finished trying to refute and deflect what simple raw data demonstrates then you can carry on being net positive to the board which i have not questioned. My sole point is that high merit does not equal high value poster and low merit does not equal low value poster. It really is not something you can use to say either of those two things. This is just clearly not what you can accept, but let it sink in and stop worrying about it because nothing is going to change (because there is no need of changing it merit system is working well) and you can have even more merit soon. |
|
|
|
How do you know what it's main purpose was. I mean it was not invented until all the spammers turned up so linking it to rank since rank determines account selling value and sig spam reward then it could be more than a bonus.
Because we're not supposed to send merits to rank users up, or for any other purpose. We're supposed to send merits for good posts. Which may help users to rank up if they consistently create good posts, making the rank-up an effect/consequence/result of good posts. It's really not a complicated concept. You're just deliberately making a mockery of it with your "fun and friends" sham. Please speed up your replies it should not take this long to construct a simple honest answer. Notice I reply in a sensible fashion in a couple of minutes and try not ignore questions that don't suit your narrative .
Please reduce your cocaine intake or fuck off to twitter if this is too slow for you. LOL. Please don't waste my time engaging me in future you simply can not hold a sensible nor logical debate. You avoid my questions that reveal your posts to be blathering nonsense based upon ludicrous and highly improbable fantasy. Yesterday "most" pre merit legends are spammers. Today it is unthinkable some of the 99.87 percent of this board are capable of making posts as good or better than the 0.13 percent. I can't wait for tomorrow. What will you say next. I simply said if it takes you this long to avoid answering my questions then do not keep stalking me and replying to my posts. I am assisting you to make sense of the world around you and you swear and curse at me for my trouble. I am almost considering not replying to any of your PM's in future. @loyce again? "even worse than merit" - your words not mine. I say it works fine as it is so long as you don't seriously claim in correlates to posting quality. what is your merit score again once you remove the inner circle votes and meta club merits? please answer or just get back to dumb and dumber and stop with your unsubstantiated fantasies. Why avoid my question and reply with unrelated jibberish about trust. . I am not addressing the trust system here. Start another thread on that if you wish. You are unable to accept what is there in black and white. Using stats in a biased way = presenting data Present the flawed logic you are claiming exists?? |
|
|
|
This is true actually true. Let me reverse this question then. Are you telling me you believe what I have stated is incorrect. Ignore what the stats reveal on that part. I was making an assumption on that part. Yes or no out of the remaining 99.87% of the board can some of them make as good or better posts than those in the 0.13%? I mean is it likely or not?
Of course it's incorrect, even worse - you're using fallacious arguments that make you either dishonest or stupid. There are 25k recipients and the list is growing. In the long run good posters will rise to the top. You're making it sound as if there are no other merits outside of the 0.13% but even those 200 users are spending most of their merits outside of that "group". The data you're quoting doesn't support or even contradicts your claims, despite your valiant attempts to mangle it to fit your narrative or to ignore it when it doesn't. At this point even anecdotal evidence would server you better than your straw people, e.g. if you could show some of those zero-merit high-quality unicorns users. I don't think you understand the data from what you are saying. Try to remain civil, your aggressive tone does not increase the validity of your arguement. There is over 50% received from others within the top 0.13% once you take out theymos and satoshi. It seems also you have ignored my question. Revist my post and answer it. Try to stop diverting clear analysis of observable fact to a motive based subjective fantasy. ddmrddmr is not including all posters he seems to think that we should not include the other 125k posters because they are not eligible to receive merit? or have opinion on what a good post is. The fact you can claim that any poster even the greatest here will rise to the top posting in alt discussion is ludicrous in light of the stats. Please think more before replying and actually answer my questions also if you want a proper discussion. You tend to be able to remain civil until you get asked something you dont like to answer. You should change this. That was the intent but since there is no criteria it is impossible to be objective against all other posts. There would need be criteria, that one could objectively measure against. I can clearly notice many of the 0.13 merit posts of others of that circle that are based upon clearly incorrect assumptions (the power of those observations is weak statistically but that is likely the thin edge of the wedge) like i said others can look at what top merit holders are getting merit from and make their own conclusions So there is no criteria but you can clearly notice posts not meeting that non-existent criteria? At any rate, that doesn't justify mangling the purpose of the merit system as being for "fun" and "friends". I'd suggest that we should stick to what our benevolent dictator prescribed, which is to use merits not for "fun" or "friends" but for good posts. Well that makes no sense sorry. It obviously cant meet criteria which does not exist to make objective decisions.You said it is not meant to be related to rank but rank does depend on it right?
Yes, that's a bonus feature. The main purpose is still to highlight good posts. How do you know what it's main purpose was. I mean it was not invented until all the spammers turned up so linking it to rank since rank determines account selling value and sig spam reward then it could be more than a bonus. Please speed up your replies it should not take this long to construct a simple honest answer. Notice I reply in a sensible fashion in a couple of minutes and try not ignore questions that don't suit your narrative . |
|
|
|
Imagine that all the top 200 merit holders tell me they are not sending as the stats claim? perhaps the stats are wrong?
Over 50% of all merit given by the top 0.13% is to others in that group. More if you take out satoshi and theymos. I am not making claims I am describing data. If you take out meta board merit then that makes it look worse.
You're making claims not supported by the data you're quoting. The data (even if you take arbitrary parts out of it) doesn't say that there are unmerited high-quality posts/users as you're claiming here: many zero merit posters are quite capable of making just as good if not better posts.
This is true actually true. Let me reverse this question then. Are you telling me you believe what I have stated is incorrect. Ignore what the stats reveal on that part. I was making an assumption on that part. Yes or no out of the remaining 99.87% of the board can some of them make as good or better posts than those in the 0.13%? I mean is it likely or not?Can you describe the narrative I am weaving that would diminish the purpose of this merit system?
The purpose of the merit is system is not fun to give out to your friends and to those you align your views with.
but to give merit to posts that are objectively high-quality, not just posts that you agree with.
That was the intent but since there is no criteria it is impossible to be objective against all other posts. There would need be criteria, that one could objectively measure against. I can clearly notice many of the 0.13 merit posts of others of that circle that are based upon clearly incorrect assumptions (the power of those observations is weak statistically but that is likely the thin edge of the wedge) like i said others can look at what top merit holders are getting merit from and make their own conclusions The concentration on a sub board like meta is also a huge factor. A board a tiny percentage post on. I mean minute.I am not saying what the intended purpose was. Still I stick with my conclusion it is working far better than with no merit system so no need to change it. You said it is not meant to be related to rank but rank does depend on it right? I mean surely you can not argue only 0.13% deserve such a concentration if some AI could measure all posts against objective criteria. There are many factors that are easy to understand and even empathise with why the concentration is happening and where. I started in this thread by saying it was the fault of the mass of spammers and bots why good posts elsewhere do not attain merit so easily as perhaps they should. I stick to that. I am not actually blaming the top merit holders am I? there is only so much time they can spend trawling crap looking for the odd gems. That does not mean they are not there. It also certainly means there is no claim to high merit high quality poster low merit low quality poster. Does not work like that. |
|
|
|
What is your merit score once we remove the "opinion" of only the 0.13% of posters and all merit/meta sub board awards?
I would expect you too are in for another 80% hair cut?
What if only the top 0.13% whilst on meta are able to recognise what a great poster you are?
This is not aimed at you specifically but since you can't resist stalking me I am as always happy to engage you. You I have admitted are useful and probably can make some good points now and then but you are quite an aggressive person and can be annoying.
I say the onus is on you to provide me with evidence because if you are part of a group that claims their high merit score means they are great posters then you are gaining from this assumption you claim is correct. So you prove it. The stats combined with simple probability suggest you are wrong. Unless you really believe that the 0.13% are the only ones able to discern what a good post is lol.
You're the one making these claims so it's really up to you to support them. There is tons of data available. I know how I send the merits and it's not even close to what you're describing. It sounds like you have a problem with some of the top recipients or perhaps with the fact that you're not among them so you're trying to weave a narrative that would diminish the purpose of the merit system. However the main purpose of the merit system remains to highlight good posts. Not for ranking up, not for fun, not for "friends" or "likes". Imagine that all the top 200 merit holders tell me they are not sending as the stats claim? perhaps the stats are wrong? Over 50% of all merit given by the top 0.13% is to others in that group. More if you take out satoshi and theymos. I am not making claims I am describing data. If you take out meta board merit then that makes it look worse. I have no need for merit since it at legend rank you do not require it. In theory do you need rank because only the ivory tower is off limits to juniors. I don't think diverting or even questioning my motive can alter the observable stats that are there in black and white so is irrelevant to this discussion. Let's stick to sensible analysis of the stats. Can you describe the narrative I am weaving that would diminish the purpose of this merit system? Anyway for sure merit system works fine as I have said no need to change. I see no need to discuss further since it seem repetitive now people can read the stats and think for themselves. |
|
|
|
We'll be clear on that once you present facts. Merely saying that 0.02% or 2% or 0.13% or 0.013% of users (or whatever it is) send merits to each other not because their posts are good but because they're "friends" doesn't make it so.
Agreed. I spent about 20 minutes trawling the Economics section, looking for low-ranked members to give merits to. I ended up reporting more posts as being spam or shitposts than I gave merits to. I would absolutely love to help Jr. Members, Members, Newbies, etc., rank up but I just can't find any of them making posts that make sense or that add anything to the discussion at hand. It's very frustrating. Also, as a merit source and one of the most generous merit-givers on the forum, I'd love to know who my "friends" are and who I'm circle-jerking around with. If such people exist, I'm unaware of them. I have high standards for handing out merits, and it just so happens that some (maybe even most)of the most interesting posts, the ones I've merited, have been made by senior members. It's not because I'm in some leather-chair, cigar-smoking, mustache-twirling, brandy-swilling good 'ol boys' club where we've made an agreement to circulate merits only amongst ourselves. Christ, look at who I've given merits to. There's a lot of lower-ranked members and there's a wide variety of members overall. No it's not a problem only fuckers that care about merit are the shitposters spamming the forum or perhaps the people that see merits as some type of video game competition.
Stop being a scunt. There is no point agreeing with a straw man and something that flies in the face of the stats provided. 1. saying merit is not correlated strongly to post quality is not the same as saying it is only given to freinds for crap posts. there are many factors (not all bad and many understandable) that are leading to merit cycling in the top 0.13% a huge amount if you take out theymos and satoshi. I mean if you only believe the 0.13 % opinion counts then that is fine. However, even if you are fair as you can be (considering you have alt boards on ignore which is fair enough considering how they are) but even if you make an effort as far as you can reasonably then your individual experience is not a drip in the ocean compared to the what the stats are indicating. Face it removing the top 0.13% merits given out and removing merit given on only the meta board reduces most high merit accounts by on average 80% or even greater. This is like saying the 0.13% are only high merit accounts in the minds of 0.13% of the active posters here? This is fair enough but to then say high merit = higher quality poster than a lower merit account is way way off. The strange thing that we can freely observe here and I don't mean to be seen to picking on anyone is the persons here in this thread defending this are the persons that would be the VERY MOST effected by this being highlighted in terms of having their merit reduced in a HUGE way. I mean again I notice your account gets a huge huge hair cut without even taking meta out of the equation. Does not mean you are not a good poster so don't worry about this. I would say though that those that are least effected by this filtering would have a more balanced appreciation of their posts. All of the above just means..... Just accept that merit is fun, it is effective in reducing negative behaviour but don't be tempted to draw any other conclusions based on merit. Some huge merit score holders could be good posters and many zero merit posters are quite capable of making just as good if not better posts. |
|
|
|
You can make 6 million dollars for posting your name here so if that is boring then show me somewhere else on the net I can get more excitement.
Yeah I see, you just have to be russian and start an announcement of a new ICO to get rich here But then they end up picking up soaps in jail  No not at all. For just saying "i'm in" That was all you had to do and boom here is 6 Million bucks. Well around that I think it was about 290 BTC worth. For each poster. Not bad for about 2 seconds work. Not many places on the net you get such action. Of course you need to be in the right place at the right time and know when to cash out. 6M is huge money but OP has the point also. Personally I am here because I am investing cryptocurrency whom Satoshi created. I just wonder how would someone do things in a second to get that money? Is it the contribution of the investors in a certain project? No hard feelings but the money of the people should be keep safe and should be invested to a project to where it could earn. This is why many of the user's mindset had been always thinking that running an ico project is like robbing a bank easily. So, the forum might be boring but we had used to.it already and besides it is best to remain this way and let the admin focuses.more on the beautification of.new bitcoin forum. no investment was required you just had to say im in and you got 290btc worth. Of course you had to sell at the correct time. But that was quite a few years later. Still 6M for typing 2 words is not something I would say was boring. However the money is not the best part about being part of this new shift to decentralisation. |
|
|
|
I agree the merit system works okay but we need to be clear that merit score is not a measure of post quality
We'll be clear on that once you present facts. Merely saying that you think 0.02% or 0.13% or 0.013% of users (or whatever it is) send merits to each other not because their posts are good but because they're "friends" doesn't make it so. What is your merit score once we remove the "opinion" of only the 0.13% of posters and all merit/meta sub board awards? I would expect you too are in for another 80% hair cut? What if only the top 0.13% whilst on meta are able to recognise what a great poster you are? This is not aimed at you specifically but since you can't resist stalking me I am as always happy to engage you. You I have admitted are useful and probably can make some good points now and then but you are quite an aggressive person and can be annoying. I say the onus is on you to provide me with evidence because if you are part of a group that claims their high merit score means they are great posters then you are gaining from this assumption you claim is correct. So you prove it. The stats combined with simple probability suggest you are wrong. Unless you really believe that the 0.13% are the only ones able to discern what a good post is lol. I am not even saying some top merit earners are not capable of making good posts ... just there is no strict correlation at all. Please stop finding any way you can to chat me up and just accept merit is fun, merit is useful... the higher the merit score of the individual does not correlate with post quality. There are many great posts that are not getting any merit here and if they all got the optimal merit they deserve on some strict criteria of usefulness or depth the top merit scorers would not be who they are now except of course for those who are not moving at all on either sides of the stats chart provided. @dmrdmr Well you were talking about the percentage of merit receivers when you mentioned the 0,02% figure, so the base in that context is of 25.008 forum members (all merit receivers) and not 150K. In addition, 500 people is closer to the 50% ratio, not 200. looking at my link i can see most have 50% reduction or far more, this stat is being skewed by theymos and satoshi who are obviously beyond the intended scope of this debate and rightly so... take them out and it looks far far worse for the top 200... this is without meta board merit removed. I think you are actually a very smart and useful poster due to your knowledge of stats and effort put in to provide them. However I notice your merit score is obliterated once run through my filter and if you took meta merits away you would likely be near zero merit. Does that make you a bad poster or a beneficiary of scheming merit circles - NO that is not my point at all. It is simply that you can not say high merit = good poster low merit = poor poster. It simply does not work like that. I have no idea why people are trying to fight against that obvious conclusion. |
|
|
|
The point is clear since I have actually stated it several times but just once more.... merit is worth keeping here it stops a lot of negative behaviour and is fun to give out to your friends and to those you align your views with. Fair enough but stop conflating high merit = good poster low merit = shit poster. It is simply not that case.
I don't have 800 "friends". And if you think that's what merits are for then you're the problem, not the merit system. Go ahead, find those brilliant unmerited posts and let us know. I'm sure merits will rain on them. Until then it's safe to assume that the system works as intended and 100+ merit sources and 100s of other merit senders provide a decent coverage for the forum. The very notion you have even 0.8 of a real "friend" is ludicrous... being part of a group in meta all awarding each other for making some kind of post is fair enough to me if we are honest about it though. I mean the stats don't lie What is your merit score now and what would it be if we removed what I had suggested .... remove any from the other top 300 and remove all merit from meta? you score does not seem to be as badly effected as I had expected. I will look into this futher. How many other accounts do you own? The rest of your post has no real effect on the stats presented. I agree the merit system works okay but we need to be clear that merit score is not a measure of post quality. People need not wonder why their " good posts" are not getting merit if they are outside of the clique predominantly lurking on meta. That is fine by me. |
|
|
|
|
All Merit data is publicly available, you're free to do this (I'm going to watch a movie Tongue ).
But more importantly: why would it matter how much came from other users with good posts? It would be much more surprising if most of my Merit came from spammers!
Don't be shy I am not saying the FACT you will notice over 80% of your merit will vanish is a bad thing. I am just trying to show you this is not opinion this is simply fact. You're a stats guy this will not be hard for you to provide.
It matters because 1/ their high merit does NOT mean they are good posters (first incorrect assumptioin) 2 why would only the top 0.013% of merit holders in meta find that you need so much merit?
You mean the "inner circle" of people who aren't spammers and make decent posts? Using the term "inner circle" makes it sound as if that's a bad thing.
2 incorrect assumptions people outside of the insider merit club are spammers and that the inner circle make decent posts (compared to what)
And yet, you keep bringing it up. I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove though.
I am proving nothing the stats are there they speak for themselves.
I'll await your merit score once the merit insiders club and their fav sub board are removed. The reluctance to provide your stats is because you think that losing 80 percent plus is a bad thing or maybe your server is down who knows. It is not a bad thing it simply demonstrates what I have been saying. Merit is fun it is useful it does not mean you make great objective and insightful posts and those with less merit or zero merit are probably actually capable of making far more objectively insightful and deeper posts but finding them is the issue.
The point is clear since I have actually stated it several times but just once more.... merit is worth keeping here it stops a lot of negative behaviour and is fun to give out to your friends and to those you align your views with. Fair enough but stop conflating high merit = good poster low merit = shit poster. It is simply not that case.
|
|
|
|
There is no way that if you remove the merit from the top 200 that comes from ONLY the top 300 (out of 150,000 lets not use the 2 million members) It seems like you don't want to understand the reality of this forum: most users are spammers, and most users will never earn or deserve even a single merit. Even worse: I'm pretty sure most of those spammers own many accounts. Have a look at patrol: it will give you a good impression of how useless most posts are. To debunk your theory about a big circle of merit friends: check how many different users received Merit from the top senders: Total number of users who gave away 1 or more sMerit: 18848Sample 1. 7762 Merit sent by suchmoon (#234771) to 838 unique users in 2189 transactions
2. 4201 Merit sent by dbshck (#153634) to 587 unique users in 2030 transactions
3. 3835 Merit sent by Foxpup (#55384) to 220 unique users in 1496 transactions
4. 3366 Merit sent by QuestionAuthority (#72795) to 205 unique users in 238 transactions
5. 3001 Merit sent by qwk (#24140) to 391 unique users in 2032 transactions
6. 2674 Merit sent by TMAN (#98986) to 347 unique users in 885 transactions
7. 2405 Merit sent by Vod (#30747) to 452 unique users in 969 transactions
8. 2318 Merit sent by chimk (#1202061) to 468 unique users in 1579 transactions
9. 2087 Merit sent by paxmao (#1192397) to 671 unique users in 1565 transactions
10. 2034 Merit sent by EFS (#140584) to 341 unique users in 895 transactions
11. 1601 Merit sent by LoyceV (#459836) to 566 unique users in 1399 transactions
12. 1599 Merit sent by bones261 (#452769) to 450 unique users in 1033 transactions
13. 1434 Merit sent by DarkStar_ (#507936) to 393 unique users in 605 transactions
14. 1401 Merit sent by JayJuanGee (#252510) to 445 unique users in 1390 transactions
15. 1200 Merit sent by BobLawblaw (#569455) to 132 unique users in 743 transactions
16. 1185 Merit sent by xandry (#382413) to 265 unique users in 1013 transactions
17. 1146 Merit sent by OgNasty (#18321) to 716 unique users in 986 transactions
18. 1093 Merit sent by frodocooper (#988740) to 167 unique users in 611 transactions
19. 1074 Merit sent by Flying Hellfish (#79608) to 168 unique users in 361 transactions
20. 1072 Merit sent by Welsh (#84521) to 230 unique users in 451 transactions
21. 1049 Merit sent by Micio (#115423) to 91 unique users in 474 transactions
22. 1047 Merit sent by Jet Cash (#698159) to 381 unique users in 673 transactions
23. 995 Merit sent by LFC_Bitcoin (#379487) to 263 unique users in 829 transactions
24. 800 Merit sent by achow101 (#290195) to 150 unique users in 385 transactions
25. 790 Merit sent by teramit (#158960) to 211 unique users in 342 transactions
26. 786 Merit sent by Vlad2Vlad (#112208) to 58 unique users in 151 transactions
27. 779 Merit sent by theymos (#35) to 119 unique users in 148 transactions
28. 763 Merit sent by vapourminer (#33156) to 467 unique users in 720 transactions
29. 756 Merit sent by Halab (#1053119) to 118 unique users in 346 transactions
30. 739 Merit sent by mindrust (#176777) to 208 unique users in 356 transactions
31. 719 Merit sent by The Pharmacist (#487418) to 291 unique users in 567 transactions
32. 694 Merit sent by mprep (#51173) to 217 unique users in 407 transactions
33. 648 Merit sent by krogothmanhattan (#1000199) to 184 unique users in 376 transactions
34. 619 Merit sent by malevolent (#23092) to 159 unique users in 274 transactions
35. 618 Merit sent by Last of the V8s (#479624) to 165 unique users in 611 transactions
36. 613 Merit sent by DdmrDdmr (#1582324) to 249 unique users in 575 transactions
37. 563 Merit sent by xhomerx10 (#120694) to 164 unique users in 432 transactions
38. 510 Merit sent by Globb0 (#244243) to 80 unique users in 160 transactions
39. 504 Merit sent by hilariousetc (#397737) to 134 unique users in 263 transactions
40. 500 Merit sent by micgoossens (#1067333) to 94 unique users in 472 transactions
41. 487 Merit sent by cAPSLOCK (#35501) to 83 unique users in 196 transactions
42. 466 Merit sent by sapta (#347141) to 73 unique users in 105 transactions
43. 458 Merit sent by infofront (#41175) to 117 unique users in 448 transactions
44. 453 Merit sent by RegulusHr (#1163424) to 80 unique users in 415 transactions
45. 447 Merit sent by esmanthra (#1764764) to 133 unique users in 285 transactions
46. 430 Merit sent by theymos_away (#349090) to 82 unique users in 95 transactions
47. 414 Merit sent by xtraelv (#897509) to 200 unique users in 395 transactions
48. 413 Merit sent by hilariousandco (#164822) to 102 unique users in 180 transactions
49. 402 Merit sent by rickbig41 (#553678) to 108 unique users in 177 transactions
50. 402 Merit sent by jbreher (#28719) to 105 unique users in 344 transactions
.......
.......
.......
18799. 1 Merit sent by 5thFear (#974017) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18800. 1 Merit sent by 5soznanie (#1227273) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18801. 1 Merit sent by 410751302 (#188852) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18802. 1 Merit sent by 3x1t (#912334) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18803. 1 Merit sent by 3txx (#18342) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18804. 1 Merit sent by 3philong (#1065792) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18805. 1 Merit sent by 3dyx (#1130468) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18806. 1 Merit sent by 3dianle (#1218380) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18807. 1 Merit sent by 3acaga (#1232502) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18808. 1 Merit sent by 360llqzc (#1300924) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18809. 1 Merit sent by 2tang (#1003532) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18810. 1 Merit sent by 2drive (#1304704) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18811. 1 Merit sent by 2andahalfBTC (#1142164) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18812. 1 Merit sent by 27aume (#1001865) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18813. 1 Merit sent by 24Kt (#936906) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18814. 1 Merit sent by 2342q6tegw (#1212678) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18815. 1 Merit sent by 214missy (#1285563) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18816. 1 Merit sent by 212fox (#1342293) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18817. 1 Merit sent by 1pool Ltd. (#2062862) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18818. 1 Merit sent by 1melyun (#543052) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18819. 1 Merit sent by 1cyrax00 (#964210) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18820. 1 Merit sent by 1chempion123 (#1346880) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18821. 1 Merit sent by 1cak (#1136856) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18822. 1 Merit sent by 1amCrypt0 (#933826) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18823. 1 Merit sent by 1CryptoSmurf (#1352746) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18824. 1 Merit sent by 19nataliya12 (#1873934) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18825. 1 Merit sent by 19dimasik77 (#881779) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18826. 1 Merit sent by 19Nov16 (#921267) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18827. 1 Merit sent by 17buratin (#1187494) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18828. 1 Merit sent by 13ex07 (#1207068) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18829. 1 Merit sent by 13Charlie (#76987) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18830. 1 Merit sent by 12retepnat34 (#1053271) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18831. 1 Merit sent by 10yearsolder (#1094878) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18832. 1 Merit sent by 10BTCaDay (#396522) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18833. 1 Merit sent by 101nowby (#2229773) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18834. 1 Merit sent by 100kk (#1316426) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18835. 1 Merit sent by 100eth (#1324600) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18836. 1 Merit sent by 0virtual (#1244555) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18837. 1 Merit sent by 0Alvaren0 (#2020991) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18838. 1 Merit sent by 01bits (#1629161) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18839. 1 Merit sent by 01BTC (#1756786) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18840. 1 Merit sent by 00DKM@ (#1311705) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18841. 1 Merit sent by .nuke (#89670) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18842. 1 Merit sent by -kirito (#1747828) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18843. 1 Merit sent by -ck (#19971) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18844. 1 Merit sent by -Kaizer- (#60550) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18845. 1 Merit sent by $Talker (#1043705) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18846. 1 Merit sent by $@to$h! (#1183184) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18847. 1 Merit sent by $$$ (#525995) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
18848. 1 Merit sent by #Bentley (#1232592) to 1 unique users in 1 transactions
(2 MB) Most of those users try really hard to send merit to as many different users as possible, but they need to deserve it first. Did you know that half of the users you've send most Merit to are in the top200 Merit receivers? I don't have theory. I am simply stating the statistics. For example provide me this factual information. Your current received merit score minus merit from the top 300 and any merit awarded in the meta section. Please provide me the current received merit and the merit you would have after making the adjustments?? Now to clear this up. How many times can I say that does not mean you did not deserve the 80% or greater that will vanish from your score? I have said before in posts that I find myself awarding top merit holders more than anyone else because 1. it is hard to find posts in amongst the sea of junk to award merit 2. people in meta since I have been here are helpful at providing stats I ask for and some say things I agree with. This is what i notice merit is used for. People upset at not getting more merit need not be upset thinking their posts are not being recognised for being great quality because that is unlikely on most boards due to how hard it would be to find them. The point is many are recognising they can make great posts on other boards and not get anywhere near the merit they should get based on the level of post you would need to make here in the meta section if you were one of the inner circle. This is true totally. I have said this is not a big deal because merit stops lots of negative behaviour and is a nice way to award others who do things you ask or for you to tip your hat to others that express views you share. People are wrongly believing that merit = valuable objective post and further more people are wrongly suggesting their high merit scores mean their posts are more valuable or hold more weight that low merit score holders. This is not the case. The merit system is fine we just have to explain to people who wonder why they are not getting much merit for good posts it is not because their posts are not good it is due to other factors. |
|
|
|
<…> Sadly for you the fact is the top 0.02% of merit receivers cycle over 50% of their merit between them at this time.<…>
I think the figure is really the top 2% of merit receivers. If I’m right I calculated some data some weeks ago where I stated: <…>I’ve continued scaling the Top X Merited for the following groups:
Top 200 -> 43,29% received merit from Top 200.
Top 500 -> 50,61% received merit from Top 500.
Top 1000 -> 56,62% received merit from Top 1000.
Top 5000 -> 69,44% received merit from Top 5000.<...>
The top 500 had an inner merit sending pattern of 50,61%. There are currently 25.008 merited forum members, so that makes the top 500 merited 2% of the total merited users. In my opinion, it is rather natural for the best posters to merit the other best posters quite often, whilst keeping an eye out for posts on any other rank or segment (most of those top 500 have merited many other people outside the top 500, just not in the same amounts or frequency – which is also natural I’d say). BPIP seems to have me on it’s ignore list. I’m right in between @LoyceV and @hilariousetc really … I am not sure about this but 200 from let's say 150k active users as a percentage is under 2% right? is it not 0.13% that's posted in the last month i think not since merit was introduced that would be far greater so this is being more than fair. There is no way that if you remove the merit from the top 200 that comes from ONLY the top 300 (out of 150,000 lets not use the 2 million members) So to if you leave out the top 0.13% of inner circle meriting and those merits from a tiny subsection of posters on the meta board it is natural that their merit scores plummet up to 95%? Not sure how natural that is. Never pay attention to suchmoon he simply does not abide by any kind of logical argument. There are 150k posters in I believe in the last month. Just because such moon claims they are not valid to be considered for merit because they have not had any merit he leaves them out of his calculation. That is quite a crazy thing to say. The link I posted is 100% valid. The facts There are 2 million registered members There are 150 posters in the last month 0.13% of that 150k circle 50% of their merits and have huge merit scores some as many as 1200 merits received. Take merit that is being circled inside that 0.13% away and take also merit given on the meta board which is super concentrated by these 0.13% and their ass kissers and you will see for sure that most of them lose min 50% with most losing over 80% heading to 95%. Simple observable fact. If they are out by a couple of % does not spoil the message that I present. Anyone believing that 0.13% of posters spiraling away higher and higher in merit (gained from each other) who would lose 95% of their merits if that was not included along with their fav hang out meta is natural distribution of merit based upon objective analysis of the value of a post compared to others is wrong. |
|
|
|
There is a decrease in posting activity though, that seems to bring things down a notch recently.
Market probably dropped the interest of core bitcoin investors, as there little to discuss in the situation except speculations and the occasional FUD. A more active forum does not automatically relate to a more fun forum though, sometimes the drama in here might be a little too much for my taste. You are right the drama in here in recent time have made a lot of investors and the forum have been a little boring right now because a lot have change in here and the market price downfall have killed the interest of most members, but I still believe if you can take your time to go through the various sections in this forum you will fine topics that will spice up you day. I feel those that lose interest in building a decentralised trustless arena when the "price" drops are not real enthusiasts for it in the first place. If it is just an opportunity to make money with no other enthusiasm for the underlying principles then when they leave the concentration of real enthusiasts and proponents for these things will increase and better conversations will develop again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
