My contribution to a near-perfect Merit-based ranking system for Bitcointalk

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The Merit-based ranking system should really be based on Merit otherwise it should not be used to prevent people from ranking up or qualifying them for Signature campaigns.

If that's what you're suggesting, I'd say you're mistaken.  And why?  It's because of sig campaigns and bounties that this forum has a problem with so many low-quality posts to begin with, and the merit system is intended to ensure that only those members worthy enough have a chance to rank up and thus increase their signature space.  So it is kind of supposed to keep shitposters out of campaigns--and it'd be nice if every campaign manager would have some kind of weekly merit requirement, but that's not going to happen as far as I can tell.

And we've had this discussion many times since Jan. 2018.  It seems like a lot of old arguments are being brought back up, and unnecessarily I might add.

[Ucy]

Hello, ETFBitcoin and others. Thanks for the comments. Will hopefully reply you guys at the right time. I currently have alot on me. *the world on my shoulders*

[Ucy]

Every single work or post should have a chance to be reviewed by other people. We could have a little "submit for review" button below or above each post which will enable other members go through a work to review it, earn reward for the review as well as  reward those they are reviewing, in privacy-friendly manner.

1. How are the reviewer selected?
2. What is the reward? If it's cryptocurrency, token or fiat, who will pay the reviewer?
3. Is there anyone who can ensure/check quality of the review?

1. Concerning  your number 1 question "How are the reviewer selected?"
*Here are my Answers:
It can be similar to how they are  "selected" on this forum, meaning everyone is free to join or be part of the reviewers. We can however use their grading or what they write to determine the quality of their review and rank them according to their review quality. If someone is reviewing post/work on economy, his/her review should be true/accurate... that could be a proof he/she has good understanding of what is being reviewed and making accurate judgment. Ranking the reviewers is a great way to raise quality review without closing the review system or preventing people from participating. If someone is consistently making reviews that are proven to be wrong, their reviews won't have much power as people review power will depend on how well or badly they reviews and this will be proof-based by simply attaching the bad reviews that have been proven wrong to the reviews left by others in their reviews.



2. What is the reward? If it's cryptocurrency, token or fiat, who will pay the reviewer?

My answer: Reward doesn't necessarily have to be in Crypto, token or fiat. It simple should be in Points like the current Forum "merit point"... though my particular merit point will be used right and not that easy to earn so that people will find it valuable. It would be scare if it's only going to good quality posts or post that really solve problems properly without creating more problems, otherwise the points should not be too high. If merit point is abused, given too much or given wrongly, a reviewer can demerit post with proof that the given merit points are not deserved, then the point could go to the reviewer or is canceled.
#By the way, this is a proof-based merit/review system that I'm proposing

3. Is there anyone who can ensure/check quality of the review?

My answer:
The top ranked reviewers can always ensure review quality in the department they have strengths in. Refer to my answer to your number 1 question to see how reviewers are ranked. That will be used to ensure quality of reviews/reviewers





This post is already too long to accommodate multiple posts from different posters. Will hopefully reply some or most other posters on different post