Merit & new rank requirements

[pvk444]

Can somebody here shed some light on some of the assumptions that went into the design of the merit \ rank combination?

In particular, looking at the activity / merit ratio per rank:

Member : 6:1 (ie, expectation is that for every 6 posts, a member is expected to "generate" 1 merit)
Full member : 1.2 : 1
Senior member / Hero member 1 : 1 (approx.)

Given this, and the fact that it seems almost impossible to get 1 merit for every 6 posts, let alone one merit on every post, what's the rational to keep an eye on both, activity and merit, as far as the ranking is concerned? Merits being the dominant factor by far, activity count seems superfluous (for the purpose of ranking at least). Removing activity requirements from ranking and using only merits might also prevent the numerous discussions about fairness ("i posted xyz amount of posts, but only received abc merits")

[YuTü.Co.in]

Can somebody here shed some light on some of the assumptions that went into the design of the merit \ rank combination?

In particular, looking at the activity / merit ratio per rank:

Member : 6:1 (ie, expectation is that for every 6 posts, a member is expected to "generate" 1 merit)
Full member : 1.2 : 1
Senior member / Hero member 1 : 1 (approx.)

Given this, and the fact that it seems almost impossible to get 1 merit for every 6 posts, let alone one merit on every post, what's the rational to keep an eye on both, activity and merit, as far as the ranking is concerned? Merits being the dominant factor by far, activity count seems superfluous (for the purpose of ranking at least). Removing activity requirements from ranking and using only merits might also prevent the numerous discussions about fairness ("i posted xyz amount of posts, but only received abc merits")

Ergo, xyz > abc.

Q.E.D.

[pvk444]

Can somebody here shed some light on some of the assumptions that went into the design of the merit \ rank combination?

In particular, looking at the activity / merit ratio per rank:

Member : 6:1 (ie, expectation is that for every 6 posts, a member is expected to "generate" 1 merit)
Full member : 1.2 : 1
Senior member / Hero member 1 : 1 (approx.)

Given this, and the fact that it seems almost impossible to get 1 merit for every 6 posts, let alone one merit on every post, what's the rational to keep an eye on both, activity and merit, as far as the ranking is concerned? Merits being the dominant factor by far, activity count seems superfluous (for the purpose of ranking at least). Removing activity requirements from ranking and using only merits might also prevent the numerous discussions about fairness ("i posted xyz amount of posts, but only received abc merits")

Ergo, xyz > abc.

Q.E.D.

This makes 0 sense, as a reply. it simply states the glaring obvious

[YuTü.Co.in]

Can somebody here shed some light on some of the assumptions that went into the design of the merit \ rank combination?

In particular, looking at the activity / merit ratio per rank:

Member : 6:1 (ie, expectation is that for every 6 posts, a member is expected to "generate" 1 merit)
Full member : 1.2 : 1
Senior member / Hero member 1 : 1 (approx.)

Given this, and the fact that it seems almost impossible to get 1 merit for every 6 posts, let alone one merit on every post, what's the rational to keep an eye on both, activity and merit, as far as the ranking is concerned? Merits being the dominant factor by far, activity count seems superfluous (for the purpose of ranking at least). Removing activity requirements from ranking and using only merits might also prevent the numerous discussions about fairness ("i posted xyz amount of posts, but only received abc merits")

Ergo, xyz > abc.

Q.E.D.

This makes 0 sense, as a reply. it simply states the glaring obvious

Here's a sneak peek, Mr. Obvious, in what to expect on tomorrow's exam:

[pvk444]

Can somebody here shed some light on some of the assumptions that went into the design of the merit \ rank combination?

In particular, looking at the activity / merit ratio per rank:

Member : 6:1 (ie, expectation is that for every 6 posts, a member is expected to "generate" 1 merit)
Full member : 1.2 : 1
Senior member / Hero member 1 : 1 (approx.)

Given this, and the fact that it seems almost impossible to get 1 merit for every 6 posts, let alone one merit on every post, what's the rational to keep an eye on both, activity and merit, as far as the ranking is concerned? Merits being the dominant factor by far, activity count seems superfluous (for the purpose of ranking at least). Removing activity requirements from ranking and using only merits might also prevent the numerous discussions about fairness ("i posted xyz amount of posts, but only received abc merits")

Ergo, xyz > abc.

Q.E.D.

This makes 0 sense, as a reply. it simply states the glaring obvious

Here's a sneak peek, Mr. Obvious, in what to expect on tomorrow's exam:

And what do you want to say, exactly, with posting 1st grader math?

I posted a fair question, and if you cannot or don't want to provide a reasonable answer, then go and bug somebody else.

[YuTü.Co.in]

Can somebody here shed some light on some of the assumptions that went into the design of the merit \ rank combination?

In particular, looking at the activity / merit ratio per rank:

Member : 6:1 (ie, expectation is that for every 6 posts, a member is expected to "generate" 1 merit)
Full member : 1.2 : 1
Senior member / Hero member 1 : 1 (approx.)

Given this, and the fact that it seems almost impossible to get 1 merit for every 6 posts, let alone one merit on every post, what's the rational to keep an eye on both, activity and merit, as far as the ranking is concerned? Merits being the dominant factor by far, activity count seems superfluous (for the purpose of ranking at least). Removing activity requirements from ranking and using only merits might also prevent the numerous discussions about fairness ("i posted xyz amount of posts, but only received abc merits")

Ergo, xyz > abc.

Q.E.D.

This makes 0 sense, as a reply. it simply states the glaring obvious

Here's a sneak peek, Mr. Obvious, in what to expect on tomorrow's exam:

And what do you want to say, exactly, with posting 1st grader math?

I posted a fair question, and if you cannot or don't want to provide a reasonable answer, then go and bug somebody else.

Dude, here's +5 sM. Lighten up! BTW, when did they start including first grade math on the SAT? Furthermore, how is it that the problem posed above is supposedly easy in your mind, yet remain perplex on the Merit thingy?

[pvk444]

Can somebody here shed some light on some of the assumptions that went into the design of the merit \ rank combination?

In particular, looking at the activity / merit ratio per rank:

Member : 6:1 (ie, expectation is that for every 6 posts, a member is expected to "generate" 1 merit)
Full member : 1.2 : 1
Senior member / Hero member 1 : 1 (approx.)

Given this, and the fact that it seems almost impossible to get 1 merit for every 6 posts, let alone one merit on every post, what's the rational to keep an eye on both, activity and merit, as far as the ranking is concerned? Merits being the dominant factor by far, activity count seems superfluous (for the purpose of ranking at least). Removing activity requirements from ranking and using only merits might also prevent the numerous discussions about fairness ("i posted xyz amount of posts, but only received abc merits")

Ergo, xyz > abc.

Q.E.D.

This makes 0 sense, as a reply. it simply states the glaring obvious

Here's a sneak peek, Mr. Obvious, in what to expect on tomorrow's exam:

And what do you want to say, exactly, with posting 1st grader math?

I posted a fair question, and if you cannot or don't want to provide a reasonable answer, then go and bug somebody else.

Dude, here's +5 sM. Lighten up! BTW, when did they start including first grade math on the SAT? Furthermore, how is it that the problem posed above is supposedly easy in your mind, yet remain perplex on the Merit thingy?

Math is way too simple a question. Did not think it would be on SAT (obviously answer is D).

I suggest you re-read the question. Or maybe I try again:

if you need x merits and y activities to reach a rank, but for each merit it takes z >> y / x activities, which will you always reach last, x merits or y activities?

Once you have the answer, please explain to me what relevance the activities have for ranking.

[suchmoon]

what relevance the activities have for ranking.

Activity is not just the number of posts. You also need to post at least once in each 2-week activity period.

[YuTü.Co.in]

what relevance the activities have for ranking.

Activity is not just the number of posts. You also need to post at least once in each 2-week activity period.

So theoretically, a Newbie will remain Newbie status even though they may have penned 10K post, earned 1000 Activity, but remained at O Merits, correct?

[inyakizuryel]

what relevance the activities have for ranking.

Activity is not just the number of posts. You also need to post at least once in each 2-week activity period.

So theoretically, a Newbie will remain Newbie status even though they may have penned 10K post, earned 1000 Activity, but remained at O Merits, correct?

Incorrect, it will not remain as newbie throughout his bitcointalk life because the requirement for a jr. Member is basically 0 merit only and by that he or she may and can rank up to jr member from newbie.

[bitgov]

what relevance the activities have for ranking.

Activity is not just the number of posts. You also need to post at least once in each 2-week activity period.

So theoretically, a Newbie will remain Newbie status even though they may have penned 10K post, earned 1000 Activity, but remained at O Merits, correct?

Actually without Merit points you can jump to Jr.Member, but @suchmoon wrote about that to collect activity points you need not only number of posts - you need also time. In 14 days periods you need post at least 1 time, to "earn" activity points from this period of time and it can be max 14 activity points - but to earn that points you need also enough posts. More less .. So if you change in your comment "Newbie" to "Jr.Member", this what you wrote theoretically will be possible.

[Thirio]

what relevance the activities have for ranking.

Activity is not just the number of posts. You also need to post at least once in each 2-week activity period.

So theoretically, a Newbie will remain Newbie status even though they may have penned 10K post, earned 1000 Activity, but remained at O Merits, correct?

Incorrect, it will not remain as newbie throughout his bitcointalk life because the requirement for a jr. Member is basically 0 merit only and by that he or she may and can rank up to jr member from newbie.

^ this and for those shitposting newbies long as they aren't changing their ways, don't ever ask for merits.

[Praesidium]

what relevance the activities have for ranking.

Activity is not just the number of posts. You also need to post at least once in each 2-week activity period.

So theoretically, a Newbie will remain Newbie status even though they may have penned 10K post, earned 1000 Activity, but remained at O Merits, correct?

Nope, newbie can rank up to junior by having 30 activities and 0 Merit, try to read the topic again before posting.

I really dont know why this thread is still runnin'. The question and other talks are being redundant. Know how to back read guys! And as for the newbies, there are many infographic explanation about the merit system which are all well explained try to read always, dont settle for being spoon fed.

[utlptc]

Hi people!
I have enough activity to change my rank.
But now we need to have 500 Merit.

I have no idea where to get it. Where I write the answers in the topics, there are many beginners.
Now and for 10 years you can not get this amount.
Very disappointing.

Same here...I was disappointed as I joined here earlier and didn't get enough time to be ranked. Anyway, after getting +1 merit, it seems more easier to me what I thought impossible before. It's true that 10 merit is easy to get while 250 is far away. But don't be disappointed. At the end of the day, the system was badly needed to prevent spamming.

[YuTü.Co.in]

what relevance the activities have for ranking.

Activity is not just the number of posts. You also need to post at least once in each 2-week activity period.

So theoretically, a Newbie will remain Newbie status even though they may have penned 10K post, earned 1000 Activity, but remained at O Merits, correct?

Nope, newbie can rank up to junior by having 30 activities and 0 Merit, try to read the topic again before posting.

I really dont know why this thread is still runnin'. The question and other talks are being redundant. Know how to back read guys! And as for the newbies, there are many infographic explanation about the merit system which are all well explained try to read always, dont settle for being spoon fed.

Thanks, bud, for setting me straight. Here's +10 sM for your time.

[athanz88]

Can somebody here shed some light on some of the assumptions that went into the design of the merit \ rank combination?

In particular, looking at the activity / merit ratio per rank:

Member : 6:1 (ie, expectation is that for every 6 posts, a member is expected to "generate" 1 merit)
Full member : 1.2 : 1
Senior member / Hero member 1 : 1 (approx.)

Given this, and the fact that it seems almost impossible to get 1 merit for every 6 posts, let alone one merit on every post, what's the rational to keep an eye on both, activity and merit, as far as the ranking is concerned? Merits being the dominant factor by far, activity count seems superfluous (for the purpose of ranking at least). Removing activity requirements from ranking and using only merits might also prevent the numerous discussions about fairness ("i posted xyz amount of posts, but only received abc merits")

You re getting a lot of merits yet still want to change the system, i dont know why you do that.

Of course it needs to be together, for merit and activity to decide ranks. If you suggest that only merit used to decide rank just for fairness issue, it will brings a lot of unfairness if we only use merit as indicator to rank up. Imagine if someone get 1000 merit instantly in a month, he will be a legendary rank by a month, and later all users will  be shouting how unfair it is. You need to see merit as the decider of the rank, and activity as the controller of the rank.

[jemarleon]

Can i repost something that posted by others to help other newbies like me and to gain merit points?

[pvk444]

what relevance the activities have for ranking.

Activity is not just the number of posts. You also need to post at least once in each 2-week activity period.

That's not the question, and yes, activities are not only posts. It still remains the case, that for ranking activities are irrelevant practically. So there is actually no need to continue to use activities at all as part of the ranking for anything above Jr. Member, and might actually contribute to the confusion.

[asapjoshyy]

at first , i hated the merit system i wont lie... i was 10 activity away from senior member... but after looking at it after a few weeks and making mistakes hating on the system , ive realized that this system is really for the best of the forum, there is so many people with multiple accounts, spamming messages and just ranking up doing nothing... the system does need some tinkering i agree , but all in all the system will really benefit the forum in the long term to give REAL members benefits and BAD members wont reap the rewards of this amazing forum

[pvk444]

You re getting a lot of merits yet still want to change the system, i dont know why you do that.

Of course it needs to be together, for merit and activity to decide ranks. If you suggest that only merit used to decide rank just for fairness issue, it will brings a lot of unfairness if we only use merit as indicator to rank up. Imagine if someone get 1000 merit instantly in a month, he will be a legendary rank by a month, and later all users will  be shouting how unfair it is. You need to see merit as the decider of the rank, and activity as the controller of the rank.

Firstly, this is not about me getting merits or not. It is a simple question of a design principle. And you are the first one who actually gave a reasonable answer (for that I gave you an sM) , although practically, I'm not convinced whether the reason is  of relevance.

Take a Senior Member who just made the rank wanting to become Hero Member. This person needs to accumulate 240 activities and 250 merits.

As long as on average it takes several (likely 10 or more) activities to gain one merit, the activity goal has no relevance.

I agree, that if somebody is getting 1000 merits (or in this case 250 merits) in a month, then the activity count could kick in and become the relevant factor. So theoretically I can see the point. I just fail to see how practical this scenario really is. Furthermore, if somebody truly would contribute so much value that he would get 250 merits for high-quality posts, I would think he would deserve a the rank even without any time limitation (again, this scenerio, IMHO is highly unlikely).

In summary, if the activity goals per rank, is purely meant to put contraints on how quickly one could rank up, then the principle is clear but I doubt it would still have any practical relevance.

And since activity goals, practically speaking remain irrelevant in my opionion, it does not matter to me whether they are included or not, just think it might confuse some others.