Merit & new rank requirements

[Jet Cash]

I don't really notice many signatures. The senior bounty ones look like the forum ones, and I assume that no product in which I have an interest is likely to advertise here. Then there are the junior bounty ones, these are usually 2 or 3 lines of capitalised text pretending to be a big boys signature. The only ones I tend to notice are the simple text strings, as these are often the personal sites of the poster, and can be useful resources.

[1713452416]

1713452416

[1713452416]

1713452416

[RivAngE]

I don't really notice many signatures. The senior bounty ones look like the forum ones, and I assume that no product in which I have an interest is likely to advertise here. Then there are the junior bounty ones, these are usually 2 or 3 lines of capitalised text pretending to be a big boys signature. The only ones I tend to notice are the simple text strings, as these are often the personal sites of the poster, and can be useful resources.

[off-topic]lol that's true! Nice "ask-a-legendary" site! you've got there [/off-topic]

[Kagoku01]

Its very tough to get a marit nowadays. Many qualityful post didn't even seen by higher level members or they ignore. Those who are ranked up before this rules are dominating bitcointalk now. I heard about marit treading and selling too.

[athanz88]

snip

snip

I guess I shouldn't complain, I have been given 52 merits even though I'm always taking advantage of a paid signature (why wouldn't I? I'm not posting to get paid; I get paid for posting) but I'm sure without a signature I would have reached 100 merits by now.

Well, to  be honest. I was and am wearing signature since the day the merit was introduced back in January. I start this "new age" as a Full Member and now here i am with 341 merits, which mean i got 241 merits while i use signature. Maybe some people who read this will try and look into my merit history and will says that my merits are mostly from meta section. Guess what? People can post in meta but doesnt mean they will get merits, if the post is merited, then someone thinks that it is worthy enough to be merited. That is why i am proud of my merits where ever i got it from.

I guess, there is 2 different side of your case. While you got less with signature, some people just got the merit in a faster rate while using signature (i am not saying this is me).

[cryptofarid10]

Its very tough to get a marit nowadays. Many qualityful post didn't even seen by higher level members or they ignore. Those who are ranked up before this rules are dominating bitcointalk now. I heard about marit treading and selling too.

Merit buy sell is not permitted. If you see something like this, please report to the moderator. Then he will be banned.

[Thanasis]

snip

snip

I guess I shouldn't complain, I have been given 52 merits even though I'm always taking advantage of a paid signature (why wouldn't I? I'm not posting to get paid; I get paid for posting) but I'm sure without a signature I would have reached 100 merits by now.

Well, to  be honest. I was and am wearing signature since the day the merit was introduced back in January. I start this "new age" as a Full Member and now here i am with 341 merits, which mean i got 241 merits while i use signature. Maybe some people who read this will try and look into my merit history and will says that my merits are mostly from meta section. Guess what? People can post in meta but doesnt mean they will get merits, if the post is merited, then someone thinks that it is worthy enough to be merited. That is why i am proud of my merits where ever i got it from.

I guess, there is 2 different side of your case. While you got less with signature, some people just got the merit in a faster rate while using signature (i am not saying this is me).

The problem is not all the good posts were get merited so the merit distribution is not equal even the two good posts will get different amount of merits it based on how much people reading this and how much think that this is worthy to be merited.We are in scarcity for merit sources I think.

I heard about marit treading and selling too.

If you get caught for merit trading you will be negged so never try to use their service for rank up.

[DdmrDdmr]

<...>
I guess I shouldn't complain, I have been given 52 merits even though I'm always taking advantage of a paid signature (why wouldn't I? I'm not posting to get paid; I get paid for posting) but I'm sure without a signature I would have reached 100 merits by now.

Back in June 2018, @ matthewoz101 opened a thread on the matter of the relation on merit and signatures (see Is it easier to earn Merit without a signature?). On the referenced thread, I checked out back then whether there was an influence on being merited depending on signature present/absent (see re: Is it easier to earn Merit without a signature?), and there did not seem to be one really.

In fact, for Heroes and Legendries it had a positive impact numerically, although it is likely due to the fact that for these ranks post more often and therefore gain more merits (there are obvious exceptions, but it is a plausible explanation for the 7 point difference in average merit for those using a signature).
Ranks below Heroes at the time seemed not to be influenced by wearing a signature in terms of average sMerit received.

[JayJuanGee]

snip

snip

I guess I shouldn't complain, I have been given 52 merits even though I'm always taking advantage of a paid signature (why wouldn't I? I'm not posting to get paid; I get paid for posting) but I'm sure without a signature I would have reached 100 merits by now.

Well, to  be honest. I was and am wearing signature since the day the merit was introduced back in January. I start this "new age" as a Full Member and now here i am with 341 merits, which mean i got 241 merits while i use signature. Maybe some people who read this will try and look into my merit history and will says that my merits are mostly from meta section. Guess what? People can post in meta but doesnt mean they will get merits, if the post is merited, then someone thinks that it is worthy enough to be merited. That is why i am proud of my merits where ever i got it from.

I guess, there is 2 different side of your case. While you got less with signature, some people just got the merit in a faster rate while using signature (i am not saying this is me).

I won't dispute that you have been on a signature the whole time since the merit system was started, but weren't you in a different signature campaign in January/February, as compared with the one that you have now?

[RivAngE]

<...>
I guess I shouldn't complain, I have been given 52 merits even though I'm always taking advantage of a paid signature (why wouldn't I? I'm not posting to get paid; I get paid for posting) but I'm sure without a signature I would have reached 100 merits by now.

Back in June 2018, @ matthewoz101 opened a thread on the matter of the relation on merit and signatures (see Is it easier to earn Merit without a signature?). On the referenced thread, I checked out back then whether there was an influence on being merited depending on signature present/absent (see re: Is it easier to earn Merit without a signature?), and there did not seem to be one really.

In fact, for Heroes and Legendries it had a positive impact numerically, although it is likely due to the fact that for these ranks post more often and therefore gain more merits (there are obvious exceptions, but it is a plausible explanation for the 7 point difference in average merit for those using a signature).
Ranks below Heroes at the time seemed not to be influenced by wearing a signature in terms of average sMerit received.

Well.. I merited your post from June 17th which states 76,97% of the merited posts, are merited within the 1st week! I like being on the minority of things I'm impressed with all the data you've gathered, I wasn't expecting those numbers!

I'm interested to know how did you calculate the following (I formatted for you into a table! ). I want to ask two things... A) Did you separate people wearing a personal signature and people wearing a paid signature? B) I'm sure a lot of registered members are inactive. Most of them, logically are inactive prior to 2017 and therefore prior to the boom of signature bounties, were you able to somehow filter these people out? Since they're inactive they're not going to get any merit!

Rank	%WithSignature	AvgTotalMerit_NO_Signature	AvgTotalMerit_Signature
Jr. Member	53%	3,52	3,11
Member	74%	8,67	9,71
Full Member	78%	10,20	12,31
Sr. Member	75%	16,11	15,71
Hero	74%	12,44	20,10
Legendary	74%	18,92	25,05

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>
 

Nice to see you’ve gone through the whole referenced thread, and not just to the referenced OPs, therefore getting the whole context.
To answer your questions:

A)   No, I did not separate personal signature from a campaign signature. I gave it a go, but there were so many distinct signatures that classifying them seemed rather painstaking. I believe I stated this in the original thread where the study was performed somewhere. Actually, what I really wanted at the time to group signatures by campaign and see where that led me, but since signatures differ per rank, and content of the signatures too, I had to give it a pass and settle for the simpler version of signature present/absent.

B)   The analysis only took into consideration merited members, so the considered user base is that of those that had achieved at least 1 sMerit at the time, thus disregarding all other users. That was the focus I intended really. I was therefore not concerned with forum members that has not achieved a single merit at the time, whether being active or inactive.

P.D. Thanks for the proper table format. I have since formatted data better, normally enclosed in code sections with padded spaces to align things properly (prior treatment on excel for the padding).

[MagicSmoker]

Well, to  be honest. I was and am wearing signature since the day the merit was introduced back in January.
...

I won't dispute that you have been on a signature the whole time since the merit system was started, but weren't you in a different signature campaign in January/February, as compared with the one that you have now?

IIRC, it was the Yahoo8675309 campaign, or whatever those numbers are after Yahoo's name.

(don't ask why I remembered that - I'm kind of surprised myself...  )

[JayJuanGee]

Well, to  be honest. I was and am wearing signature since the day the merit was introduced back in January.
...

I won't dispute that you have been on a signature the whole time since the merit system was started, but weren't you in a different signature campaign in January/February, as compared with the one that you have now?

IIRC, it was the Yahoo8675309 campaign, or whatever those numbers are after Yahoo's name.

(don't ask why I remembered that - I'm kind of surprised myself...  )

Yes.... exactamente..   My memory triggered further, too.

[athanz88]

I won't dispute that you have been on a signature the whole time since the merit system was started, but weren't you in a different signature campaign in January/February, as compared with the one that you have now?

Yes, it is different. Back then i was on yahoo62278's campaign and now i am on a signature which managed by Zapo. Does it have any differences or bias or something? Isnt the talk is about someone not getting more merit just because they have signature on their profile? I am not saying me, but there are people who got many merits when they are using signature, so it is kinda different from rivange's hypothesis.

[TryNinja]

I am not saying me, but there are people who got many merits when they are using signature, so it is kinda different from rivange's hypothesis.

The current top 3 most merited user (LoyceV) is on ChipMixer's campaign.
The top 6, hilariousetc is also in the same campaign.
The top 8, Lutpin is using a paid signature.
The top 12, The Pharmacist is also with ChipMixer.

and the list goes on... actually, a big part of the top 100 most merited users are in a signature campaign. So, I think it's safe to assume that this doesn't mean a lot.

[JayJuanGee]

I won't dispute that you have been on a signature the whole time since the merit system was started, but weren't you in a different signature campaign in January/February, as compared with the one that you have now?

Yes, it is different. Back then i was on yahoo62278's campaign and now i am on a signature which managed by Zapo. Does it have any differences or bias or something?

I thought that you had mentioned that you had the same signature campaign for the whole time.  Certainly, I was NOT questioning whether there is a bias against giving merits to signature campaigns.  I was only questioning your assertion of being on the same signature campaign for the whole duration of the merit system.

Isnt the talk is about someone not getting more merit just because they have signature on their profile?
I am not saying me, but there are people who got many merits when they are using signature, so it is kinda different from rivange's hypothesis.

Exactly.  I agree, and I think that whiners and signature haters use the presence of a signature campaign as a nonsensical (and not supported by evidence) talking point.  I had various sponsored signatures for more than two years from late 2015 to early 2018, and I discontinued with signature campaigns largely because I was becoming irritated by their shifting around the payment amounts, and I considered that it was not really worth it for me to be hassled in keeping track about whether I was getting paid the proper amount... so without telling any signature campaign specifically, I just kind of became fed up with them from a personal management level.  Probably I did earn close to 3 bitcoins from my participation in signature campaigns in a bit over 2 years, so it was not a bad thing in terms of scraping together a few more bitcoins.

[LoyceV]

Also it saddens me that merit sources are probably prejudiced against everyone who use signatures, even legit people like myself.

You're already one step too far: it depends on the signature campaign. If someone wears a signature advertising some token for an ICO, and gets paid in tokens, I often don't read his post. If I don't read it, he won't receive any Merit for sure.
I know your signature campaign has a strict manager, mine too, but most of the ICO spammers don't care about anything. It's simply not worth reading all the crap that's posted.
FYI: I only started using a paid signature when I was a Full Member, and I'm currently only in my second campaign on this forum. If anything, these (strict) campaigns made me improve my posts, as I always feel like I'm going to be judged for what I post.

For example look at this post just above us (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.msg45458026#msg45458026), JayJuanGee, a very respectable and old member received a merit for quoting my post and enriching my point with some comments. That's all good, but on what ground was this post merit-able and mine wasn't? What set us apart?

That post was merited by me, so let me respond to this. What set your posts apart is your first line:

Merit offering is relative to the total market cap of the cryptocoins!

This may or may not have been a joke, but I don't think it's true. I don't have to agree with a post to Merit it, but I must believe the information is correct to do so. Example: this post of yours. I partially disagree, but it's worth reading.
The reason I merited JayJuanGee's post is explained here.

if a respectable legendary member with no paid signature and a newbie with a signature were to write the exact same post with the same wording... would merit sources and other members be fair?

I especially try to Merit Newbies who aren't spammers. This forum needs "normal" new users, and if I see one, I Merit him. It's just hard to find that normal new user amongst thousands of spammers.

I'm sure without a signature I would have reached 100 merits by now.

I doubt it, but if you really believe this, you could consider it an investment to get rid of your signature until you're a Full or Sr. Member. That will increase the value of your siganture, and could earn back the lost revenue.

Merit buy sell is not permitted. If you see something like this, please report to the moderator. Then he will be banned.

This isn't true. Only Merit sources aren't allowed to sell Merit.
Merit abuse isn't moderated, but you risk red trust from DT.

[coinlocket$]

~
and the list goes on... actually, a big part of the top 100 most merited users are in a signature campaign. So, I think it's safe to assume that this doesn't mean a lot.

I agree, having a signature does not affect the number of merits that a person takes. Besides if we "accept" hundreds of accounts that are paid to write crap, I find better to pay more people who actually spend hard work when they write.

@everyone, If you look here, you can see how many people whit high merit also wear a signature. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=topusersat

[athanz88]

I thought that you had mentioned that you had the same signature campaign for the whole time.  Certainly, I was NOT questioning whether there is a bias against giving merits to signature campaigns.  I was only questioning your assertion of being on the same signature campaign for the whole duration of the merit system.

Exactly.  I agree, and I think that whiners and signature haters use the presence of a signature campaign as a nonsensical (and not supported by evidence) talking point.  I had various sponsored signatures for more than two years from late 2015 to early 2018, and I discontinued with signature campaigns largely because I was becoming irritated by their shifting around the payment amounts, and I considered that it was not really worth it for me to be hassled in keeping track about whether I was getting paid the proper amount... so without telling any signature campaign specifically, I just kind of became fed up with them from a personal management level.  Probably I did earn close to 3 bitcoins from my participation in signature campaigns in a bit over 2 years, so it was not a bad thing in terms of scraping together a few more bitcoins.

Well, i guess i did a mistake in choosing some word and made the sentences differ from what i mean.

Yes, signature campaign is used as many variable in the talks that happen in this forum, either it is good or bad. Well everybody has opinion on it but it is better if everybody can bring up evidence like you said JJG, i agree with you. Upon your experience, it is quite interesting if it is happened to me which came from a 3rd world country because with that amount, i can pay up my college fees till i graduated.

[TheBeardedBaby]

The signature didn't play a role for the merit I got at all. In the very beginning I joined a project which turned out to be scam and of course I didn't got paid, lost a few months and decided not to join any campaigns as they were waste or time and the merit system came in the meantime. Then I was wearing no paid signature for a couple of weeks then joined one project of Tokensuite as I thought they were reliable, but unfortunately another disappointment.
Finally found  a campaign by izanagi narukami,  which was  only two or three weeks but I finally got paid.
During all that time I was receiving merit without any problems.
So the conclusion:  no matter if you are with paid signature for altcoins/bitcoins or without signature at all the merit are coming because of the content you are posting.

[JayJuanGee]

......[edited out].............................I had various sponsored signatures for more than two years from late 2015 to early 2018, .........................[edited out]....................................... Probably I did earn close to 3 bitcoins from my participation in signature campaigns in a bit over 2 years, so it was not a bad thing in terms of scraping together a few more bitcoins.

 Upon your experience, it is quite interesting if it is happened to me which came from a 3rd world country because with that amount, i can pay up my college fees till i graduated.

Well, as you may recognize, in late 2015, when I began with my participation in signature campaigns, BTC prices had been stagnant and going down for the two prior years, so accordingly during the beginning of my participation BTC prices were around $250 and they were going up during that time to peak in the $19k arena... so yeah, some of the campaigns were scrambling to figure out how to pay their participants when BTC were rising so rapidly (especially in 2017 and in late 2017).

These days, it would take a lot longer to earn 3 BTC through any kind of regular BTCTalk member (posting) participation in signature campaigns.

Nonetheless, I do understand also that signature campaigns can still constitute a fairly decent income for some members, depending on their local economies, and surely some of those financial incentives had ben screwing up the forum because of the incentive to spam or even farm accounts.. .so in the long run, if the forum is figuring out ways to filter out farmed accounts, then contributions will be better, and I also agree that a lot of members are likely giving merits based on quality of posts and the sharing of substantive ideas, rather than the turn off that comes from folks posting nonsense or directly seem to be attempting to scheme or scam other members.