Merit & new rank requirements

[LoyceV]

I think an ‘Elite’ rank or ‘Lambo’ member would be awesome achievable by 2000 Activity & 2000 Merit.

Please don't call me Lambo, I'll have to start deleting old posts to stay under 2000 Actuvity. Luckily I'm 2 years away from that.
Just call the next rank "Legend", it's simple and makes Legendary sound like Legend-ish.

I don't expect theymos to add a new Rank that only he qualifies for, so if it's ever going to happen, I don't expect it yet the coming years.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

my opinion remains the same , I am against such a scenario

I repeat, many received 100 merit without doing anything

If you ask me, the jnr and member rank, needs more adjustment the rest are just OK. something like this.

Jnr = 10
Member= 50

Click quote and view my original post, I made that suggestion after another user suggested that the merit required to rank up to Hero member should be reduced. I concluded that statement by saying I don't mind if theymos decides to increase all rank merit requirement.

You need to stop complaining and accept the fact that the merit system have come to stay, now what you should be asking yourself everyday is,  "How do I earn this merits" I'm sure if you ask yourself that question for 2weeks straight you'll get an answer.

      

I had received just 54merit at the start of this year but now I have earned additional 100merits. If an average poster like myself can do it, you can too. You just have to stop complaining and get to work.

[KingZee]

What features would the next rank above Legendary come with? Signatures that make sound?

Even now heroes and legendaries have exactly the same rights, so legendary is just the "step beyond". If you add one more rank above that, it should at least come with something new, just like VIPs and donators have a board where only them and mods can start threads. Something in between..

[shahzadafzal]

What features would the next rank above Legendary come with? Signatures that make sound?

Even now heroes and legendaries have exactly the same rights, so legendary is just the "step beyond". If you add one more rank above that, it should at least come with something new, just like VIPs and donators have a board where only them and mods can start threads. Something in between..

May be you are not aware... but there are so many "steps beyond" legendary rank.. once you turn legendary theymos is calling you personally... and after that if you perform good being legendary for couple of months, you are invited for an awesome dinner.. fully covered TA & DA. A Lamborghini comes to pick you up from the airport and takes you directly to the yatch boat where you get a chance to meet the "Legends of the legendary".

Trust me there is so much more beyond legendary and i can't reveal all the secrets here.. this information was personal shared with me by some one so have been legendary couple of times (don't ask me how?)

[lobcmt2]

I think that Legendary is enough, Elite badge sounds like over-rating.
I remembered that theymos rejected the idea. He only considered adding new badges for good reporters (last year), but by now, the type of badges has not added.

[coinlocket$]

As usual the last week update.

[tranthidung]

< ... >

In fact, both intraday and intraweek merits decreased weeks later the Default Trust Change on 09/1/2019.
Intraday merits (before, and two-, three-weeks later the Default Trust change) presented via medians, and means.

Code:

. tabstat before090119 wkslater_2 wkslater_3, s(n mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max) format(%9.1f) c(s)

    variable |         N      mean        sd       p50       p25       p75       min       max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
before090119 |     324.0     677.0     263.0     616.5     510.5     766.5     312.0    2463.0
  wkslater_2 |      14.0     840.4     191.4     845.5     658.0     987.0     611.0    1161.0
  wkslater_3 |      21.0     781.9     179.5     715.0     643.0     880.0     587.0    1161.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decreasing over time, right?
Someone said that the effects come from new added merit sources and re-allocation and re-distributional mechanism of airdropped sMerits to active merit sources, but I don't think that the assumption is right.
It's likely instant effects of both Default Trust change, new merit sources, and re-built mechanism on airdropped sMerits to merit sources.

3 weeks later update:

Basic statistics:

Percent of changes:

< ... >

The instant effects look good because it has not come from abusements like we saw in September of 2018 with demotion of Junior Members who did not earn any merit.

[Piggy]

It seems there is something strange in today data(merit.txt), are these some kind of revoked merits or just some random problem?

Code:

1549404431	-2	0.msg0	0	92110
1549404430	-5	0.msg0	0	81995
1549404430	-2	0.msg0	0	1316028
1549404430	-9	0.msg0	0	290351
1549404430	-1	0.msg0	0	289011
1549404430	-9	0.msg0	0	249872
1549404430	-7	0.msg0	0	249436
1549404430	-8	0.msg0	0	165478
1549404430	-2	0.msg0	0	9645
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	358020
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	15728
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	2536607
1549404430	-4	0.msg0	0	1246188
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	355462
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	92110
1549404430	-5	0.msg0	0	2472107

[TheNewAnon135246]

It seems there is something strange in today data(merit.txt), are these some kind of revoked merits?

Code:

1549404431	-2	0.msg0	0	92110
1549404430	-5	0.msg0	0	81995
1549404430	-2	0.msg0	0	1316028
1549404430	-9	0.msg0	0	290351
1549404430	-1	0.msg0	0	289011
1549404430	-9	0.msg0	0	249872
1549404430	-7	0.msg0	0	249436
1549404430	-8	0.msg0	0	165478
1549404430	-2	0.msg0	0	9645
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	358020
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	15728
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	2536607
1549404430	-4	0.msg0	0	1246188
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	355462
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	92110
1549404430	-5	0.msg0	0	2472107

Theymos recently removed a merit source and revoked some of the merit he sent.

[LoyceV]

Theymos recently removed a merit source and revoked some of the merit he sent.

Theymos undid some Merit once before, but at that time he just deleted the transactions. This is new.
Deena for instance has this:

February 05, 2019, 11:07:10 PM: -2 from (Bitcoin Forum) for (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored)

Thanks for reminding me, this will probably break my Merit-script.

Code:

-104 Merit sent by  (#0) to 15 unique users in 16 transactions

[lobcmt2]

Code:

There are 122 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 20835 sMerit per 30 days

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=sources
122 merit sources in total, for now. However, total allocated merits to all merit sources remains the same as before.

[TheBeardedBaby]

It seems there is something strange in today data(merit.txt), are these some kind of revoked merits?

Code:

~
1549404430	-10	0.msg0	0	92110
~

Theymos recently removed a merit source and revoked some of the merit he sent.

Interesting, this is cryptohunter right there. ^

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>

I can barely post now, but I’m trying to keep the weekly updates going on Schedule.

The system used to revert the 104 sMerit (16 TXs) should work rather seamlessly, since the deletion has been implemented as a negative amount sMerit TX. The only thing to be wary of, in my case, will be the need to create a fake user with Id 0 and name ("Bitcointalk forum") or something like that. The fromUser will therefore not be able to link to a profile, since Id 0 does not really exists in the forum profiles.

[Piggy]

~

I did the same thing, so the next time It's taking care of itself.

It's kind of an exceptional case, but i think happened already in the past ( Japanese merit source selling merits or something similar as far as i remember) and in that case the entry may have been removed altogether?

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>

Last Merit TX reversed I can recall were due to sMerit being sent in large quantities from a hacked account (3x50 sMerit TXs). Theymos reverted the TXs by deleting them altogether at the time (see re: Showing I merited 3 people 2 days ago but I never even visited those threads..).

The Japanese Merit Source case you mention rings a bell, but I can’t recall having looked specifically at such a case to check what I had to do to keep the information in accordance with whatever the outcome was. Perhaps I missed it.

The current approach seems better to me (TX + Counter TX).

[tranthidung]

Update for today.

From what happened after two significant changes in the forum (demotion of Junior Members in September 2018) and Default Trust Change simultaneously with new added merit sources & reallocation of merits to active  merit sources, their effects do not last for too long (several weeks).
1) Intra-week merits:

Intra-week merits

ABSTRACT (for truncated dataset)
(1) 50% of observed weeks have total intra-week merits above 4423 (median), whilst 50% of them have total intra-week merits below 4423.
(2) 50% of observed weeks have total intra-week merits in the range from 3798 to 4953 (the interquartile range).
(3) There are 7 potential outlier weeks in total, and the latest one occured in September (2018w38)

2) Tracking the difference of merit circulations with Default Trust Changes (4 weeks later)

4 weeks later update:
Median: +15.6%
Mean: +11.1%

ABSTRACT

(1) Both median and mean of four-week-later period are higher then the before period, with cut-off day is 09/01/2019, at 15.6% and 11.1%, respectively.
(2) 50 percent of days in the four weeks later period have intraday merits in the range from 614 to 879 (the interquartile range), whilst the figures of the before period are 511 to 767.
< ...>
Outliers, non-displayed

< ... >

Enjoy it, everyone!

[tranthidung]

The median of intra month merits (with the data contains 13 months, since Jan. 2018 to end of Jan. 2019) is 19597.
However, let's take a look at the fluctuations around the median, by looking at the interquartile range of intra-month merits.
The interquartile range found is 18047 to 23173. It means that 50 percent of 13 months observed have their total intra-month merits fluctuated in the range from 18047 to 23173 (including the median, at 19597, of course).
We tend to only focus on the mean, but the median is a better statistics for centralization, and the interquartile range (IQR) is important, too.
IQR help us to have a better overview on the distribution of what we observe.

More details, please visit my topic and my newest intra-month merits analysis there:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5069140.msg49685978#msg49685978

[coinlocket$]

Update

[tranthidung]

Update for the week:

Both median and mean of after period (cut-off day is 09/1/2019, the Default Trust Change) is higher than the before period.
However, those percent of changes decreased significantly from the first week later to five weeks later.
It seems that the assumption on effects of additional merit sources and re-allocation of sMerits to active merit sources have their impacts on merit circulation in the forum is wrong.
I tend to fall into the assumption that those sudden rise of merit circulation around 09/1/2019 due to abundant topics on Default Trust Change, that in turn caused more appearance of high quality posts.
More higher quality posts, more merit circulation within 1 or 2 weeks after the Default Trust Change. 

5 weeks later update:
Median: +6.2%
Mean: +6.4%

Update on intra-week merits (from 24/1/2018 to 11/2/2019)
< ... >
Time series plot

Basic statistics:
- 50% of observed weeks have total intra-week merits above 4474, whilst the rest 50% of them have total intra-week merits below 4474. 4474 is the median.
- 50% of observed weeks have total intra-week merits fluctuated in the range from 3800 to 5630 (the interquartile range, from p25 to p75, in raw statistics below).
- Min - max: 3065 - 30949.

For more details, please visit original analyses with links above.

[tranthidung]

Recently, I made abstract for both intra-day and intra-week merits there
You can see it on the link above.

In short:
It seems that the merit circulation in the forum has been slown down, one more time.