Merit rewards for Signature Campaigns!

[FlightyPouch]

It is a great idea, it can be a good contest upon the campaign every end of the week. " The best poster chosen by the Signature Campaign will be rewarded with 5 Merit, etc".

I think this will cause more spam post than usual. 25 post a week is a huge number.

I think you should consult this to Campaign managers not here.

10-15 an almost standard requirement for a signature campaign creates so much spam how much more 25.

I think we are now talking about Bounty Campaigns and not including the Signature Campaigns in the Services Section.

I think this will not be good.

And why is that? Members of the campaign will surely make quality posts to gain these merit every end of the week that will lessen spam posts, depends on the number of campaign with this rule.

What are you suggesting is not bad, but I really sense that you are scared of not getting any merit.

And you are implying that the OP is the only member of the campaign who has a quality posts? That is obvious that it will be like a competition. Who would bail out on that one, a payment of bitcoin with additional Merit.

Just be confidence and step up your (us) game, and I am sure manager will give us merits, since they grade our post on a week basis and they know who is worthy of their merits.

I just hope so.

For people in here who is scared of not getting your rank up, I guess it is better to think about a strategy to get merits rather than talk negative and suggesting something that is not certain to be accepted by others ( I mean, suggesting things is good, but I guess if you put more of your energy into things that will give you merits, you will get merits already)

There are a lot of quality posters here in the forum and some of them are not receiving any merit, how's that?

[1713856559]

1713856559

[iluvbitcoins]

It is a great idea, it can be a good contest upon the campaign every end of the week. " The best poster chosen by the Signature Campaign will be rewarded with 5 Merit, etc".

I already reward the best poster with an extra payment 
Will add some Merits for constructive posts too

[DarkStar_]

In accordance to the suggestion of OP, having a CM as a merit source does not have a downside IMO. These CMs do weekly reviews on their participants' post history so they are suitable for being a MS. Well obviously not all are qualified. A good MS for me should be yahoo, atriz, darkstar, lutpin and other CMs whom had established their worth as a CM. I am not saying that all of them should be MS but imagine one/some of them being a MS.

Lutpin is a merit source, and so am I, so there's no need to imagine it. I do award merits to high quality posts I see while doing post counting.

[TheBeardedBaby]

I don't see it happening due to the following facts:
- Not every bounty is managed by a official bounty manager. Often bounties are managed by their own team, with a newbie or jr member accounts.
- Many bounty managers are with negative/red trust. No need to comment more here
- This will be extra job for the bounty managers, I guess you don't understand how much work is to be a Manager /at least for responsible/professional ones/ how they gonna be rewarded?

I can continue...

- What if one manager manage for example 3 campaign at the same time and is running out of points? Then not everyone will get what he deserves and it won't be fair.

Overall idea is good but ... it's not that easy.

I have another suggestion to reduce the spam but, see here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2827369

[Vod]

here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.

That makes the Merit a tradeable commodity, which Theymos has disallowed.

[Vod]

As a campaign manager, I believe this is one is a good suggestion, It will be helpful to the constructive/ quality posters. I'll try my best to reward it to my campaign participants.

So you are going to reward your members with merits when you make money?  Don't you think some will view that as trading?

[iluvbitcoins]

As a campaign manager, I believe this is one is a good suggestion, It will be helpful to the constructive/ quality posters. I'll try my best to reward it to my campaign participants.

So you are going to reward your members with merits when you make money?  Don't you think some will view that as trading?

Depends how often you do it.
If you give out 50 Merits / user, it is.
But if you give out a few merits to few people, for very constructive posts, it shouldn't be.
I had only 200 sMerits so far, I just spent almost 70 (on non-campaign members) even before the payment date is up for my campaign.
But I'm not a merit source though.
I expect to spend 5ish Merits on my 20 campaign participants  

EDIT:
@Jet Cash
Seems like a very reasonable argument.

[Jet Cash]

I did suggest that campaign managers should not have the ability to award merit points. This avoids a conflict of interest. But we have to decide if Bitcoin Talk is a forum to talk about Bitcoin, or if it is a forum for the creation and discussion of crypto bounty.

[DarkStar_]

I did suggest that campaign managers should not have the ability to award merit points. This avoids a conflict of interest. But we have to decide if Bitcoin Talk is a forum to talk about Bitcoin, or if it is a forum for the creation and discussion of crypto bounty.

Disclaimer: Obvious bias, as I am a manager and a source

I fail to see how this is a conflict of interest. I gain no benefit by occasionally giving high quality posts I see while managing campaigns a merit. It's essentially the same as giving a random person a merit. Care to explain more?

[Welsh]

I did suggest that campaign managers should not have the ability to award merit points. This avoids a conflict of interest. But we have to decide if Bitcoin Talk is a forum to talk about Bitcoin, or if it is a forum for the creation and discussion of crypto bounty.

It's about time that we stop catering towards signature campaigns and start catering towards the discussion of cryptocurrencies. I would have to agree with Darkstar that campaign managers don't have a conflict of interest. In fact if they are reviewing the posts manually then they might be some of the best people to distribute points as they'll probably come across unmerited more often.

[Bonakid]

I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.

So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.

Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.

Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.

It depends on the manager but I think it does'nt make sense to gave merit to those members of his campaign because he is too busy doing that.They have no ability to gave it ,it was their rule and regulations ,,they paid us by working but they cannot gave merit to us.It was a conflict of interest in bitcointalk.

[Lutpin]

Managers should not be sources just because they manage campaigns.
Likewise, sources should not have to forfeit their position as one just because they manage campaigns.
Coming from a small campaign manager and small source.

If I come across a post I think deserves merit, I will give them some.
How I come across that post doesn't matter. I browse the forum for myself, I read posts during campaign payments.
Good posts are good posts to me, they are one and the same.

[iluvbitcoins]

Managers should not be sources just because they manage campaigns.
Likewise, sources should not have to forfeit their position as one just because they manage campaigns.
Coming from a small campaign manager and small source.

If I come across a post I think deserves merit, I will give them some.
How I come across that post doesn't matter. I browse the forum for myself, I read posts during campaign payments.
Good posts are good posts to me, they are one and the same.

If you consider yourself a small campaign manager, what the hell are big campaign managers?

[Roboabhishek]

I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.

So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.

Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.

Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.

no because sMerits are not infinite, campaign managers wont necessarily be sources.. 

but... I do believe that Campaign managers can and should be using merits to score new applicants, they are a much more viable criteria than trust. Personally if It was me I would be insisting on 10% more than base merits starting in a couple of weeks and then continually raising the bar.

this would enable managers to secure the best campaigns by having the most eloquent posters, the most informed, the most popular and the most knowledgeable people on campaigns.

Nice explanation TMAN, That's what i wanted to say smerits are not infinite as you can see. But.....but they are valuable for ranking up on this forum.
For example if you have 1.3k activity but not the required Merits then you will not reach legendary member status on the forum.

[dr_thuytien]

I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.

So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.

Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.

Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.

I wonder that Manager of those signature campaigns will have enough sMerits to send to all qualified-participants of their campaigns. That's the big problem, bro.

Even if they are merit source, they can not do that, personally.

[ranman09]

I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.

So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.

Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.

Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.

I think this will cause more spam post than usual. 25 post a week is a huge number. 10-15 an almost standard requirement for a signature campaign creates so much spam how much more 25. Plus the fact that this will contribute a lot to your rank. I think this will not be good. I hope we can see the system as the way theymos sees it.

I have to break it to you mate, the 25 posts that I've mentioned is the normal number of post required for the Signature Campaign that Bitcoin-payment-based , besides its just an example, right from the phrase 'let's say...'.

The system will not be affected, in fact its going to be improved. Why you asked? Because this will not only benefit the participants as they will be reviewed and going to be worthy of merit to their quality posts(if they have one) but also the Managers as they will be focused more to their jobs and you know somehow earn even more trust.

Okay sorry for the 25 post I'd been on Alts more than Bitcoin threads. Merit contribute a lot to rank. So, if this is most likely to happen it will make Merit like tradable coins. Which I think is not intended so.

[FlightyPouch]

I wonder that Manager of those signature campaigns will have enough sMerits to send to all qualified-participants of their campaigns.

In my suggestion, the managers can just pick one suitable member to be given a Merit. Giving all of them are really a huge problem since there are a lot of members in a Signature Campaign.

Merit contribute a lot to rank. So, if this is most likely to happen it will make Merit like tradable coins. Which I think is not intended so.

Yeah, that might be the consequence but I do think that even though this is not suggested there are still CMs that are giving Merits to their Members especially the worthy ones since they are always checking their members posts weekly.

[Tambu]

As a campaign manager, I believe this is one is a good suggestion, It will be helpful to the constructive/ quality posters. I'll try my best to reward it to my campaign participants.

That's good buddy. At least we get a positive response from a campaign manager. 

[Wallflower28]

I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.

So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.

Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.

Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.

You have the good point! However, there is a limited source of merit and campaign manager can't give lots of merit for the participants! Let's say, there are 30 participants with almost have idea and creativity in posting, how can campaign manager address merits in each of them?
For me, merit system is favorable for the person with lots of friend in BTT and who are superstars here in forum. Newbies who are starting to learn crypto will definitely cannot undergo with such changes.
In the end, we will follow the rules because this is for the goodness of the forum!

[HabBear]

why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.

I've got a better idea...

Instead of rewarding with merits, reward for merits.

Campaign Managers could offer a bonus payment for campaigners that receive the most or a lot of merit over the term of the campaign (week, month, etc.). If you've earned the most merit you get a double payment. If you're in the top ten of people in the campaign receiving merit you get a 50% bonus.

That would further motivate signature campaigners to make the best posts possible!