Merit rewards for Signature Campaigns!

[yojodojo21]

Managers are not like theymos but I love the idea you have stated. If merit is just like payment then it would be great for all participants but rules are rule you get merit for genuine post. But now I think managers are requesting too have some merits before checking the application in every signature campaigns so it will be a good challenge. However, they can add some merit if the post is interesting and educative.

[1714898529]

1714898529

[1714898529]

1714898529

[1714898529]

1714898529

[OgNasty]

This seems wrong to me. If someone is a merit source, that shouldn’t give them the right to have other members advertising for them for free.

[ducdr]

Managers are not like theymos but I love the idea you have stated. If merit is just like payment then it would be great for all participants but rules are rule you get merit for genuine post. But now I think managers are requesting too have some merits before checking the application in every signature campaigns so it will be a good challenge. However, they can add some merit if the post is interesting and educative.

It might be unrealistic, mainly because managers of those signature campaigns might not have so many sMerits to send to pariticpants as a gift. Unfortunately, they might not be merit sources too. Hence, the idea is good, but unrealistic.

[boyshx]

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.

This seems very reasonable if you are thinking from the perspective of the camping participant. But as discussed already not everyone is familiar here and even with the signature campaign it will get tough for the managers to look through every single post and read it! Do you really think that it is practical approach? They do read every single post (or may be not  ) but the output couldn't be achieved as we think.

Instead of this, I think, we should ourselves start checking out the posts for those people who are in the same camping. For example, if I'm in the X campaign right now then I can focus on that group of people who are in the same campaign thus creating higher outputs as everyone in that campaign will focus on rest making the great odds to qualify.

Thus, if there are 50 participants in campaign then 49 can watch out the post of that 1 person (by checking the signature as identity while posting) and thus he is being getting evaluated by 49 different eyes and chances are there he will truly get rewarded and in faster ways yet quality wise.

This strategy can make focused groups according to the signature campaigns, however juniors, noobs will be ignored in the process. They can enrol themselves into sourced lists.

Or,

Newbie to Member ranked people should be allowed in the campaigns without the payment but for the sake of getting evaluated and earning the merits. This was everyone will be happy.

[shetat]

It is one most amazing idea you have their buddy, I think it's okay if a bounty manager could give atleast 100merit point to everyone, I must quote everyone not to someone, based of course of the campaign rules. Of course depend also if the caliber of your post attract the manager's attention.

[onurgozupek]

I don't think people will likely share sMerits. Also there is an issue that most of the users didn't understand Merits vs sMerits. This system should be told in a better way...

[ducdr]

~
Newbie to Member ranked people should be allowed in the campaigns without the payment but for the sake of getting evaluated and earning the merits. This was everyone will be happy.

You make an important point! This approach will give newbies opportunities to get more knowledge, information, to be more familiar with the mechanism of our forum.

If those ones dont come from farming accounts, they will readily to do that, I guess. Not bad!

[trecore4]

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

Why you guys think that this system is making everything hard?  I mean we should have faith in ourselves so that we can contribute to the forum in right manner. Believe in the legends, and sources made by the moderators they will come across your quality work and will merit you surely.

Whats the hurry anyway? Just to rank up for the sake of money? I don't find that right way to go with it. You can seriously do your job and you will have some recognition sooner or later. Managers are not seating empty, they might have some more work to look after. FYI: Just the thought that came after reading your whole post, but this line made me confuse. Nothings hard in trying mate!

[jseverson]

I don't think people will likely share sMerits. Also there is an issue that most of the users didn't understand Merits vs sMerits. This system should be told in a better way...

How would you explain the system? I believe it's fairly straightforward. All you really need to know is in theymos' announcement thread.

I do agree, however, that not many people are inclined to share sMerits yet. People who don't receive any aren't inclined to give any, and nor do they receive any additional sMerits. Maybe specific guidelines on its use will help?

I also think that sMerits should be displayed on the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=[userid] page. Some confused users might not know where to see them.

[The Cryptoclast]

Since Bounty Campaign managers are well known members of the community and each of them with his own reputation, it should be not too difficult to spot which Bounty Manager deserves to become a merit source and who not. This is actually a very good idea.

[NoNetwork]

This seems wrong to me. If someone is a merit source, that shouldn’t give them the right to have other members advertising for them for free.

There's nothing wrong about this, as it is only a suggestion not a proposal. I am not even against the Merit System in fact I am very aware of it, but not all members of this forum do. So I've come up to the conclusion that I would create such topic.

As mentioned here, we wanted to give opportunities to those members that are not familiar and are confused about the Merit System.

You make an important point! This approach will give newbies opportunities to get more knowledge, information, to be more familiar with the mechanism of our forum.

If those ones dont come from farming accounts, they will readily to do that, I guess. Not bad!

[wwzsocki]

First, I think there should be a place where a post with no or very low merit count and few days age could be added for moderation and eventually awarded with merits. There always will be a chance to get merits for quality content.

Second, especially now early on there should be few merit sources searching for quality posts to award authors with merits.  

I think this will be a lot easier to implement merit system with this two additional sources.

[ajmapalo22]

I think this will add burden for campaign managers having  100 participants then will review 25 post each just for is to gain some sort of merits though they really try their best looking at the quality of our post but this one will require them to read deeper. How about those managers having 2 to 3 campaigns running? I also want some merits but there are really managers who give merits so O don't think this is necessary

[justine11]

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.


EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:

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.

OR,
As many as the CMs wants.

In other words you want the campaign managers merit their participants who posts very constructively? is that want you to say? Yes they have a right to merit their posters but no offense here it's not the manager's responsibility to give merits to their quality posters it's not their problem that some posters don't get merits and also, if a poster applied to join in that campaign right? so, he/she already accepted the rules and regulations of the manager. They must follow it in order to get paid. If the posters want to get merited then post constructive and helpful posts. This forum isn't made for earning money okay? Iust be happy that you are paid to post here in bitcointalk.

I think this will add burden for campaign managers having  100 participants then will review 25 post each just for is to gain some sort of merits though they really try their best looking at the quality of our post but this one will require them to read deeper. How about those managers having 2 to 3 campaigns running? I also want some merits but there are really managers who give merits so O don't think this is necessary

Yeah i agree with this one and a example of that is yahoo.

[NoNetwork]

Yes they have a right to merit their posters but no offense here it's not the manager's responsibility to give merits to their quality posters it's not their problem that some posters don't get merits and also, if a poster applied to join in that campaign right?

It might not be the CMs responsibility, then who has then? It is not their problem, true, its not really have to be a problem, in this case its just going to be an incentive to the participants for them to even strive more to have quality posts.

so, he/she already accepted the rules and regulations of the manager. They must follow it in order to get paid. If the posters want to get merited then post constructive and helpful posts. This forum isn't made for earning money okay? Iust be happy that you are paid to post here in bitcointalk.

Well, obviously because they've already joined a Signature Campaign. Exactly, that's why I'm suggesting this, in order for the participants to have a chance in gaining merits, because as of now, the topics that people are meriting is only on selected topics.

I think this will add burden for campaign managers having  100 participants then will review 25 post each just for is to gain some sort of merits though they really try their best looking at the quality of our post but this one will require them to read deeper. How about those managers having 2 to 3 campaigns running? I also want some merits but there are really managers who give merits so O don't think this is necessary

Burden? Really? Are you serious right now - that is their job for God's sake, its their duty to monitor and review the posts of all the participants. Are you saying that not all CMs are doing their jobs and just looking at the start post count and the end post count - not the exact post of the participants? Man that's some serious issue right there.

[DarkStar_]

I think this will add burden for campaign managers having  100 participants then will review 25 post each just for is to gain some sort of merits though they really try their best looking at the quality of our post but this one will require them to read deeper. How about those managers having 2 to 3 campaigns running? I also want some merits but there are really managers who give merits so O don't think this is necessary

Burden? Really? Are you serious right now - that is their job for God's sake, its their duty to monitor and review the posts of all the participants. Are you saying that not all CMs are doing their jobs and just looking at the start post count and the end post count - not the exact post of the participants? Man that's some serious issue right there.

Well, yeah. Take a look at over 90% of the altcoin bounty campaigns.

[ducdr]

First, I think there should be a place where a post with no or very low merit count and few days age could be added for moderation and eventually awarded with merits. There always will be a chance to get merits for quality content.

Second, especially now early on there should be few merit sources searching for quality posts to award authors with merits.  

I think this will be a lot easier to implement merit system with this two additional sources.

Score! Would you mind explaining about the second type of merit sources.

1. Which kind of ranked-users will be allocated the second merit sources?
2. Which purposes of the second merit sources?
3. How to ensure closely interactions between two type of merit sources in the forum?

Best regards,

[criz2fer]

Yes they have a right to merit their posters but no offense here it's not the manager's responsibility to give merits to their quality posters it's not their problem that some posters don't get merits and also, if a poster applied to join in that campaign right?

It might not be the CMs responsibility, then who has then? It is not their problem, true, its not really have to be a problem, in this case its just going to be an incentive to the participants for them to even strive more to have quality posts.

Still, its the campaign managers decision on how they will give merits. Its also the responsibility of all the members to give merits on quality posts that they encounter daily in the forum which can also help. Don't just give all the responsibility to a person which they are not accountable. It will just reflecting on how you really eager to have merits over the forum.

[Adioliver]

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.


EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:

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.

OR,
As many as the CMs wants.

Sir I think that your idea is really out of the box and is an excellent idea which should be implemented.Yeah the campaign managers mostly review each and every post of the participants,so they should consider giving merit points to the best posts.
The limited number of smerits is a problem,but hey!!  I have an idea which may solve this problem.
Let's say a campaign has maybe 50 participants.So the campaign manager selects the best person to post the best quality posts in that particular week and he can ask the other participants of the Campaign to merit him 1 point each.

[FlightyPouch]

Still, its the campaign managers decision on how they will give merits.

It really depends on them if they will be giving Merits or not. They always check their member's post weekly so I think it is common for them to encounter a quality post of 1 or 2.

Its also the responsibility of all the members to give merits on quality posts that they encounter daily in the forum which can also help.

That is the reason of the whole new system.

Don't just give all the responsibility to a person which they are not accountable. It will just reflecting on how you really eager to have merits over the forum.

He don't give anyone any responsibility, I think he is just pointing this out since the idea of the CMs is to check their member's post weekly and also this is just one of the suggestions you can read about the new System. 

Let's say a campaign has maybe 50 participants.So the campaign manager selects the best person to post the best quality posts in that particular week and he can ask the other participants of the Campaign to merit him 1 point each.

I think the CM can do that since he can give some examples of some posts he give Merits but I think asking the participants to Merit that member is kind of a little over the top? But yeah, I think they can Merit the member without the CMs saying it right?