Merit rewards for Signature Campaigns!

[yojodojo21]

Basically, Sig campaign Managers can do that, But It does not mean that if you'll receive merits then you'll rank up instantly, managers check post if they are qualified to the given requirement or quota for one week, but you have a nice suggestion, The problem is for example, A manager accepts 100 applicants and 30 posts are required for one week, then the manager will really take time to it. This should be discussed by superiors and admin, OP appreciated.

[1713890037]

1713890037

[1713890037]

1713890037

[1713890037]

1713890037

[1713890037]

1713890037

[1713890037]

1713890037

[1713890037]

1713890037

[orions.belt19]

Money, always at the center of every fucking problems on earth.

What do you expect? The world revolves around money.

If it wasn't for bounty, every single user would be happy with this system, which might help this forum getting cleaner. And of course, if this wasn't about greed, this system wouldn't be needed in the first place.

That's not true. Although a huge majority of the shitposts in this forum is contributed by bounty hunters and signature campaign participants, it cannot be said that every single user would be happy with the merit system even without the presence of any bounty. The merit system has been detrimental for those who need to rank up and participate in bounties which has made a lot of them to complain and hate the system however this does not necessarily mean that the merit system is beneficial or favorable for those who are not involved in bounties.

Imo, I would even go farther, and distribute signature bounty according to merit instead of quantity. Let's say that instead of 15 posts a week, you must now get 4 merits per week to get your reward:
- You would divide by 2 instantly the number of (shit)posts on the whole forum. Cleaner, but also easier to moderate as well.
- Signatures, paradoxically, would be much more visible. Let me explain: When you have a topic with 100 pages of shitposts, you don't read it, so you don't see any signature ! So 15 or 30 posts doesn't really matter, it is just pointless if no one reads it. Now if you only have 2 pages of quality posts, you would read them before writing your reply, so you would see everyone signature. Plus, you could see if what you're about to say have been said already, which would reduce even more the number of post.

Cleaner forum, with ONLY quality, and signature more visible. Win-win (lose for spammers).

The thing is, sometimes people don't need a quality post to see a signature. So long as it's in a thread, it would attract attention. (the more times it appears in a thread regardless of it's content, the more attractive it is). And this is probably why some campaign managers hire participants not for the quality or content of their post, but because of often the user posts in numerous threads and sections of the forum. The signature still gets promoted in that way, which is the reality of campaigns so to speak.

[superjeyy]

The merit system allows us to have the power of judgement, which somehow makes it subjective because I think we all have our criteria of what and what not constructive is. Although your idea has great intentions, I think the new system also implies freedom for each and every one of us to award merits to those who we truly believe are deserving. If a campaign manager is obligated to give out merits as a requirement for their job, they would be urged to give just because they are required. Also, sooner or later, they would run out because not all of them are merit sources. Let's give them the freedom to choose and just let them do what they have to do, managing numerous members is already hard what more to read through all their participants post carefully looking for those that are deserving? That would truly be time consuming and inefficient.

[Tyrantt]

I didn't read the whole thread with all the replies but these are the reason I find that idea to be bad:

• simply not enough sMerit
• it's not something to be handed out like that, it's sort of an indicator
• the manager doesn't have anything to do with the campaign (most of the times) besides just managing it (as I've stated previously), so that would be on his behalf
• otherwise, the ones who appointed the manager should provide merit

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3000308.msg30908118#msg30908118

[Boys27]

I think this merit system is good, merit can be given to anyone who make a good post, but only those with higher rank can give merit to others, I think all accounts in this forum can give merit though not bounty manager.

[Cryptodiscuss]

I think that would be selling merit. Because managers are getting paid for their work, and you are suggesting that part of their work would be giving merit. I am participating in bounties, and strugling with merit, but not supporting that.

[treatWy]

What about if the campaign manager have a lot of appointment to handle.? I think this system is suitable to cms that have a single or two campaign or maximum of three to meet the requirements.

Maybe the Admin system must give the Manager an maximum of campaign to handle to avoid lazy CM.

[singlebit]

If the bounty manager gives merit to those listed in campaigns is it better that they could post reviews of participants and distribute merit orderly posters but not all recieve merit,Especially in short time post not fixed well.

[FlightyPouch]

If the bounty manager gives merit to those listed in campaigns is it better that they could post reviews of participants and distribute merit orderly posters but not all recieve merit,Especially in short time post not fixed well.

Sadly, there is a lot of Bounty Campaign managers and most of them are not checking their members posts the reason it is the most reason of spams and shit posts because the members do care only on fulfilling their maximum posts and do not care on how they are doing their posts.

[leowonderful]

If the bounty manager gives merit to those listed in campaigns is it better that they could post reviews of participants and distribute merit orderly posters but not all recieve merit,Especially in short time post not fixed well.

Sadly, there is a lot of Bounty Campaign managers and most of them are not checking their members posts the reason it is the most reason of spams and shit posts because the members do care only on fulfilling their maximum posts and do not care on how they are doing their posts.

I personally find most of them come from Altcoin bounties and not campaigns from the Services section as most campaigns paying out in BTC have better campaign managers that actually do their job and thoroughly look through posts.

Merit is completely opinion-based which is good and also bad, and it'll take a bit more time for it to work correctly, if it ever will. We'll see soon enough whether or not Merit is actually a viable system. People constantly forget the system's only been out for about a month. It's not completely set in with everyone yet.

[Taki]

The idea seems interesting to me. Yes, a manager may not have enough sMerits for all participants, but giving sMerits by the end of every week as a bonus looks great. I've never was rewarded by any bonus, but I suppose those members who will deserve it will be happy to get at least 1 for their job 

[FlightyPouch]

If the bounty manager gives merit to those listed in campaigns is it better that they could post reviews of participants and distribute merit orderly posters but not all recieve merit,Especially in short time post not fixed well.

Sadly, there is a lot of Bounty Campaign managers and most of them are not checking their members posts the reason it is the most reason of spams and shit posts because the members do care only on fulfilling their maximum posts and do not care on how they are doing their posts.

I personally find most of them come from Altcoin bounties and not campaigns from the Services section as most campaigns paying out in BTC have better campaign managers that actually do their job and thoroughly look through posts.

Merit is completely opinion-based which is good and also bad, and it'll take a bit more time for it to work correctly, if it ever will. We'll see soon enough whether or not Merit is actually a viable system. People constantly forget the system's only been out for about a month. It's not completely set in with everyone yet.

Well, in my case I call the campaigns from Services Signature Campaigns and the one in the altcoin thread is the Bounty Campaigns. I know it is confusing and I am sorry about that. I'm kind of used to that terms since I am a Member rank.

[siddartha1492]

The idea to reward high quality bounty participants with merits is certainly very encouraging. I have seen Yahoo paying more to those who have higher merits. That is also a good way to encourage high quality posts.
Between, has any major Bounty manager announced to reward their bounty participants?

[BinManR]

The idea seems interesting to me. Yes, a manager may not have enough sMerits for all participants, but giving sMerits by the end of every week as a bonus looks great. I've never was rewarded by any bonus, but I suppose those members who will deserve it will be happy to get at least 1 for their job 

This is really a great idea, but it seems impossible. I really wait for this. all depends on the people who manage and operate the forum.

[DaftAjax]

If a campaign manager is obligated to give out merits as a requirement for their job, they would be urged to give just because they are required. Also, sooner or later, they would run out because not all of them are merit sources.

I see your point, but the author also mentioned that it will not going to be a forced act, it will solely be up to them. Meaning merits are supposed to be rewards not an obligation or a requirement to do their jobs. It is just simply, they'll somehow shot two birds with one stone.

I mean, to all those participants in the campaign I'm sure he'll find someone who's worthy of having merits(s).

I didn't read the whole thread with all the replies but these are the reason I find that idea to be bad:

• simply not enough sMerit
• it's not something to be handed out like that, it's sort of an indicator
• the manager doesn't have anything to do with the campaign (most of the times) besides just managing it (as I've stated previously), so that would be on his behalf
• otherwise, the ones who appointed the manager should provide merit

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3000308.msg30908118#msg30908118

To be franked, you really should've read all the content of the thread.

As stated, it is not part of their work. The author simply suggest that, well seems that the CM's handles participants and review every posts to determine if qualified, then might as well give credits to those members that deserve to have merits. And if he doesn't finds one then don't give any. But I hardly believe that they won't find anyone who's worthy.

[FreshMoff]

Merit will come by patience and quality - no need for such things, instead have some more btc as the reward

[cloudgin]

Its not a good idea as it would be simply of no help to newbies because they cant take part in signature campaigns

[belyaevi]

Its not a good idea as it would be simply of no help to newbies because they cant take part in signature campaigns

How hard is it for you to become a Junior members. You just need 30 activity for this and no merits at all. I think it is good that newbies have to wait for about a month before leveling up. This way they can know about the forum rules and also about the signature campaigns.

Some of the signature campaigns are also accepting junior members and thus, you can later participate in them.  It is sad to see most of the members just concerned about their own merit or rank and no one is worried about how can this forum move forward.

[alisafidel58]

Its not a good idea as it would be simply of no help to newbies because they cant take part in signature campaigns

Just take a look at this guy here for an example. He was once a newbie and yet doesnt even care about signature campaign. Hes getting merits because he contributed a lot to the forum and basically "godlike" at what he is saying. If you really want to get merit then follow the path that this guy is taking. Contribute more to the forum and definitely you will be rewarded with merits.

Before you think on how you can get to a signature campaign to get merit, simple think first on how you can help and contribute something worthy to the forum. Being a newbie rank is not discriminating at all when you have the proper knowledge like him.

[doomistake]

Bad/lazy campaign managers and sig campaigns are a big part of the reason why the forum is a cesspool of spam right now...

I believe the merit system is in place partly to combat bad/lazy campaign managers who are not doing their job.  It would be truly stupid to then give them the power that essentially makes the new merit system useless.

I would say based on the earliest of evidence that smerit distribution is probably still a little bit low.  But given time we can hope that it will be adjusted.  Finding the balance point of making merit useful and useless will probably take some time but adjusting that balancing point to much before data is available also seems stupid.

Indeed. There are some managers that are just calling themselves manager but the real thing is that they are not really a manager since they are not doing their job, what job? A manager should strictly observe the behavior of his applicants, checking post quality, checking their post if it was posted on the right time and not doing burst posting and so on, but what is happening is the opposite.

They are not doing their right job, they are just looking if his applicants hit the required post per week(not judging his applicants post quality) but just ignoring it so his job would be easy, also just to call himself a "Manager".