For the newbies complaining about Merits

[mk4]

For those people who complain that people don't give merits to newbies, check this guy out: Alexander_Z | Merits



Basically 9 posts merited out of 39. Good enough in my opinion. I confirmed to check his/her posts to make sure that his/her posts are good enough; and indeed they are. What's your excuse now?

MERITS ARE ONLY GIVEN TO THOSE WHO DESERVE IT. So if people don't give you merits for your posts, then it simply means that you don't deserve merits.

</END RANT>

[1714107626]

1714107626

[1714107626]

1714107626

[1714107626]

1714107626

[2girls]

For those people who complain that people don't give merits to newbies, check this guy out: Alexander_Z | Merits



Basically 9 posts merited out of 39. Good enough in my opinion. I confirmed to check his/her posts to make sure that his/her posts are good enough; and indeed they are. What's your excuse now?

MERITS ARE ONLY GIVEN TO THOSE WHO DESERVE IT. So if people don't give you merits for your posts, then it simply means that you don't deserve merits.

</END RANT>

Ok agree but if you see the profile for Alexander_Z  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31565), you can see his account was registered on July 02, 2011, 07:19:23 AM and it clearly indicates it a farm account of any Legendary member here. 

How will defend that considering account farming is not allowed ?

[bill gator]

Ok agree but if you see the profile for Alexander_Z  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31565), you can see his account was registered on July 02, 2011, 07:19:23 AM and it clearly indicates it a farm account of any Legendary member here.  

How will defend that considering account farming is not allowed ?

Their first post does a pretty good job at explaining exactly what you are trying to call them out for. They blatantly come out and say that they are doing this as a more established member, specifically to see what the progression of an "informed" user might be.

All right, looks like it is a good time for a small experiment. Recently I have found that I can still access my old account, created some time ago and never used. I have a habit to read, not post. But now it may be amusing to watch the merit progress of this "new" account, so I have decided to revive it.

Dig a little deeper and you'll find your answers are right in front of you. I do not see a problem with their experiment. They are being honest (as far as I can tell), but the experiment is supposed to resemble what are the possibilities and realities of the merit system for a low-ranking user that has good information to present.

Regardless of who it is, it helps us to see that merit is very feasibly acquired, even by lower-ranking members if they post anything of reasonable quality.

[mk4]

For those people who complain that people don't give merits to newbies, check this guy out: Alexander_Z | Merits



Basically 9 posts merited out of 39. Good enough in my opinion. I confirmed to check his/her posts to make sure that his/her posts are good enough; and indeed they are. What's your excuse now?

MERITS ARE ONLY GIVEN TO THOSE WHO DESERVE IT. So if people don't give you merits for your posts, then it simply means that you don't deserve merits.

</END RANT>

Ok agree but if you see the profile for Alexander_Z  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31565), you can see his account was registered on July 02, 2011, 07:19:23 AM and it clearly indicates it a farm account of any Legendary member here. 

How will defend that considering account farming is not allowed ?

Whether or not it is a farmed account or not, my point is that newbie accounts are also being given merits by the higher ranks. As opposed to what most newbies and jr members are moaning about "hurr durr higher ranked members only gives merits to high ranks its so unfair  "

[nafantc]

Basically 9 posts merited out of 39. Good enough in my opinion.

If ratio 9 out of 39 is good enough, then why do we still need requirement of activity? Especially requirement of posts needed.

[bill gator]

If ratio 9 out of 39 is good enough, then why do we still need requirement of activity? Especially requirement of posts needed.

You can easily answer this question for yourself. The search function would have worked wonders. Activity and Merit is better than Activity or merit. Activity is not simply a minimum post count, but it is a decent indication of how frequently an account has been used over a given period of time.

Nobody said that this ratio is sufficient for completely and exclusively determining a users rank. They were implying that this ratio is good enough in terms of what the merit system is attempting to accomplish and how it is realistically distributed to lower ranking members.

[nafantc]

If ratio 9 out of 39 is good enough, then why do we still need requirement of activity? Especially requirement of posts needed.

You can easily answer this question for yourself. The search function would have worked wonders. Activity and Merit is better than Activity or merit. Activity is not simply a minimum post count, but it is a decent indication of how frequently an account has been used over a given period of time.

Nobody said that this ratio is sufficient for completely and exclusively determining a users rank. They were implying that this ratio is good enough in terms of what the merit system is attempting to accomplish and how it is realistically distributed to lower ranking members.

I should expand my thoughts a little bit. I am talking more about the ratio than requirements existence. With the current situation, for rangs higher than Member, ratio is something like 1 merit for 1 activity. In that terms (current situation), merit is a lot more valuable than activity, so probably something should be reconsidered in length of time. Maybe number of merit sources should be increased significantly, or activity requirements decreased, or activity calculation changed to something like the least of (time * 14, posts/3) for example. Yes, I know that new rules are still developing, but I think I conveyed the idea.

[PatronRH]

The merit system is partially correct. Because it will make legendary members get the merits and the newbies get nothing. Psychologically speaking we tend to read hero and legendary posts more then junior members or newbies so no wonder we will not give enough merits to those. I think the merit system is partially fair because it reviews the quality yet it doesn't evaluate the activity of person. A combination of them both would make a perfect evaluation system.

[mk4]

Psychologically speaking we tend to read hero and legendary posts more then junior members or newbies so no wonder we will not give enough merits to those.

Not in my opinion. Hero and Legendary members are more frequently merited simply because they post better stuff. I can't remember the last time I actually saw a newbie/Jr member post a good topic. It has always been just asking questions that can be easily Googled or answered simply by browsing bitcointalk.

[cbcbctqbt]

Thank you. Your topic and the specific case you shown giving me strong motivation to improve quality of my threads in order to be helpful and getting merits. Nice lesson!

[rolerVX]

For those people who complain that people don't give merits to newbies, check this guy out: Alexander_Z | Merits

https://i.gyazo.com/8bace4033b20b3cc85317b7649027eb7.png

Basically 9 posts merited out of 39. Good enough in my opinion. I confirmed to check his/her posts to make sure that his/her posts are good enough; and indeed they are. What's your excuse now?

MERITS ARE ONLY GIVEN TO THOSE WHO DESERVE IT. So if people don't give you merits for your posts, then it simply means that you don't deserve merits.

</END RANT>

Ok agree but if you see the profile for Alexander_Z  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31565), you can see his account was registered on July 02, 2011, 07:19:23 AM and it clearly indicates it a farm account of any Legendary member here. 

How will defend that considering account farming is not allowed ?

Whether or not it is a farmed account or not, my point is that newbie accounts are also being given merits by the higher ranks. As opposed to what most newbies and jr members are moaning about "hurr durr higher ranked members only gives merits to high ranks its so unfair  "

Excuse me.! Why you guys focusing on lower rank.? Do you think merit affects only the newbies and jr.? I guess it matters the most to Member, Full Member, and Hero coz imagine in every post you made do you guarantee to yourself that it will be merited? I think no.! The main issue here is everybody belong to this merit system no matter what rank it is. We are all subject for change.

[bill gator]

I am talking more about the ratio than requirements existence. With the current situation, for rangs higher than Member, ratio is something like 1 merit for 1 activity. In that terms (current situation), merit is a lot more valuable than activity, so probably something should be reconsidered in length of time.

Ahh, this definitely is a more clarified version of your idea. I would suggest looking at them completely separate from each-other, as an exclusive determining factor for specifically aimed purposes and goals. The ratio for merit is higher for higher rankings, because in order to obtain those ranks it has been determined that it would be best if that user was informed and being a high-quality contribution to the community; this is determined by merit. Even though they are both a piece of ranking up, you should not look at them as supposed to increase at equal pace.

Maybe number of merit sources should be increased significantly, or activity requirements decreased, or activity calculation changed to something like the least of (time * 14, posts/3) for example. Yes, I know that new rules are still developing, but I think I conveyed the idea.

Merit sources are constantly being added and reviewed to make sure there is a solid amount of merit in every sub-section and local board on the forum. We're working towards equality of opportunity, but this does not mean that we should cheapen the opportunity or the outcome.

Lowering activity requirements would not accomplish anything beneficial for the forum, so this is not a feasible option. If merit starts being given out too easily, this will also not be of any benefit to the forum. Both of these need to be considered, but I disagree that the current parameters should be changed significantly, if at all.

[Alexander_Z]

Ok agree but if you see the profile for Alexander_Z  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31565), you can see his account was registered on July 02, 2011, 07:19:23 AM and it clearly indicates it a farm account of any Legendary member here. 

How will defend that considering account farming is not allowed ?

What use is a Newbie account for a Legendary (or other high rank), especially now, after the introduction of the merit system? It is not 'farming', it is what I called it - an experiment. It may be an alternative account of a more established member (or may be not), but having multiple accounts is explicitly allowed. Moreover, I'm not going to rush to some signature campaign after ranking up to Member.

[Alexander_Z]

Dig a little deeper and you'll find your answers are right in front of you. I do not see a problem with their experiment. They are being honest (as far as I can tell), but the experiment is supposed to resemble what are the possibilities and realities of the merit system for a low-ranking user that has good information to present.

Exactly. I do not think that people check the account creation date and its post history before giving merit, at least not often.

Regardless of who it is, it helps us to see that merit is very feasibly acquired, even by lower-ranking members if they post anything of reasonable quality.

At present, the results show that getting 10 merits for ranking up to Member is completely feasible, even before getting enough activity. Higher ranks may be a problem, however - the requirements seem to be too high. Time will tell.

[bill gator]

I do not think that people check the account creation date and its post history before giving merit, at least not often.

Apparently not even people doing research into your account check your post history. So, that is definitely a benefit while doing this experiment. You're somewhat undercover and so it is mostly natural. I certainly don't think anybody is giving you extra merits, because of your experiment or they know you may have another account.

At present, the results show that getting 10 merits for ranking up to Member is completely feasible, even before getting enough activity. Higher ranks may be a problem, however - the requirements seem to be too high. Time will tell.

Yes, you could have even done the various threads that hand out merit for your post submissions; TMAN levels people up that deserve it as well; I haven't seen you even attempt at any of these merit-boosting opportunities. I have gather like 150-Merit is the past couple weeks, so it is definitely feasible to acquire enough merit to rank up. If I want to become legendary I have a long way to go, but at least now becoming legendary will mean something.

[cho99]

Dig a little deeper and you'll find your answers are right in front of you. I do not see a problem with their experiment. They are being honest (as far as I can tell), but the experiment is supposed to resemble what are the possibilities and realities of the merit system for a low-ranking user that has good information to present.

Exactly. I do not think that people check the account creation date and its post history before giving merit, at least not often.

Regardless of who it is, it helps us to see that merit is very feasibly acquired, even by lower-ranking members if they post anything of reasonable quality.

At present, the results show that getting 10 merits for ranking up to Member is completely feasible, even before getting enough activity. Higher ranks may be a problem, however - the requirements seem to be too high. Time will tell.

Completely agree with you , for member rank up I think 10 merit points are easy to get and it is not a hard thing for new participant but still the problem is for member rank up to full , full to senior and senior to hero , I think the required number to rank up is too high and not easy to get specially if the number of merit source is not very much .

[Wheelige]

Another great example of a new-er member that has attracted a lot of merit for their posts is Nullius https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=976210. Not only do they post in technical areas, which seems to be a good place to gather merit attention due to the requirement to know your shit in order to participate, but their posts are quality and entertaining at times. While I think this guy is above the standard that should be expected for single merits, it also shows that new accounts can get merit. I'm unaware of any suggestion that this is a 2nd account.

[bill gator]

I think the required number to rank up is too high and not easy to get

I think the only thing we are disagreeing on is how difficult/rewarding it should be for a member to rank up, especially at the higher ranks. I do not think it is meant to be easy or even a guarantee to rank up. I think you are supposed to prove yourself and this allows the community to elect who is most deserving of a rank up. I'm sure if not enough users are able to rank up there will be tweak, either to the amount required to rank up, the amount of merit sources or even how much merit sources can generate.

Another great example of a new-er member that has attracted a lot of merit for their posts is Nullius https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=976210.

Nullius is certainly an exceptional case. I have no clue whether or not they are a more established member using an alt as an experiment too, but I know I am impressed by their accumulation of merit. Almost all of his merit was gained by +1 or +2 merits at a time, there is only one notable exception to this. I also noticed that almost all of their merit comes from an accumulation of posts, not just a couple, which also shows how dynamic the distribution of merit truly is.

[buzzbeez]

I really don't get the merit system. The only thing I have caught  onto is the activity system. I am sure I will figure it  out  eventually.

[Tyrantt]

I'm not even paying attention to them anymore. If you were to look at the posts of users who claim that merit system is not working and the, not receiving merit even tho they're posting, you'll see posts that are one liners like:" Yes, *insert coin here* is great, it has a great future".

Whoever comes with a topic like this one, I'm automatically assuming he's posting like that so won't even bother.

I really don't get the merit system. The only thing I have caught  onto is the activity system. I am sure I will figure it  out  eventually.

> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.0