New Merit Proposal

[lord munchkin]

So I have an idea for a new merit system that might work a little better, hear me out.

It seems like the general consensus is that merits are too difficult to get, and that they are awarded in a non-consistent manner. Some poor quality posts receive them and other good quality post's dont. here are my thoughts on fixing this...

1. A system of 'upvotes' could be added to this forum, whereby anybody is able to upvote a thread or post. (the number of upvotes doesn't need to be visible on threads and posts, which will stop people complaining about not getting them, because they wont know if they have or haven't)

2. At the end of a set period of time (eg, once per week) a pool of merits are evenly distributed among all the members who received upvotes. The amount of merits they get is proportional to to number of upvotes they have received divided by the total upvotes given to all members in that week.

3. There are a set number of upvotes that each member can give each week, but this number is the same for every member. This creates a more evenly distributed, non centralized way of proving post quality, rather than giving the power to only a select few members who are receiving so many merits that they don't know what to do with them.

4. Users will still be able to send merits directly to others.

EDIT: Users must be member status or above to upvote.

This system will give a more decentralized approach to the system, which is what crypto currency is all about. It will also give everybody the opportunity to join in with the system and more people might therefore accept the system. Let me know what you think.

[1715155190]

1715155190

[1715155190]

1715155190

[1715155190]

1715155190

[DarkStar_]

This system will give a more decentralized approach to the system, which is what crypto currency is all about. It will also give everybody the opportunity to join in with the system and more people might therefore accept the system. Let me know what you think.

This is a centralized forum, and even though it's about something decentralized, it shouldn't be. Imagine how much worse the spam situation would be with no moderation at all.

What's stopping me from making hundreds of alt accounts to easily gain merits? Your idea gives power to the account farmers again, which is a horrible idea and restarts something that shouldn't exist. I think we should wait a bit more time before jumping to conclusions with the merit system, and if you consistently post quality, missing out on some of those posts shouldn't be an issue. Only the people that are here solely for signature campaigns and spam dislike the merit system.

[lord munchkin]

This system will give a more decentralized approach to the system, which is what crypto currency is all about. It will also give everybody the opportunity to join in with the system and more people might therefore accept the system. Let me know what you think.

This is a centralized forum, and even though it's about something decentralized, it shouldn't be. Imagine how much worse the spam situation would be with no moderation at all.

What's stopping me from making hundreds of alt accounts to easily gain merits? Your idea gives power to the account farmers again, which is a horrible idea and restarts something that shouldn't exist. I think we should wait a bit more time before jumping to conclusions with the merit system, and if you consistently post quality, missing out on some of those posts shouldn't be an issue. Only the people that are here solely for signature campaigns and spam dislike the merit system.

Good point, perhaps any users who have member status or above should be able to upvote, and those who are newbies and jr member shouldn't. Anyway, I think it would be far more profitable for users to spend time making quality posts and gaining merit that way instead of making loads of alt accounts for only a few merits or less. Bitcointalk has a huge user base to dilute alts.

[Vod]

So I have an idea for a new merit system that might work a little better, hear me out.

We have a merit system now - give it a few months to see if it works before you go changing it.

Your suggestion would be abused by multiple accounts.

[Rono]

This system will give a more decentralized approach to the system, which is what crypto currency is all about. It will also give everybody the opportunity to join in with the system and more people might therefore accept the system. Let me know what you think.

This is a centralized forum, and even though it's about something decentralized, it shouldn't be. Imagine how much worse the spam situation would be with no moderation at all.

What's stopping me from making hundreds of alt accounts to easily gain merits? Your idea gives power to the account farmers again, which is a horrible idea and restarts something that shouldn't exist. I think we should wait a bit more time before jumping to conclusions with the merit system, and if you consistently post quality, missing out on some of those posts shouldn't be an issue. Only the people that are here solely for signature campaigns and spam dislike the merit system.
[/quote


How can I  Increase My Merit Position?Please give me Some Advise.Advance Thank you.

[Thirio]

This system will give a more decentralized approach to the system, which is what crypto currency is all about. It will also give everybody the opportunity to join in with the system and more people might therefore accept the system. Let me know what you think.

This is a centralized forum, and even though it's about something decentralized, it shouldn't be. Imagine how much worse the spam situation would be with no moderation at all.

What's stopping me from making hundreds of alt accounts to easily gain merits? Your idea gives power to the account farmers again, which is a horrible idea and restarts something that shouldn't exist. I think we should wait a bit more time before jumping to conclusions with the merit system, and if you consistently post quality, missing out on some of those posts shouldn't be an issue. Only the people that are here solely for signature campaigns and spam dislike the merit system.

This plus about number 2,

2. At the end of a set period of time (eg, once per week) a pool of merits are evenly distributed among all the members who received upvotes. The amount of merits they get is proportional to to number of upvotes they have received divided by the total upvotes given to all members in that week.

This would give members a float type of merit and a negligible amount also. Small numbers of upvotes(you have received) over a large number(total upvotes given to all members in that week).

For example: you've received 100 within a weekspan and as of now that i am writing this post, i have checked that there's 71920 merits sent since the beginning of the system.

71920/3(weeks since merit system was implemented) = 23973.33333(average merits given per week)

100(upvotes you've received in a week)/23973.33333(average merits given per week)= 0.004171301 merits

Not only this 0.004 merits is not practical, this also increases the difficulty in gaining one.

[lord munchkin]

This system will give a more decentralized approach to the system, which is what crypto currency is all about. It will also give everybody the opportunity to join in with the system and more people might therefore accept the system. Let me know what you think.

This is a centralized forum, and even though it's about something decentralized, it shouldn't be. Imagine how much worse the spam situation would be with no moderation at all.

What's stopping me from making hundreds of alt accounts to easily gain merits? Your idea gives power to the account farmers again, which is a horrible idea and restarts something that shouldn't exist. I think we should wait a bit more time before jumping to conclusions with the merit system, and if you consistently post quality, missing out on some of those posts shouldn't be an issue. Only the people that are here solely for signature campaigns and spam dislike the merit system.

This plus about number 2,

2. At the end of a set period of time (eg, once per week) a pool of merits are evenly distributed among all the members who received upvotes. The amount of merits they get is proportional to to number of upvotes they have received divided by the total upvotes given to all members in that week.

This would give members a float type of merit and a negligible amount also. Small numbers of upvotes(you have received) over a large number(total upvotes given to all members in that week).

For example: you've received 100 within a weekspan and as of now that i am writing this post, i have checked that there's 71920 merits sent since the beginning of the system.

71920/3(weeks since merit system was implemented) = 23973.33333(average merits given per week)

100(upvotes you've received in a week)/23973.33333(average merits given per week)= 0.004171301 merits

Not only this 0.004 merits is not practical, this also increases the difficulty in gaining one.

This can be overcome by only giving merits to the top 1000 or so users for that week.

[Thirio]

This system will give a more decentralized approach to the system, which is what crypto currency is all about. It will also give everybody the opportunity to join in with the system and more people might therefore accept the system. Let me know what you think.

This is a centralized forum, and even though it's about something decentralized, it shouldn't be. Imagine how much worse the spam situation would be with no moderation at all.

What's stopping me from making hundreds of alt accounts to easily gain merits? Your idea gives power to the account farmers again, which is a horrible idea and restarts something that shouldn't exist. I think we should wait a bit more time before jumping to conclusions with the merit system, and if you consistently post quality, missing out on some of those posts shouldn't be an issue. Only the people that are here solely for signature campaigns and spam dislike the merit system.

This plus about number 2,

2. At the end of a set period of time (eg, once per week) a pool of merits are evenly distributed among all the members who received upvotes. The amount of merits they get is proportional to to number of upvotes they have received divided by the total upvotes given to all members in that week.

This would give members a float type of merit and a negligible amount also. Small numbers of upvotes(you have received) over a large number(total upvotes given to all members in that week).

For example: you've received 100 within a weekspan and as of now that i am writing this post, i have checked that there's 71920 merits sent since the beginning of the system.

71920/3(weeks since merit system was implemented) = 23973.33333(average merits given per week)

100(upvotes you've received in a week)/23973.33333(average merits given per week)= 0.004171301 merits

Not only this 0.004 merits is not practical, this also increases the difficulty in gaining one.

This can be overcome by only giving merits to the top 1000 or so users for that week.

Can you please elaborate this? Top 1000 users would again, greatly increase the difficulty in gaining a merit. There are more than 10000 users here(i suppose, need help in determining the number of active accounts, can't find it, but i think the number is higher) if suppose there are only 10000 members cutting off 90% would be too harsh. That would even eliminate full members at least(if the ranking of the users are proportional on how they post).

[lord munchkin]

I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of giving a different set of users merits each week. Also not everyone should be getting merits, if everyone was rewarded then merits would be useless. This proposal gives different users merits instead of the same users every week.

If the same users are getting merits, then the same type of content might be rewarded with merits by these users.

If different users are given merit each week, then different type of content will be rewarded.

[Thirio]

I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of giving a different set of users merits each week. Also not everyone should be getting merits, if everyone was rewarded then merits would be useless. This proposal gives different users merits instead of the same users every week.

If the same users are getting merits, then the same type of content might be rewarded with merits by these users.

If different users are given merit each week, then different type of content will be rewarded.

You can't say that different set of users would be rewarded every week, that would be unfair to users who are constantly giving off quality posts.
What's wrong with same users getting merits if that's what they deserve? Can't same users posts different kind of content?

[lord munchkin]

I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of giving a different set of users merits each week. Also not everyone should be getting merits, if everyone was rewarded then merits would be useless. This proposal gives different users merits instead of the same users every week.

If the same users are getting merits, then the same type of content might be rewarded with merits by these users.

If different users are given merit each week, then different type of content will be rewarded.

You can't say that different set of users would be rewarded every week, that would be unfair to users who are constantly giving off quality posts.
What's wrong with same users getting merits if that's what they deserve? Can't same users posts different kind of content?

The top users are awarded each week, I doubt the exact same 1000 users will be awarded the following week as well. It seems better than the same donator users getting merits. It's a lot of work for the same donators to be looking fr quality threads and awarding merits every month

[BluberryBTC]

We just have to wait until more people can give out sMerit so I don't see many people getting merit until then. It's too hard for the people who have merit accounts to find all the good posts.

[Wind_Crypto]

I myself actually wrote a post talking about a complementary system of like-points, convertible to merits, sometime back.

So yeah, I definitely support the proposal in spirit, even if as others pointed out, the details and exact mechanism needs to be refined. We can only tell when merit sources become more active, but I have a feeling it's not as sustainable as a decentralised system.

[sirojuddin]

your idea is not so bad, it's just that in your idea there are some gaps where the gap will be utilized by the less responsible person.

[Jet Cash]

I think the merit system is starting to work. The only change I would suggest is to reduce the maximum individual award for a post to 2.

What is needed is more quality posts and threads, and it up to members to provide these. Stricter moderation would also help. Moving threads to the correct boards, and getting rid of spam posts, and low quality posts that are just there for the sig promotions.

One other thing that would help is for thread starters to post descriptive titles. I don't bother to open threads with titles like these that are currently on the beginners board

- Merit
-  Little Help
- Wallet
- Position

There are so many threads on the boards, that you need to persuade readers to open your thread. I assume that a thread with a title like those above is likely to be low value, so I skip over it. I'm sure I'm wrong in several cases, but posters need to remember that they have to "sell" their threads to busy readers.

[Lauda]

Horrible idea and easy to abuse. Nothing to see here folks.

[Jr.]

Could you please expound the word upvote?
The google won't say a thing, I do love the idea but I want to understand it more.
Would yah?

[secondgarlic]

I think the modification we need to the system is a way to completely filter out filler, non-productive posts. Upvotes are a good idea, but if you give that right to everyone, then account farmers will thrive once again.

So in order to combat this, downvotes can be introduced as well, along with upvotes. How would that work? You give the right to upvote and downvote to everyone. If a post gets, say, 20 downvotes, then that post gets deleted (because 20 downvotes would mean that the community agrees that it's a spam comment) and any merit that that user got on that comment thanks to his alt accounts get deleted as well.

So you give the right to merit to everyone, but you also give everyone to mark spam comments with downvotes as well. If a post gets too many downvotes, it gets deleted, along with the merits off of that post, of course. How about that?

[lord munchkin]

Could you please expound the word upvote?
The google won't say a thing, I do love the idea but I want to understand it more.
Would yah?

Upvote is a positive vote.

I think the modification we need to the system is a way to completely filter out filler, non-productive posts. Upvotes are a good idea, but if you give that right to everyone, then account farmers will thrive once again.

So in order to combat this, downvotes can be introduced as well, along with upvotes. How would that work? You give the right to upvote and downvote to everyone. If a post gets, say, 20 downvotes, then that post gets deleted (because 20 downvotes would mean that the community agrees that it's a spam comment) and any merit that that user got on that comment thanks to his alt accounts get deleted as well.

So you give the right to merit to everyone, but you also give everyone to mark spam comments with downvotes as well. If a post gets too many downvotes, it gets deleted, along with the merits off of that post, of course. How about that?

This is a great idea. If a certain percentage of people downvote a thread or post, it could be removed.

[Thirio]

There is something odd with the process og merit system though its objective is good so far as I know which is to promote helpful information in the forum and not just by posting comments or post that are considered as trash. Those comments that are poorly constructed. Well anyway with opinion on dividing merits given to all the members within that thread could be possibly a good idea. Yet, I think also that there are more good ideas in giving merits. Like for example giving 3 merits a day to 3 commendable post. It must be a need to give these 3 merits or else it will be deducted to your merits. So 3 merits could do daily.

Both ideas are terribly stupid. Dividing merits to the members within a thread would be like taking a shower, once the thread was given a merit other people will join in. Second, giving 3 merits a day as a requirement is not a good idea cause there are members in this forum who have a life outaide the forum. Their hard earned merits would unknowingly disappear, that would be to unfair