Suggestion: Merit Phase 2 - Drain the Swamp (@theymos)

[TheQuin]

In my opinion this will harden the hearts of under not merited.

This will knock out everyone who aren't merited yet. Take note op that it will be more complicated. More postings will come in every sides steps of this forum then more earn shitpostings posted garbages maybe including me, hope not so.

I would suggest you stick to your local board as that looks like it was written in the unintelligible language of Genglish (Google translated English). Your posting history shows you are indeed the very type of shitposter that the merit system is trying keep out.

[1714863160]

1714863160

[1714863160]

1714863160

[boranes]

I have noticed that these spammers are very easy to spot now, they are the ones stuck on 100, 250, 500 or whatever merit number they were initially given. They haven't managed to gain one single Merit point in the last 6 weeks.

Your definition of spammer is someone who has never been merited.  

I can only congratulation McWorse for receiving 1 merit in last 6 weeks!
Congratulation! You are no longer a spammer!
I hope that one day I will receive 1 merit because I don't want to be spammer any more!  

Do we have statistics about:
How many accounts are unmerited?
How many accounts have never merited any one?
How many accounts merited friends?
Bought merits?
Exchanged merits?
Sent merit to alt accounts?
Sent merit because someone said something against person they don't like?

How many merits were sent because 2 persons have the same point of view of certain things? Do you have an example where someone has sent merits even if they disagreed? If you don't agree with someone you won't send him merit, that is how merit works in 99.99999% situations.

I sent you merit because you made constructive post, but I don't agree with anything written in it.


Hurray! I am not spammer any more! THANK YOU JET CASH!

[Jet Cash]

I can only congratulation McWorse for receiving 1 merit in last 6 weeks!
Congratulation! You are no longer a spammer!
I hope that one day I will receive 1 merit because I don't want to be spammer any more!  

I was the one who turned McWorse into McBetter.

I probably shouldn't have done it, but I gave you a merit as well. Now you are a whammer and not a spammer.

It must be the euphoria that results from deciding to buy a Samsung 860 SSD.

[TheQuin]

Your definition of spammer is someone who has never been merited.  

That wasn't quite what I meant, I said they were easy to spot because most spammers have not received any merit. That's not the same as everyone who has no merit is a spammer.
So if my suggestion was implemented^* it would not be saying that anyone whose signature is hidden is a spammer, just that they didn't do enough to earn the privilege.

I did say this earlier but it is worth repeating and expanding on a little. This forum is pretty unique in allowing members to benefit from being given some advertising space under their posts. That's a privilege, not a right and it's given in return for providing content to the forum. I think it is pretty reasonable theymos brought in the merit system as a way of trying to halt the influx of spammers that have taken advantage of this generosity on his part. Of course, you can argue it is not a perfect system, it can be gamed (for a while), some deserving people miss out.... etc. But can you devise a better way? Or even if you think you can, then remember that theymos is the boss here and we are his guests, so just accept this is the way he is doing it.

theymos has already said that if the merit system fails to stop the shitposting then the next step he will take is to remove signatures altogether. I think that is punishing everyone for the actions of some and I think my suggestion reduces the collateral damage. I can't devise a system to completely eliminate it but if anyone can I'll listen to it.

Do we have statistics about:
How many accounts are unmerited?
How many accounts have never merited any one?
How many accounts merited friends?
Bought merits?
Exchanged merits?
Sent merit to alt accounts?
Sent merit because someone said something against person they don't like?

The first two will be answerable with a bit more work. People like LoyceV have started on that sort of data. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3078328

The next 5 questions pertain to abuse of which there has been much. But that is a big part of why I came up with this idea. Having an ongoing requirement to keep signatures on display would force them to use up all their sMerit and at some point in the future, they'll be f***ed.

The last question follows into this:

How many merits were sent because 2 persons have the same point of view of certain things? Do you have an example where someone has sent merits even if they disagreed? If you don't agree with someone you won't send him merit, that is how merit works in 99.99999% situations.

I sent you merit because you made constructive post, but I don't agree with anything written in it.


Hurray! I am not spammer any more! THANK YOU JET CASH!

This is one of the imperfections, people will use it as a 'like' button. But is anyone really alone in their opinion rather than opinion being split and there being people on both sides with merit to give?

I do hope as time goes by that the supply of merit is increased substantially and all constructive posts receive merit. Until then we have a tight budget and many will go unrewarded but I don't think it will always be that way.


* It won't be, so no need to worry. The only staff member to reply is SaltySpitoon and he is against the idea.

Edit:

Do you have an example where someone has sent merits even if they disagreed?

I've noticed Foxpup gave me 6 merits for the OP of this post and also gave merit to 4 replies including this from SaltySpitoon https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3122415.msg32297210#msg32297210 and this from squatter https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3122415.msg32334973#msg32334973 both of disagreed with me. So I don't know Foxpup's view but he seems OK with giving merit to both sides of a debate.

[Jet Cash]

It's quite difficult to decide how to award merit. I've given out getting on for 200 smerits, and that is mainly in ones with a few twos. Obviously I don't have time to check on a member's posting history or attitude to the forum. I have to go by my subjective opinion of the posts that I read, and there isn't any forum guidance on the policy of awarding merit. Apart from the obvious restrictions on sales and reciprocal awards of course.

I really have to rely on my use of the ignore option to avoid awarding merit to a member that I think is abusing the system, and I know that some people are on ignore to avoid personal inconvenience, rather than because of a breach of the forum rules.

[sitnikov]

It's quite difficult to decide how to award merit. I've given out getting on for 200 smerits, and that is mainly in ones with a few twos. Obviously I don't have time to check on a member's posting history or attitude to the forum. I have to go by my subjective opinion of the posts that I read, and there isn't any forum guidance on the policy of awarding merit. Apart from the obvious restrictions on sales and reciprocal awards of course.

I really have to rely on my use of the ignore option to avoid awarding merit to a member that I think is abusing the system, and I know that some people are on ignore to avoid personal inconvenience, rather than because of a breach of the forum rules.

There were some hints given by the admin like one should not give merits to a post just because he agrees to it. This is a valid point but I know most of the new members act based on emotions and do not use logic while awarding merits. However, this should not be big issue in my opinion for the form. What matters the most is that merit sources should be most careful while awarding merits. I hope admin has given them some directions regarding how to award merits. If they are giving merits to responsible members here, the cycle will continue.

[Kim Ji Won]

I agree with you. Accounts which won't get any merit (or specific number of merits depends on each rank because higher ranks should have more knowledge, more skills, more experience, so they will probably have more chances to earn merits) over a specific period (might be one, two or three months) should be disabled ability to wear signature.

Prerequisites related to merit points to join campaigns, bounties depends on those campaigns managers, not forum admin. So this suggestion is not appropriate.

Thanks for all of your recommendations, TheQuin.

I've seen a lot of high ranking members that are still shitposters and seeing their posts seems like they didn't really know anything useful to contribute to the forum. It's a shame for them so this idea would be good for all of us here. We had enough of low ranking members who are constantly creating similar threads over and over again asking questions that can be easily answered if they put even a little effort on researching about it.

[Jet Cash]

There have been a few threads about awards, but they aren't really helpful. There are some obvious things that shouldn't be done - selling merits, exchanges between friends, and using merits as rewards for various actions such as ICO promotions. Really good technical help posts should receive awards. For example, if someone posts a detailed guide which helps a member to recover lost coins, then I think he should be rewarded. Unfortunately, this often doesn't happen, mainly because the advisor is a Legendary, and the feeling is that he doesn't need merit. I think that ranking should be a secondary consideration, the main factor is the quality of the post.

Another difficult area is the social aspect of Bitcoin Talk. It's primary function is as a help, advice and discussion forum about Bitcoin, and recently about other crypto-currencies. However, there is a lighter social side, and keeping this active is of benefit to the forum and its members. Should merit be awarded to good entertaining posts on the social boards?

[TheQuin]

~snipped to avoid going on Jet Cash's ignore list~

I really think that what deserves merit should be left to the individual. I usually favour posts that I learned from, made me think about something differently, answered something better than I could, or even just made me laugh.

But I always come back to this post (my highlighting):

@DooMAD
If they're really not adding anything, then they shouldn't get merit. But it doesn't need to be mind-blowing, either. Someone suggested a feature where all umerited posts would be hidden (which I may do at some point) -- I think that it'd be good to look at it as asking what posts you would want in such a summary. So not just incredible posts which might've taken an hour or more to write (those should probably get 10+ merit), but also the questions, arguments, jokes, etc. which couldn't be removed from a thread without starting to lobotomize it.

It's all very new, of course, so maybe this strategy will not actually be the best, but it is what I had in mind when designing the system.

@TMAN, I have been adding sources, and I will continue.

We're all being stingy with merit because there isn't enough yet. Everything that makes a contribution should get merit.

[Jet Cash]

I'm sorry Mr TheQuin, but I couldn't see your post.

- as if I would dare to put you on my ignore list.

So not just incredible posts which might've taken an hour or more to write (those should probably get 10+ merit),

This is where I come unstuck. I think a post like that has no business in a discussion thread, but it should be in an article hosted somewhere ( Steemit or YouTube spring to mind), and a link plus brief comment posted in the thread. The chances are that If the poster does that too often, I would put him on ignore, rather than give him a bunch of merits.

[TheQuin]

This is where I come unstuck. I think a post like that has no business in a discussion thread, but it should be in an article hosted somewhere ( Steemit or YouTube spring to mind), and a link plus brief comment posted in the thread. The chances are that If the poster does that too often, I would put him on ignore, rather than give him a bunch of merits.

I don't really post anywhere other here so that wouldn't be too good for me. I think it's OK to write a good long OP once in a while..... whether I bother to read too many of them is another issue.

That wasn't really the point of quoting that post. Is was the 'everything that makes a contribution should get at least 1' part that matters.

[Jet Cash]

We'd be swamped with merits, and surely that would defeat the whole purpose. For some reason, I seem to be the only person with merits to award, and I suspect that that is because I only give them out in ones and twos.

I noticed that just after I had given merit to four posters in the Steemit thread, somebody started another Steemit thread.

Four posters could have created bedlam if I had awarded merit in the new thread.

[Cobalt9317]

This is where I come unstuck. I think a post like that has no business in a discussion thread, but it should be in an article hosted somewhere ( Steemit or YouTube spring to mind), and a link plus brief comment posted in the thread. The chances are that If the poster does that too often, I would put him on ignore, rather than give him a bunch of merits.

I'm very familiar with that kind of person.
But would not dare to refer him/her.

However those kind of thread give me knowvalance, I think it is better to put it that way rather than getting spammed with various thread that wasn't helpful at all.

If that long thread is helping the community with some knowledge that they could use somehow I deem it is meritorious in itself despite who created the thread.

[cellard]

Unfair. A lot of people like to take vacations away from the forum to come back refreshed. If you want to take the entire summer out of the computer which I recommend everyone to do if possible, and forget about things and get some sun... you would come back with your account penalized for doing so. Doesn't sound like a fair deal to me.

Then you have people which are generally very inactive, but when they post they post very high quality stuff, like gmaxwell and others. It wouldn't also be fair for them to get their account eventually go down in merit points/ranking because of that. Even if older posts sometimes get merit points, on a long enough timeline, the tendency would be to lose points since older posts get buried eventually, penalizing inactive users, which again, doesn't make sense. One should be free to post or not without losing the efforts you did in the past.

[TheQuin]

Unfair. A lot of people like to take vacations away from the forum to come back refreshed. If you want to take the entire summer out of the computer which I recommend everyone to do if possible, and forget about things and get some sun... you would come back with your account penalized for doing so. Doesn't sound like a fair deal to me.

Then you have people which are generally very inactive, but when they post they post very high quality stuff, like gmaxwell and others. It wouldn't also be fair for them to get their account eventually go down in merit points/ranking because of that. Even if older posts sometimes get merit points, on a long enough timeline, the tendency would be to lose points since older posts get buried eventually, penalizing inactive users, which again, doesn't make sense. One should be free to post or not without losing the efforts you did in the past.

I'm not sure if you fully understood. It would just mean that the signature was hidden until the next time they did get a merit. Nobody gets de-ranked or loses anything. I also already suggested when a few other people made a similar point that it would be a lot easier for the moderators to whitelist the few accounts that would effect rather than try to ban the many thousands of sig spammers.

[charlie137]

Unfair. A lot of people like to take vacations away from the forum to come back refreshed. If you want to take the entire summer out of the computer which I recommend everyone to do if possible, and forget about things and get some sun... you would come back with your account penalized for doing so. Doesn't sound like a fair deal to me.

Then you have people which are generally very inactive, but when they post they post very high quality stuff, like gmaxwell and others. It wouldn't also be fair for them to get their account eventually go down in merit points/ranking because of that. Even if older posts sometimes get merit points, on a long enough timeline, the tendency would be to lose points since older posts get buried eventually, penalizing inactive users, which again, doesn't make sense. One should be free to post or not without losing the efforts you did in the past.

I'm not sure if you fully understood. It would just mean that the signature was hidden until the next time they did get a merit. Nobody gets de-ranked or loses anything. I also already suggested when a few other people made a similar point that it would be a lot easier for the moderators to whitelist the few accounts that would effect rather than try to ban the many thousands of sig spammers.

hiding signatures after no-merit-increase is a bright improvement indeed. really highlights the antispam system since merits really working only one way. and antispam system should be dynamic. also vacation mode could be introduced with automatic signature whitelist request to moderator?

[Butane]

That merit thing is becoming a communistic idea. For Newbies like me, merit will be mandatory for progressing, and I understand this. But harassing everyone to earn merit constantly is a bit too much, really. Now it aims to impose more and more restrictions. This forum should be a place of freedom, but it is getting restricted more and more, sadly.

[mattcode]

That merit thing is becoming a communistic idea. For Newbies like me, merit will be mandatory for progressing, and I understand this. But harassing everyone to earn merit constantly is a bit too much, really. Now it aims to impose more and more restrictions. This forum should be a place of freedom, but it is getting restricted more and more, sadly.

I wouldn't call it restrictive. You don't need merit to use the forum (with the exception of the Ivory Tower sub-forum).

[Jet Cash]

That merit thing is becoming a communistic idea. For Newbies like me, merit will be mandatory for progressing, and I understand this. But harassing everyone to earn merit constantly is a bit too much, really. Now it aims to impose more and more restrictions. This forum should be a place of freedom, but it is getting restricted more and more, sadly.

If you want to exploit the forum, and that is what the sig spammers are doing, then I think it is fair to make you prove that your posting habits are trustworthy. The merit system was created for this purpose. It is obvious from the abundance of merit threads that many new members, and some of the older ones, are not worthy of that trust.

[1020kingz]

Something like users must earn 5 merits a months for their account to display a signature if being done by theymos or managers can make a user earn 1 merit per week to stay in a campaign.

I strongly disagree with this.Even though the merit system is doing well,I don't think every quality poster is awarded merits.My point being,a participant could be a great quality poster but due to whatever reasons his unmerited posts shouldn't stop him from participating in campaigns.

This also means anybody who has earned 1 merit in a week but is a spammer to the core will also be eligible to display the signature.I can show you 10 shit one liner posts which have been credited with 10+ merits.

many low quality post is being merited while there are contructive post and informative is not being noticed. what if you didnt get any merit in a month, youre not a spammer and giving your best to write quality post but in the end not receiving any merit to others? i think its a unjust idea to restrict them to wear or to participate signature campaigns just because they are not noticed by others.