Encouraging people to get merits

[Inzanne]

Why don't managers motivate people who publish more than the required posts of the campaign by giving them merits. But of course the posts should have good contents because I see most of the people publishing only the posts they are required to get paid. And I think this idea will reduce the number of complaints and solve a little bit of the merit system problem.

[1713880034]

1713880034

[1713880034]

1713880034

[1713880034]

1713880034

[1713880034]

1713880034

[The Sceptical Chymist]

more than the required posts

The problem is a qualitative one.  That is to say, the continued shittiness of bitcointalk has to do with how bad the posts here are, not how many of them there are.  Your solution would only make this problem worse, because then users would be motivated to make way more posts than whatever their maximum is for whatever campaign they're in.  That certainly won't help the quality of the forum as a whole.  

Do you not realize why the merit system was implemented in the first place?  It was an alternative to DT members red-tagging shitposters.  It's a solution that doesn't have to make a mockery of the trust system, and I think it's one that will work, given enough time to play out.

These threads suggesting fixes to the merit system that promote laziness and go against the spirit of what it's about drive me nuts.  Just be patient and earn merits like everyone else.

Mine does, DarkStar_ is good for doing that.

And that *only* works because he doesn't accept shitposters to begin with.  Can you imagine what would happen if something like what OP suggested was adopted by these awfully-managed altcoin bounties?  It would be a never-ending waterfall of shitposting, because these dolts would be incentivized to blow past their quotas, and meanwhile they still haven't mastered the English language.

Why don't they chuck them out of the programme if they can't earn any merit?

Now you're on to something....

[o_e_l_e_o]

And I think this idea will reduce the number of complaints and solve a little bit of the merit system problem.

This is the exact opposite of what would happen. Why we would offer even more incentive for campaign spammers to flood the forum with nonsense?

[jackg]

Why don't managers motivate people who publish more than the required posts of the campaign by giving them merits. But of course the posts should have good contents because I see most of the people publishing only the posts they are required to get paid. And I think this idea will reduce the number of complaints and solve a little bit of the merit system problem.

They do!

Mine does, DarkStar_ is good for doing that.
Other campaign managers I suspect don't do it as much sadly. It would be great to see more campaign manager reviewing people's posts often from their campaigns (as they should be checking people are adhearing to their rules). I think other campaign managers do this assessment of users' post quality but it should be done more often. I think the issue comes down to some not being merit sources or them being limited to reproducing ~100 smerit a month if they are a merit source so they're not going to spend all this in the first week are they?



And as the others say, some users just don't deserve to receive merit for their posts if they're all particularly low quality.

[Talk merit]

Why don't managers motivate people who publish more than the required posts of the campaign by giving them merits. But of course the posts should have good contents because I see most of the people publishing only the posts they are required to get paid. And I think this idea will reduce the number of complaints and solve a little bit of the merit system problem.

Why don't they chuck them out of the programme if they can't earn any merit?

I don't think that campaign managers should be allowed to award merit to their spammers.