How recognized are you in the bitcointalk world?

[roslinpl]

This is really neat. If this was added to bitcointalk directly there would be such a competition to get to top recognized  

Other details like how many times you've been quoted would be interesting. I think you've done a killer job with this because I actually recognize most of the people on this even though I'm not incredibly active.

Hello,
Indeed it's fun Mr. #31.




Best wishes.
-Mr. #32.


 

[Coyster]

I see I have slipped to 320 now that I am following OgNasty's advce to stop starting threads.
I suspect that a lower profile may lead to a quieter life. As a Legendary and a merit source, I don't need to earn any merits, so this could help me to avoid those annoying conflicts that seem to come from high activity.
 I'm still looking for good posts to award with merits though.

Lol,i actually read the post were OGnansty was all in your face about staying away from the new topic button for a while,but I'm sure that didn't/hasnt stopped you from starting new threads,as you still very much do..

While a lower profile may not attract a lot of attention,i sure would prefer to be a Legendary member,with all the attention in the world,i actually wouldn't mind

Merits earned are actually better than those replenished every 30days, as they actually do count on one's merit score, so earning merits as well as looking for meritable posts is a wonderful combination...

That being said Vod put together a masterclass on this thread..
Inspiration mate!!!

[shasan]

I see I have slipped to 320 now that I am following OgNasty's advce to stop starting threads.

I suspect that a lower profile may lead to a quieter life. As a Legendary and a merit source, I don't need to earn any merits, so this could help me to avoid those annoying conflicts that seem to come from high activity.

 I'm still looking for good posts to award with merits though.

Recognition rank does not depend on how many threads you have created. It depends on how many merits you have received, What is your total activity and what is your trust score. So, I do not get point of stopping to create new threads for growing recognition rank.

[HabBear]

Personally, I was quite stunned at the results.  :/

Just stumbling on this today...I've been living life outside this forum for a while. I too am stunned by the results (accept for Theymos topping the list). I'm more impressed by the work you've done here and how applicable it is for everyone - well done!

The greatest takeaway for me is realizing that you, Vod, have given me the most merit of anyone on this forum. And I want you to know that the honor you feel in supporting the brilliance of my posts is shared by me, I'm honored to have your endorsement over and over again.  

One thought for a future iteration, if you're interested in such things, people who were granted "merit source" status by Theymos have an inflated amount of merit. Much of the merit they've received hasn't come from their work to contribute to the forum with posts but rather through the administrative process. Have you accounted for that in your analysis? If not s there anyway to normalize your data for people who are assigned by Theymos to serve in this merit source role?

Good luck to you, thanks.

[ibminer]

people who were granted "merit source" status by Theymos have an inflated amount of merit. Much of the merit they've received hasn't come from their work to contribute to the forum with posts but rather through the administrative process. 

I'm curious how a merit source gets merit through the administrative process? 
Merit sources are given sMerit, not merit.

[OgNasty]

people who were granted "merit source" status by Theymos have an inflated amount of merit. Much of the merit they've received hasn't come from their work to contribute to the forum with posts but rather through the administrative process.  

I'm curious how a merit source gets merit through the administrative process?  
Merit sources are given sMerit, not merit.

HabBear has no idea what he’s talking about. As usual. Best to ignore what he says.

[HabBear]

people who were granted "merit source" status by Theymos have an inflated amount of merit. Much of the merit they've received hasn't come from their work to contribute to the forum with posts but rather through the administrative process.  

I'm curious how a merit source gets merit through the administrative process?  
Merit sources are given sMerit, not merit.

Ahh, good point. So maybe the spendable merit isn't actually a double count as I thought it was. Thanks for clarifying that point! As I mentioned, i've been away from the forum for a stretch...thanks for refreshing my knowledge on how the merit mechanism works.

I'm curious how a merit source gets merit through the administrative process?  
Merit sources are given sMerit, not merit.

He has no idea what he’s talking about.

Nasty, no need to be an ass (although I know it's natural for you). I totally forgot that the credit and debit of merit come from two different "accounts" within one's profile.


Vod, it'd be interesting take this a step further to see who among us are known for good contributions vs. harmful contributions.

Perfect examples:

• Spam posts, i.e., those whose posts are brief and therefore low in content or not adding to the discussion
• Abusers of the trust system, i.e., those giving negative trust as a weapon rather than an accurate account of an actual transaction

[Vod]

Vod, it'd be interesting take this a step further to see who among us are known for good contributions vs. harmful contributions.

Perfect examples:

• Spam posts, i.e., those whose posts are brief and therefore low in content or not adding to the discussion
• Abusers of the trust system, i.e., those giving negative trust as a weapon rather than an accurate account of an actual transaction

- Well I can parse all new posts (planned) and I can apply some sort of calculation to them.

(I can't find that thread/website that parsed all a user's posts and displayed a quality score...)

- All I can do is display trust as it is added or removed - I don't know how to track abuse.

:/

[Kopyleft]

Recognition rank does not depend on how many threads you have created. It depends on how many merits you have received, What is your total activity and what is your trust score. So, I do not get point of stopping to create new threads for growing recognition rank.

Activity is directly concerned with your post count and time frame, so the more post you make, the more your activity increases over time, and if it increases against your merit count, then you recognition is likely to drop.

[Vod]

Activity is directly concerned with your post count and time frame, so the more post you make, the more your activity increases over time, and if it increases against your merit count, then you recognition is likely to drop.

That is not true, and does not make any sense.

[shasan]

Recognition rank does not depend on how many threads you have created. It depends on how many merits you have received, What is your total activity and what is your trust score. So, I do not get point of stopping to create new threads for growing recognition rank.

Activity is directly concerned with your post count and time frame, so the more post you make, the more your activity increases over time, and if it increases against your merit count, then you recognition is likely to drop.

As further as I know you will get recognition rank separately for merit, activity and trust and then base on these 3 you will get recognition rank. For example if you 1 activity, 0 merit and 10 trust then you will get your score for trust. So if activity increase but merit does not increase then your rank will increase too. But as on the same time others activity will increase too that's why it will seem your recognition not increasing. Also in the meantime others may receive trust and merit so their recognition will increase but as your recognition not increased they will go upper then you as a result you will go lower. Hopefully think now all is clear.

That is not true, and does not make any sense.

Exactly.

[OgNasty]

Vod, it'd be interesting take this a step further to see who among us are known for good contributions vs. harmful contributions.

Perfect examples:

• Spam posts, i.e., those whose posts are brief and therefore low in content or not adding to the discussion
• Abusers of the trust system, i.e., those giving negative trust as a weapon rather than an accurate account of an actual transaction

Maliciously spreading misinformation is another example, but how would you judge such things?

[Vod]

Maliciously spreading misinformation is another example, but how would you judge such things?

Create an ICO to build the AI?   

I certainly can see no way BPIP can do anything else but display data.

[JayJuanGee]

I have noticed in the past week or so, that on BPIP my merit rank has been around 34 and currently shows that I have received 471 merits; however, in reality, currently, I have received only 454 merits, which puts my current actual placement at a rank of 40.

Accordingly, it seems that my recognition score has gotten skewed upwards too, seemingly based on the mistaken merit rank.  
A few weeks ago, my recognition score used to be around 97 or 98 (fluctuating a bit, of course), but currently is at 94, which seems to be partially higher based on the mistaken merit rank...  My activity rank went up a bit, too, so sometimes it can be difficult to know exactly the reasons for the recognition score changing (upwards in this example).

[Vod]

I have noticed in the past week or so, that on BPIP my merit rank has been around 34 and currently shows that I have received 471 merits; however, in reality, currently, I have received only 454 merits, which puts my current actual placement at a rank of 40.

Accordingly, it seems that my recognition score has gotten skewed upwards too, seemingly based on the mistaken merit rank.  
A few weeks ago, my recognition score used to be around 97 or 98 (fluctuating a bit, of course), but currently is at 94, which seems to be partially higher based on the mistaken merit rank...  My activity rank went up a bit, too, so sometimes it can be difficult to know exactly the reasons for the recognition score changing (upwards in this example).

I am still working on the merit issue, sorry everyone.

[bitmover]

Hello Vod,

as others already said, there are some bugs with the merits.

I saw the the homepage, https://bpip.org/, shows a different list of the most merited than the Top Merited Users, all time

[LoyceV]

I saw the the homepage, https://bpip.org/, shows a different list of the most merited than the Top Merited Users, all time

On the other hand, https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited seems to be correct.

I think there's a problem updating the trust rank too: https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mosttrusted seems up to date and doesn't show Lutpin, but https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lutpin puts Lutpin at 32^ND Most Trusted.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Also, the manual update of the profiles is not working since yesterday ( at least ... I found about it yesterday).
Edit > Tested it today - 28.11 and is working fine
The personal merit stats are ok too.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I saw the the homepage, https://bpip.org/, shows a different list of the most merited than the Top Merited Users, all time

On the other hand, https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited seems to be correct.

I think there's a problem updating the trust rank too: https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mosttrusted seems up to date and doesn't show Lutpin, but https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lutpin puts Lutpin at 32^ND Most Trusted.

You keep overtaking me from 75th into 74th every other day Loyce
Stop being such a useful & helpful member of the community, damn it.

[Vod]

Sorry everyone,

I tend to make changes on live code.

Sometimes, my changes interrupt valid live data and it takes a while for that data to resync itself.

Right now I am making major changes to prepare for trust tracking.  It's pretty well done, and I am just waiting to clear up the backlog of current trust records before I can start tracking the actual changes.