How recognized are you in the bitcointalk world?

[edwardceng]

Vod : is it possible at https://bpip.org/ to display lists of DT members and their history of trust?
maybe there are some casual members like me who are curious to know the number of DT members in this forum.

thanks

Edit

You can find all DT-members here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
It's doesn't show the history though, only the current DT-members.

my bad, I just knew that but I still ask bpip to display it, so it doesn't need to log this forum to see it

[1714144916]

1714144916

[1714144916]

1714144916

[1714144916]

1714144916

[LoyceV]

Vod : is it possible at https://bpip.org/ to display lists of DT members and their history of trust?
maybe there are some casual members like me who are curious to know the number of DT members in this forum.

You can find all DT-members here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
It's doesn't show the history though, only the current DT-members.

[chiyenbtre]

You can find all DT-members here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
It's doesn't show the history though, only the current DT-members.

highly appreciated your guide to get current DT-members in the forum.
By the way, I would like to know and expect you or others can help me: How to check the locations, IP address of forum users?
I am not a IT guy, and have not learnt about deeply knowledge, skills on those issues.
Please help me when you have spare time.

[LoyceV]

I would like to know and expect you or others can help me: How to check the locations, IP address of forum users?

So basically you want to DOX forum users? That's not appreciated here!

[Ferrytale1]

It's still basically based on your activity and longevity.
It has a certain degree of neutrality though.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I would like to know and expect you or others can help me: How to check the locations, IP address of forum users?

That’s borderline of deserving negative trust. Why the hell do you need to know locations & IP addresses of posters here. Disgusting post to be honest.

[Vod]

Vod : is it possible at https://bpip.org/ to display lists of DT members and their history of trust?
maybe there are some casual members like me who are curious to know the number of DT members in this forum.

thanks

Edit

You can find all DT-members here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
It's doesn't show the history though, only the current DT-members.

my bad, I just knew that but I still ask bpip to display it, so it doesn't need to log this forum to see it

I'm currently working on trust and trust history.  It will be in the next release of my parser.

[YOSHIE]

I am still a Newbei, so I don't know exactly how much is admitted in Bitcointalk,
But what is clear in Meta is that many members have good quality from posts or words,
A person cannot judge himself, surely others judge him,
Hurt and keep trying the best and best for everyone.

[xtraelv]

This is my thousandth post - literally. Does that make me more recognized ?

[bill gator]

This is my thousandth post - literally. Does that make me more recognized ?

Not on Vod's list, but in my heart, where it matters.

I'll wait for the scammer's version of it.

"Most Infamous", I can see it now. Would be quite an amusing read.


Might it give the calculations another Pillar if you consider the trust received from Non-DT members if those members have received Trust from DT members? Certainly the Trust from a Trusted Non-DT member has some weight in Recognition and should be thrown into the mix somehow. I've run the numbers and this is a solid chance at a quick boost to my rank; all I have to do is convince you it's a good idea. I missed the autograph signing and now I'll never get my Baseball Cap signed.

Also, would it be silly to suggest weighing the categories? I don't believe Activity should be considered equal to Trust, for example.

Was a little late to the thread, but still an interesting concept. I am ashamed of how many names I recognize on this list, even into the 600's.

[suchmoon]

Also, would it be silly to suggest weighing the categories? I don't believe Activity should be considered equal to Trust, for example.

It's not that it's equal to trust - it's based on where you rank compared to others. Activity is easy to obtain but it's easy to obtain for everyone.

[bill gator]

Yes, I understand that, but what I am saying is that your rank in comparison to other in terms of Trust is much more significant than your rank in comparison to others in terms of Activity (For recognition purposes). I don't know if I'm explaining that correctly, or maybe I am misunderstanding the calculations. It seems like your Rank for Trust and your Rank for Activity are considered equally towards the end result, and I believe this should be weighed differently. Does that make sense?

[Vod]

Yes, I understand that, but what I am saying is that your rank in comparison to other in terms of Trust is much more significant than your rank in comparison to others in terms of Activity (For recognition purposes). I don't know if I'm explaining that correctly, or maybe I am misunderstanding the calculations. It seems like your Rank for Trust and your Rank for Activity are considered equally towards the end result, and I believe this should be weighed differently. Does that make sense?

It makes sense to me, but I disagree with the suggestion. 

Recognition is based on three pillars.   MAT - Merit, Activity, Trust

M) How well they contribute to the community (quality of what they post)
A) How active and involved they are (quantity of what they post)
T) How respected and trusted they are (popularity/morality of their actions)

I agree with you that Merit and Trust are more difficult to gain than Activity, but I am not calculating based on these values directly - I calculate based on how you rank in comparison to others.  It should be equally as easy to gain activity for every member of the forum.

I want to avoid manipulating the score any more than taking the average of your rank on the three pillars.

[suchmoon]

Yes, I understand that, but what I am saying is that your rank in comparison to other in terms of Trust is much more significant than your rank in comparison to others in terms of Activity (For recognition purposes). I don't know if I'm explaining that correctly, or maybe I am misunderstanding the calculations. It seems like your Rank for Trust and your Rank for Activity are considered equally towards the end result, and I believe this should be weighed differently. Does that make sense?

I get what you're saying but I don't think that e.g. trust or merit should have more weight in recognition. A person could be shitposting and/or untrustworthy but still quite recognizable if they're hyperactive (e.g. Quickseller #162) and that's fair.

[LoyceV]

I agree with you that Merit and Trust are more difficult to gain than Activity

It depends on how you look at it: Activity is indeed easy to gain, but going up in Activity Rank is very difficult. I'm at Activity Rank 971 now, and the only way for me to go up, is if users with a higher rank don't post anything for 14 days in a row (or delete enough old posts to lose Activity). And unlike Merit and Trust, which basically depend on what I post and how I behave, there's nothing I can do to "beat" other users' Activity Rating.

[bill gator]

there's nothing I can do to "beat" other users' Activity Rating.

You could strangle every individual that has a higher rank than you, not necessarily to kill or maim, but just severely enough to leave them incapacitated for 14-days (give or take). Wouldn't that give you a better chance at moving up the Activity rating Ranking? Not a suggestion, but uhh, I wouldn't say there's "nothing" you can do.

the only way for me to go up, is if users with a higher rank don't post anything for 14 days in a row

You say this as if it is an unlikely scenario. Every activity period increases the chances that those above you will miss an activity period. Once they do, you have an opportunity to gain some traction. This happens very regularly, vacations, disinterest, account sales, illness, etc. The list of reasons that would cause inactivity are endless.

[OgNasty]

Sometimes you wanna go where everybody knows your name, and they’re always glad you came.

https://youtu.be/lQpL5ZLQHyw

[BayAreaCoins]

Sometimes you wanna go where everybody knows your name, and they’re always glad you came.

https://youtu.be/lQpL5ZLQHyw

Sometimes you just want people to know the size of your epeen!

https://youtu.be/TNgWQfOd-1M

[jademaxsuy]

(OMG - this is not a post about merit!  This is a post about Activity and Trust as well)   


I believe the three main pillars of a bitcointalk profile are Merit, Activity and Trust (MAT). 

Since I already rank everyone based on those attributes, I thought I would make a new attribute and call it "Recognition".

Everyone is scored 1-1000 for each pillar.  If you are not ranked you are scored 1000.  The totals are added up, and divided by three.

The result, a number from 1 to 1000 (lower is better), is your average ranking in this community - according to these three pillars anyway.  Personally, I was quite stunned at the results.  :/

https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostrecognized

You are one of the recognized bitcointalk user in this forum i have voted you in a poll thread where you are one of the choices appeared. There are many known bitcointalk user account here what does their job quite good and envy on them because they had it already while i am still in the process of learning and one thing is that i am not really that good poster since my english is really that bad.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

A person could be shitposting and/or untrustworthy but still quite recognizable if they're hyperactive (e.g. Quickseller #162) and that's fair.

I agree.  I also think if a deck of cards was ever produced with bitcointalk members on their faces, QS should be one of the jokers.  Maybe Spoetnik could be the other, but he abandoned the forum a while ago if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, the criteria seem reasonable.  There's really no other way to measure forum recognition if you want to do so at least somewhat quantitatively.   One flaw in this is that Satoshi is ranked #40 as I write this.  He probably should get grandfathered in and pegged at #1 or #2 or something.  I get that he hasn't been active in years, but damn.