How recognized are you in the bitcointalk world?

[OgNasty]

The list is heavily weighted to make merit much more valuable than it is

OG, the site doesn't rank you based on how many merit you have, but how many you have compared to others.  

If merit is easy to get, it would be easy to get for everyone.

Excluding the merit that theymos gave to users for their previous contributions and scewing the results in favor of newer or lower ranked members and merit abusers. I’m well aware as we’ve discussed this privately. It’s your site though and if you want to reward merit abusers and penalize the early folks that established Bitcoin, that is 100% up to you. I was just explaining why The Pharmacist was self admittedly rated way higher than deserved.

I'm #40 on the bpip list.  I soooo don't deserve to be ranked that high.  There has got to be a flaw in Vod's algorithm or something.

EDIT: I should say that I am not calling The Pharmacist a merit abuser.  Users who have legitimately obtained a substantial amount of merit are also benefactors of the ignoring of merit earned from prior forum participation.

The reason this matters is that users who were instrumental to Bitcoin like early developers and people who have been shunned from the community as it evolved are penalized by the way Recognition Rank is scored.  Vod's argument is that newer users here don't recognize the early names.  I don't believe this to be true. Roger Ver has a Recognition Rank of >1000 & Gavin Andresen has a Recognition Rank of 865, while abhiseshakana has a Recognition Rank of 333.  Which names do you recognize?  What would the ranks be if the original merit were included in the algorithm?

[1713546494]

1713546494

[1713546494]

1713546494

[1713546494]

1713546494

[r1s2g3]

The list is heavily weighted to make merit much more valuable than it is and not give credit to contributions made prior to the merit system's introduction. 

Might be you are right, because few days back I have same activity and same trust and I am not in the list. I guess I got some 20 merits and I make it to this list. so this list is considering merit seriously.

The reason this matters is that users who were instrumental to Bitcoin like early developers and people who have been shunned from the community as it evolved are penalized by the way Recognition Rank is scored.  Vod's argument is that newer users here don't recognize the early names.  I don't believe this to be true. Roger Ver has a Recognition Rank of >1000 & Gavin Andresen has a Recognition Rank of 865, while abhiseshakana has a Recognition Rank of 333.  Which names do you recognize?  What would the ranks be if the original merit were included in the algorithm?

Contribution to forum activities is not equivalent to the contribution the bitcoin development. So new user that you see highly ranked just mean they are contributing in forum well being or making other people aware of bitcoin or putting some good discussion or helping to catch the scammers and shitposters.

So whatever the rank Vod's site shows, it is just  parameter of taking part in forum discussions and recognized in this forum.(Nothing to do with your recognition in BTC world).

PS: I do know about Gavin and Roger Ver .

[DarkStar_]

The reason this matters is that users who were instrumental to Bitcoin like early developers and people who have been shunned from the community as it evolved are penalized by the way Recognition Rank is scored.  Vod's argument is that newer users here don't recognize the early names.  I don't believe this to be true. Roger Ver has a Recognition Rank of >1000 & Gavin Andresen has a Recognition Rank of 865, while abhiseshakana has a Recognition Rank of 333.  Which names do you recognize?  What would the ranks be if the original merit were included in the algorithm?

How do you propose users should be ranked then? I agree with your points, but it's easy to make complaints and harder to find solutions. Aside from creating some sort of centralized list, I don't think there's a statistic based way to approach this. Perhaps those with earlier registration dates could gain some recognition points, but other issues would arise from that.

[roslinpl]

There are quite a few names in the top 100 that I recognize but don't see posting much anymore.  This doesn't surprise me, given how bad the forum has become, and they're not exactly sig campaigners who are earning money here.  Some of the names I don't recognize at all and I'm assuming they made a name for themselves early on and haven't been active, or they post in sections I don't visit.  There are a lot of people in the collectibles and mining sections that I'm not familiar with.  It's amazing how provincial I've become, even on the internet.  Hell, even on a single website!

Nice compilation, Vod.

'Bad forum'.
'Nice compilation.'
=
?? xd A Nice compilation of a bad forum users.

Please... xd  what are you trying to say by that?

If it's so bad then what are you doing here?
Do something! Change something!

Everyone has a chance!

[OgNasty]

How do you propose users should be ranked then? I agree with your points, but it's easy to make complaints and harder to find solutions. Aside from creating some sort of centralized list, I don't think there's a statistic based way to approach this. Perhaps those with earlier registration dates could gain some recognition points, but other issues would arise from that.

Step 1 would be to not arbitrarily dismiss user merits that were earned through prior participation here. Step 2 would be for people to leave merit for historical contributions, and not just current posts. Also, I’m a bit shocked users like Gavin Andresen have a 0 trust rating. In his particular case, satoshi trusted him to lead development on the Bitcoin client but he’s regarded as not trustworthy enough to accept PayPal from? He was a major influence here whose first project when he discovered Bitcoin was to create a faucet to give it away. Users like him personally inspired me, so I think Step 3 would be finding and leaving trust for these users that they clearly earned prior to the trust system being implemented. Many probably don’t realize there was a period of years before the trust system was implemented. I used to have a thread with dozens of quotes complimenting my efforts and listing successful trades that I would refer users to back then. All who were active back then didn’t have the same opportunities to build long-term user stats that are available to users today. Penalizing them further with new scoring methods that reduce their early contributions seems backwards to me.

So that’s off the top of my head 3 proposals for Vod and the community to work together on legitimizing and improving this type of rating system.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Roger Ver has a Recognition Rank of >1000 & Gavin Andresen has a Recognition Rank of 865, while abhiseshakana has a Recognition Rank of 333.  Which names do you recognize?  What would the ranks be if the original merit were included in the algorithm?

I've just realized that I’m supposedly more recognized than Ver and Andersen, lol! I’ve got a Recognition Rank of 824.

Vod has done a great job and it is clear that the system favors members who are active now. It is up to him if he wants to make changes. Other people can set up another site with other parameters too, but any system is going to have some flaws.

[xtraelv]

Roger Ver has a Recognition Rank of >1000 & Gavin Andresen has a Recognition Rank of 865, while abhiseshakana has a Recognition Rank of 333.  Which names do you recognize?  What would the ranks be if the original merit were included in the algorithm?

I've just realized that I’m supposedly more recognized than Ver and Andersen, lol! I’ve got a Recognition Rank of 824.

Vod has done a great job and it is clear that the system favors members who are active now. It is up to him if he wants to make changes. Other people can set up another site with other parameters too, but any system is going to have some flaws.

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

Satoshi at 42 ? Surely most people would know who satoshi is.

[LoyceV]

And dang, now I'm #40 on the bpip list.  I soooo don't deserve to be ranked that high.

You've tagged countless (I'm lazy this morning ) shitposters, they'll all recognize you

Vod's argument is that newer users here don't recognize the early names.  I don't believe this to be true. Roger Ver has a Recognition Rank of >1000 & Gavin Andresen has a Recognition Rank of 865, while abhiseshakana has a Recognition Rank of 333.  Which names do you recognize?

I don't recognize abhiseshakana either. He may be recognized in his local board, but not globally.

What would the ranks be if the original merit were included in the algorithm?

That would temporarily raise old users' Recognition Rank. Long-term, the airdropped amount shouldn't be a big part of the total Merit anymore (although at the rate Merit is currently being distributed, that's going to take a very long time).

Step 1 would be to not arbitrarily dismiss user merits that were earned through prior participation here.

Vod initially included all Merit, but changed is as previous contributions were already included in a higher Activity Rank:

For consideration:
If you're counting the initial (airdropped) Merit, which was based on Activity, aren't you double counting Activity?

Step 2 would be for people to leave merit for historical contributions, and not just current posts.

Agreed, but it's not realistic. Old posts are read much less often than new posts, which makes it much less likely to receive Merit. I made this thread: Percentage of Merit received on old posts, deleted posts, and average per post, but since it requires scraping all posts for each user, I can only check selected users. I'll add your stats here.

Also, I’m a bit shocked users like Gavin Andresen have a 0 trust rating. In his particular case, satoshi trusted him to lead development on the Bitcoin client but he’s regarded as not trustworthy enough to accept PayPal from? He was a major influence here whose first project when he discovered Bitcoin was to create a faucet to give it away. Users like him personally inspired me

I wasn't around when he was still active. What's stopping you from leaving Gavin Andresen trust now?

[JayJuanGee]

The reason this matters is that users who were instrumental to Bitcoin like early developers and people who have been shunned from the community as it evolved are penalized by the way Recognition Rank is scored.  Vod's argument is that newer users here don't recognize the early names.  I don't believe this to be true. Roger Ver has a Recognition Rank of >1000 & Gavin Andresen has a Recognition Rank of 865, while abhiseshakana has a Recognition Rank of 333.  Which names do you recognize?  What would the ranks be if the original merit were included in the algorithm?

I understand that on the face, there seems to be something that is deficient about Vod's recognition ranking algorithm when bitcoin famous people do not have as much recognition as non-famous bitcoin people, but then again, the algorithm seems to be defining recognition based on "forum activity" criteria, so the question becomes whether the forum member is recognizable in terms of various recent forum participation criteria that Vod has outlined, and attempts to depict recent forum activities, not recognition in a bitcoin objective sense - or some other worldly criteria sense...  

There are a lot of famous people in the world, but a large majority of them are not forum famous because they either might not have a forum account or they might not be recently active on their forum account...  even satoshi is more recognizable in bitcoin historical terms, but since he has not been active on the forum for many years, with the passage of time, other forum members are going to become more recognizable than satoshi, even though there is always going to be a certain objective recognition (rather than forum recognition) that would be in the minds of people, especially if it comes to someone like satoshi.  

It seems to me that Vod's recognition criteria must be in the ballpark - because it seems to be giving greater weight to the recognition of forum members based on recent forum activity rather than historical (even bitcoin historical) activity.

[El duderino_]

actualy how do you gain TRUST ? i consider myself to be trustful

I've said this before:  We judge ourselves by our intentions but judge others by their actions.  You might very well be a great guy who would never scam anyone, but if you haven't demonstrated that here (especially to a DT member if it's green trust you seek), you're not going to be recognized as a trusted person.

I don't know what you've done on the forum, but the last feedback you got was a neg for shitposting.  If you're not doing deals with people and/or not busting scammers, you won't be rewarded with green trust.  Also, people tend to look very suspiciously at members here who state that they're looking to gain trust.  Doesn't mean you're a scammer, but it makes people question your intentions.

And dang, now I'm #40 on the bpip list.  I soooo don't deserve to be ranked that high.  There has got to be a flaw in Vod's algorithm or something.  I can barely recognize who I am sometimes, so I'm fairly sure I shouldn't be that recognized as a member of bitcointalk.

fair enough just don't now how it works, and i never did deals with someone on the forum, with a 2 way deal..... i did a few things where other only could earn BTC whitout risking to lose anything (freerolls) and i did honour every one of them, and still 5 are running that will all be honoured as well.

now i do believe that when we are in the WO thread "everything should be taken with a grain of salt" so ofcourse there is a shitpist here and there but thats the kind of talk that just happens between posts and stuff .....
also when i am out of line (like creating a game in the WO.... that includes me of making a list, needed to be updated dailey, wasn't fun for everyone, like JJG complained a bit about that...... asking me to make another thread for that stuff, and then i just did that .

i don't actualy asking/looking for trust, just wanna know on what its based ....... cause i always honoured all that i said

[El duderino_]

actualy how do you gain TRUST ? i consider myself to be trustful, (like not scamming or any crazy things.....) but how to gain it in the forum?
cause from day one its just 0-0 with me......

and i do like some positive GREEN on my trust

I have my trust setting to level 4. So you have a green rating of 9 in my book. 

THX fellow  HAT carrier 

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think the issue here is that we are conflating the "bitcoin world" with the "bitcointalk world", the latter of the two being the metric that Vod's site is aiming to track.

It is undeniable that users like Gavin Andresen are more recognized and more important in the bitcoin world than the majority of us here. However, if you were to poll every user on bitcointalk, I would stake a significant amount of bitcoin that more of them had heard of OgNasty, Vod or The Pharmacist than had heard of Wladimir van der Laan, for example. There are probably several developers who don't even have an account on the forum, and therefore have no recognition score at all.

I think we need to decide what we are actually tracking here. If we are tracking currently active forum users who are widely recognized by other forum users, then I think Vod's list is probably pretty accurate. If we want to track in terms of historical or current contributions to bitcoin development and adoption, then I agree with OgNasty that there a lot of names missing from the list.

[OgNasty]

I wasn't around when he was still active. What's stopping you from leaving Gavin Andresen trust now?

I nearly did yesterday, but thought I’d see if there were any legitimate arguments against such an action prior to me doing so. I’ll likely do it next time I’m at a PC instead of on my mobile. However, my action alone isn’t enough to make much difference, which is why I’m bringing this issue to light. Besides a more accurate scoring system, we will need to do our jobs as a community and fill in the gaps of some historically relevant users. I suggest people who frequent certain Bitcoin related sites or use a certain software application take the time to learn who is behind these things, and leave them appropriate ratings.

I think we need to decide what we are actually tracking here. If we are tracking currently active forum users who are widely recognized by other forum users, then I think Vod's list is probably pretty accurate. If we want to track in terms of historical or current contributions to bitcoin development and adoption, then I agree with OgNasty that there a lot of names missing from the list.

Even in the current contributions scenario, it shouldn’t count total merits received and instead count the number of users that have left an individual merit. This would at least dull the effects of merit circles a bit, but unfairly reward users who have multiple alts (it already does, so this idea might be a step in the right direction). One could also make the argument that the number of accounts who received merit from a user would cause them to be recognized, but it would unfairly reward merit sources and users like myself who seek out new users to reward with merit, so it’s too self-serving an idea for me to push.

[S_Therapist]

I think we need to decide what we are actually tracking here. If we are tracking currently active forum users who are widely recognized by other forum users, then I think Vod's list is probably pretty accurate.

The list is organized based on Merit, activity and trust. With this three parameters, anyone with higher position can definitely be on the top list. Gavin Anderson has enough activity but in trust, he is not even in 1000 list, IMO. Also, almost close in merit. So, if we consider those 3, he is definitely not most recognized. Well, this result is based on forum activity only. It doesn't calculate the contribution of course.
Agreed with you. That's bitcointalk world, not bitcoin world.

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.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Vod's project is just a pure statistics based on 3 measures.
One of these 3 were introduced just 10 months ago. It is clear that all the early adopters who are not (so) active anymore will have not so good score becase of the low (no) activity (not as a measure but more as a exposure).

Personally I don't really think that my place is in the top 300 if we are talking about real recognition ( not the statistics one ). There are so many people deserving to be before me. I joined the community only a year ago so I really see my place there.

Of course, when I see my score I feel that i've done some even though is a samll and maybe insignificant but the people here seems to like it so I'm glad.

[Vod]

I think the issue here is that we are conflating the "bitcoin world" with the "bitcointalk world", the latter of the two being the metric that Vod's site is aiming to track.

It is undeniable that users like Gavin Andresen are more recognized and more important in the bitcoin world than the majority of us here. However, if you were to poll every user on bitcointalk, I would stake a significant amount of bitcoin that more of them had heard of OgNasty, Vod or The Pharmacist than had heard of Wladimir van der Laan, for example. There are probably several developers who don't even have an account on the forum, and therefore have no recognition score at all.

Perfect.  Thank you!

It's also only a record of the current state of the forum.   I'm sure a BPIP website many years ago during bitcoin development would have different names. 

[DooMAD]

However, my action alone isn’t enough to make much difference, which is why I’m bringing this issue to light. Besides a more accurate scoring system, we will need to do our jobs as a community and fill in the gaps of some historically relevant users. I suggest people who frequent certain Bitcoin related sites or use a certain software application take the time to learn who is behind these things, and leave them appropriate ratings.

When merit was first introduced, I left some 5s on posts that I thought were historically important, but then it occurred to me that, since I'm not a source, I'd soon run out if I kept doing that.

Take this post for instance.  That's a hugely important post in my view, as it recounts a time when crucial things were set in motion that ultimately led to how things are now, but no one else seems to have noticed it.  In general, Cryddit has only received 28 merit and has neutral feedback.  This guy was there at the very inception of Bitcoin, so surely he deserves a little more recognition than this?

//EDIT:  Perhaps this is a topic for a new thread, though.

[Vod]

I nearly did yesterday, but thought I’d see if there were any legitimate arguments against such an action prior to me doing so. I’ll likely do it next time I’m at a PC instead of on my mobile. However, my action alone isn’t enough to make much difference, which is why I’m bringing this issue to light. Besides a more accurate scoring system, we will need to do our jobs as a community and fill in the gaps of some historically relevant users. I suggest people who frequent certain Bitcoin related sites or use a certain software application take the time to learn who is behind these things, and leave them appropriate ratings.

I've been meriting old posts as well.  It would be nice if there was a list of important historical posts so we could give them the recognition they deserve.

[TheBeardedBaby]

I nearly did yesterday, but thought I’d see if there were any legitimate arguments against such an action prior to me doing so. I’ll likely do it next time I’m at a PC instead of on my mobile. However, my action alone isn’t enough to make much difference, which is why I’m bringing this issue to light. Besides a more accurate scoring system, we will need to do our jobs as a community and fill in the gaps of some historically relevant users. I suggest people who frequent certain Bitcoin related sites or use a certain software application take the time to learn who is behind these things, and leave them appropriate ratings.

I've been meriting old posts as well.  It would be nice if there was a list of important historical posts so we could give them the recognition they deserve.

Not exactly what you are looking for but here a list with the most important threads (just ignore the one on the top ) > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4322078.0
Thanks to xtraelv

[OgNasty]

I've been meriting old posts as well.  It would be nice if there was a list of important historical posts so we could give them the recognition they deserve.

I put together a top 10 list a while back that was my original Merit Source application. I added some shameless self promotion, but there are lots of classic posts on the thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2822621.0