How recognized are you in the bitcointalk world?

[JayJuanGee]

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.

These continued references to Gavin Andresen caused me to look at his account, and even though I understand that he has recognition in the bitcoin world, he has served in various important positions in bitcoin.. but his forum activity has waned considerably in the past few years.  His last posts on the forum were in early 2015, and it appears that he has not even logged into his forum account after early 2016.

Andresen does seem to show a great case in point, that his forum activity and participation has largely vanished in recent times, and likely also shows that Vod's system is sufficiently gathering relevant data to rank recognition.  Surely, if Andresen were to resume participation on the forum, he would gain in "forum" recognition too.. at least in terms of Vod's formulations.

[1714092849]

1714092849

[S_Therapist]

it appears that he has not even logged into his forum account after early 2016.

Wasn't he active in October 2018?

[JayJuanGee]

it appears that he has not even logged into his forum account after early 2016.

Wasn't he active in October 2018?

My mistake.  Initially, I went by the "last active" date that is shown in the BPIP search as April 21, 2016.

https://bpip.org/search.aspx?q=gavin

However, I see from the forum profile, it shows that he did log into the forum on October 11, as you mentioned.  I think that my point does still stand though because login in and not posting is likely NOT going to achieve much BPIP recognition, unless he is sending PMs through the forum, and I am not even sure if that would help much, unless he were to be gaining merits through such PMs (which would be a strange set of events, no?).

[o_e_l_e_o]

His last posts on the forum were in early 2015, and it appears that he has not even logged into his forum account after early 2016.

This is a good example. Someone who has been inactive on the forum for three and a half years can't exactly be said to be "well recognised". As we acknowledge the difference between the "bitcoin world" and the "bitcointalk world", I think we also should acknowledge the difference between "recognised" and "important". Sirius is pretty important to bitcointalk. Does your average user know who he is? I doubt it.

Vod is very clear which metrics his list is tracking, and I think it does a pretty good job at identifying currently active and recognised users. Regarding users who are important but not recognised, to either bitcoin or bitcointalk - I think this is a reason for a separate list as OgNasty has done, rather than discarding Vod's list.

[ibminer]

I've always seen the recognition list to be something that moves or changes in time with the forum (dynamic). If you add weight to historical inactive accounts moving forward, don't you eventually over time end up with a static Hall of FameRecognition/Greatest recognition of all time sort of list as people move on?  Not that this wouldn't be a nice thing to have, but I'd assume the current way recognition is calculated would be more valuable to an active member of the forum because it's more or less based off of their current point in time on the forum.

Being someone who can't spend as much time as I'd like reading everything from everyone on this forum (semi-active?), the list gives a glimpse of names I may not recognize (whom other more active users might), and maybe for whatever reason I'd like to look into why or check out why they are gaining in recognition. If the list included a bunch if inactive people, I'm not sure it is as useful from this perspective.

Again, it would be great to have a hall of recognition sort of list to click through, and I'd assume something could be created, although I'd see this to be a semi-static list because outside of activity and post count, I don't believe there is much data collected from these older accounts to dynamically create an accurate representation unless (as was mentioned) you get people leaving high amounts of merit for historical posts, on a continual basis... but I don't believe the merit system is really intended or designed to do that, and I'd have to assume merit counts will still continually increase more so with active users than non-active, regardless of those older members [likely temporary] getting injected with merits for old posts.

I suppose the ultimate dynamic recognition list would do what it does now, in addition to either:
a) Scanning post content for profile names and keeping some sort of count which adds value to their score (they are more likely to be recognized due to repeated mentions) - which I'd then assume issues with resources come into play.
-or-
b) Include an advanced telepathic artificial intelligence mind-reading script... I can get started on this if anyone wants to fund my time on this project - but it's likely not a wise investment!

[Gloverwrt]

I've come across a number of posts made before the merit system was introduced which received merits from users who went back to acknowledge them.

I doubt we would ever be able to get to all deserving posts or accounts which were created and active before the trust system was introduced.

This analysis seems pretty accurate in my opinion and it highlights accounts which has been influential to bitcointalk and are likely familiar to most of the current users.

I personally rate trust as the most important parameter as it is the most difficult to earn and can not be easily abused as the others.

[LoyceV]

I've always seen the recognition list to be something that moves or changes in time with the forum (dynamic). If you add weight to historical inactive accounts moving forward, don't you eventually over time end up with a static Hall of FameRecognition/Greatest recognition of all time sort of list as people move on?  Not that this wouldn't be a nice thing to have, but I'd assume the current way recognition is calculated would be more valuable to an active member of the forum because it's more or less based off of their current point in time on the forum.

This got me thinking: an "average Recognition score" could be developed over time. Imagine all recognition scores for all users are stored once a week. At any given moment, the "average Recognition score" can be calculated by adding up all weekly scores per user, and dividing this by the number of weeks stored. The result will be a value that includes past recognition instead of only current recognition. This will help recognize users with long-term involvement.
A large shortcoming will be that it can't be done retroactively, but long term (in the far future) that effect will subside.

[DooMAD]

Some of the 'Merit Received' scores don't seem to add up.  It says I've received 175 merit, but I have 1180 in total.  I had the 1000 starting/airdropped merit, so I've received 180.  A discrepancy of -5.

The Pharmacist's entry says they've received 897, but have a total of 1866, so (again, assuming the 1000 starting merit) a discrepancy of +31.  That's probably one of the more extreme examples.  

LoyceV's adds up fine.

Is it something to do with deleted posts?  Or maybe when profiles are parsed?

[erikoy]

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.

I like more The Pharmacist. Seeing his/her post were very straightforwarded. This is why I always love to read his/her post. But, I was surprised why he did not make i on top 10 as known in this forum. Maybe as what he said that some are not active anymore and I do not know them personally compared to The Pharmacist that is very active and supportive to respond countless complain and appeals in the forum.

 

[Vod]

Some of the 'Merit Received' scores don't seem to add up.  It says I've received 175 merit, but I have 1180 in total.  I had the 1000 starting/airdropped merit, so I've received 180.  A discrepancy of -5.

The Pharmacist's entry says they've received 897, but have a total of 1866, so (again, assuming the 1000 starting merit) a discrepancy of +31.  That's probably one of the more extreme examples.  

LoyceV's adds up fine.

Is it something to do with deleted posts?  Or maybe when profiles are parsed?

There is a rare bug that sometimes awards the merit to the wrong person in a certain situation.

As soon as I launch Trust stats next week, I will squash it.

I have all the correct merit records - I just need to recalculate who the merit was sent to.

[Aleksabit]

I've just realized that I’m supposedly more recognized than Ver and Andersen, lol! I’ve got a Recognition Rank of 824.
Other people can set up another site with other parameters too, but any system is going to have some flaws.
Vod has done a great job and it is clear that the system favors members who are active now.

[Strufmbae]

--

Nothing to say,  just trying to break the numbers, of post,  activity and merit hahahaha. 
Sorry. 

[dogie]

Hmm, I'm at rank 122. I'm one of the top posters of all time but have been AWOL for 2 years so my activity isn't at its potential AFAIK, and plenty of trust but a good blob of them got kicked out of DT so I'm only at 20. And all of my posts were made pre-merit - I think I might have one of the higher scores if had been introduced when I was active.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Hmm, I'm at rank 122. I'm one of the top posters of all time but have been AWOL for 2 years so my activity isn't at its potential AFAIK, and plenty of trust but a good blob of them got kicked out of DT so I'm only at 20. And all of my posts were made pre-merit - I think I might have one of the higher scores if had been introduced when I was active.

You will rank up easily if you remain active from now on. I've been ranking up even though I'm sure I'm not nearly as a good poster as you are.

[r1s2g3]

There is a rare bug that sometimes awards the merit to the wrong person in a certain situation.

As soon as I launch Trust stats next week, I will squash it.

I have all the correct merit records - I just need to recalculate who the merit was sent to.

I noticed this bug tends to add Merit on the account of Thread Starter instead of the user who commented in that thread and got merited for its comment.
I think this bug is triggered (not sure) if that user merited the OP.

[OgNasty]

Has the formatting always been like this on a phone? Sorry if this was already reported.

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/01/11/sx4ZH.jpeg

Edit: I’m using Safari on an iPhoneX.

Update: FIXED!

[DarkStar_]

Has the formatting always been like this on a phone? Sorry if this was already reported.

https://i.imgur.com/eHVTZQZ.jpg

I can't reproduce. (Firefox 63.0.2 for Android on a Pixel 2 XL in the screenshot, but Chrome 70.0.3538.80 also gives the same view)

https://i.imgur.com/yT4RcB0.jpg

Might be isolated to any browsers using the WebKit engine.

[Vod]

Has the formatting always been like this on a phone? Sorry if this was already reported.

https://i.imgur.com/eHVTZQZ.jpg

Edit: I’m using Safari on an iPhoneX.

Try it again.

BPIP was in an error state.  I forgot to limit the transaction log size and it ate up all my disk space.

When you see two BPIP logos - it means the SQL server is having an issue.

[ibminer]

When you see two BPIP logos - it means the SQL server is having an issue.

This happens because of the way the page/css is designed. If the server doesn't get to the point in the code to set the visibilities, it'll display both logos.

We could probably get the "BPIP is unavailable at this time"' exception to appear under the alert banner - without the actual error message (which can get long)?  It should be easy enough to output the HTML needed, I may have to adjust the css depending on where that exception is caught and spits out the error but I believe it would work.
...I've modified the dev site to output the HTML but might need to cause an exception to test (it currently includes the error). Different banner colors (or a different icon) could indicate whether it's an announcement or an error.

Hopefully not getting too off-topic here... this post might be best in project development but since the logo stuff came up here, I'm posting here.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

It says I have 185 Merit received. I have 1279 Merit which means I should have 279 Merit Received.

The last time I checked my position in ‘Most Recognized’ I was ranked 74th or 75th. Now I’m 90th for some reason.

Something not adding up?