Do you think more merit sources need to be added?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I would love to check the opinion of the community regarding this subject. I think more trustworthy merit sources would be good for the system but maybe some people don’t think so.

So, I’ve opened a poll and let’s see what happens.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yep, I think more sources are needed.  Again, this is another Theymos problem that likely doesn't depend on what the community thinks about it, kind of like the perceived need for more moderators.

Right now it seems like decent posters are having to wait a hell of a long time to rank up, and I think it ought to go a little quicker for them and that having more merit sources would help that.  I forget how many members bitcointalk has, but I think it's over a million or so.  If we don't even have 100 merit sources, there are definitely not going to be enough to give sufficient merit to those who deserve it.

If I'm not mistaken, hilariousandco stated that Theymos hasn't been looking at new merit source applications.  I occasionally see some application threads getting bumped from months ago, so I have a feeling that it's not Theymos's priority or that he doesn't think more are needed.  In any case, I don't recall him voicing an opinion on the matter lately and it'd be nice if he did.

Maybe I need to review my standards.

If you mean you should lower your standards, I would advise against that.  This problem is not all on your shoulders, either, and you're a very conscientious merit source who probably needs to give himself a break.  The fact is that it isn't easy to find posts worth meriting.  IMO you shouldn't feel pressured to get rid of your sMerits just to get rid of them.  That goes against the spirit of the whole system.  I know you spend a lot of time on the forum, as do I.  When good posts pop up, you'll see them.

[Jet Cash]

I still have trouble finding posters to merit. Maybe I need to review my standards. The reason that I created my chatroom was to do this in private discussions, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside, so I'm on my own with my decision making.

[athanz88]

Of course. Merit source number should be increased to match the number of forum's member because there are some of high quality members left unmerited because the coverage of  current merit source is not that wide. I suggest it should be added based on region/local board activity, because there are gems hidden in the local boards, and some of them are not good at english. There are no rule stated that a meritorious post should be in english right?

Maybe 100 merit sources needed as a start, for now?

[LoyceV]

I forget how many members bitcointalk has, but I think it's over a million or so.  If we don't even have 100 merit sources, there are definitely not going to be enough to give sufficient merit to those who deserve it.

BPIP shows 376,866 active accounts, which means they've logged in within the past 3 months. But only 19453 accounts have received 1 or more Merit points. Many of these got it through Merit abuse.
I think it's an optimistic estimate to say that only a few thousand accounts deserve to rank up, and that would still take one order of magnitude more sMerit than sources currently generate.
Based on this, I'd say more sources would be needed. I have seen a few users with more Merit than Activity, which means the best of the best aren't restricted by Merit, but I think anybody who isn't a spammer shouldn't be limited by Merit either.

I occasionally see some application threads getting bumped from months ago, so I have a feeling that it's not Theymos's priority or that he doesn't think more are needed.

It took me 3 months of daily bumps and many endorsements to become a Merit source. Since then, the total number of sources went up from 80 to 84. That's about 1 new Merit source per month.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

BPIP shows 376,866 active accounts, which means they've logged in within the past 3 months. But only 19453 accounts have received 1 or more Merit points. Many of these got it through Merit abuse.

Beautiful--that's exactly what I was looking for.  I really ought to learn how to use Vod's site, eh?  I now feel like a dipshit for not finding that info myself, and I have that page bookmarked so it's not like I don't visit it.

It took me 3 months of daily bumps and many endorsements to become a Merit source. Since then, the total number of sources went up from 80 to 84. That's about 1 new Merit source per month.

I think that was way too long to get approval, and as I said in another thread, I think there should probably be at least 250 merit sources, but that's probably too optimistic.  You kind of have to be trusted in order to be a merit source.  There is certainly potential for it to be abused, given how valuable merits are.  I'm not sure if the forum has 250 members who are active enough AND could demonstrably be trusted with the responsibility.  I could be wrong.

Maybe 100 merit sources needed as a start, for now?

That would be a good start, I think.  There's only 84 right now, so it would certainly help.

Does anyone think giving out more sMerits per good post would help?  If I'm not mistaken, merit sources get topped up pretty quickly so giving out 5-7 merits for a good post shouldn't put much of a ding in their supply.  I don't really know how many the sources are giving out per post, and I also don't think the number of members who truly deserve to rank up is all that high. 

If that ranking up pipeline thread keeps getting updated, that would be a good place to look for members needing merits.  I have that one bookmarked, but not all of those people make good posts.

[coolcoinz]

I think that frequently giving 1 merit per post is a much better motivation than 5+ merits per posts but less often. From the psychological point of view people who write good posts but are left forgotten without any merit will get frustrated and give up. At the same time people who have a couple merit points know that it's possible to rank up, that their work got rewarded.

[athanz88]

That would be a good start, I think.  There's only 84 right now, so it would certainly help.

Does anyone think giving out more sMerits per good post would help?  If I'm not mistaken, merit sources get topped up pretty quickly so giving out 5-7 merits for a good post shouldn't put much of a ding in their supply.  I don't really know how many the sources are giving out per post, and I also don't think the number of members who truly deserve to rank up is all that high.  

If that ranking up pipeline thread keeps getting updated, that would be a good place to look for members needing merits.  I have that one bookmarked, but not all of those people make good posts.

Yes, 100 would be a good start. With that being said, i think that giving out more sMerits per good post would be a great help and it can (slightly) solve the problem which DdmrDdmr's stated in his new thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5029372.0).

I hope that thread can help a lot of people in the future, maybe including myself   (no joke)

[SFR10]

I suggest it should be added based on region/local board activity,

If that becomes a thing, I'll be automatically out of the equation (if I ever decide to become a local source in a local section that I've been inactive for the past few years).
- The main factor should be the ability to distinguish high quality posts from the rest...

There are no rule stated that a meritorious post should be in english right?

Correct + this:

I am especially eager to have merit sources in sub-communities such as the local sections.

Does anyone think giving out more sMerits per good post would help?

Slightly "YES" but having more merit sources should still be the solution (different views, subjective).

If I'm not mistaken, merit sources get topped up pretty quickly

IIRC, it's exactly 30 days (based on when you've sent them).
To OP: Obviously, I voted for "YES".

[o_e_l_e_o]

Does anyone think giving out more sMerits per good post would help?  If I'm not mistaken, merit sources get topped up pretty quickly so giving out 5-7 merits for a good post shouldn't put much of a ding in their supply. 

I think a better idea would be to create more merit sources and thereby keep the system as decentralized as possible, but as theymos seems uninterested in adding new sources, this is maybe the best idea in the meantime.

5-7 in place of 1 seems excessive, however. Perhaps the sources who regularly have lots of merit left at the end of a month should just double how much they would have given.

[vlad230]

Right now it seems like decent posters are having to wait a hell of a long time to rank up, and I think it ought to go a little quicker for them and that having more merit sources would help that. [...]

I believe I'm creating decent posts but one of the issues I'm facing is trying to make my posts visible. For example, I've created this topic in Trading: [Guide] Best/Top Crypto Exchanges: Fees & more and it was buried instantly by spam... I see it has begun to pick up attention lately, so all is not lost yet  

[...] some of high quality members left unmerited because the coverage of  current merit source is not that wide. I suggest it should be added based on region/local board activity, because there are gems hidden in the local boards, and some of them are not good at english. [...]

Yes, it's true, the merit sources are not seeing all the posts especially the ones in the local boards. They're only 84, they can't see everything obviously...

Another thing is that some local boards do not have merit sources at all which is very bad if you ask me. I've create a post in Serious Discussions about this here: Revitalizing the Local boards about the fact that some local boards are also dying down and maybe we could use merit to stimulate posters there as well.

[...] the best of the best aren't restricted by Merit, but I think anybody who isn't a spammer shouldn't be limited by Merit either.
[...]

Yes, you are right. The original idea with the merit system as proposed by Theymos was that merit was to be received almost as fast as activity (about 1 per day) for me, this has worked fine while we had the initial merit circling around but nowadays it has been increasingly hard to earn merit (although I believe I'm posting the same quality) and from what I've seen here it's not just me.

[vit05]

  I'll suggest something different. From what Jet Cash has written, some sources of merit may see the function of distributing merits almost as a professional activity. They spend time looking for what to merit. Without them receiving almost anything in return, and this seems to be a stressful activity since the forum is flooded with spam. Other sources prefer to use these merits to distribute among people they already know and other legendary members. Creating a deflationary effect. And to be honest, I do not see a gain in the community if the activity of distributing merit becomes such a burden to some people.

In addition, in all systems, there is the possibility of a group gamify the process to its own advantage. This not only alters the entire initial purpose but also makes it difficult for other users.

Meritocracy is a very complicated system to analyze. And what we have here in the forum is a great experiment of this system.

In most researches and experiments it is necessary to add a random element. If you want to research the effectiveness of a drug, you add a control group that will take a placebo. It is very difficult to understand the efficiency of something if its distribution is centralized and fully controlled.

Therefore, I believe that Temporary sources of Merit should be added. It would last only 14 days. What he did not use would be burned. And his choice would be by a random algorithmic. Of course, so that it is not a total waste sending sMerit to a ghost, some elements in the equation would be added. The user would have to receive at least 1 merit in the last 120 days and have written something in the last 14 days, at least.

For those who are curious about the lucky element in a meritocracy, there is a recent study on this.
If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance.

[LoyceV]

I'll suggest something different. From what Jet Cash has written, some sources of merit may see the function of distributing merits almost as a professional activity. They spend time looking for what to merit. Without them receiving almost anything in return, and this seems to be a stressful activity since the forum is flooded with spam.

I tried that a few times, but every time I go to patrol or Bitcoin Discussion, I end up reporting posts and getting users banned instead of meriting them.
What I do, is Merit posts that I read anyway. I more or less gave up on searching for good posts, except for going through someone's post history once in a while.

Other sources prefer to use these merits to distribute among people they already know and other legendary members.

Merit is not only meant to stop spammers from ranking up, it's also meant to highlight good posts. That's why I merit posts of any rank
For the record: I don't "know" anybody on this site

~I believe that Temporary sources of Merit should be added. It would last only 14 days. What he did not use would be burned. And his choice would be by a random algorithmic. Of course, so that it is not a total waste sending sMerit to a ghost, some elements in the equation would be added. The user would have to receive at least 1 merit in the last 120 days and have written something in the last 14 days, at least.

I estimate that thousands of spammers have traded or bought Merit. This would give them the chance to rank up their alt accounts again, which goes against everything Merit was supposed to do.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Yep, I think more sources are needed.  Again, this is another Theymos problem that likely doesn't depend on what the community thinks about it, kind of like the perceived need for more moderators.

If the above statement is correct then I think it needs to be readdress. As big as Facebook is, majority of it's discission making is based on the respond gotten from it's users why? Because it's a community just as bitcointalk is. Therefore if the community members decides new merit source is needed he should look into the case and give a solution.

I still have trouble finding posters to merit.

You know why?, merit source don't get rewarded for this act that's why they're finding it difficult to see post worth meriting and most time when they do, they only give 1merit which is very discouraging.

[rab2005]

Of course. Merit source number should be increased to match the number of forum's member because there are some of high quality members left unmerited because the coverage of  current merit source is not that wide. I suggest it should be added based on region/local board activity, because there are gems hidden in the local boards, and some of them are not good at english. There are no rule stated that a meritorious post should be in english right?

Maybe 100 merit sources needed as a start, for now?

All greetings and appreciation to you 
And for this very distinctive participation
My friend you know that BTC is the future of all humanity
Not only English speakers
Therefore,  should be taken care of local boards.

[Jet Cash]

Definitely we need more merit.sources so that jr.membera like us will be able to get at least a member rank. It is so hard to rank now because if merit system thus required as to get 10 merits to rank. This task is difficult because i am not good in english at the same time i only post on what i wanted to express here in the forum and not that good poster like others.

More merit sources will meant that more merit is chasing the existing meritable posters. The zero-posters will still be zero-posters,unless they work to imprve their posting of course.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I see that some people voted for the “no” option. It’s a pity that they didn’t express their opinion on the thread. 

[Piggy]

Definitely we need more merit.sources so that jr.membera like us will be able to get at least a member rank. It is so hard to rank now because if merit system thus required as to get 10 merits to rank. This task is difficult because i am not good in english at the same time i only post on what i wanted to express here in the forum and not that good poster like others.

More merit sources will meant that more merit is chasing the existing meritable posters. The zero-posters will still be zero-posters,unless they work to imprve their posting of course.

That is true, given merits are only given to post which are worth, if there are 100, 1000 or 10000 merit sources there shouldn't be any catastrophic consequences. However you get the big advantage of having more eyes looking around, maybe also on those boards which seems to be lacking merits, those about mining is one i recall for example where mentioned more than once.

[LoyceV]

~if there are 100, 1000 or 10000 merit sources there shouldn't be any catastrophic consequences. However you get the big advantage of having more eyes looking around~

The problem will be oversight. With 1000 merit sources, it will be virtually impossible for Admin to keep an eye on them. One or more rogue merit sources can result in spammers ranking up again.

[petyang12]

It's a good idea adding more merit sources but having more merit sources than right now will be the same as it is because it's not up to merit sources alone to reward merit but the poster also as posters are the one to receive or earn his/her reward.