Should we look through the post history before awarding merit to newbies?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I’ve been thinking about that: looking through the post history when I find a post worthy of merit written by a newbie, because if I see the all the other posts are total shitposts and/or bounties, I won't not give it.

What do you think about that? We may get lots of newbies trying to make just one merit worthy post, to keep spamming the forum once they achieve it.

See what's happened here, for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5032534.0

[1715501827]

1715501827

[1715501827]

1715501827

[DdmrDdmr]

I definitely do look through posting history, although it makes the whole process a bit more time consuming than it should be. I also check if any recent post stands out too much in the user’s history, in case we have plagiarism, as well as the post I’m considering meriting. All in all, it seems like a small “Know Your Merited-to-be Candidate” (KYMC) which requires some patience.

Many can create one single decent post just to comply with the new requirement (not all), but I focus on the person’s posting capabilities and attitude through the posting history, and not just on the one-time attempt before going back to the normal practices.

Edit: I personally can cope with seeing some social reporting, but wall on end put me off completely. There are some decent hybrids around the forum (socials+regular posting), and that seems ok to me in an adequate equilibrium.

[Jet Cash]

I used to do this, but it does take up a lot of time, and now I try to take a view of the posted content, and only check the history if I find a trigger. The main reason for checking now is to look for out of character posts. These can often be an indication of plagiarism.

Not awarding a good recent post because of previous bad posts may be counter productive. If a member has started to make an effort, then we should encourage him. Unfortunately, in most of these cases, it just means he is using stolen content.

[TMAN]

yes... 100% do it - so many times it has stopped me meriting someone.

[mdayonliner]

What do you think about that?

I have done this few times before realizing that I should not do that. Merits are for quality posts. If a person takes time to compose a response with thoughts then that post deserves merit IMO, I will not care about grammatical mistakes and stuffs, I will not discourage it just because their English is poor,  I may check plagiarism but I certainly, will not justify the post by looking at the persons post history.

Awarding merit should not be too hard.

[stingers]

Should we look through the post history before awarding merit to newbies?

Yes, I think this is the job of everyone to first make sure that the person is worthy of the merit, but we just can't say that you need to first make 10-20 quality post and then only you will be offered merits as this will make the condition more out of hands. I think you should surely check its post history once if the person is not involved on any scamming activity but don't always judge by previous post history, some people could be trying to work on their post and make them more worthy for this forum so we should motivate them in making more such posts by awarding them merits. That's the reason why this update was applied.

I’ve been thinking about that: looking through the post history when I find a post worthy of merit written by a newbie, because if I see the all the other posts are total shitposts and/or bounties, I won't not give it.

I guess this is a bad judgment as the person could be trying to improve his post quality and you can motivate him more by even giving one merit.

What do you think about that? We may get lots of newbies trying to make just one merit worthy post, to keep spamming the forum once they achieve it.

I think they are worthy of getting merit even if they would make one quality post it means that they are capable of making more and deserve a higher spot on the forum.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think this is an argument for increasing the merit requirement for having a signature from 1 to 10.

As it stands, a newbie can make one good or plagiarized post, get their one merit (deserved or not), and then go right back to spamming, even deleting the evidence of plagiarism afterwards so they can't be caught. If the minimum is 10, it forces them to actually change their entire posting behavior and strive to be a better user of the forum.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

After these replies, the conclusion I get is that on the one hand, it is the right thing to do, but on the other hand, it can be bad because I would be punishing people who are trying to improve their post quality.

I’ll tell you what I do: if only that post is worth meriting and the post history is crap, I won’t merit the post. However, if I see in the post history a changing pattern, even for the last 3-4 posts, I will merit it.

I think this is an argument for increasing the merit requirement for having a signature from 1 to 10.

But if Jr. Member have higher minimum merit (between 3-5) or signature for newbie can't be filled with url/website, that would save people's time.

Yes, theymos said that he might increase the requirement from 1 to 5 merits, and I think this is what will end up happening. There will be always people trying to game the system, but these are steps in the right direction.

[Strufmbae]

This can be adjustable,  at one at a time,  a good idea tho, checking the post history of a newbie before meriting the reply post you like can lead you to be picky. But if newbies receives merit they have this motivation to make another contribution of information into sections of this forum they well known.

[athanz88]

In my opinion, and i apply it to myself, i should look into a member's post history before giving a merit to someone. It takes a lot of time but it will save this forum from adding more spammer. In fact, people should do it because Theymos already made an addition to this merit system for reducing spammer and recklessly giving merit will undone what Theymos did.

I do believe that people deserve a second chance to prove themselves are better now, but not in 1 day after this new system was added. After the introduction of new system and this or that spammer changed? Nope, it is just an attempt to get merit so they could spam their bounty more.

[amishmanish]

I too feel that looking at post history is extremely important. This can also be a potential way to discourage the spam/scam ICOs from relying on "one-line posters" and "nested reporters". A lot of these people are in newbie hell for now.

Just look at 5-6 pages of their post history and if it is all walls of "reports" from different projects, do NOT merit them hastily. These people will not rank up and will not be useful for the campaigns. The campaigns will in turn have to look for better ways to increase their ANN post counts. Any good project with decent developers can generate real discussion and buzz on its own merit over time. It is typically the scam ICOs that are relying on these "one liners" and "nest reporters".


I understand there are posters with decent posts mixed with reporting walls. Those can be checked on a case to case basis. This will also force them to change behavior over a period of time. Hastily handed 1-merits will defeat the purpose as people may go right back to "working hard" The situation will surely evolve in the coming days as some of us will create threads like the one QuestionAuthority created when the merit system was introduced the first time.