MYTHBUSTERS: Only high ranked users are rewarded with merits

[cryptovigi]

Since month merit topic remain hottest one on this board. We still have three groups of users first one claims that merit system is great and everybody can get merit if he puts a bit of effort to his post, second one agrees that system is great but it is very hard to get one merit and third one criticizes whole system claiming that new users have no chance to get merit.
The second and third one have something in common – they both think that merit is almost impossible to get for newbies because high ranked users exchange merits with each other and they are no likely to give any merits to low ranked/fresh users.

Few weeks ago, after getting my first merit I wrote my story (Short story about being merited….) to show that merit is really achievable, but Myth that only high ranked users are able to receive merit is still live on this board, so I though, that maybe numbers convince people.

There are plenty of merit analysis on metaboard but most of them are large and quite complicated, so they are intended for advanced users. So my intention is not to make another one similar to others, just shortly show that merits flows to everyone.
 
What is also important I limited my analysis only to merits which was earned after introducing merit system. I’d like also to check if ranks achieved on old rules (users ranked before merit system was airdropped with number of merits equal to their rank) are important from the merit’s point of view.

Merit system works about 8,5 month, since introducing 251.653 merits was given for the post writing, they came to 22.547 users (from 2,400,000 users registered what is less than 1%!!!).

Below you can see how many users and number of merit was awarded in each group of users.

You can see that the largest group of users 56,47% who have ever earn merit are users who start their posting career after introducing new system – what means… newbies!!! Looking at numbers of merit the situation is the same this group have earned the largest part of merit (for posting).
Of course you always can say that many of them didn’t get their merit in proper way – bought them, begged for them etc. but it still remains the largest group.

How many merits users from every group earned and does rank achieved on the old rules has any meaning from the merit’s point of view?

The table above shows how many users from each group received merits in several ranges of earned amount. Absolute numbers shows that “old rank” doesn’t affect very much (except “old Legendary”) on post quality confirmed by merits. “Newbies” - users who started their activity after introducing merit system are the most rewarded group in ranges 1 – 100 and 250 – 750 they are on the second place in ranges 101 – 250 and 1000+.

For sure, if we changed absolute numbers to the relatives – compare the number of all users in each group to number of users who have ever received any merit this analysis would probably look little bit different – higher ranks would show bigger percent users who has been merited… I wrote about a bit about it earlier here:

...

Rank	number of users	number of users       received at least 1 merit	number of users       with who didn’t earn any merit
Member	27 918	4 744 (17%)	23 174  (83%)
Full Member	18 181	3 173 (17,45%)	15 008  (82,55%)
Sr. Member	9 016	1 818 (20,16%)	7 198  (79,84%)
Hero Member	4 143	1 105 (26,67%)	3 038  (73,33%)
Legendary	2 145	1 133 (52,82%)	1 012  (47,18%)

...

But the difference is not as much so let’s leave it - it’s not a point of my consideration today.

My main purpose was to show that merits don’t go only to small group of ranked people and I think that looking stats above you agree – THIS MYTH WAS BUSTED!!!

EDIT:
I've used data stored on https://albertoit.github.io/Merit-Explorer-SQL/ to make my calculations.
The data was downloaded at the beginning of October (maybe last days of September).

[TBboys]

Just follow the rules and reply to each post carefully, which has nothing to do with rank.
Many of spamposters are high ranked members, and the low ranked members also have a lot of published high quality posts, which is related to your attitude towards the forum and has nothing to do with rank.
When you give your effort, you will get what you deserve.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

That shows to me that everybody can get merit if they put a bit of effort. If merit requirement to wear any kind of signature was raised to 10 merits (member level) we would get more people improving and getting those merits. There would be also people trying to cheat the system, but it would be more difficult than now.

It also shows than getting lots of merits is only achievable by the most talented and hard-working people, like LoyceV or DdmrDdmr, and that should be rewarded in some way, like getting in the highest paying signature campaigns, as it already happens.

[hilariousandco]

Wrong. It is scientifically proven that the merit system was designed to ruin lives and people only merit their high ranking friends here because the rich like to keep their riches between themselves. This is corroborated by dozens of Newbies saying so hence facts.

[xtraelv]

Wrong. It is scientifically proven that the merit system was designed to ruin lives and people only merit their high ranking friends here because the rich like to keep their riches between themselves. This is corroborated by dozens of Newbies saying so hence facts.

It is only scientifically true if it is accompanied by a MEME and it it published on the internet.

[DdmrDdmr]

The general idea you state is correct. I’m working on something else, and part of what it shows and that stuttered me is that there is indeed a large base of users that are currently on the lower rank levels (Jr. Members & Newbies), that have received at least 1 sMerit. The proportion of these is nearly as much as all the other ranks put together, so looking at it from this prism (people who have received at least 1 sMerit), the conclusion is that the number of users being merited is rather spread out. Of course that only considers the "being merited" factor, and not the "how much" factor.

Notes:
We do have some differences in the numbers though, which seems weird. For example, the total awarded sMerits is of 241.323 and not 241.653 (there’s also a typo in the OP where it stated 251.653). Difference is small, given.

Nevertheless, checking on the Merit Dashboard (Tab called From/To Rank), currently the Legendary rank has received 39.920 merits, while your data indicates 45.741, so numbers are off for some reason or other which I cannot tell.

[cryptovigi]

...
Nevertheless, checking on the Merit Dashboard (Tab called From/To Rank), currently the Legendary rank has received 39.920 merits, while your data indicates 45.741, so numbers are off for some reason or other which I cannot tell.
...

While preparing set of data i didn't focus on rank names for me most important factor was merits. I wanted to "catch" what was the starting merit level (airdrop) of each user while introducing this system. So I took every user who has ever got merit, calcucated his "earned merits" and than checked his current merit level. Than, after comparing these two numbers i was able to get the number of merit he was airdopped, and this helped me to divide users into groups.
I didn't care about names of the rank so there are also some Admins/Staff/Donators/Customs etc. who was qualified by my to the proper "starting group" for example:

- theymos who got 1.000 merits from airdrop was qualified as "MERIT AIRDROP: 1000 MERIT (OLD Legendary)",

- and You didn't get any merits from airdrop, so you are qualified as "NO MERIT AIRDROP: FRESH USERS",


This is only merits comparison not a deep analysys... I also didn't care about activity and leveling up through last months. Otherwords I took a snapshot of day introducing merit system and compared it with snapshot from last weekend focusing only on merits.

I'd like to show that nwebies like You could earn more than thousand merits in less than 9 months.....
(by the way congratulations!)

[Parodium]

Glad this myth was dispelled, I always see bounty hunters complaining that merit is solely transferred between users of high rank. In fact, when the Jr. Member demotion rule came into effect I saw dozens of now newbie bounty hunters thinking about leaving the forum simply because they thought they would never earn a single merit. Quite pathetic if you ask me, but don't expect any of them to see this thread since few venture outside of the bounty section.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Many of spamposters are high ranked members

I don't know what you mean by "many".  Sure, I've seen some Sr./Hero/Legendary members who post crap, but they're outnumbered 100:1 by low-ranked shitposters.  Easily.  And lest you think I'm biased against giving merits to the low ranks, let me tell you that isn't the case.  It might well be that most of the merits I've handed out have been to Full Members or above (though I have no idea if that's true), I would gladly merit posts made by a Newbie or Jr. Member if that post is worthy of it.  The sad fact is that most aren't, and it's damn hard to sift through the garbage to find something worthwhile written by a noob. 

If merit requirement to wear any kind of signature was raised to 10 merits (member level) we would get more people improving and getting those merits. There would be also people trying to cheat the system, but it would be more difficult than now.

Heh heh.  We would see more merit-buying and trading than we would post improvement.  I'm 100% sure of that.  Shitposters try to "improve" their posts by making them longer, and the results are usually not pretty--take a look at the Meta section after the 1-merit requirement went into effect, and you'll see what I mean. 

If you're a shitposter, you don't just magically come up with something interesting to say or with improved language and writing skills.  What's more likely is that we'd see more plagiarism if that merit requirement were boosted to 10, in addition to people trying to buy those 10 merits.

[Osamede]

The problem with many lower ranking levels is that they(we) focused (hitherto) on just posting and never really paying attention to the quality of content. the blame game increased when the new rules were implemented.The good news is that we are already seeing the positive impact.Every one gets merits, just post right

[cryptovigi]

That shows to me that everybody can get merit if they put a bit of effort. If merit requirement to wear any kind of signature was raised to 10 merits (member level) we would get more people improving and getting those merits. There would be also people trying to cheat the system, but it would be more difficult than now.

It also shows than getting lots of merits is only achievable by the most talented and hard-working people, like LoyceV or DdmrDdmr, and that should be rewarded in some way, like getting in the highest paying signature campaigns, as it already happens.

I totally agree with you - raising the minium to 10 merits is not a bad idea.
A few weeks ago when I found out I needed one single merit to publish images I was almost depressed....
Since then, 3 weeks have passed and 48 merits have appeared on my account, whether it was simple - no, but whether it was very difficult - either not.
It was enough to think a little bit and put some work and effort. Within 3 weeks according to bpip.org I came to a group of 900 users who earned the most merit ever (how is it possible???)

As you said rising merit level won't prevent this forum from abusing but it would make more difficult... one important thing: today getting merit is easiest for people who speaks good English - this forum should be international so knowledge of English language shouldn't be a most important condition to get merit - other words we should more promote local boards with merits.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Heh heh.  We would see more merit-buying and trading than we would post improvement.  I'm 100% sure of that.  Shitposters try to "improve" their posts by making them longer, and the results are usually not pretty--take a look at the Meta section after the 1-merit requirement went into effect, and you'll see what I mean.  

If you're a shitposter, you don't just magically come up with something interesting to say or with improved language and writing skills.  What's more likely is that we'd see more plagiarism if that merit requirement were boosted to 10, in addition to people trying to buy those 10 merits.

Well, we are both here speculation about what could happen because we don’t know for certain. I’m sure that some people would make an effort, but my point is not so much about people’s behaviour as about mathematical certainty: merit-buying and trading is more difficult with a 10-merit requirement than with a 1 merit requirement.

As for what would happen with shitposters trying to improve their post by just making their shitposts longer, I think this would be the case but not much worse than it is now. When the merit system was implemented, shitposters started doing that.

Then, when the 1 merit requirement was introduced, some more started doing that. It could be seen on meta but I didn’t see a huge difference overall. However, there were some that realized that could make the effort to write some good posts to get one merit, although they were a minority, of course, but we have a guy on this same thread:

A few weeks ago when I found out I needed one single merit to publish images I was almost depressed....
Since then, 3 weeks have passed and 48 merits have appeared on my account, whether it was simple - no, but whether it was very difficult - either not.
It was enough to think a little bit and put some work and effort.

And I've seen others sharing a similar experience.

Shitposters are always going to try to cheat but I think the 10 merit requirement has to be implemented not so much because of the possible effects, as because it sends the message that if you want to get paid to post, you have to make efforts and earn merit. That’s what the merit system is about, isn’t it?

[sheynlee18]

Merits can be earned by posting high quality topics and a topics that can produce a good discussion ! Yes it's a reality that only high rank members get a lot of merits and us newbies or low ranks gets nothing because of these reasons:

1. High rank people has more knowledge and experience in this forum thus they can produce a good topic and discussion
2. Mostly high ranking people gets the chance to create & manage bounties (legit and high quality bounties gets a merit from participants or reviewers)
3. High rank people are not afraid to post a comment or topic because they know all the rules to avoid a ban

Those are some of the major reasons I think... if there is some other reason just qoute it !

Here is a reason why newbies or low ranks don't get any merits or less merits:

1. Low Rank people or newbies has less/no knowledge and experience thus they cannot produce a good topic or a good comment in this forum
2. Low Rank people or newbies (those accounts who are not owned by ICO's) didn't get the chance to create & manage bounties for the reasons that ICO's base only on trust, ranks & importantly experiences
3. Low Rank people or newbies is afraid to post a comment or topic because they really don't know fully the rules to avoid a ban

And also in addition many says that merits are just created just to ruined the lives of newbies and low ranks they are created to make the people on top more rich. Maybe that's true but its up to you newbies & low ranks if you want to make your rank up ! You need to make more effort and have more learnings about this business for you to be able to make a good topics and discussions to produce merits ! Everything cannot be owned without efforts ! Face it ! Don't compare yourself to those high ranks make your own name and be on top and you can make a change by helping those newbies go up also !

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Merits can be earned by posting high quality topics and a topics that can produce a good discussion ! Yes it's a reality that only high rank members get a lot of merits and us newbies or low ranks gets nothing because of these reasons:

1. High rank people has more knowledge and experience in this forum thus they can produce a good topic and discussion
2. Mostly high ranking people gets the chance to create & manage bounties (legit and high quality bounties gets a merit from participants or reviewers)
3. High rank people are not afraid to post a comment or topic because they know all the rules to avoid a ban

Those are some of the major reasons I think... if there is some other reason just qoute it !

Here is a reason why newbies or low ranks don't get any merits or less merits:

1. Low Rank people or newbies has less/no knowledge and experience thus they cannot produce a good topic or a good comment in this forum
2. Low Rank people or newbies (those accounts who are not owned by ICO's) didn't get the chance to create & manage bounties for the reasons that ICO's base only on trust, ranks & importantly experiences
3. Low Rank people or newbies is afraid to post a comment or topic because they really don't know fully the rules to avoid a ban

And also in addition many says that merits are just created just to ruined the lives of newbies and low ranks they are created to make the people on top more rich. Maybe that's true but its up to you newbies & low ranks if you want to make your rank up ! You need to make more effort and have more learnings about this business for you to be able to make a good topics and discussions to produce merits ! Everything cannot be owned without efforts ! Face it ! Don't compare yourself to those high ranks make your own name and be on top and you can make a change by helping those newbies go up also !

I was going to send you 1 Merit for this post but I checked out your post history & it’s littered with Bounty Hunting spam so I’m not going to now, sorry.

You’ll never rank up if the majority of your posts are in that shit hole of the forum. More posts like this though & you’ll rank up.

[hilariousetc]

I was going to send you 1 Merit for this post but I checked out your post history & it’s littered with Bounty Hunting spam so I’m not going to now, sorry.

You’ll never rank up if the majority of your posts are in that shit hole of the forum. More posts like this though & you’ll rank up.

But isn't this attitude counter-productive? We're meant to be rewarding users who make decent posts and if a user makes one then that post probably should be merited. I get your logic though, and this is why I'd argue that I think we should up the requirement to ten because I think merit sources would actually be more liberal with their merits and users would also have to make a few decent posts to get the merit and not just one. When all they need is one it makes their job much easier and merit sources much harder because they don't want to give a shitposting bounty hunter the merit if that's all they need. A lot of users will probably just give up trying to make decent/great posts once they'd achieved Junior rank and I think that's a real issue. It's a bit of pain when we have to start checking user's post history just to check if they should be merited, but if the requirement is ten merit then we probably don't need to do that and can start being more liberal which benefits everyone.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I was going to send you 1 Merit for this post but I checked out your post history & it’s littered with Bounty Hunting spam so I’m not going to now, sorry.

You’ll never rank up if the majority of your posts are in that shit hole of the forum. More posts like this though & you’ll rank up.

But isn't this attitude counter-productive? We're meant to be rewarding users who make decent posts and if a user makes one then that post probably should be merited. I get your logic though, and this is why I'd argue that I think we should up the requirement to ten because I think merit sources would actually be more liberal with their merits and users would also have to make a few decent posts to get the merit and not just one. When all they need is one it makes their job much easier and merit sources much harder because they don't want to give a shitposting bounty hunter the merit if that's all they need. A lot of users will probably just give up trying to make decent/great posts once they'd achieved Junior rank and I think that's a real issue. It's a bit of pain when we have to start checking user's post history just to check if they should be merited, but if the requirement is ten merit then we probably don't need to do that and can start being more liberal which benefits everyone.

I think it’d be much better if 10 Merit’s were required to rank up to Junior. I’m in a pickle here because that post is Meritable imo but I don’t want to be responsible for somebody earning money from the forum if they constantly post in Bounty threads.
If 10 was required I would definitely have Merited him.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I was also wondering wether to merit him but not for what he has written, which isn't great, but because you can see he put effort in writing that.

Then, I also looked at the post history and decided not to merit him. If the post was great, I would have done. But a long post where you put effort isn't necessarily meritable, and in many cases you see shitposters stretching their crap, as we were talking about before.

[DdmrDdmr]

Same here. A decent post does not make up for a lame prior posting history. If the user persist in creating decent enough posts over some weeks, he will eventually be merited for sure, but the will to create decent content should not be a one time off kind of thing.

When it comes to people participating actively in social campaigns, I favour a profile such as that of coinlocket$. He is in my opinion a good hybrid poster, being capable of going about his socials, but at the same time creating decent content or actively reporting and busting accont farms and merit abuse. This kind of profile is equilibrated and contribute, and has been for so for a long time.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

That's not true, though.

1 - Anyone can put a bit of effort in to researching and constructing a good reply. Having less knowledge is easily remedied by a little bit of effort.

2 - It is a minority of high ranking members that manage campaigns or bounties, and of those that do, the minority of their merits come from campaigns.

3 - You don't need to be a high ranking member to know the rules. You can read the forum rules in 10 minutes. And having a post deleted because it broke the rules doesn't mean anything, you can just continue posting.

Yes it's a reality that only high rank members get a lot of merits and us newbies or low ranks gets nothing because of these reasons:

The reason you get nothing, as has been pointed out, is because your entire post history is just spam bounty pyramid quotes.

[hilariousetc]

I was going to send you 1 Merit for this post but I checked out your post history & it’s littered with Bounty Hunting spam so I’m not going to now, sorry.

You’ll never rank up if the majority of your posts are in that shit hole of the forum. More posts like this though & you’ll rank up.

But isn't this attitude counter-productive? We're meant to be rewarding users who make decent posts and if a user makes one then that post probably should be merited. I get your logic though, and this is why I'd argue that I think we should up the requirement to ten because I think merit sources would actually be more liberal with their merits and users would also have to make a few decent posts to get the merit and not just one. When all they need is one it makes their job much easier and merit sources much harder because they don't want to give a shitposting bounty hunter the merit if that's all they need. A lot of users will probably just give up trying to make decent/great posts once they'd achieved Junior rank and I think that's a real issue. It's a bit of pain when we have to start checking user's post history just to check if they should be merited, but if the requirement is ten merit then we probably don't need to do that and can start being more liberal which benefits everyone.

I think it’d be much better if 10 Merit’s were required to rank up to Junior. I’m in a pickle here because that post is Meritable imo but I don’t want to be responsible for somebody earning money from the forum if they constantly post in Bounty threads.
If 10 was required I would definitely have Merited him.

My personal opinion is that one merit is fine for becoming a Junior and at least that is some protection for bots so those users can still be nuked, but I think Juniors should have their signatures removed completely and you only get one until you get ten merit and become a Member. Requiring one is just open to far too much abuse, and as we've seen people are reluctant to even give out one because of this. I would personally be more liberal like you if the merit requirement was higher because one merit isn't life or death and the one fluke merit doesn't give you the ability to earn.