MYTHBUSTERS: Only high ranked users are rewarded with merits

[bones261]

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 ponied up the one merit. At least she isn't posting nonsense/copy-paste in mega-threads to meet some bounty requirements or farm an account. Bounty reports are not really "spam" since it is required to collect the bounty and is therefore a welcomed post.

[1715162550]

1715162550

[1715162550]

1715162550

[1715162550]

1715162550

[xfactor13]

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.

I always find this argument really funny.  This is the one reason why so many newbies argue that it is really hard to earn a merit.  They will post a decent and high-quality post and you will point out that they do not deserve it because of their other posts.  Then what will happen? that newbie will be discouraged because he cannot remove/delete his past posts and cannot turn to a new leaf and will be forever be judged because of his past post and will never earn (or be lessened the chance to earn) a single merit in the future.

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.

This is weird coming from someone who uses his/her signature to promote something related to crypto/bitcoin.  Anyhow, your argument is just like a false dichotomy.  You can be a quality poster while doing bounty at the same time.  If your argument is what really is beneficial to the forum, then why not suggest to remove the "bounties board" altogether?  There are so many quality posters and doing bounty campaign at the same time.  You cannot prevent users of this forum to just choose one.

but I think Juniors should have their signatures removed completely and you only get one until you get ten merit and become a Member.

This concern is always being discussed all over the forum and there is always one conclusion.  It is the responsibility of the bounty hunters to manage the credibility and quality of the posts of its bounty hunters.

[sheynlee18]

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 respect with what sir/mam "LFC_Bitcoin" decision and I admit that my post are compose of 99% bounty spam but isn't it one of the reasons that mostly maybe 80% of beginner joined this forum because of bounty hunting to gain money. Even I admit it that it is one of my main reason why I joined this forum. One reason also that my post are compose of 99% bounty spam is because I am still a beginner and I am still learning more about blockchain & this forum so in my own experience I have seen "bitcoin" and this forum as "money" or a source of income (and that's what mostly user in this forum think - we cannot remove that fact) .. but for months that I have been in this forum i have learn some more things about the important of this forum and how valuable this forum can be so by reading more threads and starting to get a more conversation with other users I can say that someday or maybe in the near future my post history will be only full of meaningful post and conversation. I will try my best sir/mam LFC_Bitcoin to know more and learn more !=)

[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.

I always find this argument really funny.  This is the one reason why so many newbies argue that it is really hard to earn a merit.  They will post a decent and high-quality post and you will point out that they do not deserve it because of their other posts.  Then what will happen? that newbie will be discouraged because he cannot remove/delete his past posts and cannot turn to a new leaf and will be forever be judged because of his past post and will never earn (or be lessened the chance to earn) a single merit in the future.

But it really isn't hard. People shouldn't have to just make one good post and then they're good to go. Any idiot can do that, and once they have it they then don't have to bother making any more good posts because Christmas has come early for them. They can just go back to shitposting again, so that's why they should have to demonstrate they're not a one-hit wonder and can make a handful of decent posts. This is why I would argue we should make the requirement ten merit, and I actually think it will make things easier for everyone. People will be more liberal with their merits and so users are more likely to get merited, and shitposters won't be able to abuse the system as easy. When one merit is all you need to earn here people become weary about giving that user a license to get paid, and making one solitary good post really isn't enough to measure their capability especially when you can just beg, buy or trade the merit quite easily.

[Jet Cash]

I always find this argument really funny.  This is the one reason why so many newbies argue that it is really hard to earn a merit.  They will post a decent and high-quality post and you will point out that they do not deserve it because of their other posts. 

I am guilty of that as well. The problem comes from rewarding posters in the Bitcoin Talk underworld. Merits generate sMerits, and I try to keep them away from their potential abuse in the spamming underworld. Also, keeping merits away from active spammers may encourage them to leave, as you have pointed out, and I believe this is why the merit system was introduced.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Some corrections in the table in the OP.
I don't know where the OP got the data for the table but seems that some things are incorrect.
I had a 10 initial merit ( I was a member when the merit system came) Now I have earned 535 merit.
I don't know how old the data was when the OP used if for this statistics, but I'm over 500 earned from the end of September.

[cryptovigi]

Some corrections in the table in the OP.
I don't know where the OP got the data for the table but seems that some things are incorrect.
I had a 10 initial merit ( I was a member when the merit system came) Now I have earned 535 merit.
I don't know how old the data was when the OP used if for this statistics, but I'm over 500 earned from the end of September.

I've used data stored on https://albertoit.github.io/Merit-Explorer-SQL/ to make my calcullations.
The data was downloaded at the beginning of October (maybe last days of September) so probably dataset wasn't updated with data form last week of September. According to my dataset you had 499 Merits "earned" (509 including airdrop) - so only a bit under the 501 edge...

[TheBeardedBaby]

Some corrections in the table in the OP.
I don't know where the OP got the data for the table but seems that some things are incorrect.
I had a 10 initial merit ( I was a member when the merit system came) Now I have earned 535 merit.
I don't know how old the data was when the OP used if for this statistics, but I'm over 500 earned from the end of September.

I've used data stored on https://albertoit.github.io/Merit-Explorer-SQL/ to make my calcullations.
The data was downloaded at the beginning of October (maybe last days of September) so probably dataset wasn't updated with data form last week of September. According to my dataset you had 499 Merits "earned" (509 including airdrop) - so only a bit under the 501 edge...

Oh, my bad. I saw it was posted 10th of October, so I assumed that the data was from around that time. So everything is correct then.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

I always find this argument really funny.  This is the one reason why so many newbies argue that it is really hard to earn a merit.  They will post a decent and high-quality post and you will point out that they do not deserve it because of their other posts.  Then what will happen? that newbie will be discouraged because he cannot remove/delete his past posts and cannot turn to a new leaf and will be forever be judged because of his past post and will never earn (or be lessened the chance to earn) a single merit in the future.

Think of it this way:

Let's say you have a colleague at work. This colleague has been there for a while - say twelve months. They aren't a good worker. They don't pull their weight and in meetings they generally just repeat the same meaningless nonsense over and over again, getting in the way of actual conversation and progress. They are rude, abrasive and obnoxious. Every time that they've spoken to you it has been to either bad mouth another colleague or try to sell you some bath bomb from the multi-level marketing scam they are involved in.

Suddenly and out of the blue, after a year or more of being lazy and rude, one morning this colleague starts being really friendly with you and offering to do some of your workload. What is your initial thought? "Wow, they are a better person now - I know, I'll go buy them a coffee and some doughnuts"? Of course not. You would be immediately suspicious and wonder what thing or favor they want from you.

Now, lets say that person is friendly to everyone and works hard all day and asks for nothing in return. And then does it again the next day. And for the rest of the week. And for the rest of the month. After a while you think "Finally this person has turned over a new leaf", and you start inviting them along to your Friday evening post-work drinks.

Merit is the same. One good post is not enough to erase months and months of shitposting, especially when it is obvious that as soon as the newbie gets that one merit they are desperate for, they will just go back to shitposting again. If you show a sustained change over weeks and months, then as has been pointed out already, merit will come your way.

[suchmoon]

I always find this argument really funny.  This is the one reason why so many newbies argue that it is really hard to earn a merit.  They will post a decent and high-quality post and you will point out that they do not deserve it because of their other posts.  Then what will happen? that newbie will be discouraged because he cannot remove/delete his past posts and cannot turn to a new leaf and will be forever be judged because of his past post and will never earn (or be lessened the chance to earn) a single merit in the future.

There are 120 merit sources and thousands of other users who can merit this newbie, as evidenced by bones261. Everyone has their own criteria and that's what makes the system work. Otherwise theymos could just grant merits based on how many times you said "sir" and "please".

So how about you find those unmerited "high-quality" newbie posts instead of whining about meaningless hypotheticals. I'm quite certain these unicorn posts don't exist.

[xfactor13]

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.

I always find this argument really funny.  This is the one reason why so many newbies argue that it is really hard to earn a merit.  They will post a decent and high-quality post and you will point out that they do not deserve it because of their other posts.  Then what will happen? that newbie will be discouraged because he cannot remove/delete his past posts and cannot turn to a new leaf and will be forever be judged because of his past post and will never earn (or be lessened the chance to earn) a single merit in the future.

Think of it this way:

Let's say you have a colleague at work. This colleague has been there for a while - say twelve months. They aren't a good worker. They don't pull their weight and in meetings they generally just repeat the same meaningless nonsense over and over again, getting in the way of actual conversation and progress. They are rude, abrasive and obnoxious. Every time that they've spoken to you it has been to either bad mouth another colleague or try to sell you some bath bomb from the multi-level marketing scam they are involved in.

Suddenly and out of the blue, after a year or more of being lazy and rude, one morning this colleague starts being really friendly with you and offering to do some of your workload. What is your initial thought? "Wow, they are a better person now - I know, I'll go buy them a coffee and some doughnuts"? Of course not. You would be immediately suspicious and wonder what thing or favor they want from you.

Now, lets say that person is friendly to everyone and works hard all day and asks for nothing in return. And then does it again the next day. And for the rest of the week. And for the rest of the month. After a while you think "Finally this person has turned over a new leaf", and you start inviting them along to your Friday evening post-work drinks.

Merit is the same. One good post is not enough to erase months and months of shitposting, especially when it is obvious that as soon as the newbie gets that one merit they are desperate for, they will just go back to shitposting again. If you show a sustained change over weeks and months, then as has been pointed out already, merit will come your way.

How about this analogy?

Let us say that for each day a person accomplishes something good or performs wonderful then he will get a chocolate. Then there is this :

"Let's say you have a colleague at work. This colleague has been there for a while - say twelve months. They aren't a good worker. They don't pull their weight and in meetings they generally just repeat the same meaningless nonsense over and over again, getting in the way of actual conversation and progress. They are rude, abrasive and obnoxious. Every time that they've spoken to you it has been to either bad mouth another colleague or try to sell you some bath bomb from the multi-level marketing scam they are involved in."

So that person did not earn a single chocolate for the past twelve months (just because he/she did not deserve it).

Then "Suddenly and out of the blue, after a year or more of being lazy and rude, one morning this colleague starts being really friendly with you and offering to do some of your workload."

Are you going to give him/her a chocolate for performing good for that day? or still withhold that chocolate because of his/her poor performance for the past year?

[xfactor13]

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.

I always find this argument really funny.  This is the one reason why so many newbies argue that it is really hard to earn a merit.  They will post a decent and high-quality post and you will point out that they do not deserve it because of their other posts.  Then what will happen? that newbie will be discouraged because he cannot remove/delete his past posts and cannot turn to a new leaf and will be forever be judged because of his past post and will never earn (or be lessened the chance to earn) a single merit in the future.

But it really isn't hard. People shouldn't have to just make one good post and then they're good to go. Any idiot can do that, and once they have it they then don't have to bother making any more good posts because Christmas has come early for them. They can just go back to shitposting again, so that's why they should have to demonstrate they're not a one-hit wonder and can make a handful of decent posts. This is why I would argue we should make the requirement ten merit, and I actually think it will make things easier for everyone. People will be more liberal with their merits and so users are more likely to get merited, and shitposters won't be able to abuse the system as easy. When one merit is all you need to earn here people become weary about giving that user a license to get paid, and making one solitary good post really isn't enough to measure their capability especially when you can just beg, buy or trade the merit quite easily.

But your argument neglects one thing, and that is the hierarchy of ranking.  There is a reason why we need different number of merits per rank.  If that member deserves that one merit, then he deserves it.  If he will get another merit from other posts from him, then that will depend upon his future posts.

Merit system is introduced to reduce spammers (and it is really working).  More than that, it is to prevent spammers from ranking up.  If that spammer only deserves to be in jr member (because he only made one good post that deserve only 1 merit, then go for it), and merit system already doing its job of letting that spammer stay in jr member forever (member needs 10 merit).

Or you just want all the spammers to stay in newbie forever? I think you are fighting a losing battle in this part.  You will never able to completely eradicate them, but at the very least the current merit system is preventing them to grow in numbers and rank up at the very least beyond jr. member or member.

[vit05]

I always find this argument really funny.  This is the one reason why so many newbies argue that it is really hard to earn a merit.  They will post a decent and high-quality post and you will point out that they do not deserve it because of their other posts.  Then what will happen? that newbie will be discouraged because he cannot remove/delete his past posts and cannot turn to a new leaf and will be forever be judged because of his past post and will never earn (or be lessened the chance to earn) a single merit in the future.

There are 120 merit sources and thousands of other users who can merit this newbie, as evidenced by bones261. Everyone has their own criteria and that's what makes the system work. Otherwise theymos could just grant merits based on how many times you said "sir" and "please".

So how about you find those unmerited "high-quality" newbie posts instead of whining about meaningless hypotheticals. I'm quite certain these unicorn posts don't exist.

Newbies, bounty hunters, will never be discouraged from trying to create more relevant content to gain merit by receiving such criticisms. Because of money.

To get more money, it is necessary to think a little more and create new strategies. Instead of behaving like machines. The need for merits will eventually cause a shortage of those users that only create ghost accounts to join these bounties. This can lead to an increase in the price paid by each real participant and those who strive can receive more.

[virendarnagpal]

Suggestion to disqualify junior members from taking part in signature will definitely benefit not only Junior Members but also the forum itself.  Because to rank up for the purpose of taking part in signature campaigns every Junior Member will have to earn 10 merits and for this he will have to read more and more.  It will increase his knowledge and he will be able to post good posts. Initially it may not be welcomed by Jr Members but bitter tablets are always given for betterment of the people.  So it will do good in future. 

But IMO not rewarding with merit to good post  just because the person could not post quality post in the past or taking part in some bounty;  is not good decision,.  Every good work done at any stage should be rewarded if it is really reward-able.  And if every merit source is of such view and not sending merit to the quality post ; then how can we expect a newbie to rank up. 

[Kopyleft]

...

Theymos has in many occasions reiterated his desire to NOT make the forum unfavorable or unfriendly to the lower ranked members.
And your odds of member rank for signature campaign just seems to be fishing for approval and maybe merits from other members.

And the idea that newbies or Jr members are solely responsible for spam on the forum is wrong. A walk through some spam mega threads would burst that myth.

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>

I don’t think that removing signatures from Jr. Members will happen. It could make sense if there was more merit being awarded on a weekly basis, but currently I count 2.850 people that have ranked-up to Member or above starting as Newbies (and additional 8.370 have made it to Jr. Member).

The criteria proposed would mean that campaigns signatures would basically be only wearable by forum Members or above that made it to their rank prior to the Merit System, and as of today, would only allow for 2.850 newcomers to participate.

[TheBeardedBaby]

~
And the idea that newbies or Jr members are solely responsible for spam on the forum is wrong. A walk through some spam mega threads would burst that myth.

There are different levels of spammers. Of course the big part were newbies and Jr. You can see the real impact of the new rule here :  

~

• In the first week after the announcement, 286408 posts were made (-19.05%).
• In the second week after the announcement, 280503 posts were made (-20.72%).
• In the third week after the announcement, 259694 posts were made (-26.60%).
• In the fourth week after the announcement, 263685 posts were made (-25.47%).
• In the fifth week after the announcement, 240339 posts were made (-32.07%).
• In the sixth week after the announcement, 240045 posts were made (-32.15%).
• In the seventh week after the announcement, 219689 posts were made (-37.91%).

That was mostly the low quality of spam, now we have to focus on the higher levels.

[Direwolve735]

But IMO not rewarding with merit to good post  just because the person could not post quality post in the past or taking part in some bounty;  is not good decision,. 

It doesn`t work that way. Usually the history of posts is viewed in order to make a conclusion based on more information about a particular user. For example, a user has written a more or less normal post, but you aren`t sure whether to reward him with a merit. You open the post history and see how good is the work of the member as a whole. You may be able to find other decent-merit-posts and you`ll reward this member.

Another reason to view the post history is the useless, poor-quality, or even the rule breaking comment you encountered. Then you analyze the activity of the user as a whole, to decide whether to report this member to moderator. The history of his posts can both confirm that he`s a spammer (it`s here participation in various bounty, the writing of one-line-posts play the role), or else you can refute such guesses. In the latter case, you give him the opportunity to improve the quality of his work, perhaps even give advice on how to do it.

But noone doubts that good, high-quality posts deserve merits (regardless of previous activities). The history of posts comes to the rescue in a situation of doubts and hesitations.

[virendarnagpal]

...

<  --- >

And you could not dare to protest the high ranked member who raised this issue in this thread.  Either you did not read all the posts in thread or you just preferred to target soft target like me  . 
I do not like to repeat the words used for merit fishing  for you.  Best wishes friend.

[sarwoedi]

I began to be confused what should I do to get merit, what should be seen to get a merit? is that a good post or quality? but when I get 1 merit, I will be jr.member, but why should my posting criteria be like that? fullmember? senior member or hero?