Posting in forums with moderators who give no smerit? Solutions?

[cryptohunter]

Imagine that all the top 200 merit holders tell me they are not sending as the stats claim? perhaps the stats are wrong?
Over 50% of all merit given by the top 0.13% is to others in that group. More if you take out satoshi and theymos.  I am not making claims I am describing data. If you take out meta board merit then that makes it look worse.

You're making claims not supported by the data you're quoting. The data (even if you take arbitrary parts out of it) doesn't say that there are unmerited high-quality posts/users as you're claiming here:

many zero merit posters are quite capable of making just as good if not better posts.

This is true actually true. Let me reverse this question then. Are you telling me you believe what I have stated is incorrect. Ignore what the stats reveal on that part. I was making an assumption on that part. Yes or no out  of the remaining 99.87% of the board can some of them make as good or better posts than those in the 0.13%? I mean is it likely or not?

Can you describe the narrative I am weaving that would diminish the purpose of this merit system?

The purpose of the merit is system is not

fun to give out to your friends and to those you align your views with.

but

to give merit to posts that are objectively high-quality, not just posts that you agree with.

That was the intent but since there is no criteria it is impossible to be objective against all other posts. There would need be criteria, that one could objectively measure against.  I can clearly notice many of the 0.13 merit posts of others of that circle that are based upon clearly incorrect assumptions (the power of those observations is weak statistically but that is likely the thin edge of the wedge) like i said others can look at what top merit holders are getting merit from and make their own conclusions


The concentration on a sub board like meta is also a huge factor. A board a tiny percentage post on. I mean minute.

I am not saying what the intended purpose was.

Still I stick with my conclusion it is working far better than with no merit system so no need to change it.

You said it is not meant to be related to rank but rank does depend on it right?

I mean surely you can not argue only 0.13% deserve such a concentration if some AI could measure all posts against objective criteria. There are many factors that are easy to understand and even empathise with why the concentration is happening and where.

I started in this thread by saying it was the fault of the mass of spammers and bots why good posts elsewhere do not attain merit so easily as perhaps they should. I stick to that. I am not actually blaming the top merit holders am I?  there is only so much time they can spend trawling crap looking for the odd gems. That does not mean they are not there. It also certainly means there is no claim to high merit high quality poster low merit low quality poster. Does not work like that.

[1714880260]

1714880260

[1714880260]

1714880260

[1714880260]

1714880260

[suchmoon]

This is true actually true. Let me reverse this question then. Are you telling me you believe what I have stated is incorrect. Ignore what the stats reveal on that part. I was making an assumption on that part. Yes or no out  of the remaining 99.87% of the board can some of them make as good or better posts than those in the 0.13%? I mean is it likely or not?

Of course it's incorrect, even worse - you're using fallacious arguments that make you either dishonest or stupid. There are 25k recipients and the list is growing. In the long run good posters will rise to the top. You're making it sound as if there are no other merits outside of the 0.13% but even those 200 users are spending most of their merits outside of that "group". The data you're quoting doesn't support or even contradicts your claims, despite your valiant attempts to mangle it to fit your narrative or to ignore it when it doesn't. At this point even anecdotal evidence would server you better than your straw people, e.g. if you could show some of those zero-merit high-quality unicorns users.

That was the intent but since there is no criteria it is impossible to be objective against all other posts. There would need be criteria, that one could objectively measure against.  I can clearly notice many of the 0.13 merit posts of others of that circle that are based upon clearly incorrect assumptions (the power of those observations is weak statistically but that is likely the thin edge of the wedge) like i said others can look at what top merit holders are getting merit from and make their own conclusions

So there is no criteria but you can clearly notice posts not meeting that non-existent criteria? At any rate, that doesn't justify mangling the purpose of the merit system as being for "fun" and "friends". I'd suggest that we should stick to what our benevolent dictator prescribed, which is to use merits not for "fun" or "friends" but for good posts.

You said it is not meant to be related to rank but rank does depend on it right?

Yes, that's a bonus feature. The main purpose is still to highlight good posts.

there is only so much time they can spend trawling crap looking for the odd gems. That does not mean they are not there. It also certainly means there is no claim to high merit high quality poster low merit low quality poster. Does not work like that.

Surely these hypothetical good posters are smart enough to figure out how to post outside of spam megathreads and bounties.

[cryptohunter]

This is true actually true. Let me reverse this question then. Are you telling me you believe what I have stated is incorrect. Ignore what the stats reveal on that part. I was making an assumption on that part. Yes or no out  of the remaining 99.87% of the board can some of them make as good or better posts than those in the 0.13%? I mean is it likely or not?

Of course it's incorrect, even worse - you're using fallacious arguments that make you either dishonest or stupid. There are 25k recipients and the list is growing. In the long run good posters will rise to the top. You're making it sound as if there are no other merits outside of the 0.13% but even those 200 users are spending most of their merits outside of that "group". The data you're quoting doesn't support or even contradicts your claims, despite your valiant attempts to mangle it to fit your narrative or to ignore it when it doesn't. At this point even anecdotal evidence would server you better than your straw people, e.g. if you could show some of those zero-merit high-quality unicorns users.

I don't think you understand the data from what you are saying. Try to remain civil, your aggressive tone does not increase the validity of your arguement.  There is over 50% received from others within the top 0.13% once you take out theymos and satoshi. It seems also you have ignored my question. Revist my post and answer it. Try to stop diverting clear analysis of observable fact to a motive based subjective fantasy. ddmrddmr is not including all posters he seems to think that we should not include the other 125k posters because they are not eligible to receive merit? or have opinion on what a good post is.  The fact you can claim that any poster even the greatest here will rise to the top posting in alt discussion is ludicrous in light of the stats. Please think more before replying and actually answer my questions also if you want a proper discussion. You tend to be able to remain civil until you get asked something you dont like to answer. You should change this.

That was the intent but since there is no criteria it is impossible to be objective against all other posts. There would need be criteria, that one could objectively measure against.  I can clearly notice many of the 0.13 merit posts of others of that circle that are based upon clearly incorrect assumptions (the power of those observations is weak statistically but that is likely the thin edge of the wedge) like i said others can look at what top merit holders are getting merit from and make their own conclusions

So there is no criteria but you can clearly notice posts not meeting that non-existent criteria? At any rate, that doesn't justify mangling the purpose of the merit system as being for "fun" and "friends". I'd suggest that we should stick to what our benevolent dictator prescribed, which is to use merits not for "fun" or "friends" but for good posts.

Well that makes no sense sorry. It obviously cant meet criteria which does not exist to make objective decisions.

You said it is not meant to be related to rank but rank does depend on it right?

Yes, that's a bonus feature. The main purpose is still to highlight good posts.

How do you know what it's main purpose was. I mean it was not invented until all the spammers turned up so linking it to rank since rank determines account selling value and sig spam reward then it could be more than a bonus.

Please speed up your replies it should not take this long to construct a simple honest answer. Notice I reply in a sensible fashion in a couple of minutes and try not ignore questions that don't suit your narrative .

[LoyceMobile]

.
I mean if you only believe the 0.13 % opinion counts then that is fine.

What if I tell you trust is even worse than merit? The opinion of less than 0.01% of all users counts! If you calculate trust without a selected 200 users, there is nobody with any green trust left! By your (flawed) logic this is very unfair to all the users would need green trust.

You've been searching for a non-exciting problem since I first saw you in Meta, trying to use statistical data in a strongly biased way to get the results you want.

Please use proper quote tags, it's much easier to read.

[suchmoon]

How do you know what it's main purpose was. I mean it was not invented until all the spammers turned up so linking it to rank since rank determines account selling value and sig spam reward then it could be more than a bonus.

Because we're not supposed to send merits to rank users up, or for any other purpose. We're supposed to send merits for good posts. Which may help users to rank up if they consistently create good posts, making the rank-up an effect/consequence/result of good posts. It's really not a complicated concept. You're just deliberately making a mockery of it with your "fun and friends" sham.

Please speed up your replies it should not take this long to construct a simple honest answer. Notice I reply in a sensible fashion in a couple of minutes and try not ignore questions that don't suit your narrative .

Please reduce your cocaine intake or fuck off to twitter if this is too slow for you.

[cryptohunter]

How do you know what it's main purpose was. I mean it was not invented until all the spammers turned up so linking it to rank since rank determines account selling value and sig spam reward then it could be more than a bonus.

Because we're not supposed to send merits to rank users up, or for any other purpose. We're supposed to send merits for good posts. Which may help users to rank up if they consistently create good posts, making the rank-up an effect/consequence/result of good posts. It's really not a complicated concept. You're just deliberately making a mockery of it with your "fun and friends" sham.

Please speed up your replies it should not take this long to construct a simple honest answer. Notice I reply in a sensible fashion in a couple of minutes and try not ignore questions that don't suit your narrative .

Please reduce your cocaine intake or fuck off to twitter if this is too slow for you.

 LOL. Please don't waste my  time engaging me in future you simply can not hold a sensible nor logical debate. You avoid my questions that reveal your posts to be blathering nonsense based upon ludicrous and highly improbable fantasy. Yesterday "most" pre merit legends are spammers. Today it is unthinkable some of the 99.87 percent of this board are capable of making posts as good or better than the 0.13 percent.
I can't wait for tomorrow. What will you say next.

I simply said if it takes you this long to avoid answering my questions then do not keep stalking me and replying to my posts. I am assisting you to make sense of the world around you and you swear and curse at me for my trouble. I am almost considering not replying to any of your PM's in future.

@loyce again?

"even worse than merit" - your words not mine. I say it works fine as it is so long as you don't seriously claim in correlates to posting quality.

what is your merit score again once you remove the inner circle votes and meta club merits? please answer or just get back to dumb and dumber and stop with your unsubstantiated fantasies.

Why avoid my question and reply with unrelated jibberish about trust. . I am not addressing the trust system here. Start another thread on that if you wish.

You are unable to accept what is there in black and white.

Using stats in a biased way = presenting data

Present the flawed logic you are claiming exists??

[LoyceV]

@loyce second account how long until another big bucks sig gets attached to it?

Try to stay on topic.

what is your merit score again once you remove the inner circle votes and meta club merits? please answer

I don't really feel like spending a few hours digging up data, so that you can abuse it to support your claim that Merit from the top200 Merit receivers is some how worth less than Merit from others. As I said before, you're free to dig it up yourself. Or if you're not into that, you can review all my Merited posts (356 (and 2 deleted)) and list the ones that you think don't deserve Merit.
Please come up with some new, solid and complete data instead of asking me to provide data that in my opinion has no value.

[cryptohunter]

@loyce second account how long until another big bucks sig gets attached to it?

Try to stay on topic.

what is your merit score again once you remove the inner circle votes and meta club merits? please answer

I don't really feel like spending a few hours digging up data, so that you can abuse it to support your claim that Merit from the top200 Merit receivers is some how worth less than Merit from others. As I said before, you're free to dig it up yourself. Or if you're not into that, you can review all my Merited posts (356 (and 2 deleted)) and list the ones that you think don't deserve Merit.
Please come up with some new, solid and complete data instead of asking me to provide data that in my opinion has no value.

Roughly translated

1. i don't want to see my earned merit score revealed to be 90% less after it is demonstrated my pals merit and meta club merits removed.
2. I can't back up my statement that you are using biased data so i'll ignore the question
3. I can't back up my claim of there being flawed logic so i'll skip that bit too.
4. I just say things without thinking and when called on them I have no explanation or reasoning that will stand up to scrutiny.


thanks for your help loyce.

Now when you are finished trying to refute and deflect what simple raw data demonstrates  then you can carry on being net positive to the board which i have not questioned.

My sole point is that high merit does not equal high value poster and low merit does not equal low value poster. It really is not something you can use to say either of those two things. This is just clearly not what you can accept, but let it sink in and stop worrying about it because nothing is going to change (because there is  no need of changing it merit system is working well) and you can have even more merit soon.

[sirazimuth]

~merited post~....

... in the spam of their lifetime.

my life story in a nutshell...

[DdmrDdmr]

<...>

Well, that was a lapsus plumae that actually came out quite nice, but purely unintentional. I’ve reverted it to "span" which was my initial intent (no matter how many times one re-reads before posting, surprises can still often be found ...).

[suchmoon]

Today it is unthinkable some of the 99.87 percent of this board are capable of making posts as good or better than the 0.13 percent.
I can't wait for tomorrow. What will you say next.

Well, considering that I never said the above it's probably going to be something new that you'll make up. Here is what I did say on the subject of 99.87%:

In the long run good posters will rise to the top. You're making it sound as if there are no other merits outside of the 0.13% but even those 200 users are spending most of their merits outside of that "group".

So go ahead and post some examples of those users "capable of making posts as good or better" so that we could merit them.

I am almost considering not replying to any of your PM's in future.

That's gonna be easy. I never sent you any PMs nor am I planning to.

[cryptohunter]

Today it is unthinkable some of the 99.87 percent of this board are capable of making posts as good or better than the 0.13 percent.
I can't wait for tomorrow. What will you say next.

Well, considering that I never said the above it's probably going to be something new that you'll make up. Here is what I did say on the subject of 99.87%:

Really that's strange  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5081670.msg48544710#msg48544710  read that then read back on the post you are replying to and the one previous. Was your account compromised by and you never made these posts?

You are going full manic now. Please ensure the correct dose of your meds is being administered to you.

Next you will tell me you never said "most" pre merit legends are spammers. Then stuck to this crazy statement even when called on it.


All just stuff I make up.

I mean between you ignoring questions, swearing and getting angry, and denying you said the things that your account keeps posting it is hard to have a sensible debate.

[bones261]

@cryptohunter Instead of bitching about how us merit sources are doing a piss poor job and only meriting people in our clique; please do go out and find some good posters for us to merit. I do my best; however, there is not enough time in the day to read every single post. (I wouldn't even understand the posts in the local boards.) I admit it, I usually stick to boards and threads that happen to be interesting to me. However, I will be happy to merit some neglected posters who are putting out fabulous posts and not getting the recognition that they deserve.

[cryptohunter]

@cryptohunter Instead of bitching about how us merit sources are doing a piss poor job and only meriting people in our clique; please do go out and find some good posters for us to merit. I do my best; however, there is not enough time in the day to read every single post. (I wouldn't even understand the posts in the local boards.) I admit it, I usually stick to boards and threads that happen to be interesting to me. However, I will be happy to merit some neglected posters who are putting out fabulous posts and not getting the recognition that they deserve.

Please go back and reread the entire thread before posting nonsense based upon strawmen you are inventing.

I mean you may want to start with just my first post in this thread actually the first line. I see you must have missed that (along with the other multiple times i have reiterated that sentiment in different ways so all can understand)

No need to change anything about merit as again i have said perhaps 10x it is working well now so long as people don't start creating misleading meanings to their merit scores.

[bones261]

@cryptohunter Instead of bitching about how us merit sources are doing a piss poor job and only meriting people in our clique; please do go out and find some good posters for us to merit. I do my best; however, there is not enough time in the day to read every single post. (I wouldn't even understand the posts in the local boards.) I admit it, I usually stick to boards and threads that happen to be interesting to me. However, I will be happy to merit some neglected posters who are putting out fabulous posts and not getting the recognition that they deserve.

Please go back and reread the entire thread before posting nonsense based upon strawmen you are inventing.

I mean you may want to start with just my first post in this thread actually the first line. I see you must have missed that (along with the other multiple times i have reiterated that sentiment in different ways so all can understand)

No need to change anything about merit as again i have said perhaps 10x it is working well now so long as people don't start creating misleading meanings to their merit scores.

Well, what the OP states and your recommendations are very true. I usually avoid the megathreads, since it has a good deal of trash to sift through. There is one exception. That is the Wall Observer thread. And it is no secret that people who frequent Wall Observer posters are part of a clique. After all, most of us have hats as an avatar.
However, in the mean time, before everything starts to even out, many volunteers can point out all these good posts that are being sorely neglected. I will be happy to merit a nice gem and give people the recognition they justly deserve.

edit: Here is another possible solution to the dilemma the op is talking about. (although I doubt it will ever be implemented.):  If someone presses on the +merit, but has no smerit to give, then it gives the user the option to "report to merit sources." This would place the post in some kind of database that all of us merit sources would have access to. It would work similar as the "report to moderator" function. There may be a good deal of "bad" reports. However, with 119 merit sources, we can make short work out of it.

[cryptohunter]

@cryptohunter Instead of bitching about how us merit sources are doing a piss poor job and only meriting people in our clique; please do go out and find some good posters for us to merit. I do my best; however, there is not enough time in the day to read every single post. (I wouldn't even understand the posts in the local boards.) I admit it, I usually stick to boards and threads that happen to be interesting to me. However, I will be happy to merit some neglected posters who are putting out fabulous posts and not getting the recognition that they deserve.

Please go back and reread the entire thread before posting nonsense based upon strawmen you are inventing.

I mean you may want to start with just my first post in this thread actually the first line. I see you must have missed that (along with the other multiple times i have reiterated that sentiment in different ways so all can understand)

No need to change anything about merit as again i have said perhaps 10x it is working well now so long as people don't start creating misleading meanings to their merit scores.

Well, what the OP states and your recommendations are very true. I usually avoid the megathreads, since it has a good deal of trash to sift through. There is one exception. That is the Wall Observer thread. And it is no secret that people who frequent Wall Observer posters are part of a clique. After all, most of us have hats as an avatar.
However, in the mean time, before everything starts to even out, many volunteers can point out all these good posts that are being sorely neglected. I will be happy to merit a nice gem and give people the recognition they justly deserve.

edit: Here is another possible solution to the dilemma the op is talking about. (although I doubt it will ever be implemented.):  If someone presses on the +merit, but has no smerit to give, then it gives the user the option to "report to merit sources." This would place the post in some kind of database that all of us merit sources would have access to. It would work similar as the "report to moderator" function. There may be a good deal of "bad" reports. However, with 119 merit sources, we can make short work out of it.

This is a very reasonable reply. I of course accept many of the top merit holders are net positive and do good work.



Your merit giving seems quite reasonable and indicates a person that probably browses the boards he likes to visit and sees a good post and merits it. Fair enough.

However when I notice a merit history like this

Today at 13:50:34: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: account blocked today over a year old and 1500+ posts
Today at 13:50:00: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: What's happening with Bitcoin losing more than 10 per cent of its value?
Today at 13:49:32: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: What is this forum for?
Today at 13:49:00: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: Trust abuse! Injustice! Fake trust by winter! Much butthurt I am!
Today at 13:48:33: 2 to The Pharmacist for Re: Is the new ERA of merit dying again?
Today at 13:47:59: 3 to The Pharmacist for Re: DT1 list alternation: add me on it
Today at 13:47:16: 3 to The Pharmacist for Re: I need merit badly

.

Imagine 28 seconds between naturally browsing the board (not searching for your fav merit buddies at all just per chance your machine accidentally flys from you buddies post to his next one deserving more merit) reading the post (in full context of the thread)digesting it deciding on a sensible merit score and then just leaving that thread (cos it got boring after reading merit buddies post) and browsing the board naturally again (not searching for merit buddies)and finding another great post (just pure chance it is same buddy posting again) to read in the middle of a thread reading it and deciding on another senisble merit score. This just happening over and over.

Then they tell me --- if i happen to cross a good post I merit it simple as that. It's not like I just go searching for my merit buddies posts and taking 28 second or 30 seconds average to just plaster more merits to them.

edit  there is a 27 second one too... those 28 second ones are simply inefficient discovery/evaluation/rewarding incidents.


The vast bulk of his merits are given out to a few people.



To be honest though as I have said. I feel merit is working well for reducing negative behaviour and if people like to give some to their friends it's not hurting anyone really i guess.

Some use it more as per the guide theymos has instructed some do not. Either way people get to post their views on this board with equal standing regardless of rank or merit score and each post should be evaluated on the content contain and no weight added for merit score. High merit does not mean you are a better poster than if you have low merit.

Predominantly the fault of spammers and bots but some people are not really treating merit in the spirit others are.


I like your idea actually - could be refined with accuracy so like reporting spam you get accuracy score and the more accurate suggesters for merit worthy posts are put to the top of the pile for review the less accurate don't get reviewed as much or if at all as time progresses.Very good idea I think you should create a poll I would vote for the implementation of it.

[suchmoon]

Imagine 28 seconds between naturally browsing the board (not searching for your fav merit buddies at all just per chance your machine accidentally flys from you buddies post to his next one deserving more merit) reading the post (in full context of the thread)digesting it deciding on a sensible merit score and then just leaving that thread (cos it got boring after reading merit buddies post) and browsing the board naturally again (not searching for merit buddies)and finding another great post (just pure chance it is same buddy posting again) to read in the middle of a thread reading it and deciding on another senisble merit score. This just happening over and over.

Then they tell me --- if i happen to cross a good post I merit it simple as that. It's not like I just go searching for my merit buddies posts and taking 28 second or 30 seconds average to just plaster more merits to them.

edit  there is a 27 second one too... those 28 second ones are simply inefficient discovery/evaluation/rewarding incidents.

I totally agree, 28 seconds is very slow and inefficient. IIRC LoyceV had an example with two merits sent within one second. That surely means he was able to browse, read the post, and decide to merit it within one second. Supermanmeritsource.

You're a fucking delusional lunatic.

[cryptohunter]

Imagine 28 seconds between naturally browsing the board (not searching for your fav merit buddies at all just per chance your machine accidentally flys from you buddies post to his next one deserving more merit) reading the post (in full context of the thread)digesting it deciding on a sensible merit score and then just leaving that thread (cos it got boring after reading merit buddies post) and browsing the board naturally again (not searching for merit buddies)and finding another great post (just pure chance it is same buddy posting again) to read in the middle of a thread reading it and deciding on another senisble merit score. This just happening over and over.

Then they tell me --- if i happen to cross a good post I merit it simple as that. It's not like I just go searching for my merit buddies posts and taking 28 second or 30 seconds average to just plaster more merits to them.

edit  there is a 27 second one too... those 28 second ones are simply inefficient discovery/evaluation/rewarding incidents.

I totally agree, 28 seconds is very slow and inefficient. IIRC LoyceV had an example with two merits sent within one second. That surely means he was able to browse, read the post, and decide to merit it within one second. Supermanmeritsource.

You're a fucking delusional lunatic.

Please take your meds then come back and address the previous questions I have already asked you. It is clear to see that you are avoiding them. Your denial of things you have said only moments before is worrying for you I would expect as much as they are for me.
Let's move one step at a time. I think that is the safest method for you.

click this  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5081670.msg48558480#msg48558480 and take your time i know you like to deliberate long and hard over replies.

I am here to help. Remain calm and we will work thought this together. Do you have a blood pressure monitor can you read it and keep me updated because I do not want to be responsible for the board losing such a vital member. That is not a joke I am serious. You know I appreciate your work.

We can move on to your unreasonable explanations for giving out merit every few seconds to the same person after we bring you up to speed with all the other points you have left hanging. Of course there is a legitimate excuse reason why a merit history can look like that. I have no doubt you will be able to explain it all in a way that sounds reasonable and convincing (to you anyway).

[DdmrDdmr]

 

<…> If someone presses on the +merit, but has no smerit to give, then it gives the user the option to "report to merit sources." <…>

I don’t think it would work. What is there to stop every active user on the forum to report load of posts, getting into the nearly impossible situation where the queue would have a size similar to all the posts being created? (I’ve exaggerated it a notch, but that is what would happen I figure, unless lots of restrictions are set in place to somehow avoid abuse and troll report of candidate posts in large numbers).

Besides, for it to work similar to the regular reports, it would require for the Merit Sources to have a similar uniform criteria: if one proposed post is marked bad (i.e. does not deserve merit), then none of the other Merit Sources could merit it.

[suchmoon]

Of course there is a legitimate excuse reason why a merit history can look like that. I have no doubt you will be able to explain it all in a way that sounds reasonable and convincing (to you anyway).

Such shiny goalposts. Are these new by any chance?

Of course there are reasons. Like using the post history page and/or tabs and/or bookmarks and/or any other methods merit sources use to do their job. I guess it's a good sign that this is all you can come up with in your crusade.