Should we put a merit/post ratio? Like torrent site

[TMAN]

Yes, they are unworthy posts in a views of a bounty manager or a poster like you here but, the point is that does not mean he should be banned from posting as he has earned no merits. If they are banned it would just make a decent crypto collector unable to post on best crypto forum in the world.

What Value or entertainment does he provide on this forum? how is he a "decent crypto collector" ?

just to confirm - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=732010  this is the user I am discussing

[Lauda]

Check the last one too...

This is exactly what a ratio would avoid. Don't put it high so it doesn't harm users that just like to talk a lot, but a very small one will avoid this.

Fuck that, peteswhoobviouslyisnttheman actually needs a tag - he shouldn't be allowed to do business on this forum for that post alone

I would really like my account deleted for personal reasons. As if I never even posted. Not a permanent ban but a deleted account.

Something is fishy here.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I would be against this suggestion in its current form.

While I agree that most of the users affected by a 1-merit-in-200-posts restriction would be spamming newbies, there are bound to be false positives in there. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the denizens of Politics & Society and Off Topic such as notbatman or BADecker hit that ratio. While these users' views are (in my opinion) insane, we shouldn't be seeking to silence people we disagree with. I could also foresee a situation where people stop being helpful and responding to newbie's/simple questions, as they are unlikely to get merit for these posts, which is not something we wish to encourage.

A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.

[mOgliE]

No, and theymos would never do this as he is against restricting people from posting too much. There are so many users and posts and so few merit sources that it won't be uncommon for average posters to go unmerited but that doesn't mean they should be prohibited from posting. You can certainly use their posts to merit ratio as a barometer if you want but that shouldn't restrict them from contributing. What happens if you just make posts in the marketplace trying to sell things but don't really contribute anything elsewhere? That's fine but in your system without merit they would be prohibited from selling here. If someone is truly a terrible poster or even worse being disruptive then they should be dealt in other ways but automatically restricting people isn't a good idea for reasons I've just stated.

Again I might be wrong here but I don't see how anyone with an average level of posting could get less than 1 merit for 200 posts.

If someone only post in the marketplace then if he respects the daily bumping rule he will most likely never get to the 200 posts anyway. And if he does and is a good seller or buyer he will most likely get a few merits by then. Look at the number of merits dropped in the collectibles or goods section for people selling genuine art, collectibles or legit items.

I haven't seen anyone making anything decent reaching below the 0.005 merit per post ration.

[DdmrDdmr]

<...> I don't know if that seems like a good idea to you but I could easily imagine a ratio for everyone and the day you drop below a certain point you can no longer post on the forum. And why not warning you a bit before so you know you MUST post only extremely high value content or you won't post anything anymore.

Back in October 2018, I calculated the merit per day, in order to get a general idea of how many people were keeping up with the 1 merit per day, which is sort of the equivalent of being able to rank-up without merit slowing one down. The number of people with or above the 1 merot per day ratio was of 109, which represented at the time 0,5% of all merited forum members (disregarding recently created accounts in order to avoid noise in the data).

<…>

Code:

EarnedMeritPerDay             nUsers    %
[>=1]                         109       0,50%
[0.75 ... 1)                  49        0,22%
[0.5 ... 0.75)                128       0,58%
[0.25 ... 0.5)                432       1,97%
[0.1 ... 0.25)                1139      5,18%
[<0.1)                        20114     91,55%

The main core of forum members earn an average per day lower than 0.1 merits. Restricting people from posting with low averages, be it on a per post or per day basis, would have very negative effects. To start with, only 25.809 people have received any merits at all.

That would mean that, all the rest of currently active posters have earned 0 merits per day (and per post), leaving the vast majority out from being able to post. There are also plenty of people who post sporadically and/or in boards that are not showered with merits, and who may well be decent content generators when they post.

[mOgliE]

I would be against this suggestion in its current form.

While I agree that most of the users affected by a 1-merit-in-200-posts restriction would be spamming newbies, there are bound to be false positives in there. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the denizens of Politics & Society and Off Topic such as notbatman or BADecker hit that ratio. While these users' views are (in my opinion) insane, we shouldn't be seeking to silence people we disagree with. I could also foresee a situation where people stop being helpful and responding to newbie's/simple questions, as they are unlikely to get merit for these posts, which is not something we wish to encourage.

A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.

Wrong here, they do reach this ratio and quite easily ^^

Simply because even if I agree considering their views are... Batshit crazy... They still display from times to times enough quality to get a few merits.

But I quite like the other suggestion that seems to be a good fight against sig spamming.

Check the last one too...

This is exactly what a ratio would avoid. Don't put it high so it doesn't harm users that just like to talk a lot, but a very small one will avoid this.

Fuck that, peteswhoobviouslyisnttheman actually needs a tag - he shouldn't be allowed to do business on this forum for that post alone

I would really like my account deleted for personal reasons. As if I never even posted. Not a permanent ban but a deleted account.

Something is fishy here.

Just... How do you do that? Oo
How do you find a 2014 message so fast?

[mOgliE]

To start with, 25.809 people have received any merits at all.

That would mean that, all the rest of currently active posters have earned 0 merits per day (and per post), leaving the vast majority out from being able to post. There are also plenty of people who post sporadically and/or in boards that are not showered with merits, and who may well be decent content generators when they post.

But do those 26k people have reached the 200 posts limit? Seems normal to me that a newbie with 5 posts might not have received any merit?

Vast majority of users are probably not even active. But if you make the same calculation with a merit/post ratio I doubt you'll find 90% of user under a 0.005 limit.

[petestheman]

just to confirm - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=732010  this is the user I am discussing

Yes, I confirm I am talking about the same account.

What Value or entertainment does he provide on this forum? how is he a "decent crypto collector" ?

Yes, I already said I support you that he does not add any value and in no way entertainment to the forum but please read the post I quoted for the examples. Again @m0gliE is suggesting to not let the posters who don't receive 1 -200 merits to posts ratio to post on the forum. The user in no way promotes any spam here or does scams so I don't think he should be banned for just not reaching the goal of 1-200 merit to post ratio.

I would really like my account deleted for personal reasons. As if I never even posted. Not a permanent ban but a deleted account.

Something is fishy here.

Please stop trying to put unreasonable doubts. That was the time when I quiet up with the crypto suff here but the love dragged me back here.

[Vod]

@vod could you do something on your site?

Posts since merit system/merits received = meritworthyness?

No, I do not have a record of old posts.

[petestheman]

@TMAN

Please check my my previous post I was letting the OP know that such type of users should not be banned from posting. Please remove your negative trust it has no basis here.

[Lauda]

Just... How do you do that? Oo
How do you find a 2014 message so fast?

Huge posting gap with this one; it was easy to find by just going into the history because of this.

I would really like my account deleted for personal reasons. As if I never even posted. Not a permanent ban but a deleted account.

Something is fishy here.

Please stop trying to put unreasonable doubts. That was the time when I quiet up with the crypto suff here but the love dragged me back here.

Can you or can you not sign a message from an old address?

1JywwXphRygZ42KPvP7qtQYccXM2L8hpTu

This one for example.

@TMAN
Please remove your negative trust it has no basis here.

Actually the trust might be appropriate given your statement, given the posting gap and you labeling yourself as a BM (while making such statements).

[petestheman]

Can you or can you not sign a message from an old address?

No, I cannot as I mostly convert the crypto to fiat and used different address. Still I can sign one from the recent one from which I signed a message already.

1JywwXphRygZ42KPvP7qtQYccXM2L8hpTu

No

Actually the trust might be appropriate given your statement, given the posting gap and you labeling yourself as a BM (while making such statements).

There are many people here who have posting gaps that does not mean they should get a red trust on the basis.

[TMAN]

@TMAN

Please check my my previous post I was letting the OP know that such type of users should not be banned from posting. Please remove your negative trust it has no basis here.

My trust stands i am afraid, you have no right being a manager if you believe that those posters are "decent crypto collectors". Your Judgement is flawed and I am pretty sure it wont be the 1st tag you see by the time you answer the posting gap question!

[Lauda]

Can you or can you not sign a message from an old address?

No, I cannot as I mostly convert the crypto to fiat and used different address. Still I can sign one from the recent one from which I signed a message already.

1JywwXphRygZ42KPvP7qtQYccXM2L8hpTu

No

Right, so you can't sign from any old address and there are no other ways of confirming that the same user is still in control of the account? Very convenient.

There are many people here who have posting gaps that does not mean they should get a red trust on the basis.

Actually it can depending on what they try to do afterwards.

[petestheman]

My trust stands i am afraid, you have no right being a manager if you believe that those posters are "decent crypto collectors". Your Judgement is flawed and I am pretty sure it wont be the 1st tag you see by the time you answer the posting gap question!

Firstly there is nothing like right to be a BM. And I am not supporting the user to be a very important member of the forum or anything else just trying to say that he has done nothing for which he should be avoided from posting on the forum.

And there should be some basis for the tag and I in no way did any thing which makes me untrustworthy.

Actually it can depending on what they try to do afterwards.

I don't think I have done something scammy if I have please explain me.

[DdmrDdmr]

<...>

I’ve drawn-up a quick merit per post ratio for forum members that:
-   Had been merited on the 25/05/2018 (oldest merit snapshot I have without getting into backups, but it serves or purpose with over 7 months of data).
-   Have created at least 200 posts since then.
I’ve created a merit per post ration for each of the above set of forum members (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nyaHbaz31aVf6dnnTjiPOuCflZv1UOxNSWTQVMMUt68/edit?usp=sharing).

In summary we get:
-   There is an unknown (by me) number of users that have posted at least 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (unmerited ones I mean).
-   21.808 forum members had been merited on the 25/05/2018.
-   3.679 of those have posted at least 200 posts since the 25/05/2018.
-   1.219 of them have an average >= 0,005 merits/post.

So really, only 1.219 forum members meet the criteria of having 0,005 merits per post on over 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (*). That is a pretty reduced set …

(*) Well, really there is an additional set made up from those that had not been merited yet on the 25/05/2018, and have since then + created >= 200 posts, but I needed an initial snapshot to retrieve the post and merit count from.

Edit: One can also manipulate the merit per post ratio by deleting posts.

[bitmover]

I don't know if that seems like a good idea to you but I could easily imagine a ratio for everyone and the day you drop below a certain point you can no longer post on the forum.

I don't like the ide to prevent an user for posting. First because he can create a new account and spam again, and also because of the censorship philosophy which I don't like.

A guy may never been merited  and is a complete shitposter like pethesteman friends... You can just ignore him.

However, I believe that signatures should be disabled for users which never earned at least a few merits.

You don't need to ban shitposters from posting, but they should never receive in incentive to shitpost.

[stompix]

Unlike torrent websites where you can make a ratio because you can create a torrent and seed, in this case, you won't be able to earn merits if you can't post.
So once you reach the quota/ratio whatsoever basically it's one false move and it's goodbye for that account.

In this way you won't silence spammers, you'll silence all the forum, in the end, the only one who would be able to post here would be theymos.

However, I believe that signatures should be disabled for users which never earned at least a few merits.

You don't need to ban shitposters from posting, but they should never receive in incentive to shitpost.

Introduce the merit decay while having a signature at whatever rate and we will get rid of sig spam.
They can still post and if they want to shitpost for free that's it, hit the ignore button but I seriously doubt they will.

[jeromix]

Hey everyone,

I got the idea from LoyceV:

By the time a Newbie reaches 1000+ posts without earning a single Merit, it's pretty clear he doesn't contribute anything to this forum.

Now I know everyone only do very legal stuff, but for experiments only I've tried a few torrent sites and most of them have a seed/leech ratio. The idea is that if you download 10gb of files you must share at least 5gb of files so the site keeps being active.

I wondered, could this be done here too?

Not talking about a hard 1 merit / 1 post minimum of course. I'm the first one to go on in ridiculous debates on the P&S section that doesn't bring much more than my opinion in the forum and I would like to continue doing so.

But it seems to me that a 1 merit / 20 posts can't possibly be a difficult task unless you're a complete shitspammer... Thus you shouldn't be allowed to write.

I don't know if that seems like a good idea to you but I could easily imagine a ratio for everyone and the day you drop below a certain point you can no longer post on the forum. And why not warning you a bit before so you know you MUST post only extremely high value content or you won't post anything anymore.

Not all users here are Native English Speakers and you know about that. This forum is global so do not expect that all users could speak English language. Besides, even if there were local boards but still some of it are not that active and one should have to go to other sections like those SMT where they can reply posts in a simple way of manner of constructing English grammar which could not earn merits.

If we will going to have a ratio for the Source merits over the number of users in this forum then earning merit is just like difficult as hell.

[mOgliE]

This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o

A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.

and DdmrDdmr data

<...>

I’ve drawn-up a quick merit per post ratio for forum members that:
-   Had been merited on the 25/05/2018 (oldest merit snapshot I have without getting into backups, but it serves or purpose with over 7 months of data).
-   Have created at least 200 posts since then.
I’ve created a merit per post ration for each of the above set of forum members (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nyaHbaz31aVf6dnnTjiPOuCflZv1UOxNSWTQVMMUt68/edit?usp=sharing).

In summary we get:
-   There is an unknown (by me) number of users that have posted at least 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (unmerited ones I mean).
-   21.808 forum members had been merited on the 25/05/2018.
-   3.679 of those have posted at least 200 posts since the 25/05/2018.
-   1.219 of them have an average >= 0,005 merits/post.

So really, only 1.219 forum members meet the criteria of having 0,005 merits per post on over 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (*). That is a pretty reduced set …

(*) Well, really there is an additional set made up from those that had not been merited yet on the 25/05/2018, and have since then + created >= 200 posts, but I needed an initial snapshot to retrieve the post and merit count from.

Edit: One can also manipulate the merit per post ratio by deleting posts.

Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first.

Should I lock the thread? Or allow the discussion to continue on this new base ground?

I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it.