★ Benefit of Merit Competition on Signature Campaign ★

[kenzawak]

I also believe merit contests would probably lead to abuse.
And yes, it happened in the Stake campaign with people using their alts and some others all of a sudden becoming "great posters" (receiving 15-20 merits in a week though they never got any in their life). That's why it lasted only one week.
Another thing that could happen is potential winners might not want to send merits to other potential winners. Not cool especially if it's in a campaign with "renowned" members.
And like Dark_Star said, people will go to the sections where the most merits are given. And many users here never read these sections.

One thing that could be done is rewarding the best posters for the week. Of course, that would be decided by the BM, which means subjectivity (I don't see it as a problem in good campaigns, it might be one in others).

[1714778779]

1714778779

[1714778779]

1714778779

[1714778779]

1714778779

[1714778779]

1714778779

[1714778779]

1714778779

[1714778779]

1714778779

[cryptovigi]

Yesterday I submitted my application for the ChipMixer campaign, I have known for a long time that this is the best signature campaign around the forum, but after reading the @LoyceV post I was scared that there is no place for ordinary people but cyborgs. Two weeks - the 50th @The Pharmacist (138 merit) and 52nd @LoyceV (142 merit) were enough for these guys to get more merits than I ever did!

So I decided to check if all participants have the same high performance. I am not able to compare subjectively the quality of posts of individual participants, so despite the fact that according to the words @DarkStar_ merits, it is not the most important to see how the participants perform in the ranking of the most merited in bpip.

5   (8,20%)   participants earn over 1000 merits (places in the first 10 ranking)
11 (18,03%) participants earn 501-1000 merits (places from 24 to 63 in the ranking)
16 (26,23%) participants earn 251-500 merits (places from 68 to 164 in the ranking)
14 (22,95%) participants earn 151-250 merits (places from 201-338 in the ranking)
11 (18,03%) participants earn 101-150 merits (places from 405-545 in the ranking)
3   (4,92%) participants earn 55-100 merits (places from 621-749 in the ranking)
One (1,64%) participant did not qualify for the first thousand of the most merited users

As you see - It turned out that not all 60 participants of the campaign are users from the first 60 or even the 100 most merited users. Almost half are people with 2, 3, 4 or even 6 and 7 hundred. It looks like the Campaign Manager realy does not just look at the numbers but the content of your posts, which means you have at least a theoretical chance to get there even if you're not at the top of the rankings.

[tranthidung]

(I had to reload the page several times for all images to load. F5 didn't work, going to the URL-bar and pressing Enter works)
< ... >

I can make much lighter time-series plots, rather than your bar charts.
I will do it for you if you want.
I made a time-series of my earned merits there

Here is a time-series plot of my received merits, from 28/2/2018 to 19/2/2019

It looks like a random walk.

[cryptovigi]

...
So I decided to check if all participants have the same high performance. I am not able to compare subjectively the quality of posts of individual participants, so despite the fact that according to the words @DarkStar_ merits, are not the most important to see how the participants perform in the ranking of the most merited in bpip.

5   (8,20%)   participants earn over 1000 merits (places in the first 10 ranking)
11 (18,03%) participants earn 501-1000 merits (places from 24 to 63 in the ranking)
16 (26,23%) participants earn 251-500 merits (places from 68 to 164 in the ranking)
14 (22,95%) participants earn 151-250 merits (places from 201-338 in the ranking)
11 (18,03%) participants earn 101-150 merits (places from 405-545 in the ranking)
3   (4,92%) participants earn 55-100 merits (places from 621-749 in the ranking)
One (1,64%) participant did not qualify for the first thousand of the most merited users

As you see - It turned out that not all 60 participants of the campaign are users from the first 60 or even the 100 most merited users.
...

After checking current members of the campaign,  being one of the candidates, I decided to take look at the competition ...
Until the moment of writing this post, 40 candidates were registered so let's see what their achievements in the bpip: most merited ranking look like:

0   (0,00%)   participants earn over 1000 merits
11 (27,50%) participants earn 501-1000 merits (places from 19 to 62 in the ranking)
11 (27,50%) participants earn 251-500 merits (places from 72 to 162 in the ranking)
4   (10,00%) participants earn 151-250 merits (places from 181 to 330 in the ranking)
3   (7,50%) participants earn 101-150 merits (places from 364 to 488 in the ranking)
3   (7,50%) participants earn 55-100 merits (places from 569 to 709 in the ranking)
8   (20,00%) participant did not qualify for the first thousand of the most merited users

The above list shows that competition among candidates is as strong as among current members. Especially at the very top of the scale - although among the candidates there are no users who have earned over 1,000 merites, however the percentage of those who have earned more than 500 (including more than 1.000) is even higher among candidates (27,50%) than among the current campaign participants (26.23%). Comparing all candidates who made at least 250 merits (self made sr. member) we got 55,00% what compared to current participant (52,46%) is also a bit higher.


On the other hand, more users who, due to the insufficient number of merit did not qualify in the bpip most merited ranking, tries their luck more ofeten amog candidates (20,00%) compared to current campaign participants (1.64%).

One thing is indisputable: THE COMPETITION IS FU@#$N STRONG !!!

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

As you see - It turned out that not all 60 participants of the campaign are users from the first 60 or even the 100 most merited users.

Wonderful statistics you wrote there, it gives a sign of hope any of the newly promoted snr member rank users might get a chance of getting accepted. No doubt the campaign is a strong one and been given the opportunity to promote along side other reputed members will be a honor given to who ever is acceptable.

[lobcmt2]

Wonderful statistics you wrote there, it gives a sign of hope any of the newly promoted snr member rank users might get a chance of getting accepted.

It means that there are around 29 percent (or lower) of probability to get accepted to join that campaign for self made Senior Members who earned 150 to 250 merits.
I think that it is a significant probability of chance, so for someone who are self made Senior Members (started from zero merit), you can hope with your application.
However, if don't get acceptance, you should not feel dissapointed, because that campaign is the highest competitive one over last two years (due to its highest pay rates and its long period since its opening)

[pawanjain]

Hello Everyone,

Welcome to my thread. Today I am going to share a matter which looks very effective on my eyes for our community. It relates with signature campaign. I had applied on bustadice signature campaign though I had not accepted but I discover something interesting from the activities of campaign manager yahoo62278 . As a applicants I read their main thread and find that campaign manager have put additional stake for few participants  who will make most constructive post.

After visiting the spread sheet I discover the process of choosing most constructive users. Campaign manager select them based on their earn merit per week. As a new user of bitcointalk I see this kinda merit competition on a signature campaign for the first time. I am not sure that any other manager have previously done this kind of competition or not.

Honestly this matter impressed me a lot. I believe merit competition increase the quality of users post which can minimize spam on our forum. I think if other managers follow this strategy by putting bonus stake for constructive users then it will encourage community users to make quality posts. I am not only suggesting this for BTC signature but also for other signature campaign. As far as I know stake distribution fully depend on managers hand and it will not be difficult for them to put few bonus stake for those users. In one side its creating competition among participants to make quality post for achieving bonus. On the other hand forum will get quality posts, unique ideas and obviously going to the next level.

Special Note: I am not sure that my thread is appropriate for this section or not. If not please feel free to suggest.

I certainly don't think that this method of selecting constructive posts is correct because in my opinion there are people whose posting quality is damn good but don't get enough merits on their posts.
There are people who post one liner posts and yet receive a decent amount of merits. I don't blame anybody for this since people tend to merit whomever they like but for whatever reason they have.
It depends on the campaign manager on whatever basis they can select the constructive posts but earning more merits for a posts doesn't necessarily mean that it would be constructive.
This is just my opinion according to my experience on this forum.

[roycilik]

I certainly don't think that this method of selecting constructive posts is correct because in my opinion there are people whose posting quality is damn good but don't get enough merits on their posts.

FYI: if you find something like that, you can post the link to [self-moderated] Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source

[bitart]

I certainly don't think that this method of selecting constructive posts is correct because in my opinion there are people whose posting quality is damn good but don't get enough merits on their posts.

FYI: if you find something like that, you can post the link to [self-moderated] Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source

That's a really useful thread, merit sources and other members with spendable merits are visiting that topic to check those posts.
I saw that if someone needs only a few merits to rank up, merit sources are happy to check the post history to see if the member creates quality posts, and if yes, they have managed to rank up several members since the opening to that thread.
It's a bit similar to the old review topics of the merit sources but concentrated into one place

[TalkStar]

As a member of bitcointalk I feel so great when so many community members share their thoughts on a thread. I beleive just getting merits on a thread isn't the only achievements for a thread poster. We always able get so many useful opinion from a inclusive discussion. I think same things happened on this thread.

Intention of my thread was to get valuable suggestion from everyone who specially thinks for our forum improvement. I beleive after reading this thread discussion current campaign managers will take necessary steps to choose best campaign participants. Already we have got many tips for successful campaign management. Every single campaign bear importance for users and forum too. What we need to do it to find best way which will stop spammers and forum will be benifited by quality posters activity IMO.

Lots of thanks to them who feel it necessary to share their valuable thoughts and advice on this regarding issue.   

[tranthidung]

After visiting the spread sheet I discover the process of choosing most constructive users.

It is the main purpose of merit competition and bonus payments for winners in signature campaigns.
The competitive level of such merit competition depends on the average constructive levels of participants.
For such high competitive campaign like ChipMixer, for example, even to get acceptance with application to join, you have to beat so many others constructive and merit-earned productive candidates.
Therefore, the average level of accepted participants are high, certainly, and they can fight each other to win the merit competition of ChipMixer.
Anyway, for any average level, there are always outstanding. For the case of ChipMixer, they are LoyceV, DdmrDdmr,
For lower average level campaigns, it operates the same. There are always outstandings, even in lower average levels.
Let's take a look at less competitive campaign, Bustadice.
elda34b, and Findingnemo have won most of the rounds.

Sheet has been turned in to owner, congrats to elda34b, Ridwan fauzi, Findingnemo, and Baofeng for this weeks bonuses

Sheet has been turned in to the owner, congrats to bl4nkcode, bbc.reporter, elda34b, and coolcryptovator for this weeks bonuses.

Sheet has been turned in to owner, congrats to bl4nkcode, Baofeng, coolcryptovator, and elda34b for this weeks bonuses

Sheet has been turned in to the owner, congrats to bbc.reporter, elda34b, ralle14, and Findingnemo for this weeks bonuses

In general, I don't really think that such merit competition in ChipMixer has actually boosted the quality of participants' posts.
Why I said like this?
Because those participants are intrinsic constructive users, they write constructive posts as their basic instinct.
Merits come or not, it depends on luck, the odds of catching attention of readers, and available free sMerits of readers at each specific time point.

[darklus123]

As a member of bitcointalk I feel so great when so many community members share their thoughts on a thread. I beleive just getting merits on a thread isn't the only achievements for a thread poster. We always able get so many useful opinion from a inclusive discussion. I think same things happened on this thread.

We used to have that even before without merit system ( Funny part tho is just that you have to dig it from the garbage field. Atleast now the garbage field
is slowly getting organized)

Intention of my thread was to get valuable suggestion from everyone who specially thinks for our forum improvement. I beleive after reading this thread discussion current campaign managers will take necessary steps to choose best campaign participants. Already we have got many tips for successful campaign management. Every single campaign bear importance for users and forum too. What we need to do it to find best way which will stop spammers and forum will be benifited by quality posters activity IMO.

Lots of thanks to them who feel it necessary to share their valuable thoughts and advice on this regarding issue.   

Because we have to. If we don't strive for a change who will do it then? Admins already have been making too much efforts yet it is still not enough and that's the main reason why we should also move (we are called as a community aren't we?)