Do you check the merit history of users before meriting them?

[rhomelmabini]

An option of "Maybe" and "Sometimes" could make a difference I think because on my end I rarely really check merit history of the user as long as I admire the post he does. Nevertheless, I do really check the post history especially if the user has few posts, not familiar to me, the trust page and has a lower rank like Member and below because I check if they are just some sort of shitposter especially who mostly does bounty thingy.

[1715346024]

1715346024

[1715346024]

1715346024

[1715346024]

1715346024

[1715346024]

1715346024

[NavI_027]

No, I didn't check their merit history before giving one. The thing that I usually look is if the post caught my attention and aligned with my interest somehow or it is humorous but stating facts. That's all . Regardless of whatever rank they are, I'll give it to them as long as they don't have a red tag. Because for me, a person with a negative feedback (assuming proven guilty) is no longer deserve for a simple recognition like merits.

[philipma1957]

Yes is more accurate for me than no.

But sometimes or most of the time is more accurate.

[cryptoaddictchie]

I think we should focus on meriting posts that are of quality and substantial. But since this is a poll, mostly said here is none which should be the case. We should not depend on user's name before we merit him/her and also regardless of his status, whether he has a lot of negative feedbacks or trust as long the post fits your standard for merit. I think i'll drop it.

There should be no bias with that but of course we have different perspective, some value the status also of users before even giving them some merits.

[mole0815]

Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?

That is not easy to answer yes or no for me. Basically I know most of the users I am talking to and therefore I don't have to do a check.
When I'm in "foreign" boards my look falls constantly on Activity + Merit.
This happens automatically and just like Trust I check the Merit History regularly to get a feeling for the user. Not every time but again and again

[CarnagexD]

The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not?  

Since I have very limited amount of merit to share, I gotta be careful who I give merit to.

If someone has a good posts regarding to a certain topic then, i will not hesitate to give him a merit if he deserves it.

I'm really not that selfish to merit someone if they truly deserved it. I don't usually check the profile of some users, sometimes I do that but not as always. Checking someone's posts before meriting them depends on you if you are not that confident about their replies or posts. If you see their thoughts very off-topic then don't send merits, that's very simple.

[FIFA worldcup]

The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not? 

Lets suppose a persons post are average or below average but his one post is excellent. So you will not give him merit for that because his previous posts are not worthy of merits. This is a wrong approach. If you see a good post, it is best to merit it and do not care about his other posts history. Also i find it time wasting to check the posts history of the users before giving them merit.

[Pmalek]

Merit is for worthy posts, not for users...The rule should be to merit posts...

The two go hand in hand. You merit the user whose post you like.

That's why I've merited even users that are not here anymore or users which have negative trust: because even such users can be capable of good posts.

They are, I agree. However, I have never merited a proven scammer/thief nor am I planning to do so. If someone is guilty of a scam and shows no remorse or willingness to change and reimburse the affected members...goodbye.

An option of "Maybe" and "Sometimes" could make a difference I think...

That makes sense, but since the poll is already active and has several votes I am not going to introduce new answers now.

Lets suppose a persons post are average or below average but his one post is excellent. So you will not give him merit for that because his previous posts are not worthy of merits. This is a wrong approach. If you see a good post, it is best to merit it and do not care about his other posts history. Also i find it time wasting to check the posts history of the users before giving them merit.

You obviously misunderstood the question. This has nothing to do with checking the post history of a user. I briefly check a user's merit stats to see if and how he participates in the distribution of merits. Forget post history. 

 

[FIFA worldcup]

Lets suppose a persons post are average or below average but his one post is excellent. So you will not give him merit for that because his previous posts are not worthy of merits. This is a wrong approach. If you see a good post, it is best to merit it and do not care about his other posts history. Also i find it time wasting to check the posts history of the users before giving them merit.

You obviously misunderstood the question. This has nothing to do with checking the post history of a user. I briefly check a user's merit stats to see if and how he participates in the distribution of merits. Forget post history. 

 

This can be done for Full members and above but for the Members or Jr. Members ,they don't have much merits to giveaway and you may not find them among those who send merits often.
By the way, how many smerits a person should send in last 120 days to become eligible for you to merit him ?

[Pmalek]

Snip

Yes, of course. If a member has only received 1 merit, it's logical that he can't send 1 to someone else. But if you have received 30 and you have only sent 1, your ratio isn't that good, and you are doing something wrong in my opinion. if you have received 100 and only sent 1, it looks even worse.
There is no fixed number and I don't count them. I just like to see them coming in and going out, that's it. Be a team player.   

[SFR10]

Although Merits are supposed to be a reward for good posts, I like to see that the users who receive them are participating in its distribution as well. If you couldn't care less about rewarding others for their efforts, I am not going to reward you.

Although you have a point, this is still a subjective thing and for some, it might take more time before they could distribute their sMerits ^{[simply because of the fact that there isn't any post that passes as a high-quality one for them]}.
^{- By stopping the process [even for a short period], you also fall into that category.}

Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not? 

It never occurred to me that someone else's merit history would've/should've impacted the way I merit one of their high-quality posts...
^{- I'm a simple guy, I see a high-quality post = I reward it with my sMerit.}

[NeuroticFish]

That's why I've merited even users that are not here anymore or users which have negative trust: because even such users can be capable of good posts.

They are, I agree. However, I have never merited a proven scammer/thief nor am I planning to do so. If someone is guilty of a scam and shows no remorse or willingness to change and reimburse the affected members...goodbye.

The users come and go. Especially the scammers, sooner or later they become history.
However, a good post has to stand out, no matter who has written it.

I guess that we don't agree on this and from what I see on current poll result 1/3 of the people answering do agree with you. More than I would have expected.
I don't want to be mean, but I believe that these people misunderstood (at least partly) what merit is for.

[casperBGD]

Since I find myself short of a few merits every now and then, I like to check the merit history of the users I intend to merit. It is not an in-depth check. All I do is check if the users distribute their sMerits the same way they receive them. If the user whose post I initially wanted to merit is a merit hoarder, that is enough for me to change my mind and look for other posts.

Although Merits are supposed to be a reward for good posts, I like to see that the users who receive them are participating in its distribution as well. If you couldn't care less about rewarding others for their efforts, I am not going to reward you.
 
The question is very simple: Do you do any checks before you award users with merits or not? 

interesting question, i rarely provide merits to other users, but there is not much to share so keeping merits for quality posts and informations that are providing some news or benefits, when readed
it is always hard to manage scarce resource, but i do not look at other users merit history when want to give merit, simply give merit, if the post is good and provide valuable info for me/community

[Timelord2067]

I pretty much send merits out as soon as I get them.  Increasingly I'll utilise Loyce's merit stats pages for the recipient and also my own to ensure they either haven't received merits previously, or, the ones I have sent don't surpass just two merits.  My early merit giving hadn't considered merits would run out (not sure why but I thought after time _everyone's_ merits restocked - always read the label).  Typically, the merits I gave out were usually to people who don't really need them (given it turns out they are merit fonts or some other reason).

[-CryptoViking-]

That's why I've merited even users that are not here anymore or users which have negative trust: because even such users can be capable of good posts.

They are, I agree. However, I have never merited a proven scammer/thief nor am I planning to do so. If someone is guilty of a scam and shows no remorse or willingness to change and reimburse the affected members...goodbye.

The users come and go. Especially the scammers, sooner or later they become history.
However, a good post has to stand out, no matter who has written it.

I guess that we don't agree on this and from what I see on current poll result 1/3 of the people answering do agree with you. More than I would have expected.
I don't want to be mean, but I believe that these people misunderstood (at least partly) what merit is for.

I agree with you, I merit the post not the user, there are new people coming to forum all the time and it happens that someone has a really good post as a first post, for me, that post deserves merit same as someone's 1000.post.

Anyway stats are improving on this poll

[gentlemand]

Nope. I couldn't care less what merit they sent or received.

If it's a very low merit person then I will check their post history. If everything other than the post I'm considering is several metres of referral and Facebook links I'm likely to be turned away from the idea.

[UmerIdrees]

Nope. I couldn't care less what merit they sent or received.

If it's a very low merit person then I will check their post history. If everything other than the post I'm considering is several metres of referral and Facebook links I'm likely to be turned away from the idea.

I mostly do not care how many smerit the person send, however i do look at the merit history to see how many merits he got because it shows that he is a quality poster. However after reading the point of view of the OP here, i will definitely look out to see how many merit a person is sending and is active in this merit spending process too.

[Daniel91]

Personally, I feel that with my available merits I have a responsibility to reward other members for their quality posts and contribution to the forum.
I also started a topic in my local part of the forum where all local members can report quality posts that deserve merit.
In fact, I'm glad that there is a concrete way I can reward other forum members for their efforts and work to contribute something to the forum or help other members.
Mostly I don't check the personal history of the members but in fact I know most of them very well and follow them for a long time so there is no need for that.

[Latviand]

No, I didn't check their merit history before giving one. The thing that I usually look is if the post caught my attention and aligned with my interest somehow or it is humorous but stating facts. That's all . Regardless of whatever rank they are, I'll give it to them as long as they don't have a red tag. Because for me, a person with a negative feedback (assuming proven guilty) is no longer deserve for a simple recognition like merits.

Being precise towards someone's opinion really satisfies me, as long as he has a lot of facts that he can state to his post then that's approve to me.
When I got interested to someone's post and he is consistent about his points, he is worthy of a merit compared to those people who are just using words that is pleasant in the eye but the thoughts are irrelevant in the topic. But usually, if you are posting and constructing a sentence that is easy to understand and is direct to the point, then i will never hesitate to send a merit for those who really deserve it.

[Pmalek]

If it's a very low merit person then I will check their post history. If everything other than the post I'm considering is several metres of referral and Facebook links I'm likely to be turned away from the idea.

But that is very similar if you think about it. 2/3 of the replies don't agree with my way of briefly checking the merit history of users. However, many users have said that they check a user's post history prior to awarding merits.

If there is a right and wrong way of sending merits, your way and my way are equally wrong, or equally right. I don't want to send merits to users who have bad merit rewarding ratio. You don't feel like rewarding those who have a bad posting history and partake in bounty spamming.
But those users are equally capable of producing a quality post as the ones who don't reward others with merits. It's a completely other discussion whether or not they do that.

My point is that the community leans towards thinking that it is OK not to send merits to someone based on a generally low-quality posting history, even if the occasional post of that person is good.