best replies should appear first in a thread.

[Smartvirus]

And who or what decides which are the best replies? Because it's clearly neither the length nor the rank of the poster that could be added into the equation.

We cannot apply such a rule or feature that is very subjective. Some are not native English speaker, that may say less but is worth reading.

I don’t think the language thing do count much as, that would allow account for difficulty in expression or making a good point on a subject. In a way it could result in the post not being merited of which, the proposal of implemented would dish such posts and these could be of great concern to the user who had made the comment.

I hope that you don't expect somebody (moderator?) would read every post and give it some points/ranking, right?

That's a lot of work to do actually.

The traffic on the forum and volume of posts made on the forum is so high that, even Albert Einstein wouldn’t be able to meet up with that sort of work load. It would be so much to read and moderate. You would hate such job if given as it would take literally, life out of you!
Without any system for forum up on this, it ain’t worth implementing as it would undermine the quality of some posts which might be of value to others.

[1714244737]

1714244737

[1714244737]

1714244737

[1714244737]

1714244737

[1714244737]

1714244737

[Bushdark]

I have this habit of reading through many replies to a thread before I will respond. At the course of reading through few pages of a thread before replying, I discovered that;

• The earliest replies get more attention and earn more merit
• Some of the replies from pages 3 upwards are repetition of what others said in pages 1 and 2.
• I also understood that some of the quality contributors sometimes arrive late and their replies get buried easily

I therefore propose that, if possible, the arrangement of replies to a thread should be based on the number of merits that reply earned in that very thread. This will tend to sort the quality replies to appear in the first page no matter what time it was made. Even if the reply appeared on page 7, just 1 merit to that reply will send it to page 1. This will also help researchers to meet the most relevant posts in the first page, without having to search through tones o replies.
This sounds good to me but it may not go well with some other persons, I decided to drop the suggestion here. Although, I don't know much about the SMF version of the forum, but with the way people complain about it, it seems it doesn't allow some certain things to be incorporated to the forum.

How do you determine the replies that are best and the ones that do not worth it? You don't choose the kind of reply you need to get from a post since you can't determine what people is write about a particular post. The reply you get on a post is always depend on the person that write it and what they think about the post. Whether a reply get a retitive reply or not, the important part is to make sure that one passes the message they urge to pass without trying to feel annoyed about the reply they get. If we are very emotional when writing, we can make a big mistake by taking some of the replies we get from people personal.

[OcTradism]

I read this topic to the end and discovered that the solution was found back in 2019.

Luckily for you because the thread is only two pages until your post. It does not need too much time for reading and I glad to bring the solution as soon as possible.

The solution is an user script so not all forum members will use it or only minority need that filter.

And who or what decides which are the best replies? Because it's clearly neither the length nor the rank of the poster that could be added into the equation.

Merit can not decide a post is quality or not. I mean excluding very excellent posts with many merits (100+ or more), they are actually absolute quality posts. Posts with one or some merits maybe are not actually better in quality compare to posts without a single merit. Merit sources can not read all posts in forum to keep their merit distribution fairly and posters who beg merit sources can get more than  people who only post and don't beg merit sources.

[LogitechMouse]

tl;dr

The question is "What is considered best for you?"
What's best for you, might not be the best for some. What are the factors for that reply to be considered the best one?

I mean it doesn't matter for me if my reply is on the 4th or 5th page already. For me, as long as I share my opinion with the current topic, and as long as my comment isn't off-topic then that's good. This suggestion of yours again is circling around merits. Why is merit becoming the main factor to determine which posts are good, and which are not. Anybody can give merits to anyone, and in fact, many already gave 50 merits to a post that's considered as shit-post, or a post that has no added value on it.

There's a famous quote and it says "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." and I don't think there's something that we need to fix with it.

[Zoomic]

I have read so many suggestions regarding the topic I created and I have gathered diverse opinions. Some of the opinions are not strong enough to counter the OP while many have good points that convinced me that this format is effective.
Such opinion as the flow of conversation. If most merited posts appear first and an unmerited post quotes the most merited post, where will the post appear?

Why is merit becoming the main factor to determine which posts are good, and which are not. Anybody can give merits to anyone, and in fact, many already gave 50 merits to a post that's considered as shit-post, or a post that has no added value on it.

No matter how we see it, as long as this forum is concerned merit has a very big relationship with quality post. No one can successful deny this saying.

[TheUltraElite]

No matter how we see it, as long as this forum is concerned merit has a very big relationship with quality post. No one can successful deny this saying.

It was going to get renamed to merittalk for a while back then

But seriously I do agree a major point in this forum is the merit earning and the reason why people flock in this forum so much is because of the campaigns that are run and the merit needed to get into them. Whatever disucssion we end up doing, merit becomes a key factor in it.

Still I guess this thread has served it purpose and the community created tools to show max merited posts first should help out instead of anything official from theymos. I think the topic should be closed now.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I therefore propose that, if possible, the arrangement of replies to a thread should be based on the number of merits that reply earned in that very thread.

I believe others have contributed quite well to this discussion but I just want to add mine as well because my reasoning might be different from what other have said and it could be right or wrong but the more view we have to this topic the better we understand it. I want to start by saying not all quality posts get merited. Sometimes the more quality response don't get noticed and the reason differs based on individual posts like the poster not been a well known user for his quality contributions yet, or those that saw the contributions didn't have smerits at that time to reward the posts so ranking posts based on merit will be an injustice to those quality posts that didn't get merited and as the saying goes, instead of an innocent man to be convicted, let the guilty be set free irrespective of their numbers so instead of one worthy post not been ranked at the top of the relies, let all the less worthy post be there based on it is nwo (first come, first post).

This sounds good to me but it may not go well with some other persons, I decided to drop the suggestion here.

You did well and here are some reason I feel it won't make sense to sort the thread by merited replies.

• Each thread has a flow of discussion like from one discussion (OP) other discussion (subtopics) pops up on that thread and sorting the thread by merit will obstruct the flow of discussion on the thread.
• It'll bring about more merit abuse as people will want their replies to be at the top of the threads so they'll be abusing the merit system often to achieve that.
• It might lead to campaign managers only accepting users that their replies are always top of the thread which will leads to my second point (merit abuse)

[Faisal2202]

somehow I do agree with you because if the thread goes work like this will not be good. The reason as OP is saying all the post of the threads comes on the first page and it doesn't matter even if they do a late reply and somehow get merit. in this way, other people who are coming to read the thread they will not read other posts that don't get any merit. Those posts will be considered as shit even posts have valuable knowledge right?

in conclusion, I would say it is the best way as it is now. In this way, all the members have the same respect as merited ones. There will be no judgment like which post should be read or not to be read. I think it sounds well.

You are right, and there is another drawback to this, which is there are many shitposters here who can get merits on their posts to keep them on top, and many will give that post merit too, just because others have given it. I know you must be thinking about where those shitposters will get merits, you are a newbie here, many people have alts, and they try to give merits hunt merit like a hunter.

Well, if they are able to get merits then all the good posts will be buried under mud and no one can actually get benefit from those, I mostly read whole threads if there are only 2 to 4 pages but if the pages range from 4 to 8 then I just read those whom I found good posters. Because with time I came to remember some names and do know that the post from this member must be a good one.

[Sexylizzy2813]

I have this habit of reading through many replies to a thread before I will respond. At the course of reading through few pages of a thread before replying, I discovered that;

• The earliest replies get more attention and earn more merit
• Some of the replies from pages 3 upwards are repetition of what others said in pages 1 and 2.
• I also understood that some of the quality contributors sometimes arrive late and their replies get buried easily

I therefore propose that, if possible, the arrangement of replies to a thread should be based on the number of merits that reply earned in that very thread. This will tend to sort the quality replies to appear in the first page no matter what time it was made. Even if the reply appeared on page 7, just 1 merit to that reply will send it to page 1. This will also help researchers to meet the most relevant posts in the first page, without having to search through tones o replies.
This sounds good to me but it may not go well with some other persons, I decided to drop the suggestion here. Although, I don't know much about the SMF version of the forum, but with the way people complain about it, it seems it doesn't allow some certain things to be incorporated to the forum.

OP you said you do take your time to read every replies before commenting yours, if I'm not mistaken right? What if we already have about 25+ replies before your arrival, are you saying you'd leave what the OP is saying about the thread (which is the key to start up your point) and be glancing through every 25+ comments? Hmm.
Sometimes the best part of those comments are found at the end and those who started the comments in page 1 or 2 might be battling with same replies like repeating same thing, call it spamming.
And what you see as quality post and drop merit another might see it as blabbing and to that person the post you dropped even 500 merit that person might see it as rubbish so the way you see things and accept it might be different from other people. You know, everyone have different taste for something.

[Rruchi man]

• The earliest replies get more attention and earn more merit

They will because the early replies often set the tone for the discussion.

• Some of the replies from pages 3 upwards are repetition of what others said in pages 1 and 2.

This is not always true, there are some topics where perspectives and opinions cannot be repeated because of how many perspectives and opinions a topic can have. The first page often contains nineteen replies to a topic after the OP's post, the second page will contain Twenty replies. After page one and two you would have had about thirty-nine replies of which not all will be proper perspectives and opinions. The response on the first and second page are not always the most reasonable or proper perspective/opinions.

• I also understood that some of the quality contributors sometimes arrive late and their replies get buried easily

Different time zones, so many of us see the topics at different times.

As someone interested in a topic, Always try to read through the replies so you do not miss out on the best replies. 

[blckhawk]

I kind of like the idea of this one but this tends to create an echochamber of opinions and ideas which isn't my jam given that in an ideal world, all opinions should have an equal footing when it comes to being heard. I think that the FCFS(First Come First Serve) system employed in the forum right now is working just fine plus the effort of the one who have created the Bitcointalk SuperNotifier for people that wants to keep up with the latest posted topics would be in vain and I like to use that Telegram bot.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

I therefore propose that, if possible, the arrangement of replies to a thread should be based on the number of merits that reply earned in that very thread. This will tend to sort the quality replies to appear in the first page no matter what time it was made.

In my opinion, I don't think that is necessary. There are some people who arrive late to a thread; let's say the thread has gotten to four pages, but because they still wish to drop their opinion, they can drop quality comments, which might likely not earn any merit, probably because merit has already been awarded to users that made quality comments on the first page. But one thing I understand is that sometimes the OP may not even get the idea he wanted from a comment that received merit; he may even end up getting the idea he seeks from the fourth page, which may not bear any merit. So, sometimes it's not really about a comment getting merit; the thing is, did everyone or the OP learn from that comment? It could even be that a non-merit comment presented a great idea too. We learn every day from every day, and you never can tell what experiences others have shared in their comments that could be helpful to the reader.

[TheUltraElite]

But one thing I understand is that sometimes the OP may not even get the idea he wanted from a comment that received merit; he may even end up getting the idea he seeks from the fourth page, which may not bear any merit. So, sometimes it's not really about a comment getting merit; the thing is, did everyone or the OP learn from that comment? It could even be that a non-merit comment presented a great idea too.

The purpose of the merit system is to mark those comments that carry value in order to stand out from the rest of the noise. So if the merit sources are not going to the fourth or fifth page to read on those, then the purpose of the merit system does not get fulfilled but is only a superficial idea.

I can speak for the sources too, they are humans and they get tired of reading through bucketloads of cesspool.
One idea that came to me:

Apart from merit sources, another group needs to be created like "Merit Pointers" - these are users who help the merit sources reach the posts that they feel need merit. We already have people posting their list of merit worthy posts on threads created for similar purpose, but a button to mark these posts seems to me as a forward step.

[nakamura12]

If this will be implemented then what will be or what are the criteria to determine what post are the best or which post is the best that will be displayed first in the forum?. Merit system is already here and it is also used to reward forum members who posted good/high quality post which means the post is one of the best post in the forum and to prove it is where the merit comes although some good post are not seen or missed by some people and that's why there's no merit but to find a way for that is the reason why there's a thread about submitting a good post that isn't merited or never receive a merit.

[Sandra_hakeem]

What you gotta say in response to any technical analysis/problems in Bitcoin that's depicted by your braincells alone??.. yunno how much more people read sleeplessly, all through the nights just to become gurus?? And for this reasons, have been online all through - that any complaints that's filed in, gets a response from them almost immediately?? Can the late comers - as you call them - make such sacrifices??...
Chill buddy!

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

[libert19]

I already mostly read only those comments that are more merited or are from reputable members, who I know write good stuff, scrolling such way doesn't need any implementation and is easier to do. I understand, this also makes me skip replies that could potentially be quality, but I do not care that much.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

The purpose of the merit system is to mark those comments that carry value in order to stand out from the rest of the noise. So if the merit sources are not going to the fourth or fifth page to read on those, then the purpose of the merit system does not get fulfilled but is only a superficial idea.

I can speak for the sources too, they are humans and they get tired of reading through bucketloads of cesspool.

I guess there are a smaller number of merit sources on this site compared to users who are not merit sources. So, everyone on this forum, be it M source or non M source, usually has their own way of awarding merit. You cannot just say that other comments are noise (although so many shitposts can appear) because you can't fully be sure if it's noise or not; it could be a comment that someone else can learn from. If a merit source visits a thread and notices a few comments on the first and second pages that seem appealing and of good quality to them, they can decide to give merit to those comments, but I could proceed to read pages four and five of that same thread and I can see a very good comment that is very appealing and educational for me, and I can just decide to merit that comment.

So, every member on the forum, apart from the merit source, has their own way of distributing their merit, depending on who they wish to give it to. Also, I think they distribute their merit on posts that they think are appealing to them.

[Mpamaegbu]

But nuances arise. How to evaluate the usefulness of posts? Merit is not a 100% objective measure of usefulness. Especially in the hands of merit sources, who sometimes throw away merit in batches left and right, which casts doubt on the usefulness of certain posts.

Interestingly, the merit system has now formed a fulcrum for most campaign managers in getting members into their campaigns. To get high paying campaigns, members would go extra length to get loads of merit. I'm one of those who believe that the merit system is more subjective than objective and doesn't represent quality at all time (just like you noted too).

I wish I had some merit to splash on your comment. Again, another merit deserving post but I lack the ability to splash any on it and I believe there are others who would've done so too but lack merit.

[LoyceV]

But nuances arise. How to evaluate the usefulness of posts? Merit is not a 100% objective measure of usefulness. Especially in the hands of merit sources, who sometimes throw away merit in batches left and right, which casts doubt on the usefulness of certain posts.

I've said it before: being a Merit source often feels like a burden. Don't get me wrong: I like being able to reward good posts, but there's an ever increasing pile of sMerit waiting to be distributed. Right now, I have 175 source sMerits again, and it keeps going up. I can't find 175 good posts today, so I send larger amounts. That's how the system is supposed to work: it gives others the chance to distribute it further.

I'm one of those who believe that the merit system is more subjective than objective

Of course it's subjective, but I also believe on average it turns out quite okay.

This is difficult:

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

I've also changed my view on this: the Merit system was supposed to stop spammers, not the average poster. If someone isn't a spammer, that's enough for me to Merit them.

I wish I had some merit to splash on your comment. Again, another merit deserving post but I lack the ability to splash any on it and I believe there are others who would've done so too but lack merit.

You can of course apply to be a Merit source. It requires "some" patience though

[Plaguedeath]

I'm one of those who believe that the merit system is more subjective than objective

Of course it's subjective, but I also believe on average it turns out quite okay.

This problem arise because there's no punishment, there are many users are still giving their sMerit to their gangs, this is really easy to notice when someone receive and send merit to the same user over and over. We need de-Merit feature and only merit sources are able to use it.

Let's say I make a complaint about this matter, it's useless because they only get neutral feedback since theymos have stated DT user who leave negative feedback about merit will not become a DT member anymore.

If I drag this "merit connection" to cheating (using alt accounts to participate in a same campaign), people will not believe it and start asking more evidence because merit isn't a strong evidence.