best replies should appear first in a thread.

[Odohu]

but not everything is about merits.

I agree with you completely because being too fixated on earning merits really kill the fun of the forum and make discussion here sort of boring as people will tend to jettison their opinion in order to align with those of merit sources or those they feel will give them merits. I have seen few threads where everyone make comment just to align with the big people because they need the merits. If I'm not wrong, this should be one of the biggest Bitcoin community and considering the very essence of Bitcoin, people are supposed to feel free to express their views, criticize positively, disagree to agree and just have fun. The moment we make everything about the merit, then there will be serious problems.

And talking about your suggestion, I don't like it, and I don't want it to be implemented. Because this would become some sort of discrimination. Because not every member tries to copy others' replies, but unintentionally their context ends up the same. And that's not fully true that only the first two posts make good merits, I have seen many threads where people get merits even on the second and third pages.

The point is, we are here to add value and to learn from others, but yeah, merits also matter, and we cannot ignore that fact. But our first priority should not be based on merit.

I know a lot of people that are so committed to the forum that they read each and every comment in any thread they are following, giving merits to deserving comments irrespective of the page the comment. These are people I respect a lot as I have not see such level of commitment. They are always willing and help, guide and correct any misconception as it relates to Bitcoin and blockchain. Furthermore, since threads with with the latest comments comes to the top, most people usually go the latest comments and this shows that every comment gets the needed view and attention.

[Mpamaegbu]

~snipped~

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

Thanks for the merit rain. Yes, I do get nudges to apply to be a merit source but the literary long wait for Godot isn't what my patience can carry. I wish theymos could attend to such issue speedily, so those accepted or rejected would know their fate and move on.

Once again, thanks.

[Etranger]

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

I am very far far away of being merit course, and I also believe that merit system is more subjective, and that will be an obstacle in the way of becoming one, I guess, but when I see a post I found to be of a high quality, constructive and sometimes the one I simply agree with, but I don`t have enough sMerit to appreciate it with, I make a note for myself, and return to it when I have better ability to reward it. At first, I also thought that someone else would give merits, because a good post will definitely not be missed, I could not be the only one whose attentions caught.

But then I saw many times that good posts remained without merit, or received 1-2, which in my opinion is extremely few, because merit sources are able to give from 10 and more, but they do this mostly for those users who already have a lot of merit, and not for those who still have room to grow. Therefore, I decided to return to such posts myself and reward them. Sometimes, of course, only those merits from me are very few, but I am sure that such an approach still allows us to correct the situation when good posts do not receive merits at all, because other users do not have sMerits at that moment, and then such posts simply get lost in the flow, and become forgotten.

[nurilham]

Best reply with you can be not a best reply with me. Because you have your knowledge that is different than me. What you need, what can help you can be different than what can help me. A post is helpful with you can not be helpful with me because I already know about that knowledge.

That's why sometimes people give the merits can be subjective. Each person can have a different view about the quality and usefulness of a post. It can depend on the perception, knowledge, experience, and the need of each individual.

If a best reply is only based on its received merit, it is not correct too. Received merits can be emotionally distributed by merit sources and how thin or deep their sourced merits is at a time they click on Merit. Received merit can be from farm accounts too so it does not good to use for choosing a best reply.

No, merits shouldn't be the only a measure of the quality of a post. But if a post gets merits, there must be something valuable on the post. Low quality post or useless post can't get merits. It it still gets merits, there should be something wrong with the members who send the merits. I believe a post which deserves to get merits is a post that fulfill the minimum standard* of good posts.


* On topic, constructive, useful, valuable, informative, etc

[rachael9385]

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.

I totally disagree with what you just said. Every poster must not get a merit reward from a merit source, because what can be quality in your eyes might end up not being quality in my eyes, just because everyone can not be the same as you think or, as I think. So, if a post is not quality enough to get a merit reward from a merit source, that same post could be quality for any of us to merit it, although the merit system is not for posts that are only of quality to a merit source, but if the post have points that sound somehow interesting, and supposed to receive a total of five merits but because it is not quality enough, the post might receive 2 or even 1.

If you observe, you will see posts that have 20 merits, 10 merits, 8 merits, 5 merits, 3, 2, even 1 merits in just one post but get merited by different users, both merit source and non-merit source. That is not because the post is not good, but some people who give the post lower merits see the post as not quality enough and those who give the post high merits see the post to be high quality.

So that is to say, you might not like what I like, and I might not like what you like.

[LoyceV]

If you observe, you will see posts that have 20 merits, 10 merits, 8 merits, 5 merits, 3, 2, even 1 merits in just one post but get merited by different users, both merit source and non-merit source. That is not because the post is not good, but some people who give the post lower merits see the post as not quality enough and those who give the post high merits see the post to be high quality.

Chances are it depends on the amount of sMerit the user has piling up.

[vapourminer]

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.

just no.

and if such a group is created i would simply put all these merit pointers on ignore.

[TheUltraElite]

and if such a group is created i would simply put all these merit pointers on ignore.

I can understand why, defenitely the sockpuppet problem, indeed something that has plagued the trust system previously as well. Just that it came to my head and I put it up for discussion to see how people might think.

Regardless, the term best or good are relative, which has become the crux of this thread now, whether someone rewards merit to them is a separate idea. I get that, but the Noise/Signal is still high and there is no deterrent to the noise.

Still the status quo seems to be better than any change at the moment.

[Sexylizzy2813]

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.

Nah... It would be a disaster in the merit system and who should be in charge of this group? To me if such a group is being created I feel it will damage the whole merit system, is best for it to be this way. If you think the merit system is slow then we all have to wait. The best thing to say is add more merit source to help the ones that are already in the system. People or should I say users abuse any little opportunity given to them so if that happens some might play with it, and it will also increase these account farmers to be all over the Forum.

[rachael9385]

If you observe, you will see posts that have 20 merits, 10 merits, 8 merits, 5 merits, 3, 2, even 1 merits in just one post but get merited by different users, both merit source and non-merit source. That is not because the post is not good, but some people who give the post lower merits see the post as not quality enough and those who give the post high merits see the post to be high quality.

Chances are it depends on the amount of sMerit the user has piling up.

Yes, I also thought about that before dropping the comment you already quoted, but I also noticed that a lot of forum members have more s-merit, but still, when some come across a post that is not up to their standard and the post is supposed to receive even more merits, they give low merits to the post.
But when other members see that same post, they give it more merit, although it still depends on the amount of merits a user has, because I have seen a situation whereby the same post has been merited twice by the same person and I feel that the person who merited the post didn't have enough merit at first.

[Etranger]

That's why sometimes people give the merits can be subjective. Each person can have a different view about the quality and usefulness of a post. It can depend on the perception, knowledge, experience, and the need of each individual.

Sometimes? Really? The whole merit system is totally subjective. These mystical criteria for quality posts and contributions to the forum do not have a clear form and definition. And all this leads to a situation where users try to adapt their posts to these "standards", destroying their own style and making posts unnatural and artificial. Instead of sharing original thoughts, we often see a situation where forum members compete in repeating the same thesis, trying to make this repetition as qualified as possible. But at the same time, the greatest amount of merit is not received by these refrains, but by something new and unusual. And something that often has nothing to do with those obscure criteria that everyone likes to refer to. Moreover, in favor of the subjective nature of the merit system, also testifies the fact that usually more merits are given to those posts that have already received merits. But being the first to give credit for a post is usually difficult for some reason.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

but I also noticed that a lot of forum members have more s-merit, but still, when some come across a post that is not up to their standard and the post is supposed to receive even more merits, they give low merits to the post.
But when other members see that same post, they give it more merit, although it still depends on the amount of merits a user has, because I have seen a situation whereby the same post has been merited twice by the same person and I feel that the person who merited the post didn't have enough merit at first.

Like LoyceV said, it could depend on the amount of smerit the user has, but aside from what he's said,I think that every member on this forum, whether merit-source or non-source, is mostly subjective in terms of awarding merit (I agree with what Mpamaegbu said). I sometimes also think that favoritism has arisen in the merit system, where a user can still have a load of merit but can only give more merit to a user with whom they are pleased, considering the quality of the post.

I have come across a thread where the first comment was of great quality but from a low rank member, and he received just 1 merit, but the second comment was almost the same idea as the first comment but from a high rank member, so he received 5 merit from the same user that merited the first comment. I sometimes wonder why it's so, but I thought to myself, "Every member has the right to award any amount of smerit to whomever they want to, as long as it is not in a merit-abusing manner, like sending smerit to their alt accounts.

[cafter]

I would like to share my idea on this matter.
The forum needs to add a like feature we have on many social media platforms or upvote type feature, but not everyone can upvote/like the replies to come on top of the thread,
some trusted users of the forums are allowed to like/upvote the replies after reading them and deciding that is it a valuable reply or not.

[Etranger]

I would like to share my idea on this matter.
The forum needs to add a like feature we have on many social media platforms or upvote type feature, but not everyone can upvote/like the replies to come on top of the thread,
some trusted users of the forums are allowed to like/upvote the replies after reading them and deciding that is it a valuable reply or not.

And how exactly will this list of trusted users be updated? And how to reconcile this with the merit system? This will not lead to positive results, it will be even more subjective, than it is now, because there will be an even greater inequality between "trusted" users, which means - those who registered a long time ago and have many merits, and newbies and low ranks, for whom the chances of getting into the list of these trusted members will be even smaller than with the merit system.

[cafter]

I would like to share my idea on this matter.
The forum needs to add a like feature we have on many social media platforms or upvote type feature, but not everyone can upvote/like the replies to come on top of the thread,
some trusted users of the forums are allowed to like/upvote the replies after reading them and deciding that is it a valuable reply or not.

And how exactly will this list of trusted users be updated? And how to reconcile this with the merit system? This will not lead to positive results, it will be even more subjective, than it is now, because there will be an even greater inequality between "trusted" users, which means - those who registered a long time ago and have many merits, and newbies and low ranks, for whom the chances of getting into the list of these trusted members will be even smaller than with the merit system.

Like we have DT1 and DT2 lists, they can choose which reply is more relevant and valuable in the list.

[LoyceV]

Like we have DT1 and DT2 lists, they can choose which reply is more relevant and valuable in the list.

Let's base it on Ignore lists, much easier.

[Lida93]

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

You're thinking this way about early replies having all the attention because when a user opens a thread it's the first page that appears and due to this you feel they get more attention than others which for me it's not true. There are users that still move through page to pages taking their time to read replies/opinions of different members about a topics and am saying this because I have had replies that still got merited  even at 5-7 pages upwards and other person's can attest to this for themselves too.

For research purposes and scholarly benefits a good reader must know that great treasures are not hidden on the surface and therefore must dig deep to get the best therefore for people that knows what they want they can't just rely on the first two or three pages of a thread they will hence dig deeper to more pages (and I thinks that's how a good number of my replies received the merits they got).

 Quality can't be hidden from those that take time to look for it. So where on a page it falls on doesn't really count.

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.

If replies should be arranged in the very pattern  as you've suggested it would worsen the monotonous replies you earlier complained about in the preceding statement under number 2 of your discovery. 
And this could make replies boring having no variety of taste as everyone will want his reply to be at the first two pages which will make almost 95% of replies in a thread align more on the ideas that appears on the first two pages believing it will get to receive merits as those that are already in the first 2 pages did.

 And indirectly we will unknowingly be promoting merit phishing in the forum if such idea is given relevance as a criteria to sorting out quality post. Because the question is, who determines a quality post? It's still debatable as to who on the grounds that it's a subjective matter.

[Etranger]

If replies should be arranged in the very pattern  as you've suggested it would worsen the monotonous replies you earlier complained about in the preceding statement under number 2 of your discovery. 
And this could make replies boring having no variety of taste as everyone will want his reply to be at the first two pages which will make almost 95% of replies in a thread align more on the ideas that appears on the first two pages believing it will get to receive merits as those that are already in the first 2 pages did.

 And indirectly we will unknowingly be promoting merit phishing in the forum if such idea is given relevance as a criteria to sorting out quality post. Because the question is, who determines a quality post? It's still debatable as to who on the grounds that it's a subjective matter.

And not only that. Moving the best replies to the first pages assumes that these best answers are simply given to the OP's question. But the topics are interesting not only for direct answers to the first post, but also for the discussion that arises along the way. And often very good posts may have almost nothing to do with the OP's question, but are a response or comment to what other members writing in the thread have said. If all these best posts are artificially moved to the 1-2 pages, then the consistency of the discussion will be lost and it will be unclear why a certain post is considered the best, because it will be taken out of context.

[Initscri]

I think chronological responses are probably best - especially for keeping track of things.

I wouldn't mind some sort of indicator that suggests as a reply is the "top voted" or "top merited" response. Would incentivize good posting (especially for those running sig campaigns to hire actually decent posters)

[Synchronice]

I would like to share my idea on this matter.
The forum needs to add a like feature we have on many social media platforms or upvote type feature, but not everyone can upvote/like the replies to come on top of the thread,
some trusted users of the forums are allowed to like/upvote the replies after reading them and deciding that is it a valuable reply or not.

That makes zero sense and if we continue like this way, I am afraid being a reputable member will become a burden on this forum rather than a privilege. Also, this forum is not a twitter or facebook and we shouldn't turn it into that one.

Like we have DT1 and DT2 lists, they can choose which reply is more relevant and valuable in the list.

Why should they do that? Why should it become their duty?

Just leave things the way they are regarding to post sorting. You guys are asking for a headache for no real reason. First of all, it's not duty for DT members to read posts instead of you, don't be so lazy, reading will also help you to advance your English. Then, every opinion matters. You better report spammy posts, so, moderators can remove them. If we empty threads from spammy posts by reporting them, then we will be left with threads where every comment is on-topic and nice to read.