Do you merit based on post or on the account history?

[Russlenat]

I've noticed that some accounts take different approaches when sending merits. Some might check the account profile first before sending, while others focus solely on the post and send merits based on their judgment.

For those newbies who are not familiar with merits, it's part of the forum system to reward good posts and encourage users to create quality content, especially those low-ranked users who want to rank up. We’ve seen a lot of low-ranked members really putting in effort to gather merits, as it’s the most important requirement for ranking up, along with high activity, since the system was introduced.

Personally, there’s nothing wrong with whichever method you prefer, but I'm curious, and I'm sure many others, especially newbies, would like to know some tips. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, especially from merit sources and those who consistently give and receive merits, even if they aren’t merit sources. Newbies are also welcome to share their thoughts here----this is an open discussion for everyone!

[Charles-Tim]

I prefer to send merit to people's posts that I read. But there are sometimes that I may send merit later if I have no enough merit left. I like to go through good posters posts sometimes in a way that I will click on their profile and noticed some posts that I needed to merit. I easily see some good posts of the user from the merit history and I will feel like to send more merit to one or two of the person's posts.

[Hatchy]

Personally, there’s nothing wrong with whichever method you prefer, but I'm curious, and I'm sure many others, especially newbies, would like to know some tips. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, especially from merit sources and those who consistently give and receive merits, even if they aren’t merit sources. Newbies are also welcome to share their thoughts here----this is an open discussion for everyone!

I usually reward high-quality posts with merits if they make valid points. I don't check the poster's history because I don't think it's necessary. As long as their post is helpful to the community, I send them merits.
In my opinion, checking account history is mostly for merit sources, a regular users can choose to reward good posts without checking history.I only look at someone's post history if their response is exceptionally poor, which leads me to assume they're not a good poster

[knowngunman]

I've noticed that some accounts take different approaches when sending merits. Some might check the account profile first before sending, while others focus solely on the post and send merits based on their judgment.

Some is based on account reputation too 

Personally, there’s nothing wrong with whichever method you prefer, but I'm curious, and I'm sure many others, especially newbies, would like to know some tips. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, especially from merit sources and those who consistently give and receive merits, even if they aren’t merit sources. Newbies are also welcome to share their thoughts here----this is an open discussion for everyone!

Personally, there's no specific pattern I use in meriting a post. Sometime, it can also depend on my mood and how I enjoy the post. Among many creteria or factors that influence my merit sharing, checking of profile can not be part of it.

I have noticed how merit sharing has reduced to some noticeable extent in the forum for quite some time now. Don't really know if it's due to lack of contributory conversation or the absence of some notable merit sources that are yet to be replaced.

[lovesmayfamilis]

A few minutes ago, I read an answer that completely corresponds to my views.

To me, as a Merit source, "good" is more than enough to send Merit. The Merit system was meant to reduce spam, and if a user isn't spamming, he shouldn't be limited by the Merit system.

Sometimes posts are just good, you shouldn't be a bore to demand from yourself the question of how high-quality a post must be for me to pay attention to it and deserve it.
People are different; I can give merit for humor, for sincerity, for a useful, but at the same time very simple post. However, those huge unreadable posts, to which many newbies devote a lot of time, are difficult to pay attention to, and most often, in the opinion of the prospectors, are not appreciated.
So be simpler.

[Helena Yu]

Both, the post quality and the way the user sent merit.

I only want give merit to user who're not in a part of local friends or gangs because if I give more merit to them, it means they will share their merit in bigger amount.

I don't care with negative feedback, how active the user is, how many positive feedback they received, how big their power in DT network, how popular the user is etc etc.

[Odohu]

Different people with different criteria for sending out merits, that is the beauty of diversity. Inasmuch as there can never be just one way of viewing what qualify as merit deserving post, I think its up to people to use their discretion to chose posts they believe to be merit deserving. Personally, I do not consider the ranks of the person, the history or anything, rather the content of the post. As a non merit source, the few merits at my disposal is always shared based on the content of the post in line with my conviction that they deserve to be merited. My method may not be perfect but it gives me satisfaction I need.
 

[examplens]

I've noticed that some accounts take different approaches when sending merits. Some might check the account profile first before sending, while others focus solely on the post and send merits based on their judgment.

I'm curious to hear how you determined that there are these two ways for users to decide who to reward with merit. 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, especially from merit sources and those who consistently give and receive merits, even if they aren’t merit sources. Newbies are also welcome to share their thoughts here----this is an open discussion for everyone!

I mostly give merits to posts that I think they deserve, not to users. it happens that some user who has negative feedback and proven to have bad attitudes sometimes writes a very useful and constructive post. I think that in such situations we should be objective.
Several times I gave merit without checking, but those were those who needed a small amount of merit for the next rank, while they earned enough merit to rule out the possibility of accidental.

[hugeblack]

Unless you are on my ignore list, I look at the quality of the post and the account rank. 6 merit for a JR member means a high quality post, unlike 6 merit for a legendary account. The account history is reviewed in case I want to send +5 merit or enough to rank-up.

[yahoo62278]

If I see someone give a great response to a question, someone helping others when they responded, someone close to ranking up, a response I agree with sometimes, or when I post a thread and people participate in the discussion are some of the reasons I'll send a merit.

The final reason I posted up there where I'll merit based on participating in a thread is subjective. I will not merit everyone, once I start seeing users who post a trash response just to get a merit, I'll not merit that user. I realize the merit system made it a little tougher for some to rank up, but I also feel it's not really hard to do still.

I don't usually try to merit some of the higher ranked/respected users as they don't really need it. Some aren't in sig campaigns and could probably care less if they get merit or have so much respect in the community they could care less. I try to reserve merits for those that there is still value in getting them. Some users kinda make it obvious when posting a thread that they are making the thread only to gain merits vs actually being interested in the subject they posted about. If you are going to make a thread, at least participate in the thread more than making the initial post.

I am not a merit source, so if I run out I don't get a refill monthly. I have yet to run out to this point, but It'll happen eventually.

[Oshio-man]

I think , people that  merits base on quality post  in the community are getting it right because it will make other to go back to learn more to improve in quality post, but there are some Newbies in this community today are good in quality post but they are still lacking merits base on the merit source are few in this community. To me, I will prefer to merit base on your activeness and quality post in the community, because there are some users who are good in quality post but they are not too active in the community which such people should be limit in merits earning, but those that are active and good in quality post should be feed with merits to encourage them, this is my opinion.

[Coyster]

If i read a post and i want to merit it, i'll just go ahead and do so, why do i have to go through the accounts post history just to merit a post i just read and i felt deserved merit. If i were to be a merit source, and i wanted to send a lot of merits to a particular user, then i would go though their post history and dump merits on as many posts as possible, but since i am not a MS, and i have limited Smerits, i just merit posts and that's that.

[GeorgeJohn]

What attract some people to merit a user is just a particular post the person come across, after you have read  what the person has written for the post that attracted your attention, you might check he or her subsequent posts to check if any need to be merited, because I could remember when I was a newbie in forum, after I have made different post for long time, you will be surprised that someone will just review your profile and merit all your posts, it has happened to me severally, so I believe that theirs some people who merit a single post and their is some who merit based on Profile.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Ive merited some regardless of their position or rank as long as Ive like the comment or topic he posted or imparted with the community. Sometimes a witty post could also be a likeable approach and also meritable.

For me we should based it on the quality of the post rather than the users post history were awarding merits for its content and not because of the person who posted it. Only my opinion.

[SatoPrincess]

I don’t look at rank or post history before meriting a post. I don’t think a lot of people consider rank a big factor because Satoshi keeps getting merits even though the account is not active. I send merits to posts that I find helpful, interesting and sometimes funny. If I come across a topic and someone has already commented what I wanted to say, I usually merit the post.

[LTU_btc]

No, I never check account profile, post history and etc. Merit just isn't such big deal that I would waste my time checking such things
Only exception can when meriting newbies. Don't want to rank up spamners, bounty hunters or cheaters who use AI for their posts.
I just have to admit that I click merit button too rarely, sometimes I just forget about it .

[robelneo]

I use merit for what's intended for and that is content, so account history is not part of my consideration its not easy to create good content that generates appreciation,, so I gave it to them, but not from those proven scammers with many visible red tags, neutrals and red tags out of unverified accusation are ok with me.

[vapourminer]

individual post only

[Amphenomenon]

I merit individual post often rather than going through the user post history or merit record but in the aspect of those ranking up I often go through their merit history or see their tag before sending merit to such, it's just a way of avoiding notably farmers and possibly shitposter/spammers.

[Vod]

I read the post first.  If I think it's novel information, or otherwise hard to come by, I consider it meritable.

But before I give merit, I would check the account name.  I don't believe in rewarding active scammers if they happen to hear something interesting and post it.