A possible improvement to the merit system (my thoughts)

[Perfectbaby]

Well, I don't see this to add any meaning to the forum or even makes things better neither does it look pretty fine for me, the system is already good and making it decentralized in a form where we wouldn't know whom is sending or receiving the merits makes it to increase the chances of jeopardizing the merits and making in the favor of those whom they knows more better while others suffer for nothing. It is better it remains centralized where everyone sees whom is sending and receiving, and if there are any connection of accounts it would easily leads to sanctioning and penalizations.

[mcdouglasx]

Really, the only intention of this post is to reflect my thoughts, as the title suggests, understanding the collective mindset of 'if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it'. It’s 100% valid and logical, but it’s also true that even if we don’t want change, it’s always good to debate these topics.

I don’t know why some people think this is based on an idea of some kind of karma system, when the only thing I proposed in the thread was to stop showing publicly who sends them.

Some others think that certain merits given are not subject to ideological evaluations, but rather to posts with quality content. Example: users with thoughts like 'if you support what I think, I’ll give you merits,' or 'giving merits because I support their stance'.

+5 merit:

As the prefixes become smaller, you actually introduce a greater margin of error because the probability of collision or selecting an incorrect value increases.

I don't get what you mean

Regarding the abuse of merits, I don't believe that hiding who grants the merits necessarily fosters the abuse of them. This can be mitigated with more consistency through the use of codes. It would even be more effective than a user (human) manually reviewing names and posts.

Codes can be created to identify scenarios of merit abuse that often follow this pattern:

If this pattern of the orange circle repeats, or if the majority of the merits do not go beyond the orange circle, it would be considered a possible merit abuse, which is then reported to the staff for evaluation.

[dkbit98]

Additionally, the so-called 'snowball effect' would be avoided. For example, if Satoshi assigns 100 merits, many people would follow suit without even evaluating the post and would add more merits. On the other hand, if Satoshi were to support an opposing position, users, even if they disagreed with him, would tend to remain neutral for the most part. If the merit system were anonymous to the public, people would simply rely on their own judgment and wouldn't be influenced by others' actions.

I honestly don't see how this would change or improve anything regarding merits system.
Merits should not be used for supporting or not supporting any members in forum.
In fact, there is a good chance I can disagree with something that is written by specific member, but if the subject is interesting and sparks discussion than I could sent him merits.
I also don't support herd mentality and I won't send merits to any post just because a bunch of people, satoshi, theymos, loycev, or anyone else sent merits before me.

[mcdouglasx]

I also don't support herd mentality and I won't send merits to any post just because a bunch of people, satoshi, theymos, loycev, or anyone else sent merits before me.

Although you don't do it, we are aware that these types of behaviors exist. Many cannot escape the herd effect because the desire to align with a group is a natural instinct of humans, and this affects critical thinking. An example would be Trump's memecoin; just because someone renowned endorses an idea, it tends to bias the thoughts of the majority, consciously or unconsciously. If that memecoin were created by user77, someone nobody knows, it wouldn't have the same impact. That's why I proposed my idea to mitigate biases.

[Catenaccio]

Additionally, the so-called 'snowball effect' would be avoided. For example, if Satoshi assigns 100 merits, many people would follow suit without even evaluating the post and would add more merits.

It can be a blind meriting action when a user follows a famous user, but it can be merit abuse. If you see it as abuse, send your report to forum moderators or admins or create your thread in Reputation board.

Meriting is emotional too and if you are in a good day, you can be more generous with meriting than usual. You need to try to merit posts that deserve merit because it has good quality and contribution to forum community.

You can see abuse in contests.

Theymos wrote it in the announcement of merit system, Merit & new rank requirements.

There is currently no such thing as a "demerit". I'm hoping that the positive merits alone will be fine. I could add demerits pretty easily later on if necessary, though.

I'm hoping that this system will increase post quality by:
 - Forcing people to post high-quality stuff in order to rank up. If you just post garbage, you will never get even 1 merit point, and you will therefore never be able to put links in your signature, etc.
 - Highlighting good posts with the "Merited by" line.

While we will not be directly moderating this, I encourage people to give merit to posts that are objectively high-quality, not just posts that you agree with.

Do not beg for merit excessively.

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.

[Churchillvv]

If there was supposed to be a change in the merit system, it would have occured long ago. There have been so many merit system suggestions in this board yet none is considered not because they are not making sense but because what has been in existence has already been there so why make changes for a specific individual opinion about the merit system?

Consequently your idea of merit spending being anonymous is very much a back boned to what you're trying to avoid.

Sometimes topics have to be reported severally before mods could see it and take action imagine this busy people coming to look at each individual merit score? among the millions of active users.

Merits on Bitcointalk are essentially a voting system, and voting-based systems tend to work better when anonymity is preserved.

You sound vague here! what do you mean by voting system? the number of merit on a post determines it's authenticity? or it's used to choose what's ideal and what's not ideal ? merit system is subjective to individuals so what you consider the merit system for is obviously against the perception of the masses.

If there was supposed to be a change in the merit system, it would have occured long ago..

I agree. The development of the merit system took some time, just as it would take some time to make changes to it. Given that it has had good results, even if not perfect, I doubt very much that changes will be made in the future, as I don't see a pressing need, and you don't know if the changes would turn out worse, like the semi invisibility of merits, which as _act_ says could lead to abuse.

It would likely make it worst, judging from already existing cases. A merit system of 2018, here 2025 to be changed towards sentiment is obviously not going to work.

It's hard for OP to agree to this.

Additionally, the so-called 'snowball effect' would be avoided. For example, if Satoshi assigns 100 merits, many people would follow suit without even evaluating the post and would add more merits. On the other hand, if Satoshi were to support an opposing position, users, even if they disagreed with him, would tend to remain neutral for the most part. If the merit system were anonymous to the public, people would simply rely on their own judgment and wouldn't be influenced by others' actions.

I can remember seeing a post from a newbie that was merit hugely by 1miau if can remember but this didn't attract others to merit the same post, he's perception was very different from others so this whole thought seems to be centered on one thing subjectivity.

[mcdouglasx]

If there was supposed to be a change in the merit system, it would have occured long ago. There have been so many merit system suggestions in this board yet none is considered not because they are not making sense but because what has been in existence has already been there so why make changes for a specific individual opinion about the merit system?

Consequently your idea of merit spending being anonymous is very much a back boned to what you're trying to avoid.

Sometimes topics have to be reported severally before mods could see it and take action imagine this busy people coming to look at each individual merit score? among the millions of active users.

Merits on Bitcointalk are essentially a voting system, and voting-based systems tend to work better when anonymity is preserved.

You sound vague here! what do you mean by voting system? the number of merit on a post determines it's authenticity? or it's used to choose what's ideal and what's not ideal ? merit system is subjective to individuals so what you consider the merit system for is obviously against the perception of the masses.

Example: Alice presents a problem, Bob earns several merits by responding with a possible solution. Peter, some time later, presents the same problem and goes directly to Bob's response because it is the most supported one. This is what I mean when I say 'merit-based voting system'. As for the other point, when it is visible who grants the merits, it opens the door to the 'authority bias' effect.

[Ambatman]

Codes can be created to identify scenarios of merit abuse that often follow this pattern

Merit abuse doesn't follow a single pattern  Codes are not created for their thoughts or subjectivity.
There are People that merit certain group of people not because they are abusing the merit but that's what they find interesting
Imagine a user mostly based in the mining section
Their merit circle Would be small.


Another does the cost worth the perceived results?
Simplicity sometimes is security
If it gets too complex we may start seeing bugs (literally and not literally)

Example: Alice presents a problem, Bob earns several merits by responding with a possible solution. Peter, some time later, presents the same problem and goes directly to Bob's response because it is the most supported one. This is what I mean when I say 'merit-based voting system'. As for the other point, when it is visible who grants the merits, it opens the door to the 'authority bias' effect.

Oh we already have something like this
If you suspect an abuse, just post it on reputation board and case closed.



Mind you, I'm not against improvement just believe anonymity isn't the way
Even Bitcoin is a public ledger  .

A Good POV.

[LoyceV]

I also don't support herd mentality and I won't send merits to any post just because a bunch of people, satoshi, theymos, loycev, or anyone else sent merits before me.

I'll make you a promise: if satoshi Merits a post, I'll send it 42 Merits. And if satoshi makes a post, I'll do the same

[dkbit98]

Although you don't do it, we are aware that these types of behaviors exist. Many cannot escape the herd effect because the desire to align with a group is a natural instinct of humans, and this affects critical thinking.

If that s the case please start sending bitcoin donations instead of merits to post creators and test your theory.
I don't care what other people are doing.

I'll make you a promise: if satoshi Merits a post, I'll send it 42 Merits. And if satoshi makes a post, I'll do the same

Let's make it a double, if that happens and you send 42 merits than I will send 84 merits
Seriously now, I was thinking in past tense, someone could sent a bunch of merits in year 2018, 2019 or later after implementation of merit system, but that is not making me to send more merits.

[Mrbluntzy]

The staff could always continue knowing who sends the merits to prevent abuse of the system.

What kind of abuse do you mean? The merit system is transparent and yet it is being  abused regardless of its transparency, do you really think that making the system anonymous would solve any problem, it wouldn't. The reason why this would not work is because,
1, Members on the forum knows how the merit systems is working already therefore changing it now wouldn't stop anything because the members that are abusing the are still on the forum.
2, abuses can be done more if the system becomes anonymous compare to now that it's transparent.
3, Bitcointalk don't have to copy the same feature that is operating on Altcoinstalks.

[Lafu]

I'll make you a promise: if satoshi Merits a post, I'll send it 42 Merits. And if satoshi makes a post, I'll do the same

If that will be happend please mention me and i will be add some Merits there too when i have some at this time.
If satoshi makes a post again here on the Forum the whole Forum will be going nuts on that and i guess that it will be change everything 

@mcdouglasx
Your idea is not an improvement to be honest , if that what you have written will be implemented it takes no 24 Hours if it would be abused.
So from my side there is NO for that idea , at the moment the merit system is very transparent and everybody can see whats going on  , it could not be better.

[EarnOnVictor]

Regarding the merit system, the only thing I would change is the visibility of who grants the merits to the public. In other words, we could see which merits were assigned, but not who assigned them. This would prevent merits from being denied to those who truly deserve them or being granted without proper evaluation.

Oh, that is genius of you. I thought you wanted to rant like others, but it shows you understand what you are saying. We are all humans, and I believe that human nature will always play out in the current merit sharing no matter how we pretend, so the "give me, I give you" and other sentimental sharing would be stopped by that because you can't know who is who.

But I doubt this happening since it is not coming from the so-called reputable members, it is dead on arrival. Many will not even care because the current structure favours them.

[Rikafip]

Merits on Bitcointalk are essentially a voting system, and voting-based systems tend to work better when anonymity is preserved.

Not necessarily, as more than once I merited a post that I don't agree with and so did many other forum members.

Regarding your suggestion, I don't see what it could bring as merit was introduced to simply make it for shitposters much harder to reach higher ranks.

[Stalker22]

OP, I dont really agree with your point of view.  Why assume people cant think for themselves? Why be scared to publicly support someone if you genuinely think they are making a good point? At the end of the day, we all see things differently.  Just because someone influential takes a position doesnt require everyone else to fall in line.  We should think critically and have confidence in our own reasoning even if it means respectfully disagreeing at times.  After all, constructive debate is how we challenge assumptions and arrive at truth.

As for the merits, there is a reason why they were made public. Primarily to prevent abuse. As many have already pointed out.

[Odusko]

The staff could always continue knowing who sends the merits to prevent abuse of the system.

The staff have a lot of work on their hands cleaning the forum and whatnot. Catching merit abusers and account farmers is more of a community responsibility, you don’t have to be a staff to do that. I like that the merit system is transparent, if it was anonymous like you are suggesting, account farmers would have been roaming free on in the forum.

If there is anything that merits history have done really inin the area of interest this Forum and how members play their roles to become worthy of receiving merit's, for sure this development have increased the quality of this forum but the quality of accounts and reduction of Spam and alts accounts farming here in the forum, so for sure the merit's system helps to expose a lot of things and also keeping the forum clean from both accounts farmer's and spammers.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

Regarding the merit system, the only thing I would change is the visibility of who grants the merits to the public. In other words, we could see which merits were assigned, but not who assigned them. This would prevent merits from being denied to those who truly deserve them or being granted without proper evaluation.

I literally don't think that will be the most effective way to distribute merits to post that truly deserves to be merited, and weren't. Because the daily increase in the number of forum users and yet a static number of merit sources over the years has been the major reason why though merits are distributed, but it seems not to go round to all deserving post. Because this public visibility of merit display has been one of the major tool to prevent merit abuse by forum users.

For example, if Alice and Bob are in a debate, Peter, who is a friend of both, avoids taking sides. However, this wouldn't happen if his stance were secret, as Peter wouldn't face issues in positioning himself impartially.

If he is afraid of been question for taking side while voting, then he literally shouldn't vote at all, because just as Bitcoin is transparent, so is it's forum and everything about it ought to be transparent, just as the current nature of the forum.
Hence, I totally disagree with everything you just said above regarding your suggested merit improvement, because that has never been the reason why good posts aren't merited, but rather a lack of enough merit sources.

[mcdouglasx]

OP, I dont really agree with your point of view.  Why assume people cant think for themselves? Why be scared to publicly support someone if you genuinely think they are making a good point? At the end of the day, we all see things differently.  Just because someone influential takes a position doesnt require everyone else to fall in line.  We should think critically and have confidence in our own reasoning even if it means respectfully disagreeing at times.  After all, constructive debate is how we challenge assumptions and arrive at truth.

As for the merits, there is a reason why they were made public. Primarily to prevent abuse. As many have already pointed out.

This topic is so subjective, and it’s clear that I raised an issue that, from my perspective, is as follows: "The visibility of who grants the merits can influence or coerce ideas". If someone tells me this doesn’t happen, I think we have different worldviews, because I have always observed that the intervention of authority figures influences certain groups of people in any social sphere.

And yes, I know the masses repeat that "this fosters the abuse of merits", but just as I expressed my opinion, I also presented a possible solution. However, no one provides a precise or technical reason why this problem cannot be mitigated with code, given that there aren’t infinite ways to abuse merits. Generally, these types of problems are mitigated by websites without largely relying on users.

In any case, let’s assume the majority is right simply because they’re the majority. We would be entering a context similar to the one I propose to avoid in this thread. And yes, I know someone will say, "If the majority says so, it must be true". Well, this is not entirely correct.


Let’s make the most of this thread and turn it into something we can all learn from. Share the techniques that are used to abuse merits that come to your mind, so that whoever reads it can recognize these patterns and report them.

[vapourminer]

i give merits to whatever catches my fancy. ive merited both sides of discussions, ive merited people who i would have a beer with and ive merited others i would cross the street to avoid.

and i prefer it being public knowledge. i mean its a merit. its not some secret to be kept, its to draw attention to a post with it. so i want to know who it is drawing that attention to a post.

[Btcdeybodi]

Theymos is in the best position to make/improve/cancel the merit system if the need arises. He watches over the activities of the forum almost each day if am not mistaken. With or without the merit system, there will always be an abuse in any system. Hiding of the username of who sends merits to who doesn't sit well with me because that is where the main abuse of merit will happen because i can decide to send 100 merits sequentially to a user and no one will notice that it is an abuse because my identity is hidden.

Regarding the abuse of merits, I don't believe that hiding who grants the merits necessarily fosters the abuse of them.

Hey, that is where the abuse of merit will happen even more than what it is now, don't even try to argue it because there is no point there. If i were you, i'll go through the replies of each person in this thread and see what each person is saying then you can agree with the majority instead of continuously making arguments.