A possible improvement to the merit system (my thoughts)

[mcdouglasx]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Hazink]

Your idea might sound good, but that will lead to much more merit abuse than any positive effect on the merit system, and saying the staff will be the only ones to have full access to the merit history database is giving them a whole load of work, which they don't have all the time in the world to go through. Your suggestion is similar to what's already existing with the karma system on Altcointalk; I don't like that pattern.

And since your suggestion is because of who deceived merit to be denied of the merit that doesn't have anything to do with who is sending merit, some people give merit based on post quality, irrespective of who posted it. Why are there others who might want to take a careful look at the user before dispensing any merit? None of such can be improved by hiding who sends merit to whom.

[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.

[mcdouglasx]

Your idea might sound good, but that will lead to much more merit abuse than any positive effect on the merit system, and saying the staff will be the only ones to have full access to the merit history database is giving them a whole load of work, which they don't have all the time in the world to go through. Your suggestion is similar to what's already existing with the karma system on Altcointalk; I don't like that pattern.

And since your suggestion is because of who deceived merit to be denied of the merit that doesn't have anything to do with who is sending merit, some people give merit based on post quality, irrespective of who posted it. Why are there others who might want to take a careful look at the user before dispensing any merit? None of such can be improved by hiding who sends merit to whom.

Why would this complicate merit abuse? Seeing or not seeing who grants merits is inherent to the quality of the publication. If you, as a user, notice poor publications with excessive merits, you could still report them to the moderator. Regarding the other point, do you really believe that some people haven't refrained from giving merits to avoid reflecting their stance? Do you think there aren't publications that receive merits just because Theymos did it, for example?.

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.

[Apocollapse]

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 don't understand why merit is used for right and wrong thing? merit is used for post quality, information and constructiveness. When someone disagree even it's wrong, but they have a point, they deserve to get merit. It might be exception for something like "mathematics" where 1+1 is always 2, if there are people who have different answer, they're all wrong.

From my observation, merit is less likely to occur  a conflict with other users, trust list and feedback are.

[_act_]

It is not a good idea.

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.

Making it not possible to be traced so that the merits can easily be abused by people easily?

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

No staff has posted about merit abuse before but some users has been given neutral or negative trust before for massively sending merits to their alts. So you do not want this to happen ever again?

[Free Market Capitalist]

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.

[Odusko]

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.

Why do we need a copy of what is obtainable on the other forum, I believe this whole idea is motivated by the karma system on altcointalk and why should both the merit system and karma system function the same, each one of them has its own unique features that set it aside from the other so for that, things are ok the way there are with the merit's system, and what ops should understand is that it will take a whole lot to change a system that has proven to be very effective and improving the overall quality of contents here on Bitcointalk.

[libert19]

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.

You lost me here itself. Merit system is not that deep, there is no evaluation and there is no 'deserving of merit' users. Even if one user likes particular post and gives it merit even though it could be shitpost in someone else users eyes — it's fine.

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.

There is this karma system on altcoinstalks and I don't like it specially because it's anonymous. Plus, merit system being public helps in avoiding merits farming between alts, as sooner or later farmers are caught.

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

That'd be burden on staff imo, it's better if it remains public and those who care about this abuse stuff, use their Sherlock Holmes techniques and figure out things and let everyone else know, and rep system take care of rest.

Edit: I guess I had brain fart while writing this comment, so I corrected some stuff.

[Ambatman]

if Satoshi assigns 100 merits, many people would follow suit without even evaluating the post and would add more merits

I don't think anybody does this
Or I personally don't do this.
What I believe it does is it draws attention to the post and you would want to read why it's worth such merit or any.
Seeing someone I respect giving a post 50 merit doesn't mean I would merit it without seeing what's interesting about it.

Why would this complicate merit abuse? Seeing or not seeing who grants merits is inherent to the quality of the publication. If you, as a user, notice poor publications with excessive merits, you could still report them to the moderator.

It would. Merit abuse would be as easy as breathing.
Just give two merit to different post of the user that looks okay and nobody is going to be suspicious
Easy to farm your alt account without been called.
Yes the current merit system has its flaws but no system is perfect and it's doing just fine( improvement shouldn't be in anonymity).

Regarding the other point, do you really believe that some people haven't refrained from giving merits to avoid reflecting their stance?.

How's that the system's fault.
You chose not to nobody forced you not to a Send a merit.
Nothing states that you have to send merit to every post you feel deserves it.

Do you think there aren't publications that receive merits just because Theymos did it, for example?

That's trust and reputation.
Their history has shown this and people are not forced to merit
They did on their own
What's the issue with that?

[lovesmayfamilis]

For me, the OP's proposal is nonsense. Why do you perceive people as those who do not have their own opinion? Satoshi gave someone a hundred merits, so what? Should everyone repeat it like sheep? I am against it. Everyone has and should have their own opinion. In the same way, why be afraid to support someone if you see clearly that one of the disputants is right? This is cowardice and adaptation. I laugh a lot when I see such people who are afraid to say something from their account against someone. In your case, OP, it is better to be without merits at all, since the fear of being guilty will manifest itself in you in any case. In addition, secretly sending merits will create a sweet opportunity to send merits to your alternative

[LoyceV]

For example, if Alice and Bob are in a debate, Peter, who is a friend of both, avoids taking sides.

Peter should grow a pair, and realize Merit doesn't mean you "like" or "agree" with a post, but it's meant for good posts. I've received negative feedback a few times because some users don't understand how either the Merit or the Trust system is supposed to be used. That's okay, that's why they're not on DefaultTrust.

Your proposal will increase Merit sales and Meriting alt-accounts.

[hugeblack]

I don't think sending merits is a reflection of a situation. If your friend is monitoring your every action and blaming you for it, it's better to change him/her rather than change the system.
Regarding the 'snowball effect' it is good as long as replies are not ranked according to merits.

[KingsDen]

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.

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.

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.

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

This shows that you don't actually know the essence of the merit system. When I was a newbie, I made a controversial post and legendary members were bashing me, among those that criticised me also gave me 4 merits. That left me with a thought, why disagree with me and also meriting the same post you disagreed with. That made me actually understand that a post that people disagree with can also earn your merit if it is informative or teaches a new idea. It could simply be the audacity of the user making the post.

Again, if you give merit because you are taking a side in a debate or you want favour, you are using the merit system the wrong way. It also shows that you could be using the trust system the wrong way too.

The merit system is fine this way, think of other things and leave the merit system for now.

[The Cryptovator]

Why are you curious to change the current merit system? It seems your idea will increase merit abuse. Because when we can't see who sent merits, abusers will take advantage of it. I don't think merit senders are influenced by other merit senders. When they think that post deserves merits, then they proceed. The current system is pretty good to me. I don't like a more complicated merit system or any other changes. Because earning merits is really so tough, so the merit system should remain as it is.

Do you want merit moderate by the forum moderator? It's quite impossible for them. They are even working hard to reduce forum spam; they don't have enough time to look at each post and merit the sender.

[ABCbits]

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.

It's interesting point, but people still could be influenced in other ways. For example, reading reply by other member.

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

It would be additional burden to staff, who probably already have their hands full with persistent spammer (who use AI/chatbot) and SEO spammer.

[SatoPrincess]

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.

[Lillominato89]

I don't quite understand why the Merit system should be kept secret!?
It doesn't make any sense at all! I don't think you should be ashamed if you send merits regardless of whether someone else sends them or not, I don't think you should be ashamed if you send merits! Would hiding merits in plain sight make you feel safer?
Merits are and should remain free and visible to everyone, primarily to avoid abuse.
Hiding the way merits are awarded from everyone would cause thousands of other accounts to appear like mushrooms and would be incredibly abusive. As far as I'm concerned, but I don't decide, this idea is really to be rejected.

Don't be offended, my friend, it's just my personal opinion on your topic

[Hatchy]

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.

Peter has clearly misused the merit system. We're supposed to use merits fairly, without playing favorites. Just because someone is your friend, it doesn't mean you should ignore their mistakes. If Alice or Bob has done something wrong, you should judge based on who's right, not who's your friend.

Do you want merit moderate by the forum moderator? It's quite impossible for them. They are even working hard to reduce forum spam; they don't have enough time to look at each post and merit the sender.

Introducing this merit system will only increase the workload of moderators on the forum. Honestly, I don't see the point of such a system. Even with our current merit system, some people still manage to abuse it. If we make the merit history untraceable, it will be even easier for them to exploit it. To me, I think this forum is fine as it is. I don't see the need of making any changes. Such changes might bring flaws in the system which are not meant to exist.

[Ruttoshi]

No matter how hard you try to make the merit system perfect, there will still be merit abuse. However, this your suggestion will only increase merit abuse and promote high rate of alts in the forum because merits becomes untraceable. We all have different ways to qualify a post that deserves our merits.

I hate it when whoever merit my post is invincible like that of altcoinstalks. The only thing that Theymos should do partaking to merit is to add more merit source to the available ones, and increase those merit source that needs more merits.