A possible improvement to the merit system (my thoughts)

[mcdouglasx]

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.

I like this response, straightforward and without beating around the bush or ambiguities about why you prefer it just the way it is.

[igebotz]

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

If the staff are going to monitor a forum with thousands of activities and over 5000+ daily merit activities, who is going to clear up the spam? 

The merit system is serving it purpose of keeping shit posters at the lowest rank and that was it primary objective. If it's not broken, do not fix.

[notocactus]

Regarding the merit system, the only thing I would change is the visibility of who grants the merits to the public.

Merit is highlighed in green color since the merit system kick off.

• Merit & new rank requirement

- Highlighting good posts with the "Merited by" line.

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

Forum staffs and community members can see it with third party sites like BPIP by typing a username, clicking on the user profile and at the right side, you will have following stats.

• Favorite profiles to send sMerit to
• Merit Fans of fillippone

DdmrDdmr has a tool for it, but he stopped it in his merit dashboard about some years ago when this feature was stopped to support by another platform. I failed to know what he called it, so I can not search. If DdmrDdmr see this post, he can give you more information.

[LoyceV]

I also don't support herd mentality and I won't send merits to any post just because a bunch of people

When I'm looking for good posts from a certain Merit user to dump some Merit on, it's easy to search for posts that already received Merit from different people. Especially if the posts are in a language I don't speak.
I wouldn't call it "herd mentality" though, it's just being lazy while having too much sMerit

[Synchronice]

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.

Merit system has flaws, that's true but the perfect system can't be created because there is always a room for abuse. If you change the visibility of Merit, who send to whom, then you won't be able to visit someone's profile and see whom they sent and who sent to them, which doesn't sound like a bright idea because this way, Merits can be abused. Your idea has a cool side and that's what you mentioned but it has a negative side too, which I just mentioned along with some other users. Does the pro outweigh the con? I don't think so.

I thought that Merit moderation would be a good idea but then again, it wouldn't work well. Imagine that I sent someone 6 merits and the receiver posted a really good post. The problem is, someone might report me to the moderator because according to them, the post wasn't good enough to receive 6 merits but I think that it was good enough. Now it depends on the moderator whether it was good enough to receive 6 or not. This is getting dubious and problematic.
I think that the way it Merit system works now, is okay. There is not much to improve without significantly bad side effects.

[Alone055]

Merits are like an achievement of a sort; I feel good when I get merits for my posts because that makes me think I'm contributing positively and people are liking my posts. I would not want that to be hidden from the public; I would love everyone to see what I have achieved in the posts of mine that got merited. The merit system brought a change in the forum as a whole; it helped everyone in acknowledging the good and bad posters more easily because, more than 95% of times, those who have more merits or have been receiving merits regularly can be considered good posters.

One more point is that when the system was introduced, users were airdropped merits based on their ranks at that time. So, if a user had received 1000 merits in the airdrop being a Legendary, and now they have 1050 after so many years, how would someone know if they have earned all those merits or received them in the airdrop? I know, you can argue that their post quality can be checked, but isn't it easier if the merit history is visible to everyone?

Lastly, about merit abuse, moderators or staff members aren't the ones who catch and punish merit abusers, it's mostly DT members, and if only moderators are allowed to see merits and merit histories or users, you can't expect them to catch them because we only have a handful of them, while more DT members and users are willing to do these things.

[Mrbluntzy]

I wouldn't call it "herd mentality" though, it's just being lazy while having too much sMerit

Take no offense but if the Smerit you have is too plenty and you are lazy to send out to the particular profiles that you like, why not send 1 each to any post that has some quality in it? I have seen some users that frequently give 1 merit each to post that had some quality in it but when they see very high quality they will give more than 1. If you do it often, it can help you not to be lazy again.

[igebotz]

I wouldn't call it "herd mentality" though, it's just being lazy while having too much sMerit

Take no offense but if the Smerit you have is too plenty and you are lazy to send out to the particular profiles that you like, why not send 1 each to any post that has some quality in it? I have seen some users that frequently give 1 merit each to post that had some quality in it but when they see very high quality they will give more than 1. If you do it often, it can help you not to be lazy again.

A quality is quality and a shitpost is a shitpost - there's no other way around it. No one is required to drain their source merits.

I've also had unused source allocation a few times; personally, I'm not going on an Easter spree on underserving posts just to empty my source merits; it's better to let it burn.

[robelneo]

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 anonymous system is a copy of the Karma version of the other forum, altcoinstalks. Did you get this idea from altcoinstalks? They have their own explanation on this. When it comes to merit, it should be based on the judgement of the giver; with the Bitcointalk merit system, it teaches us to be independent with our judgement.

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

It's an additional workload for the staff.

[mcdouglasx]

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 anonymous system is a copy of the Karma version of the other forum, altcoinstalks. Did you get this idea from altcoinstalks? They have their own explanation on this. When it comes to merit, it should be based on the judgement of the giver; with the Bitcointalk merit system, it teaches us to be independent with our judgement.

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

It's an additional workload for the staff.

I already answered this, Bro, in previous comments. I asked some questions and shared thoughts with more context, which no one has responded to. I don’t know why, if something has already been discussed, it gets repeated in a loop. Let’s move the conversation forward. I generally read all the context to avoid sounding repetitive and to contribute something new; otherwise, I would rarely respond with something that has already been said. Sometimes, it is us, the participants, who kill the threads by being repetitive.

[JollyGood]

I am not a fan of the current merit system, partly because of the two-tier system that has merit sources and non-merit sources. Giving merits to merit sources without regularly scrutinising their distribution beyond the bare minimum as stipulated by theymos, is something I believe was (and still is) a mistake.

Having said that, I would be against an anonymous merit system because it will be open to abuse and would be counterproductive.

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.

[SuperBitMan]

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.

You are correct however making suggestions are okay because we have freedom of speech but I see no reason making all this suggestions because nothing is wrong with the merit system the only time people should start making suggestions about changing the current merit system is when the system is no longer good or is no longer reliable.

You are also right coming to look at each individual merit score among the millions of active users will be a very difficult job.

[Cryptohygenic]

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

Technically being detective, you are suspecious that merit sources in the forum are being biased and not recycling public merits within a cycle which seems cheating, I guess that you mean?
Can anyone ever be righteous? I guess no. No me and not even you.
So therefore, only the bot can ascertain this unbiased merit circulation processes like that is when the system of bot is applied.
I have also had the thought of raising a thread like this proposing if possible, the bot can serve as merit distributors in the forum to keep it circulations a fair process.

[dkbit98]

When I'm looking for good posts from a certain Merit user to dump some Merit on, it's easy to search for posts that already received Merit from different people. Especially if the posts are in a language I don't speak.
I wouldn't call it "herd mentality" though, it's just being lazy while having too much sMerit

Nobody is forcing you to spend and send all your merits, and in most cases members that receive most merits usually don't need them so much.
I am not saying that I am not lazy sometimes, and maybe we should focus more on quality new members, they are not often seen this days in forum.
 

[JollyGood]

Giving alternative voices an opportunity to put forward ideas is an important part of freedom of speech and also freedom of expression. Even if they are eventually overlooked they have a right to put their views forward.

I think by far the majority will state looking at individual merits is going to be a time-consuming process therefore cannot be viable because of the sheer numbers involved. Having said that, I believe having a two-tier merit system (where one group are merit source and the rest are not) is wrong.

You are correct however making suggestions are okay because we have freedom of speech but I see no reason making all this suggestions because nothing is wrong with the merit system the only time people should start making suggestions about changing the current merit system is when the system is no longer good or is no longer reliable.

You are also right coming to look at each individual merit score among the millions of active users will be a very difficult job.

[LoyceV]

Nobody is forcing you to spend and send all your merits, and in most cases members that receive most merits usually don't need them so much.

Theymos said it's best if Merit sources empty their source. Even if the receiver doesn't "need" it, it allows them to sent Merit to others again.
My source just increased from almost empty to 272, because exactly 30 days ago I sent a lot of sMerit. It's an ever increasing pile of sMerit to get rid off.

[igebotz]

Nobody is forcing you to spend and send all your merits, and in most cases members that receive most merits usually don't need them so much.

Theymos said it's best if Merit sources empty their source. Even if the receiver doesn't "need" it, it allows them to sent Merit to others again.
My source just increased from almost empty to 272, because exactly 30 days ago I sent a lot of sMerit. It's an ever increasing pile of sMerit to get rid off.

Yes. But not to empty sources on profiles like Satoshi and other inactive big accounts; it doesn't help the merit circulation in anyway. I see merit sources still pushing merits on Satoshi and I wonder why...

How are these thousands of Smerits on Satoshi going to help merits circulation

[Churchillvv]

Nobody is forcing you to spend and send all your merits, and in most cases members that receive most merits usually don't need them so much.

Theymos said it's best if Merit sources empty their source. Even if the receiver doesn't "need" it, it allows them to sent Merit to others again.
My source just increased from almost empty to 272, because exactly 30 days ago I sent a lot of sMerit. It's an ever increasing pile of sMerit to get rid off.

Yes. But not to empty sources on profiles like Satoshi and other inactive big accounts; it doesn't help the merit circulation in anyway. I see merit sources still pushing merits on Satoshi and I wonder why...

How are these thousands of Smerits on Satoshi going to help merits circulation

I used to think that this warning (we reserve the right to decay unused sMerit in the future.) was real untill I had a look up on Satoshi's profile, nothing decays so all the smerits that profile got remains intact but that also is not a big deal.

As long as merit are not limited in supply, Theymos can always add more merits source and merits to the system then Satoshi's smerit shouldn't bother you, since those merit source are still going to send out merits we still have enough in circulation.

Moreover, shouldn't be the one wondering such because you're a staff and source, the more you dispense yours Theymos is probably going to increase it so you can spread more isn't it?

[LoyceV]

Yes. But not to empty sources on profiles like Satoshi and other inactive big accounts; it doesn't help the merit circulation in anyway. I see merit sources still pushing merits on Satoshi and I wonder why...

Even if Merit circulation ends there, the posts are still worth it.

How are these thousands of Smerits on Satoshi going to help merits circulation

It doesn't. But it's a drop in a bucket compared on the total of more than 2 million sent Merits.

[Findingnemo]

I used to think that this warning (we reserve the right to decay unused sMerit in the future.) was real untill I had a look up on Satoshi's profile, nothing decays so all the smerits that profile got remains intact but that also is not a big deal.

How did you find that? Because the number of smerits can be seen only when we logged into our account and it's not possible to find in other ways but what you can see is merits which is earned and it's different from sMerits.

As long as merit are not limited in supply, Theymos can always add more merits source and merits to the system then Satoshi's smerit shouldn't bother you, since those merit source are still going to send out merits we still have enough in circulation.

That's right, merit is unlimited and theymos can create infinite amount of merits so spending on Satoshi's posts won't affect the circulation in any way and if I am not wrong the merit sources alone can generate 33K merits per month and I would be surprised even half of them spend on posts.