A possible improvement to the merit system (my thoughts)

[igebotz]

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?

I'm not concerned about myself, and I usually have plenty of Smerits to give out - I can't remember the last time I ran out.  theymos can also regenerate all lost Smerits, but it doesn't mean we should start distributing them to banned accounts; that doesn't improve the system at all.

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

Yes, posts are good no doubt about that, but we're talking about Smerits circulation limitations. Using Satoshi banned account to burn Smerits sources is not a good practice as a merit source.

[mcdouglasx]

I think the merit system isn’t inherently bad, but it does suffer from shortcomings. Merit sources should at least have a broad understanding of the topics being discussed within their region. Merits are far from fair in most cases. Legendary members often receive more merits for less innovative content compared to a newbie who might post something genuinely interesting and of higher quality. Sometimes, quality is overlooked entirely. For example, I’ve seen cases where a newbie discovers something intriguing and only earns 2 merits, while a Legendary member announces something like Electrum updating from version 4.5 to 4.6 and gets 20 merits.

[JollyGood]

I have seen similar scenarios far too many times. The example you gave about newbies or lower ranked members getting zero to a few merits for a worthwhile post whereas an established member get double-digit merits from multiple merit sources for making some posts that do not necessarily deserve to receive that many merits.

I understand this is all subjective therefore others will have alternative views but creating a two-tier system where some members are merit source and others are not, is not appropriate. Furthermore, merit sources operate almost without scrutiny as they do not have to explain nor justify why they distribute merits in the manner they opt to. The current system is full of shortcomings.

I think the merit system isn’t inherently bad, but it does suffer from shortcomings. Merit sources should at least have a broad understanding of the topics being discussed within their region. Merits are far from fair in most cases. Legendary members often receive more merits for less innovative content compared to a newbie who might post something genuinely interesting and of higher quality. Sometimes, quality is overlooked entirely. For example, I’ve seen cases where a newbie discovers something intriguing and only earns 2 merits, while a Legendary member announces something like Electrum updating from version 4.5 to 4.6 and gets 20 merits.

[Mpamaegbu]

The issues you raised, especially that in the second paragraph is very germane. It's a crowd mentality thing where others follow the trail of someone they believe has a better judgment than they've to bestow merit on posts. So, they see their idols meriting a post which they ordinarily wouldn't merit but merit it to show solidarity. If names of senders are blanked and made anonymous just for that singular reason, that would be okay. Sadly, doing that will invariably create room for more merit cheats by those who trade merit or merit their own alts. So, it will be like solving one problem to create another one. There's a counter effect to all that.

[Churchillvv]

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.

Have you forgotten or you don't know about DdmrDdmr's Bitcointalk Merit Dashboard where this data's are provided.

You can also use the Bpip.org to calculate how much smerit any user has by dividing the earned merit by 2 and subtracting the sent merit from it but for Satoshi he hasn't sent any merit from his earned merit.

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?

I'm not concerned about myself, and I usually have plenty of Smerits to give out - I can't remember the last time I ran out.  theymos can also regenerate all lost Smerits, but it doesn't mean we should start distributing them to banned accounts; that doesn't improve the system at all.

Very much understandable and I also agree to that but however the subjectivity of merit sources are absolutely different, what makes no sense to you might be making sense to others that's just a general problem that the merit system has (subjectivity).

[Findingnemo]

Have you forgotten or you don't know about DdmrDdmr's Bitcointalk Merit Dashboard where this data's are provided.

You can also use the Bpip.org to calculate how much smerit any user has by dividing the earned merit by 2 and subtracting the sent merit from it but for Satoshi he hasn't sent any merit from his earned merit.

I also know about https://loyce.club/Merit/usernames.html and https://ninjastic.space/ where we have complete merit history for any user but it doesn't answer the question whether we can find out how much sMerit that one user got. It is only possible to know if we logged into the account.

Also, when the merit system was introduced, smerits also airdropped on random numbers. For example let's take mine now I earned 884 so I'm supposed to have 442 in total, and now that I spent 409 already, then I should have 33 remaining but here's what I have

[LoyceV]

I should have 33 remaining but here's what I have

You probably got one sMerit airdropped.

[Findingnemo]

I should have 33 remaining but here's what I have

You probably got one sMerit airdropped.

That's my point, we can't know how much sMerit someone got, and there's no way we know whether unused sMerit decayed.

[Mrbluntzy]

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.

I don't disagree with you, you are a staff and you know better and as you said, no source would drain their smerit on shit post but there are some post that are worth meriting but will not get merit, instead, it's another post that will get merit, it make me to slightly agree to where OP said that if Satoshi gave 100 merit to a post, others would be influenced by it and would give out their merit. At last, what I also think is that, every member on the forum both merit source and non source have criteria for handing out merit, for example, you could see a post and it doesn't make any meaning to you, instead, you merited a different post on that same thread, then another merit source would merit that particular post that was not merited by you. Sometimes too, it is legendary or hero user that get merit often than junior users maybe because some source thinks that junior don't have enough idea.

[Lillominato89]

I think the merit system isn’t inherently bad, but it does suffer from shortcomings. Merit sources should at least have a broad understanding of the topics being discussed within their region. Merits are far from fair in most cases. Legendary members often receive more merits for less innovative content compared to a newbie who might post something genuinely interesting and of higher quality. Sometimes, quality is overlooked entirely. For example, I’ve seen cases where a newbie discovers something intriguing and only earns 2 merits, while a Legendary member announces something like Electrum updating from version 4.5 to 4.6 and gets 20 merits.

All this is because we do not give the right weight and value to the sMerits we send, furthermore I often see that sMerits are also sent for sympathy (which is very wrong) but everyone is free to interpret things as they see fit. Maybe, just maybe! It would be better if even those who are not sources of merit should have Merit airdropped (e.g. 5 or 10 per month) so that the limitation (even if partial) of having to earn them first and then send them is lifted. Why do I say this? Whoever has a hard time earning Merit will have a hard time rewarding someone because they don't have sMerit This is obviously my personal opinion, whether I agree with it or not

[JiiBs]

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.

If for any reason you do value what it means for transparency or visibility, you would know that this is a terrible idea. One that shouldn’t be conceived on your mind let alone be brought to light. Believe me, it’s what backs corruption in our would as we have it today. Ain’t no reason being political about this. I think it’s best as it is, where we get to see who sends what and to what post.

Besides, it’s not moderated as we have it and everything is subject to context. This is why the system works greatly and why your suggestion wouldn’t be of the best interest to what we have.

[Doan9269]

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.

Your idea is good but may not be considered for action, since we can still have those that will abuse the use of merits for their own selfish interest, this one you're talking about is when there is an harmonized use of merit system and no cheating is being observed, but dealing with a large community like this where people can on their own choose on what to do and not, they can easily abuse the merit and claimed hey are not, since there is are not going to face being banned as a result.

[Cryptohygenic]

I think the merit system isn’t inherently bad, but it does suffer from shortcomings. Merit sources should at least have a broad understanding of the topics being discussed within their region. Merits are far from fair in most cases. Legendary members often receive more merits for less innovative content compared to a newbie who might post something genuinely interesting and of higher quality. Sometimes, quality is overlooked entirely. For example, I’ve seen cases where a newbie discovers something intriguing and only earns 2 merits, while a Legendary member announces something like Electrum updating from version 4.5 to 4.6 and gets 20 merits.

All this is because we do not give the right weight and value to the sMerits we send, furthermore I often see that sMerits are also sent for sympathy (which is very wrong) but everyone is free to interpret things as they see fit. Maybe, just maybe! It would be better if even those who are not sources of merit should have Merit airdropped (e.g. 5 or 10 per month) so that the limitation (even if partial) of having to earn them first and then send them is lifted. Why do I say this? Whoever has a hard time earning Merit will have a hard time rewarding someone because they don't have sMerit This is obviously my personal opinion, whether I agree with it or not

I agree with you that some merits are given out of sympathy which I will duly acknowledge that it is not just an act of the merit source but users with the sMerits. Though I don't find it fair as well because it is not worth meriting a low quality post than a high quality one.
But I don't think anyone aside the merit source can actually decide posts to merit and not get questioned since he sources it in his own hard way of worth quality posts while the merit sources should remain unbiased because they are civil servants of the community at it respective boards in the forum that is ought to serve equity.
With the suggestion of airdrop merit, is it going to be specific on quality posts or the random posts including shit posts?

[Lillominato89]

I think the merit system isn’t inherently bad, but it does suffer from shortcomings. Merit sources should at least have a broad understanding of the topics being discussed within their region. Merits are far from fair in most cases. Legendary members often receive more merits for less innovative content compared to a newbie who might post something genuinely interesting and of higher quality. Sometimes, quality is overlooked entirely. For example, I’ve seen cases where a newbie discovers something intriguing and only earns 2 merits, while a Legendary member announces something like Electrum updating from version 4.5 to 4.6 and gets 20 merits.

All this is because we do not give the right weight and value to the sMerits we send, furthermore I often see that sMerits are also sent for sympathy (which is very wrong) but everyone is free to interpret things as they see fit. Maybe, just maybe! It would be better if even those who are not sources of merit should have Merit airdropped (e.g. 5 or 10 per month) so that the limitation (even if partial) of having to earn them first and then send them is lifted. Why do I say this? Whoever has a hard time earning Merit will have a hard time rewarding someone because they don't have sMerit This is obviously my personal opinion, whether I agree with it or not

I agree with you that some merits are given out of sympathy which I will duly acknowledge that it is not just an act of the merit source but users with the sMerits. Though I don't find it fair as well because it is not worth meriting a low quality post than a high quality one.
But I don't think anyone aside the merit source can actually decide posts to merit and not get questioned since he sources it in his own hard way of worth quality posts while the merit sources should remain unbiased because they are civil servants of the community at it respective boards in the forum that is ought to serve equity.
With the suggestion of airdrop merit, is it going to be specific on quality posts or the random posts including shit posts?

the sources of merit must still give merit to everyone, whether they are quality posts or low-quality posts. the reason is that each source of merit does not have infinite merits but predefined and must give them within the month. this is what I understood about the sources of merit since I signed up to this forum. on my proposal it is obvious, it would be ideal to give them to quality posts but each of us gives the importance of the content differently, what is quality for me, may not be for you.

[OcTradism]

the sources of merit must still give merit to everyone, whether they are quality posts or low-quality posts.

You beat me down and make me surprised by writing this.

Merit is for good and quality posts, not for low-quality posts. The merit system is not created to support shitposters with low-quality posts to rank up.
Things start with this topic Ideas for improving post quality? and eventually come to this launch of Merit & new rank requirements. Months after the launch of initial merit system, theymos made an improvement by demotion on old-era Junior members without at least 1 earned merit.
Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements.

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.

the reason is that each source of merit does not have infinite merits but predefined and must give them within the month.

You misunderstood it. Merit sources don't lose anything if don't use all sourced sMerit within 30 days. The sMerit source will be refilled each 30 days, it's not big matter if you are inactive in sMerit distribution within 1 month. If you are too inactive after many months, your source merit role can be revoked but perhaps it's not too important with you when you are already very inactive in the forum a long time.

[yahoo62278]

There have been countless threads opened regarding merit and what changes certain people feel should be made. The problem is, those that make the thread are usually coming up with a way that they might gain more merit from the change and not considering the whole forum.

IMO just stop worrying about merit and your problem is solved. Most of the people only worry about merit for campaign reasons, but if you actually put in effort and make some quality posts, they will be noticed at some point. We have so many merit sources who go through and send blanket amounts of merit randomly to users. We also have a few threads where people can basically beg for merit.

It's not hard to get them, just put in the time and effort and they'll start flowing in.

[Lillominato89]

the sources of merit must still give merit to everyone, whether they are quality posts or low-quality posts.

You beat me down and make me surprised by writing this.

Merit is for good and quality posts, not for low-quality posts. The merit system is not created to support shitposters with low-quality posts to rank up.
Things start with this topic Ideas for improving post quality? and eventually come to this launch of Merit & new rank requirements. Months after the launch of initial merit system, theymos made an improvement by demotion on old-era Junior members without at least 1 earned merit.
Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements.

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.

the reason is that each source of merit does not have infinite merits but predefined and must give them within the month.

You misunderstood it. Merit sources don't lose anything if don't use all sourced sMerit within 30 days. The sMerit source will be refilled each 30 days, it's not big matter if you are inactive in sMerit distribution within 1 month. If you are too inactive after many months, your source merit role can be revoked but perhaps it's not too important with you when you are already very inactive in the forum a long time.

My English unfortunately isn't the best and I use a translator to be able to talk to you, and I think I expressed myself a bit wrong.
By low quality post I didn't mean that the post is full of rubbish or irrelevant topics, but simply a post that sticks to the topic but doesn't contain any topics worthy of being called quality, which however someone might agree with what is written and throw you a merit.
This happens often, especially on local boards, and there is nothing wrong with throwing a merit for such topics! Obviously everyone is free to give them or not.
I definitely wasn't referring to offtopic or gambling posts, they don't contain anything bitcoin related and you can hardly get merit points in these cases. Obviously if everyone gives Merit even to posts full of rubbish it becomes an abuse of Merit system

[LoyceV]

It's not hard to get them, just put in the time and effort and they'll start flowing in.

The problem with this is: if someone only puts in effort just to earn Merit, it starts looking like a school assignment. I could probably write a good post about knitting if I put in enough effort, but if it's something you're not interested in, why would you even start?

[Perfectbaby]

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

I think you aren't just meriting but it's also about the quality of the post he merited right?
Good! So it doesn't matter whether others merits it or not but for the fact it's quality and informative to you then dumping such merits wouldn't be a big deal. Again, I don't see merits to be that something to be hoarding back while it's meant for spending.

[JollyGood]

Personally, I believe the two-tier merit system is pointless as it does nothing for community cohesion by creating a distinction between those that are merit source and those that are not. In my opinion it should be overhauled completely.

We already know not all worthy posts receive merits, many are overlooked. The negative effect that might have on members probably cannot be understood as they try to rank up by making worthy posts but receive no merits. Without a doubt the majority of members here are using the forum to earn therefore they need merits to join campaigns. If the element of campaigns were removed, they would be posting elsewhere.

It's not hard to get them, just put in the time and effort and they'll start flowing in.