[TOOL] ⭐Bitcointalk BRDb score

[*Ace*]

Hello everyone. I opened this thread to present a tool I created experimentally, hoping everyone would find it useful.

This forum often discusses the quality of posts, but it is a somewhat subjective topic — there is no single metric to determine with certainty whether a post is high quality or not. I created this tool to give users a measurable score that reflects their contribution quality and consistency over time.

How it works

The tool is made up of two parts:

• A Node.js backend that scrapes and stores data from Bitcointalk and other sources, recalculating scores every day
• A Tampermonkey userscript that displays BRDb scores directly on Bitcointalk profile pages

Data is sourced from Bitcointalk, Loyce.club (thanks LoyceV). The project is hosted at https://brdb.cc.

The fields used are: total posts, merit earned (excluding 2017 airdrops), posts and merit in the last 120 days, account registration date, last active date, and membership status.

The Formula

Code:

— Core Ratios —

Q_hist = merit_total / max(posts_total, 1)
  Historical merit-per-post ratio. Grows slowly, rewards long-term consistency.

Q_120 = merit_120 / posts_120      if posts_120 > 0
Q_120 = 0                           otherwise
  Recent merit-per-post ratio (last 120 days).
  Zero if the user has not posted recently.

— Modifiers —

Age_factor = min( log(age_days + 1) / log(3650), 1 )
  Logarithmic age factor. Reaches maximum after ~10 years.

Activity_factor = min( active_days_120 / 60, 1 )
  Based on days active in the last 120 days (not just post count).

Consistency_score = active_days_120 / 120
  Fraction of days active in the last 120 days.

— Reputation Score (displayed) —

Reputation = (
    0.45 * Q_hist * Age_factor
  + 0.30 * Q_120 * Activity_factor
  + 0.15 * Q_hist
  + 0.10 * Consistency_score * Q_hist
) * merit_rate_multiplier * status_modifier

merit_rate_multiplier = recent_merit_rate / historical_merit_rate
  (capped between 0.5 and 3.0 — rewards improving users)

status_modifier:
  Legendary    → 1.30
  Sr. Member   → 1.15
  Full Member  → 1.05
  Member/below → 1.00
  Banned       → 0.00

— Reliability Score —

rel_volume  = min( log(posts_total + 1) / log(10000), 1 )
rel_age     = min( log(age_days + 1) / log(3650), 1 )
Reliability = (rel_volume * 0.5 + rel_age * 0.5)

— BRDb Score (final, displayed as ⭐0–10) —

BRDb = log(1 + Reputation * Reliability) * scaling_factor
  Logarithmic compression to a 0–10 scale.
  Promising boost applied to new accounts with strong recent merit.

Code:

— Key Variables —

merit_total       Total merit earned (excludes 2017 airdrops)
posts_total       Total posts written
merit_120         Merit received in the last 120 days
posts_120         Posts written in the last 120 days
active_days_120   Number of distinct days active in the last 120 days
age_days          Account age in days from registration date

Additional Metrics

Beyond the BRDb Score, the profile page also shows:

• Reputation — the weighted quality score described above
• Reliability — account maturity and posting volume
• Trust Score — weighted average of senders' BRDb scores (who gave you merit matters)
• Impact — combined measure of merit volume and quality
• Merit Sender / Receiver rank — global ranking by merit sent and received
• Community Award badge — awarded to winners of the Bitcointalk Community Awards (valid 1 year)

Userscript

The Tampermonkey script adds a BRDb row directly to any Bitcointalk profile page, showing the score, status, rank, and a link to the full profile. It also displays Community Award titles when applicable.

Download from Greasy Fork

Full Profile Page

Each user has a dedicated profile at:

Code:

https://brdb.cc/profile/[UID]

For example: TryNinja's BRDb Profile

Profiles include BRDb Score, Reputation, activity charts, merit statistics, top senders/receivers, and post statistics.

Website

The main dashboard is available at https://brdb.cc and includes:

• Global statistics (merits, posts, users)
• Top BRDb leaderboard
• Top Reputation, Top Receivers, Top Senders
• Top Merit (1h / 24h / 7d)
• Top Boards and Top Topics
• Recent merits and recent posts

Screenshots

(Updated screenshots coming soon)

Thank you to everyone who has tried the tool and provided feedback. Suggestions and criticism are always welcome.

☕ Support the Project

If you find BRDb Score useful and would like to support its development, maintenance, and future improvements, you can make a donation.

Bitcoin (BTC)

bc1qse7wpu48m3ex886scdfntrhcyrxzawsnnnlap5

Donations help cover server costs and API usage.

🏆 Donators

Special thanks to everyone who has supported the project:

• Mitchell (August 4, 2026 — 0.00181109 BTC)
  
• DYING_S0UL (August 7, 2026 — 0.00030789 BTC)
  

If you prefer, you can also show your support by:

• Starring the script on Greasy Fork
  
• Sharing your feedback or suggestions in this thread
  
• Reporting bugs or issues you encounter
  
• Proposing new features or improvements
  

Thank you for using BRDb Score! Every contribution — whether financial or in the form of feedback — helps keep the project alive and evolving.

[CONVOAI]

How can I use this tool? I want to check which criteria my profile falls under.

[EarnOnVictor]

First, I commend your effort in putting this together, kudos to you!

But I tell you, post, and only post can be the true decider of whether a user is a quality poster. Once merits are considered, you missed it.

As merit consideration could be true of the profile of some users, especially fillippone that you used as an example, and many others, it can't be true for many other accounts if you start checking the merits attracted with the actual quality of posts. The same could be detected (in the reverse) for some accounts that deserve more merits but are disenfranchised one way or another, but notwithstanding, have better quality posts than some with higher merits.

It's only a program that could automatically scan users' posts/profile itself "for quality" that can unbiasedly say about the quality and appropriately rate users.

[SamReomo]

I think there's something wrong in your tool. fillippone's post quality is only 1.27 and high quality, that alone says the tool might not be working properly. He's one of the most reputed members of the forum and when it comes to quality then such a user should get more than elite when it comes to quality of posts.

[*Ace*]

How can I use this tool? I want to check which criteria my profile falls under.

I haven't released the tool yet, it's still under construction and I've also specified that it's experimental. If it proves useful, I'll make it available to everyone.

First, I commend your effort in putting this together, kudos to you!

But I tell you, post, and only post can be the true decider of whether a user is a quality poster. Once merits are considered, you missed it.

As merit consideration could be true of the profile of some users, especially fillippone that you used as an example, and many others, it can't be true for many other accounts if you start checking the merits attracted with the actual quality of posts. The same could be detected (in the reverse) for some accounts that deserve more merits but are disenfranchised one way or another, but notwithstanding, have better quality posts than some with higher merits.

It's only a program that could automatically scan users' posts/profile itself "for quality" that can unbiasedly about the quality and appropriately rate users.

To do what you say requires enormous skills, skills that I unfortunately do not have!
The only thing I can do is analyse everyone's data and compile metrics based on that data! This does not mean that a user with a low score has necessarily produced poor-quality posts, but simply that they have not received the Merits to say that what they have written is of high quality.

The tool does not analyse the text of the post, but only the number of Merits and the number of posts to compile a score.

I think there's something wrong in your tool. fillippone's post quality is only 1.27 and high quality, that alone says the tool might not be working properly. He's one of the most reputed members of the forum and when it comes to quality then such a user should get more than elite when it comes to quality of posts.

As specified, the ranges are currently purely random, and this is one of the problems with the formula.
If a user has an average of more than one Merit per post, this already indicates that they must be an elite member of the forum.
Since it is not easy to say what range users should be labelled with, it would be helpful for me to receive advice from all of you.

[Doan9269]

As long as our criterial for judging for quality post will never be the same, so never expect that we use a particular criterial in judging for that, this is all about individual abilities and how we could see a post being a quality one or not, except there is a particular criterial that should be used in this, maybe merits in the last 120 days or something related, but i can bet you, it may cause for serious argument when some user receives ratings they believed does not suit their worth.

[babo]

Hello everyone, I am opening this thread to present a small script that I created experimentally, hoping that everyone will like it.

~~~~CUT~~~~

Thank you in advance to those who will participate in this discussion. I hope you find it useful.

It can be nice, but obviously you have to calibrate it differently
Not all of us get a lot of credit, especially those who write on the local board and little on the international one
It should not be seen as a parameter for judging, at this point in my opinion the @vod tool gives something better without judging too much and without blaming the quality of the posts
This way you can understand if a poster is a spammer or not

The idea is nice but in my opinion it needs to be calibrated better.

[letteredhub]

Snip

To do what you say requires enormous skills, skills that I unfortunately do not have!
The only thing I can do is analyse everyone's data and compile metrics based on that data! This does not mean that a user with a low score has necessarily produced poor-quality posts, but simply that they have not received the Merits to say that what they have written is of high quality.

The tool does not analyse the text of the post, but only the number of Merits and the number of posts to compile a score.

But that's exactly what it means if we're to follow your random score ranging which I would be quoting below

<0.20 Not good
<0.40 low quality
<0.60 Normal
<1.20 Good user
<2.00 High quality
>2.00 Elite

The fact still holds that in the midst of those profiles which would be considered high quality base on merits received there are those who by texts may not qualify to be within the range given.  The issue of merit and quality posts would continue to be an unfinished debate in the forum because sometimes, not always, merits awarded to certain posts ain't as a result of quality but preference which still can't be questioned.

[NotATether]

The only way to truly get a good quality score classifier is if you present users with a post and have them click a button whether it is spam or not. Then you can actually train a machine learning model on the post HTML and the responses, and use that to classify future posts.

A simple equation will NOT cut it.

[Nathrixxx]

This idea is not that bad for consideration, but where can we apply justice so as not to overrate and underrate some users? Because of all this, we are simply looking around for what has already been justified by the merit system. To get a quality poster, check on the merit history of that user.

But maybe we should rather look into whether the merit system still serves its intended purpose or has been hijacked by those abusing it, hence I don't think there's a need for something like this again when we have the merit system already in place, and a user activity can be seen through their profile last seen, and post history.

[LoyceV]

I'm too lazy to do the math myself now, but for assessment, can you give me the quality score for orenz0, Xyloo, btc-marty and myself?

[hd49728]

It is interesting with newbies but with legendary members, I mean true legends in the forum, not simly legendary members in rank like me, don't care about any quality score.

They know who they are, what they have done and contributed over many years in this forum, and they know that other legends in the forum community know them as well. They know that their topics and posts can be helpful and enlightful for newbies in the forum, that means they know they have already created valuable contributions in this forum.

No quality scores can assess their contributions exactly and even very low quality scores won't destroy what they have contributed here.

[Adbitco]

This is good concept bro, but somehow it is now looking like Bpip ranking system, where it would rank the most activity, Most Trusted, Most Recognized and the Most Merited users. Personally I have been thinking in which area can we actually apply this scores of a thing, because as we know managers can't just start using it, I mean sig campaign managers if they want to use it to justify a member before accepting them into their campaign, then merits criteria would be useless or not needed anymore, except for just ranking up.

[*Ace*]

I'm too lazy to do the math myself now, but for assessment, can you give me the quality score for orenz0, Xyloo, btc-marty and myself?

You're not lazy, but I already know where you're going with this! These are extreme cases, but to be fair, I'll show them to you anyway. 

 

[LoyceV]

I already know where you're going with this! These are extreme cases

Extreme cases are good for testing, that's why I picked them. Maybe you can create a formula that increases based on cumulative contributions, so a user with 1 post and 10 Merit doesn't get a higher score than a user with 1000 posts and 1000 Merit.

[acroman08]

This kind of reminds me of the tool(I forgot the name of that tool) that was a bit popular around 2015-2016(I think), where users check the value of their account. Just to be clear, I am not saying they are the same thing, it just kind of reminds me of that.

Anyway, this is an interesting project, I'd love to try it out when it is done.

[fillippone]

I do like the experiment, and I think we can get somewhere with testing (even extreme cases).
Of course, this is something that is a first guidance on each user’s contribution on the forum, that can have diverse forms.

[Vod]

I will participate as well *Ace*. 

[*Ace*]

I already know where you're going with this! These are extreme cases

Extreme cases are good for testing, that's why I picked them. Maybe you can create a formula that increases based on cumulative contributions, so a user with 1 post and 10 Merit doesn't get a higher score than a user with 1000 posts and 1000 Merit.

You are absolutely correct. I will consider modifying the formula, perhaps introducing a penalty system if the profile is too young. I will think about it tonight.

I do like the experiment, and I think we can get somewhere with testing (even extreme cases).
Of course, this is something that is a first guidance on each user’s contribution on the forum, that can have diverse forms.

If it goes well, this experiment could provide valuable feedback on user quality! But it should not be misinterpreted: the tool does not judge what we write, only the data available.

I will participate as well *Ace*. 

Help is welcome, thank you, Vod! What would you like to participate in?

[NeuroticFish]

The idea is interesting, but imho the formula itself needs more work. Maybe merit made more important.

It could also be an idea to also use overall earned merit and overall posts too somewhere. (Of course, also take into account those who didn't post since merit was introduced).

The point is that I think that the current formula may be missing a huge number of old high quality posts (and merits), which could make the results somewhat inconsistent (given that satoshi 14+ score and LoyceV only 0.81)


On the other hand... if you go by everybody's ideas you'll go crazy. So do as you think it fits.