Merit count as consideration on signature campaign

[Yamane_Keto]

Merit is certainly taken into account, but it is not the only measure and there are no better alternatives.
what is the best alternative that can be taken at present? Will it be account activity? Or trust? Both can be manipulated.

[Zoomic]

There is truth in what Op said ...
It is not only about merits, there seems to be disorder in almost every design used in the forum and even in our daily life. But man has learnt how to manage the disorders and not allow them to escalate.

There is an obvious problems with the merit system but we must have to find a way to manage it. If campaign managers stops using merits as a criteria to hire campaign participants, the merit might almost become like useless. So, continued use of merits for campaign is still giving it credibility.

I still think that many managers have started to look beyond merits, which is very necessary to do. Just consider merits and still look at few other things.

[Little Mouse]

Campaign manager usually choose member based on their merit count or else it shouldn’t be stated during the application or on the campaign thread itself.

Is this confirmed by a campaign manager, or is it your assumption? If someone can't earn 5 merits in the last 120 days, they are likely a spammer, while having earned more than 120 in the last 120 days doesn't automatically make him quality poster. I'm sure every other manager who has this requirement in their campaign thread must go through other details before accepting a user. Though I can't speak for others (everyone has their own way, and if you aren't lazy enough, you will find their opinion on this matter from long ago), I myself value merit sender + posts where merit is earned more than the total number of merits earned. For example, I would gladly accept a user who received 5 merits in the last 120 days in the technical discussion board, while rejecting a user with 120 merits earned in a local from some unknown user ( no discrimination, not being racist at all lol, that's a more easy way to identify a genuine quality user).

Well, the number of campaigns is way too high these days, and at some point, everyone gets accepted lol. You have to fill the slots, you can't keep the weekly budget unspent for months.

[Findingnemo]

I myself value merit sender + posts where merit is earned more than the total number of merits earned. For example, I would gladly accept a user who received 5 merits in the last 120 days in the technical discussion board, while rejecting a user with 120 merits earned in a local from some unknown user ( no discrimination, not being racist at all lol, that's a more easy way to identify a genuine quality user).

Merit spent in local boards is way higher compared to the discussion board. Someone who posts mediocre posts can bag hundreds of merits and even rank up to legendary, than someone who is in the forum for years and posts mediocre posts, but in the global board.

[PrivacyG]

I have seen some Signature Campaign participants with negative tags on their account or known to spam B S all over Bitcoin Talk.  I advise you to not ask for more rigurous checking of members because if they eventually become rougher you may actually prefer the current way they are selected.

But anyway.  I really do not get it, what is the actual problem here?  Campaign Managers choose who ever they want to choose.  We had the Chip Mixer Campaign where it was HELL to enter and everyone was drooling to be part of it.  If that is how a manager wants to manage and to them particularly people with over 200 Merits earned over the last X days or people who write over 100 posts a week matter, let them be.  Some managers want people who write a minimum of X posts in the Gambling section.  Others do not even care about Merits.  In fact.  I do not even remember the last time I had to count my total recent Merits to participate in a Signature Campaign.  Like it or not, it is their set of rules.