Activity is calculated every hour. Those are the activity periods. It is not possible to increase your activity by more than 14 in any activity period. So if your post count is more than 14 greater than your activity when you first post in the next activity period your activity will increase by 14 on the next hourly update.

No activity is not useful for Merits but the old requirement for activity is still in place. Merit is an additional requirement to activity, not a replacement.

It's really very simple and what I've been saying since almost day 1, is that they messed up. The concept is just fine but the implementation failed. It's like they created BTC, set it to 18 decimals just in case and now boom, a few years later we are actually talking in SATs. If I'm not being clear, they brought 5 apples to a picnic of 10,000 people. Yes, bring food to a picnic, good idea. But 5? Who thought that was a good idea? I sure hope that person is not involved in any ICOs.

Solutions:

1) Drop the rank up requirements to something more reasonable, like 2 Merit points.
2) Distribute sMerit, at least sometimes randomly (it's called liquidity people)
3) Distribute Merit to some active (not just old) accounts (who says tenure is the only way to find people who should be have enough Merit points to give away?)

I help organizations design interventions like this Merit system and the designers here failed and  the result is that this system is are chocking off an institution. I literally run into almost NO ONE who uses BitcoinTalk anymore unless I find those people on here directly. Wow. That's sad. Don't judge me based on this account. I lost access to my 2013 account one because I hid from the market in 2014 and for some reason that means I'm not allowed to use that account anymore (another great decision fellas), but for the record, I've been in crypto since 2013 and this place is the best archive of what is now the history of crypto. This Merit system is turning Bitcointalk from a university into a library. This should be a place of knowledge exchange, not the National Archives. But my voice doesn't count because I only have like 15 Merit and some artificially low "rank."

See my other posts on this topic...you guys have walled in the castle. Why not just create a super fancy private section for your buddies instead of killing this place for the public?

Yes.. If you think that the matter is simple, then you are engaged in oversimplification.

If you have been "saying since almost day 1," then likely you are neither attempting to look at the matter objectively or to attempt to see how matters play out.



I will grant to you that the passage of 6 months does allow a greater ability to assess the situation, but concluding that the implementation failed seems to be both wishful thinking and failure/refusal to account for actual facts.


It is a fair enough assertion that there might not be enough distributed merits; however, the whole implementation of the merit system began with a front loading of merits - and what I mean is that active accounts received an initial distribution of merits that was based on activity level and then rank.

Since the behavior of members after the implementation of the merit system was not completely known, there has been a dialectic process that would allow for the assessment of member behavior after the initial distribution and the behavior of merit sources, too.

I don't doubt that theymos is continuing to assess the extent to which the actual behavior is playing out as a failure or a success, and likely the assessment is going to come out somewhere in the middle rather than your seeming presumption that the system has been a failure and that some goals have not been reached.


First of all if ranking up seems too difficult based on the playing out of this new merit system (and that is a BIG "if"), then perhaps tweaking the ranking up requirements could be a path forward, yet I highly doubt that something like 2 merits is even  within the realm of realistic (unless we are considering the matter in terms of comedy).


You could be correct that either merit sources need to be increased and/or their receipt of smerits.  There could be some advantages to random distribution, but I am thinking that theymos would not want to go anywhere near "random" distribution because "random" distribution would likely bring back some account farming and shilling problems that were intended to be addressed and reduced by the merit system that was adopted and implemented.


I think that activity level was always part of the consideration for which members would receive merit source status, but a central aspect of the whole new system is to move away from pure activity level for ranking up, so it is difficult to figure out what you are getting at exactly, Forward_Thinking, with regard to your suggestion here.




Good for you.  But merely because you have experience in the field does not mean that you are the smartest person in the room, nor does it mean that you have presented ideas that are compelling for someone like theymos... even though in the end, it is possible that theymos might recognize some value in some of your suggestions  - but seems that you got some of the presumptions wrong too, which seems to undermine a degree of any value that may have been present in some of your suggestions.


The place is dying on the vine?  Do you have some actual statistics for this rather than your supposed anecdotal life experiences?


O.k.  Fair enough that you have additional experiences beyond your Forward_Thinking account, but again seems to be an unnecessary appeal to status, when your presented ideas remain lacking.  No?


Again, you are making an anecdotal assessment regarding what bitcoin talk is becoming, so if you have some more convincing statistic or links then that might be helpful to support your point.  I will agree with you that your voice does not count for too much if you are not generating many merits and you retain low rank; however, if you make really good points backed by evidence, then that could help you to become more convincing and perhaps even cause some members to send some merits in your direction.


I don't even feel any kind of need to look at any of your other posts, because you have presented enough not backed up points within this one post.


You could be correct that there is a bit of a move towards weeding out some of the nonsense of the public while retaining value of already good members and allowing new members from the public to rank up.  Such a move towards screening members or causing more requirements does not completely remove the public aspect of the forum because regular peeps and even low ranking members are completely free to read posts and to post in a large majority of the forum.  Of course, the more access that you want to higher ranking members and the greater credibility that you want, then you need to figure out ways to contribute sufficient value that causes inspiration from other members to send you merit(s).  

You are not a lost cause, yet, Forward_Thinking.  If you figure out ways to improve your post quality, and maybe not to harp so much on negative forum administrative things and go out into the forum and perhaps talk about bitcoin or some other topic that is of interest to you and contribute some value, then maybe after the passage of some time, other members will begin to recognize your various contributions to the forum and to send merits into your direction. Good luck.

Regarding this merit system matter, I am sure that theymos is going to continue to assess how it is playing out and to figure out the extent to which he believes it needs to be tweaked here and there.  It is likely that tweaks need to be made, as you suggest, but they are likely not either obvious nor simple as your post seems to argue.

I did do a quick glance through the previous posts that you made on the topic (the ones that you linked above), and I see that I gave you two merits for your very first post on the topic (at least the one you linked here), and part of the reason that I merited you was because the topic was still new, yet you still seem to want to linger on such a topic that really seems to be beyond your control and your level of influence.

This is not about me attacking your or trying to denigrate you, but for some reason you want to assert that you have some kind of expertise on the topic, and I doubt that anyone gives a ratt's ass about your expertise because the ideas that you present should be convincing within the post, and belaboring people with a string of your earlier posts seems to be more of a distraction about you rather than about the substantive strength of your ideas.  Furthermore, the fact of the matter remains that this whole fucking merit matter is discretionary with theymos.  He can do whatever the fuck he wants, and then attempt to measure whether it is having the desired effects in terms of quantity and quality of users and quantity or quality of posts.  So your non-substantiated assertions about the quantity and quality of posts is likely to have little to no resonance with theymos.. even if you repeat your little to no substantiated assertions 1,000 times or subsequently attempt to substantiate points that you have failed to make clearly and concisely in earlier posts on the topic.

On the other hand, maybe you will get lucky and theymos will decide to consult with you on the topic because you bring so much insight, but the way your presenting the matter, I doubt such a consultation is likely to occur... I could be wrong, but based on what I have read so far from you on the topic, I doubt it.



I don't see how it matters whether you use the word "failure" or you use the expression "lack of great success."  The point seems to be that you have not provided evidence to show such measures, such as a decline in membership or a decline in the quantity of posts or some other measuring indicator that either theymos would agree to being important or that he has asserted to be important to him.



I think that part of the point that I was attempting to make was that your merely repeating the same criticisms over and over (maybe you added to your criticism, perhaps?) does not add up to convincing evidence, and your repeating the same thing over and over might tend to undermine rather than bolster your asserted position about the matter.  Maybe others will consider such a matter differently, but that was largely what I was asserting there.


Again, you are not providing evidence, and many of us who comment on this topic are humble enough to concede that 1) we do not necessarily know all the variables that are being considered by theymos, and 2) acknowledge that a considerable degree of discretion remains in the hands of theymos regarding whether or not to tweak or how much time he needs to see how things play out.  Your assertion remains unsubstantiated that "play out" rises to the level of taking unnecessary risk or that irreparable damage is being done to the forum.


You are pretty much conceding that you do not have evidence.. and your main evidence remains your opinion, which is not a very strong way to support an argument.


If you had the data, then you would "run it"..  O.k.. great.


I don't have anything against you or anyone else.  I have just been responding to the assertions that you made in your posts.  Even though you might be an "expert", your posts don't seem to demonstrate such alleged expertise... but hey that is just my opinion, so you don't need to take my opinion seriously, and you can keep making your argument(s).  Good luck.

Actually, let me explain what expertise is...expertise is not when Person A says to another Person B, here are the five reasons why you should do X. Expertise is actually when Person A has so much knowledge and understanding that they are able to calculate the situation in their head and recommend to Person B you should do X.

I think what you would like is for me to be a lawyer, or a teacher. I'm neither. And yet, my opinions are still valid and I am indeed an expert in the area of organizational interventions. Which for some reason really bothers you.

BTW, since you don't believe anything I say, look up the chess champions of the world and how they are successful. It's pattern recognition, not step by step thinking. Experts think in patterns, not in pieces. Skills acquisition come through pieces, with teachers (like I mentioned above).

But thanks for reading. It's nice to know someone is still here.

Looks correct to me.


Of course, if you say that the solution is simple, then that should be read at face value.  If the solution is not simple, then you should not make that kind of assertion, otherwise you are merely exaggerating the essence of what you are attempting to describe.
 


I am not going to try again.  Let's stick to the topic.  You are the one that seems to be trying to assert that the merit system is broken or inadequate, so the burden is on you to prove your points.  I don't have any burden here.  I said what I was going to say on that particular point, and I have no further point to make... otherwise, we are just getting caught up in the weeds and off topic to some other irrelevant subject matter.
 


I am glad that you are "concerned for Bitcointalk," but the fact of the matter is that you seem to be creating a false emergency and even presuming that there is something broken or going in the wrong direction... so if you start with badly formulated presumptions, then you are likely to go down the wrong path.



Again.. you are presuming what indicators matter, which is largely facts that are not in evidence.  In other words, you cannot presume facts to be present and true, and then make your conclusion based on assumed facts.  Makes little to no sense.


O.k. Again, you are grading something, but we are not even being presented by you what are the facts, exactly, merely the conclusion.  In essence, the grade is based on your opinion only.  What good is that going to do?
 


Well, if you look at theymos's op post, he describes factors that he considered when making the initial merit distribution which was in essence was current rank, activity level and activity within the year preceding the initial distribution.  He subsequently modified his initial distribution to give a higher level of hero members (from  500 to 1000) who had reached at least 778 activity level at the time of the initial distribution.


dialectic process just means that you do something and then you see what happens and attempt to learn from what happens to incorporate your learning into the process.  


Well, I would imagine that there is an attempted measurement of account farming and shit posting, so these kinds of measures might not be precise to verify whether the merit system implementation is causing movement in the preferred direction.  Furthermore, there could be issues with merit sources not spending their smerits or engaging in borderline abusive use of their source merits that might need to be measured to decide whether to change merit source incentives.   Some behaviors are going to be easier measured than others, and there could even be some considerations about changing the measurement tools based on kinds of behaviors that are detected.
 


You repeated yourself without any further justification of your position (that recommends 2 merits to rank up .. oh my, I have a hard time keeping a straight face, here...    ).



O.k. fine.  You provided some further specifications regarding levels to which you consider some random smerit distribution to be put into practice.  It could be possible that theymos could implement such a system by either algorith or manually from time to time.  I don't see anything stopping him from doing it, besides the fact about whether he believes such a distribution (or system of distribution) would help to achieve any objective or to seem to come with a cost that is greater than any benefit that it could expect to achieve.  I tentatively believe that he would conclude that such a randomness would be counter-productive in terms of various goals and measures that he is attempting to achieve through the direction of the merit system that he has already chosen to implement.
 


In OP and perhaps in one or two other subsequent posts by theymos that came soon after January 24.


Yes, really.  Appeals to status and/or authority tend to NOT be very convincing assertions, as I already attempted to explain in my earlier response related to this matter.


I think that I have said enough.  It is up to you to fix your arguments and your presentation, if you want to continue this argument or just keep your arguments and justifications the same.



Again, I have no burden to prove my points.  You are the one making assertions about the merit system being inadequate or broken, so you have the burden of production of evidence and persuasion by logic.  If you think that my criticisms of your previous assertions are inadequate, then just continue to make them.. that is your choice, and I am just telling you that I am not convinced... but who the fuck cares what I think because I am neither theymos or anyone who has his ear.  I am merely another member responding to what I perceive to be your mostly nonsubstantiated points.



Yes.   You sufficiently responded to my assertion, which was that you are making claims and spouting out opinions without data.... so you can say any fucking thing that you want, but it is not going to carry much weight if it is not based on facts, merely opinion.  Furthermore, you are trying to make light of the idea with your dumbass "Al Gore" proclamation and suggest that it is not possible to provide evidence, when it is within your grasp to provide at least some evidence for your claims... rather than just meandering out there with "pie in the sky" fantastical claims.


I don't think so.  I understand the difference between the two words, and I am purposefully choosing which words to use.  In other words, there is no accident with my word choice, even though you seem inclined to want to get caught up in the weeds and to get off topic by suggesting that I don't understand my own word choice?  Go figure?   In essence, I am merely using different words to explain a concept.  Have you ever heard of the fallacy "appealing to authority" or "appealing to status?"     In part, you have been engaging in such a fallacy to pump up your own skills and experiences in order to commit a logical fallacy to expect that we should give you a break because you are a supposed expert.


Who gives a ratt's ass?  If you are such an expert, then show it with substance rather than describing your supposed resume and then failing to deliver actual evidence to support your assertions.


Yes.  You have admitted several times that you are assuming data that you do not have, and you are not really providing any substitute data to support your arguments either.    Sometimes when there is not enough data, then you can take data that you know and make reasonable inferences from the data, and you are not even doing that... admittedly, you have nothing but pure opinion and speculation.


O.k. fair enough if you are merely referring to the merit system in general and without personal motivations.  So, yeah, perhaps I was off topic to suggest that you could focus yourself a bit better and perhaps earn some merits.

I have also addressed your contention that you are striving to have a better forum, and some of those goals seem to be whatever is articulated by theymos to be a better forum, which is to cut down on farmed accounts and shit posts, which seems to be helped by the merit system.  Your assertion that the masses of the public is scared away seems to be a feature rather than a bug, and there is insufficient evidence in your claim that "good people" are being excessively screened out.



I care about what you have to say, but you have not really said much, it seems.


Maybe this is the essence of your claim that somehow I am personally biased, so I am expending so much energy to respond to you in order to defend this system?  But again you are attempting to assert biaseness from me, and I have no burden to defend the system... all I am doing is responding to your ongoing lack of criticism and failures/refusals to meet your own evidentiary and logical burdens as the one who is proposing that the merit system is inadequate.



your devolving further and further down the rabbit hole of nonsense with this remark.


Get a fucking grip!!!  The merit system has changed.  The previous standards caused peeps to rank up under the old standards.  The new system sets new standards.  Your assertion that you wished that the old system were in place is water under the bridge.  I doubt that theymos is going to throw the whole new merit system out and go back to the old system, so you are wishing for a matter that seems highly unlikely and it does not even matter very much about what we say about it... what matters is evidence of whether the new system is moving the forum closer or further away from its objectives, and you have not provided any evidence beyond nearly pure complaining... complaining in and of itself is not evidence.



more argument that does not have evidence in support of it, no?


Great!


Any of us is free to go to those other places if we want, so does not seem to be a problem if some members of the public chose to go to those other places.  It seems to me that there was some issues with the forum regarding too many peeps coming here, but maybe since the price of bitcoin and other cryptos have gone down, then perhaps that influx of new members has gone down too, merely based on BTC and crypto price dynamics?

Hi,

what kind of data do you need in particular? Some data is public and other has been collected through community effort to integrate it.You can get access to it if needed.

How would you go using that information to expose patterns, i mean which models or methodology would you use?

Never knew that merit was some guy.