Two things I've observed to say the truth about the forum and the pattern in which people are making posts.

1. There's lesser engagement in the rate of having new threads that are of quality content especially on Bitcoin-related boards, maybe it could be for any reason, but as some have already suggested, we are all part of this issue, because we have to contribute our own quota in setting an example for others to follow.

2. To say the fact, the Bitcoin discussion board is one of the least merited boards, maybe the reason for that could be from the first point I already mentioned, that few quality posts are seen. Still, we can always draw more attention to Bitcoin-related boards; this affects all of us, and we are all concerned about making this change.

im still a newbie so maybe that’s why i am not yet immune to the posts at bitcoin discussion board   but if i would want to read about more complex or interesting topics i would find it on the technical boards

Just because things are worse somewhere else, that does not mean that the situation here is not deteriorating and that something shouldn't be done about it. You are one of the very few staff members that even gives an opinion in any of these threads. What gives? The others are completely apathetic as long as they receive some money for moderating? Or perhaps you are afraid to comment on your colleagues even without mentioning specific names?  

While you have a point, you have to make a nuanced differentiation here. There is a big difference of revisiting some quality topics by users who understand them and in the context of new knowledge or news. For example, we could be discussing new advances in quantum computers, some newly considered signature algorithms or some very specific BIPs that relate to this topic. This is the correct way of doing this. Alternatively you may even rehash some ideas of others or a lot of ideas of others, but if the work is considerable then it is very welcome -- like we did with this topic, it took us months of semi-active work to get this thread out. This is very different from the examples that I have provided, these threads are not needed:

They are completely generic, dumb (such as the one about doubt, as there will always be some people that doubt something) and unnecessary spam. They have been talked about thousands of times.

Some days it is really bad, other times it is decent enough.

I think that this view is a bit naive considering the number of account farmers here, if I may say so. From what I can see, many users are posting generic threads to create a ground where their other accounts can write generic shitposts. If you would create many of such threads with one account, you would draw too much attention. The easiest is to open a thread with new accounts or different accounts over time. Read users, those that are not dumb, lazy and who are not farmers will do a lot of research before they consider opening a thread. Those that rush to open threads are either very dumb, spammers or account farmers. Neither of these users are needed.

See it from this angle;
Because things are worse elsewhere and because we are leading in terms of lengthy and in depth discussion, we shouldn't worry much and  treat the general decline as a universal problem. Maybe people are tired of teaching others, perhaps they are tired of championing a new idea. No one wants to put in hard work again if the crappy AI can ruin all efforts in a jiffy.

I can testify to the spontaneous decline in quality and interest, but I don't think we can do much to revive it. We can only wait on trend to do it for us. The most important thing is that we know bitcoin, we trust it, and we protect it.

Well, I still believe there is a good rationale in this.
When this forum was initiated, you had to be in the top 0.01% of the population in IQ to even hear about Bitcoin, let alone participate in the debate on this forum.
Today, Bitcoin is a well-known phenomenon, and you can be attracted to this forum for a variety of reasons.

---

That's an interesting way of looking at "dynamics" on the forum; it would be nice to see it implemented on an extension or something similar (*Ace*, are you there?).
I don't see shitposter ranking up easily as a failure of the merit system.
I would say the merit system failed if good posters don't rank up easily.

In my merit awarding thread, maybe a few, or a lot of merit-worth posts (according to my own criteria) turned out to be given to shitposters. I plead guilty to that.
In the big scheme of things, 42 merits don't change much. As LoyceV recognised, there are shitposters with hundreds of merits.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Here I am, Fillippone! I've read part of the thread, not all of it to be honest. But what exactly would you like to see included in a userscript or web browser extension?
Let's see if I can be of help or if it's something complicated.
Unfortunately, evaluating a post is always subjective! What I might label as a quality post, you might label as useless or not very useful.

I was thinking of adding a figure under each user profile that calculates the total average of Merits received based on the posts written. Could that be useful?

That would be my idea, as suggested by LoyceV analysis. Two ratio: merit/post since registration (something that should be easily achievable by parsing the very same informations already displayed, and the merit/posts ratio of the last 120 days.
I have no clue which trickery you could use for this last ratio.

There are quality threads and topics but this depends on how you view it from your own side, there people who values every single post while there are people who seems to be weird about every single post as there is no much changes in most of the post. Most times there are repetitive topics with just a little change in either title or subject matters. That is why many people today do reply and analyses  post from it title without them dip down their heads to read the body of the message to know what the writer is trying to convey around the community.

On the other hand, such conditions would also create a considerable gap between the participants. Writers who are truly active and consistent in maintaining quality will benefit even more, while most other participants will be eliminated for not being able to meet those standards.

This has the potential to make the campaign ecosystem unbalanced and less inclusive. Additionally not all advertisers have the same goals, some are just pursuing broad exposure, not in-depth discussions. If all campaigns are forced to follow the same high standards, the variety and dynamics of the forum can be reduced. Ultimately, a balance between quality and quantity is still needed for signature campaigns to run healthy, competitive and remain attractive to the various parties involved.

I have created a formula, which is quite simple.
I take the Merits earned in the last 120 days and multiply them by the total Merits earned over time, then divide the product by the number of posts written in the forum.

(Merit120 * Merit) Total_posts = Quality score

This is the result that is displayed in user profile page.







fillippone, LoyceV, was this something that interested you? Obviously, this is a test! And if it works, I'll share it with everyone.