Quote from: LoyceV on September 18, 2018, 01:34:44 PM

--snip--
Did you see this post:

Quote from: LoyceV on September 17, 2018, 09:36:59 AM

Reference data for future abuse tracking:
Last Friday, 6286 users had received 1 Merit.
One week earlier, 6237 users had received 1 Merit.
One more week back, 6190 users had received 1 Merit.
That's an increase of less than 50 per week. I wouldn't be surprised if there are 500 new users with 1 Merit next Friday.

I must have missed that one... The whole announcement thread evolved so fast i was bound to mis a couple good posts

EDIT: apparently i did read your reply before, but for some reason i missed the part about the reference data... Like i said: the thread grew so rapidly i was bound to miss (parts of) good posts

That being said: those statistics look very interesting... Using them we'll have a basic indication of the potential size of the potential abuse (used potential twice there Grin

)
BTW: i hope you don't mind my script using the data from your merit history database? If you do mind i'll just remove the script from bitcointalk. I don't think there'll be a lot of extra load on your server, since you need at least some technical knowledge to get the script running anyways, so i don't think a lot of people will make the effort of downloading the full merit history because of my script anyways.

Quote from: LoyceV on September 18, 2018, 01:34:44 PM

--snip--
As far as I know, theymos disagrees with tagging users for (small) merit abuse.

Sure, but in my opnion, if we let these small merit abusers slide, we'll send out the wrong signal and in the end a lot of spammers can potentially use the loophole created by not tagging small merit abusers... I know there are two sides to this story AND there's always the potential of false positive tags... But doing nothing about people circumventing the new rule isn't a good option either (IMHO). Besides, negative tags can be removed by the tagger in case the "victim" can give a plausible explanation...