Obviously I know that you can't chose where the merit come from.
I was just trying to show that -whether you agree or not- it looks like that merit is being circulated between the same members or at least that members prefer to send it to people that already have a title of legendary or hero (ie they relate to / same cast).
I don't think you can draw that conclusion just from those numbers. It's quite possible that good posters happen to be higher-ranked more often than lower-ranked. If you have any ideas how to prove it one way or another - please share.
I can't speak for everyone but I tend to ignore the ranks when sending merits. I feel no affinity to "fellow" Legendaries whatsoever, or to a specific type of posts or anything like that. I've even merited well-formulated conspiracy theories even though I hate garbage like that. I've seen quite a few merit sources acting in a similar fashion so absent hard proof (like the
case of QuestionAuthority) I'm not inclined to believe there is something untoward going on here.
merits are just for good posts that you agree with
Well, I disagree with that LOL
Also theymos said that's not what it's for and we must obey theymos, right?
Cryptohunter makes a LOT of posts and a lot of them are very big long posts that took a lot of effort but are not inline with the views of those who have merit to give, so he gets few. Not that he needs them for any reason anyway.
A good segway back to the topic. Cryptohunter's problem seems to be mainly the attempt to bend facts to fit a narrative. I think there would be merits raining on her if the original assertion about good posters hiding on altcoin boards turned out to be true.