Please don't increase merit per post according to their same quality.
<snip>
Don't distort your rules of meriting only because you feel you must keep your source-merit bag as emptiest as possible.
I hear what you're saying, but I'd suggest Ratimov should feel free to do whatever he likes--there are a lot of merit sources, and each of them is different with respect to their standards, how many merits they give out on average, and other variables as well. Plus, I've noticed that it might be just a wee bit harder for members to rank up than it needs to be. I've seen some really good posters who've been stuck at Sr. Member/Hero for well over a year, and in cases like that bumping up the number of merits sent per post makes sense. I would also say that posts that just barely qualify for some merits shouldn't be granted any additional ones, because the award for mediocrity should never be increased.
You can't just reach 100, 250 or 500 merits, whether we have 111 or a thousand merit sources. That's why most bounty hunters remain with less than 100.
No, you can't. I'd say an average member can move up from Jr. Member pretty quickly if they're a decent writer or contribute stuff that's significant, but once a member reaches Full Member rank, it starts taking a much longer time to reach the next rank (assuming their posts aren't prolific and well above average). Bumping up the number of merits sent per post even by 2 probably wouldn't have much of an effect if a handful of merit sources did it, which they probably won't.