I am looking for a post created by theymos where he "said you can give 50 merits to a post that is worthy" than not giving it. I could be wrong with exact post, he created the post but I think is about "Good" is Worthy enough to receive such merits than writing a bunch of text that is worthless.
You wondered about it and you did this merit transaction, 5 merit to this post as an example of shit posts can receive merit.
The fact that I have experience this discretion of Theymos. If someone makes a quality post I'm 100% sure fillippone can dump 100 merits on such post because I'm a first hand testimony to that. As long as the post is direct and provides help then instead of letting your merit source to expire fillippone will dump it on a post.
If you can merit that post with 5 merit, you can easily find many posts that are deserved with 50 merits.
This post is not accurate because one month, one user can only send to another user a maximum 50 merit, not more, so dumping 100 merit on one post is impossible.
If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.
I don't actually agree because it can be abused like good posts don't get merit but shit post get merit or a lot of merit and senders can quote this post to show that they don't break anything or abuse merit transactions to not quality posts while they truly saw better posts but did not merit.