I was under the impression early voting penalties were to be removed. That part seemed like common sense. Removing the early penalty and increasing the window length go hand in hand.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I was under the impression early voting penalties were to be removed. That part seemed like common sense. Removing the early penalty and increasing the window length go hand in hand.
Then we go flat curation, no voting window
Whatever happens it better not just be some new experiment slopped together then exploited for a year or more. I think I'll just leave it at that. LOL!
Self serving profiteers abused flat curation into the ground but we didn't have free downvotes to counter exploits. Now we do.
Yes with flat curation its only to downvotes to stop abuse.... or dunno some hybrid, flat then curve ...
Downvotes are sensitive right now vs auto votes because autovotes are needed if you want to get any type of curation rewards. I sacrifice up to 100% of my curation rewards, meaning if I auto voted popular authors at 5mins, instead of voting 100% manual the way I do, I could earn up to 2-3x more rewards. So for a person with even less stake than me, let's say they own .01% of the supply. Are we really going to rely on this type of stakeholder to sacrifice tremendous short term gains to hold out in hopes the token price appreciates due to their good-natured curation? Are these bad people for not wanting to get screwed over? We are downvoting our friends, fellow Hivers, for doing the obvious and what the system encourages.
We flip the script, widen or even remove the window altogether, whatever we need to do to give manual curators as much of an edge as possible in earning rewards vs Autobots. Right now, that would be the suggestion being thrown around.
In the new rule system, a longer/removed window with flat curation rewards inside (no early penalty) - manual curators for the first time ever will have an edge. Why? Because autobots vote post titled "Please don't vote this post, deleted" and they get downvoted to earn nothing, actually happens quite a bit, enough to tac a % next to it that matters. Also, autobots have no way to tell if they are under rewarding a post that would not get them downvoted.
With the invention of microblogging, small vote gamification setups, I make DBuzz all the time just to throw a wrench at my autobot voters (I don't dislike you, much love to you for doing what the system encourages you to do, we'll fix that for all) and the max payout is only 1$. Well, manual voters are like NEO here, dodging bullets (downvotes) with their votes, reading content, getting fairly rewarded and life is nice.
Thanks for the reply.
As we know LEO is totally flat curation and I'm ok with that.
What I'm struggling to understand with the larger voting window is the following:
If we make the curation in the window flat, no early voting penalty ... lets say for a 24h.
When votes comes after the window will the ones voting in the window get higher CR? Will all of them get CR from the votes outside the window at equal rate, or the ones voting early will get a bit more? If the ones voting early get higher CR then we will see autovotes at first seconds.
If we agree that everyone who voted in the window get some bonus CR from the votes outside the window, this inclines towards flat curation. Especially if we make the window 24h when most of the voting happens.
Just thinking out loud here :)
You are correct in your last statement. The curation will be flat inside a longer window. Those that vote inside the window will earn more than those that vote outside of the window. Talks are 2-24 hours but I'm hearing a lot of support for now window at all.
Does the re-blog tool have any say on the curation rewards?
If not, it could be a good measure of commitment by the curator to reblog a valuable post, making her/himself a true curator with a beautiful blog page to attract others.
Then the algorithm can use that as a final say on rewards distribution at day 7th.
If the re-blogger gets more attention then it deserves better payouts.
Every angle must be covered before moving forward. If the common goal is to give manual curation a fair shake, then it shouldn't be hard to get there. We just need to agree on where we're going first.
Randomizing vote order at payout. In my mind that solves our current 'problem' without reinventing the wheel.
As I understood it - it is flat in the window and then past the window, votes stack as they have done earlier. This means the window voters earn more, but all relative to each other in the window (and stake of course).
So late voters, by today's standards, wouldn't really be voting late anymore, they would be on time. We'd see less votes after say 12, or 24 hours, depending on the window, but those kind of late votes are rare now anyway and always have been. Then if something is so hot and awesome that people want to vote after a day, many more consumers would benefit off the creators pure awesomeness.
This window has to mix well with how trending works. That added visibility would finally amount to more support, rather than posts shooting straight up instantly then fizzling out. Makes sense.
I think so, but can't know til it is tried.
Trial and error is getting old.
The problem is that there is no fail fast and adjust - it takes years of drudgery first.
Don't worry. I get it. Pile up enough shit and you'll eventually be able to escape through the window.
:D