How Long Should Do Curation Window On Hive Be?
Right now the curation window on Hive is 5 minutes. That means everyone that votes in the first 5 minutes gets more curation rewards than everyone that votes outside of the 5-minute window.
We know 5 minutes does not work, it has lead to the rise and takeover of rewards by auto voters. Manual voters earn up to 100% less than auto voters in the current system. I've earned as low as 6% being a manual curator while I've seen autos earn over 20%. This difference in rewards is what is throwing a wet blanket on curating in the Hive ecosystem.
The proposed change to the curation window is to expand it while keeping the rewards flat within the window (everyone earns the same % based on their stake) We know 5 minutes does not work because it is too quick. So the goal is to find the best balance possible for manual curators while diminishing the usefulness of autobots.
The proposed change is from 2-24 hours. I'm going to list a few different times that should satisfy most ranges.
To be clear this would not change the payout window, which is different from the voting window for increased curation rewards. Right now, the voting window is 5minutes for bonus curation rewards, with a 7 day payout. The changes proposed is to move that from 5 minutes to 2-24 hours, with a 7 day pay out.
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 7
- 9
- 12
- 24
Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.
I think the curation curve should be 100% flat. The problem we currently have is that people vote authors that are guaranteed to get more votes to maximize their curation rewards. This can only be fixed by making it completely flat.
I have tried to keep my opinion on this on the sideline to try and get as organic response as possible from the community. I was going to run a few pools, to get a feel where everyone is at. I do like the curve to be 100% flat, I am not sold on the competitive curation aspect, I like a more chill and curate style, which I believe could lead to more realistic payouts. IE a post can earn 400$ if it deserves it, as people won't be penalized for voting late. The same is true, popular creators won't always get big payouts because no one benefits voting on "popular" authors.
The competitive curve was added to incentivize finding of the best content, but what it actually did IMO, was to incentivize curation sniping or voting on posts with as few votes as possible. And I think a prolonged 24h window is just going to incentivize people to vote on popular posts, otherwise, you're losing money. And for accounts like appreciator, they have to do it or freedom is choosing another account who gives him/them better APR.
100%
But some people can't shake off the idea that it is possible to choose the right incentive model to get a perfect reward distribution based on the true value of posts.
The truth is, the value of posts is completely subjective, and it is not guaranteed that anyone will ever agree with the ranking of most voted posts at any moment. The only concern should be fairness and simplicity. Not changing the incentive 100 times.
Totally agree. Another benefit of this change would be that the whole concept of curation would be much easier to explain to newbies (or anyone). Right now, it looks very complicated.
completely agree, best no window (like @leofinance did) or 24h.
I agree but let's go with 24 hours since more won't pass apparently
What passes and what doesn't decides the community.
Hugs dear friend. Successes in your work at Hive. Your evaluation is an encouragement for our publications. Thank you.
Voted for
I know some think 2 hours is enough, but you need to think that HIVE covers the whole world, and that people are in different time zones. That's why I say 24 hours, or no window (even better).
0 days...
No Window or 24.
I believe that 24 hours is enough time to give all editors the opportunity to calmly and carefully read the posts and decide their vote.
The rush of having to read and vote in a short time is good for those who do nothing else in their life.
I agree. Users who are dedicated to the platform as their raison d'etre can possibly do the whole early voting thing in 9 hours (and maybe that's a good incentive to be dedicated to it), but I consider 24 hours is reasonable. I often don't see new posts for 2-3 days at times, but if I know there is a more reasonable 24 hour window I might be inclined to look at the platform more to vote more and comment more earlier. Too small a window seems like a window designed for bots/auto-votes and not humans. Too larger window creates no incentive. It's certainly a balance.
Hugs dear friend. Successes in your work at Hive. Your evaluation is an encouragement for our publications. Thank you.
I use autovoting too but honestly, I would remove the window completely. It distorts the curation. Sometimes, you stumble upon a great post that you would like to support as late as a few days after the publication but do you really want to upvote it in the current system when you see it already has a payout worth dozens of dollars?
Completely agree with this! Its impossible to be 24/7 checking posts, and you're bound to find a few (or should I say almost all) posts worthy of an upvote outside that curation window.
Exactly :) With the window removed and curation rewards constant no matter when you upvote, people would genuinely upvote just the content they really like and find interesting/useful/worth the rewards without having to worry about losing out on something. My opinion.
maybe i should have added no window as an option as well.
I will vote if you add: no window
Seeing that most people here vote 24 hours, I am sure some would support the no-window option. Can you still add it in the poll?
would not let me edit it in, I'll do a few more dpolls to get a feel for what people want. IE since 24h is the most popular currently, can add it to next pool, 24h vs No Window.
I would vote for the no window option. Though a 24 hour window isn't the end of the world and would my next choice.
Hugs dear friend. Successes in your work at Hive. Your evaluation is an encouragement for our publications. Thank you.
What you will then find is that people will vote shit several days later so that they can fly it under the radar. Sweetsssj has done this for years - but she is voting on her alts so gets all the curation plus the reward anyway :D
Shouldn't behavior like that trigger our abuse mitigation efforts?
only if it is firstly noticed and secondly, cared about.
Yep, some abuse is just gonna continue because those that can do something about it won't.
It's like delegating for profit differs from vote selling how?
Why would you vote shit if you could vote something you really like and get the same rewards for that?
why take 50% when you can take 100%?
They are essentially selfvoting - so they take the reward and the curation - not just the curation.
Ah you were talking about selfvoting... Ok then, makes sense.
take away the penalty and selfvoting will increase. Take away the window completely and the late selfvotes will increase. No matter what changes are made, assume that people are going to try to scam it to maximize themselves, even if it ends up costing them long term.
I know, it´s a tricky issue. But I would still give a shot to flat curation and no window, meaning the only factor influencing the curation rewards of the users would be the size of their stake. That would allow them to curate (other people´s stuff) honestly without having to worry about losing out on rewards. Those last minute (last day) selfvoters could be a problem but we have free downvotes to fight any form of abuse. I know it would be difficult to downvote such a post but you can still downvote the next one as a kind of a retrospective punishment :)
I would go to no window! It seems to me that this would be the fair thing to do, since all votes would be considered off the same value, as they really are.
I'm not sure how these proposed changes will actually pan out in practice. What's being described here seems to be an oversimplification of how the voting window works and it may be skewing how we're thinking about the potential benefits and upside. I really hope I'm thinking accurately here because as far as I'm aware the blockchain still operates on the "reverse auction" model for that curation window. If that's in error please someone correct me!
No one gets "bonus" curation rewards for voting within 5 minutes. In fact the rewards are still penalized based on how close to the post's creation you vote. If you vote after one minute, you forfeit 80% of your curation rewards back to the pool. The only reason this can become more profitable and seem like a bonus is because of those auto voters who play the reverse auction game well. Vote soon enough to be ahead of the majority of incoming votes and large whale votes, but don't vote so early that you relinquish all of those profits to the early voting penalty.
For the large whale accounts, curation projects, etc., the window doesn't matter much. Unless they're sure another whale is going to follow on behind them, they're not getting much more curation reward from the $1.00 of votes that follows after they've dropped a $20.00 vote. Big accounts by nature have a harder time achieving outsize curation rewards because the chance of large amounts of additional stake voting behind them is small. They already exist much closer to a plain linear curation rewards model.
Small accounts by contrast have much more variance in their curation earnings. If no one follows their vote, they'll get nothing, while if a whale lands after them they may see 100%+ curation returns on that vote.
So what does an expansion of the curation window do? With the proposed change to a "flat" distribution during the expanded window it essentially creates a very linear system. If everyone who votes in that first 12-24 hours basically counts as having voted at the same time, they'll only earn the curation as we know it today on votes coming in later, which for all intents and purposes will probably be pretty negligible. Otherwise they simply get back half of their vote value. This will probably work better for large accounts who were getting "frontrun" regularly under the old system, and worse for very small accounts who will see most of their curation rewards dusted off and not have the chance at those "lucky strikes."
Now, I'm not against this, but I'd rather just remove the complication of the de facto system that I feel like it'll become and do away with the vote window entirely, and switch to flat rewards for curating. If you use 10% of your voting power a day, you'll always get the exact same return on those votes. It's a participation & activity bonus that goes a step beyond applications that'll throw some tokens your way for a daily login.
While the fact that this "participation reward" is completely content agnostic may seem worrying, the hope would be that a curation reward system that doesn't have any way to "game" it for increased ROI could actually lead to organic curation. Liking what you like gets you the same return as liking what you're guessing should be popular. Liking things on any traditional social media right now is completely content agnostic. I don't get any more or less for liking a picture of a kitten, a political post, or an esoteric review of a 1940's record. Combined with the continued presence of the downvote pool which has worked out well overall, my vote wouldn't be for a longer window; it'd be to just simplify and flatten the whole curation process. Bonus is that I imagine this could potentially simplify blockchain calculations as well. Perhaps the freed up processing overhead could be used to making the actual 1 week payout window longer or indefinite.
Very interesting comment 👍
I think this is the key we need to work on in order to remove the doubt "is it profitable to vote for this post"?
Indefiniteisn't possible due to the need of rewards calculation and I'm not sure that the savings will be enough tomake it longerwithout the need to create more token per day (which is already very high)Of course, this would be ideal (not all posts are ephemeral news whose content loses value over time) and it would prevent the infantilization of users by some frontends that block votes on posts/comments after 7 days (we are the only social network to forbid voting by an expiration date).
@mintrawa: Witness FR - Gen X - Geek 🤓 Gamer 🎮 traveler ⛩️
Don't miss the Hive Power UP Day! more info here
Don't miss the #HiveFEST 2020! more info here
correction of information regarding the inability to vote after 7 days: I have just learned that this is in fact a modification made by the HF24 and therefore I wanted to apologize to the frontends for my inaccuracy and my comment.
@mintrawa: Witness FR - Gen X - Geek 🤓 Gamer 🎮 traveler ⛩️
Don't miss the Hive Power UP Day! more info here
Don't miss the #HiveFEST 2020! more info here
No window or 24 hours would be my picks
'No Window' would incentivize me to put more money and effort into this..
I'm leaning more towards 9-12. It takes about that long to charge my voting power plus it's annoying being "late" to a post if I'm off doing something important, like sleeping.
Every single vote cast by me was done manually. It's about damn time people actually using the platform get a fair shake.
Not a fan of leaving this app just to go push a button on another app so consider this comment my button push.
Yeah, sleeping sometimes interferes with my curation too. It sucks.
yep - this was my thinking too.
Hugs dear friend. Successes in your work at Hive. Your evaluation is an encouragement for our publications. Thank you.
One more point is that having at least 12 hrs gives opportunity to people from different time zones. I go for 12.
Why reward people for being first? Top content makes it to the front page on other sites because it gets shares even though the people get nothing in return.
Maybe a curation lottery would be better? It incentivizes curation while requiring less work on the users part. People would curate more in general simply because they would want to put more upvotes out there.
Another idea is curation could be more like farming. You till the soil and the soil gets better the more you work it. If you don't add any nutrients to the soil after time it will be less efficient however.
For example, a post with more unique user votes will give more curation rewards. While a post that acquires less unique users votes are rewarded less over time. Maybe a cap on how low the curation for a vote can go would have to be implemented but there's my full 5 cents.
In the past I've suggested randomizing vote order at payout.
Hey, glad to see you're here. I like that suggestion too, I can hear people complaining about their luck right now. lol
Really though, it's surprising what people will do for free.
I ran it past Blocktrades and was told it would be difficult to pull off on a blockchain. Scratch that plan.
I think the biggest untapped resource for us here are the millions who spend countless hours hitting 'like' buttons and leaving comments, with no chance of ever being compensated for their time. That's the crowd this place would benefit most from, especially when they bring their money with them, knowing full well they can have it back if they'd rather go back to not earning.
Any moves that make this platform more appealing to that crowd I'll support.
You're absolutely right about the people not even getting noticed. It's always been that way, but I guess that might just be social media.
Lets take some psychology classes to learn to help people feel included.
I'm not talking about the people not getting noticed. I'm talking about attracting many more who notice things. This has always been a stage with more performers than there are people sitting in the seats, watching. Of course it's going to be hard to get noticed if there's plenty to see, but not many around to look.
Ahh that makes sense. I do believe Hive can be big like some of the main social apps out there. Getting money for upvotes was enough incentive for me.😅
24 is probably better than no window, as it encourages daily logins/participation which is better for hive in general-keeping activity/engagement up.
lots of people post from all timezones, so 24 hours is good to give everyone a fair shot to see a post/not waste their vote power or worse, not voting at all because "bad investment of resources"
If I am not mistaken this statement is incorrect. Someone who votes at 3 min forfeits 40% of the curation rewards, someone who does it at 4 min only receives 80% of their potential rewards.
The function of the voting window is to discourage bots from front-running everyone else. After 5 minutes everyone receives 100% of their potential rewards. It doesn't matter if you vote inside 5 minutes or not what matters is the order in which the votes are cast.
I know that the function that calculates the curation rewards uses a square root to determine the distribution of those payments to voters. What I am not sure is how that function is applied exactly.
I linear function for curation would make the voting window irrelevant. Making the voting window smaller or larger has no effect on the game theory behind curation as long as the math behind the distribution of rewards is the same.
The way it stands right now the proposal that is being pushed is to make the curation function linear within the window. Why not get rid of the window instead and level the playing field for everyone? Personally those changes would hurt me but I am ok with them if they incentivize staking hive by virtue of having a higher ROI overall.
Side note: 70% of my votes are manual and my ROI on curation is about 20%.
Yeah I think that statement it's incorrect too, because y use vote bit in only 3 accounts and doing it within the first 5 min it give me lower rewards than voting it after voting it after the first 5 min. And in both ways I'm of there first person voting.
I think this point is a bit moot as the curation curve is being changed to 0 minutes. I'd be happy with anything ranging from 1 hour to 100. Looks like everyone is going for 24 hours so I'm good with that number.
I think 24 might get gamed - how often do you read 24 hour old posts - unless shared? 12 might be better, read daily, vote morning and night kind of thing - but shit is unlikely to get hidden below the fold before you see it.
I think the difference between 12 hours and 24 hours is totally insignificant and this is just a stepping stone to removing curation entirely and just getting a 50% kickback like LEO. I'm not sure how it can get gamed under any circumstances, be it 1 hour or 100. Bots are going to get wrecked no matter what we pick.
bots will get wrecked - but the 4-6 day voters like sweetsssj won't even have frontrunners on their shit
And what about early voting penalty?
That should be removed as well
That is what I was talking about, and it is being removed by default.
It essentially has to be removed because the curve is being flattened for the first x hours, so there is no point to having it, because there is no advantage to voting first anymore.
Honestly I think this is just a clever transition to no curation in HF26.
https://peakd.com/hive-139531/@blocktrades/roadmap-for-hive-related-work-by-blocktrades-in-the-next-6-months
Great!
Then what will be the advantage of discovering content?
At some point there needs to be rewards for the ones that voted first.
The intrinsic advantage of rewarding users who are bringing value to the network is good enough. Are you implying that new users aren't going to get upvoted anymore because rewards aren't being sapped by those who upvote later?
This mechanic that is being removed has never worked; at least as long as I've been here.
It's been nothing but a net gain for LEO removing it entirely.
We should get rid of the convergent curve as well, as it is also less than worthless and greatly decentivizes engagement and upvoting comments.
Well all the above inclines to totally flat curation....
Yeah I've been against curation for years.
https://peakd.com/curation/@edicted/curation-and-sbd-are-broken
So this is a big win for me.
It makes zero sense for 'curation', something that is 100% determined by optional & permissionless frontends, to be enforced on the backend in any way. The flat 'curation' kickback is just a brain hack that makes it more likely that users will vote other people. I'd say we're headed in a good direction.
Hugs dear friend. Successes in your work at Hive. Your evaluation is an encouragement for our publications. Thank you.
I think the offer is to make the first x hours timing indifferent and after the cut off the same like now.
Order still matters outside the window.
No penalty, nor benefit, for voting early until the window closes then it works like it has.
If I understand it correctly.
the early voting penalty becomes irrelevant immediately, as it is all flat in that first window - there is no advantage to vote early, so no reason to penalize it either.
Yes I hope the penalty is removed ... just making sure people dont forget it and we end up worse then now
Does it really matter if auto voting sites regulate how long to vote?
sites cant regulate votes on the chain without doing some kind of weird setup, which is a site I would not use. This is talking about on-chain curation window for rewarding curators.
I have problems to vote on dpoll lately...I think 2h is more than sufficient. Btw, it would be great also to remove the rewarding curve and come back to the former rewarding line
Voted for
Voted for
Personally I think that this current system is working great and what you are proposing is going to destroy any kind of actual incentivization by manual voters and force all of this to go to automatic voting.
Yep what happens when my friends content is older than 24 hours I'm not allowed to vote for him unless he is on auto vote?
Biggest thing is most new people don't know how to set up hive.vote.
Or the power that comes from a group's curation trail let alone you having multiple accounts and setting up Auto voting and curation trails.
Personally I see all of your options as an extremely poor idea.
Why is it that you are forcing this huge change? It seems that your idea and opinion are being reinforced with your ego..
Extremely bad idea I vote to leave the entire week open.
The small guys do not know how to get locked into a group and receive rewards from them are only going to be hurt by your actions.
I see this move just forcing more smaller accounts to give up. Especially if you push it all the way down to 2 hours.
Part of what makes this all work is that you can look in and reward individuals for their content. Yes you do take a hit for voting later on. But if that content is that good.... I don't care I'll throw a full 100% vote on my friends excellent work.
To be clear this would not change the payout window, which is different from the voting window for increased curation rewards. Right now, the voting window is 5minutes, with a 7 day payout. The changes proposed is to move that from 5 minutes to 2-24 hours, with a 7 day pay out. Hope that clarifies things.
It does clarify things but my point still stands even with your clarification I will stand by my opinion on how I foresee this change affecting things.
there are quite a few new individuals that I will go to their account and vote their content.
Having that window opened up enough so that they can get some serious rewards for dedicated effort?
Personally I believe that the 7-Day open window and the current method has been the most balanced and time-tested way.
Or do you propose to completely eliminate all auto voting and force all rewards to be manual curation?
Personally that's what I'm seeing since the war on bidbots.
People can still auto vote. These changes are intended to remove the advantage auto votes have over manually voting. Why should I be penalized for actually viewing and voting on my own schedule?
If we dont remove the early voting penalty you will still be penalized with longer voting window. In this case if you vote to early.... you will need to wait to the last hour of the voting window to vote
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
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).
Well how is it that you're going to remove the advantage auto voters have?
And for that matter why is it that you think shortening window is going to help you not be penalized for actually viewing and voting on your own schedule... If we took it all the way down due to ours that would prevent you from ever being able to vote on things unless it was immediately posted.
Honestly enough sounds great on paper going to end up really bad in the execution
If I spend five minutes talking to you, auto voters have already positioned themselves to earn more on the post I'm about to go look at once I'm done here. My late vote ensures they earn more, and they didn't even have to consume that content. My goal is to support content, not those who voted early without even looking at what they voted for.
If that window is increased, then I could spend all day here talking to you, then go visit that post whenever, and give/get a fair share.
Ok I like where you are going with this.
Writing a bit of code isn't content curation. Catering to autovoters is anathema to the idea of a creative community where people interact.
Personally from the war on big bodies and the current behavior it seems that all auto voting is frowned upon even though the system is set up for the groups and communities.
The groups in communities are the most rewarded because they have the auto vote set up.
It seems again this is a coordinated effort at control.
Personally I didn't see a problem with the bitbots however there was abuse issues that were being addressed with them that never got fully resolved and the system isn't the best however it works and we are trying to make this entire world last.
It sure would be a shame that this idea of war against our own people would continue and result in more people leaving our ecosystem.
Personally I see a lot of changes that could be made to our system.
But I'm just a small little user fighting to swim and survive
Bidbots and paid votes nearly siphoned 100% of the reward pool out and into the wallets of only those selling votes. Shit content was placed in higher slots, scaring consumers away, while everyone else making actual money was being paid to look away/paid to not even be here. That's how you destroy an attention economy.
There is still the 7 day payout window - this only affects the competition period, where in this window it is flat and once the window closes, the votes will stack up on top. This essentially destroys the need for autovoting, other than wanting to consistently offer support to a favourite author.
I will be opting for 12 hours.
Manual and Organic healing must exist, is why I bet.
The automatic vote and the users themselves, it seems to me that it does not give others a chance. I also think that there is nothing better than taking a look at the work of the one you give them your vote and see if they are really working and sharing quality material or just doing it to do so.
I think that manual and organic voting gives more value to the platform, the interaction between people in real time is perfect.
24 hours is fine.
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
cannot vote with Keychain btw
24 hours
I would vote for 24 hours or to remove the voting time window completely like @leofinance did, so that manual voters have a level playing field with auto voting bots.
24
Why does the vote time have to be gamed? Game something else if gaming hive is important.
Splinterlands - 24hr window to submit tournament battles, daily challenges are...... daily :)
Voted for
24 hrs should give everyone a fair shot at seeing and voting. .. especially given that people are all across the globe thus have different posting schedules
What I find as an issue with the longer voting window is the early voting penalty.
Lets say we make the voting window 9 hours. Will Ill be penalized if I vote at 5h? If so then everyone will wait till 9 hours to vote. And back to authos.
Longer voting window make sense only if the CR in that window are flat. Doesn't matter if I vote on the first hour or the 8 hour. But then if you make them flat what is the point of the voting window?
If their is no penalty for early voting, everyone will vote at the first second. This is the case for the tribes btw.
Overall I don't see how we can make curation competitive (gamified) and give the freedom to vote in a longer voting window. We need to make it flat or implement a very small early vote penalty (almost flat).
The other thing is the stake curve that makes voting comments less profitable. This one must go.
Three months ago..
https://hive.blog/hive-167922/@dalz/is-gamifying-curation-rewards-necessary
2nd!
That curve took directly from the poor and gave to the popular.
Voted for
It could help to clarify exactly what the curation window means. I see some confusion in the comments and I am not completely sure myself how it works if we get down to specifics. Does it currently diminish the curation reward for votes cast within the first 5 min. of a post being posted? And how does that work together with early voters getting a higher curation reward than later voters?
I thought I mostly understood it but thinking about the specifics now I see I'm not really clear on it.
https://peakd.com/curation/@miniature-tiger/an-illustrated-guide-to-curation-from-the-simple-to-the-complex-with-real-examples-from-past-posts-part-1
That is somewhat dated, read 50/50 where it says 75/25.
Voting in the 5 minute window lowers your rewards unless you get big votes behind it, then being early can pay off.
Chalk up another vote for 24 hours. That gives complete equality to all curators in all time zones.
The only think better would be no window at all. What difference does it make when I discover something to vote for?
The problem is that a post that is 6 days old will get a massive vote on it and no one will see it. it happens already, but I think without the penalty, it gets worse as there won't even be frontrunners.
I will also add - that perhaps we shouldn't care that much about abuse - as we tend to get caught up in it. However, it will be a problem if ignored.
I'd guess because I've always had a small stake, and the value of it not my primary concern, I've never understood 'defensive curation' or 'roi curation' either one.
How is the 6 day old post getting a massive vote harmful? I'm actually fairly irritated that my writing is completely deceased after 7 days. Nobody can come along later and 'like' my stuff.
Who is harmed?
The 7 day window is down to computational power I think. However, there are ways around it possible in the future, where the window keeps opening. I have mentioned this to Khal from Leo and he might try it at some point.
The 6 day old post getting a large vote isn't harmful - unless it is like Sweetsssj accounts that get voted on, no one sees or read, no one comments on, no one cares - yet she is still getting paid on it. When it is that old, it doesn't usually hit trending, as there is something else on the day higher. This means, no one is paying attention, while currently there would at least usually be frontrunners who syphon some of the curation from her so she doesn't get 100% of her vote.
I don't even monitor her now, as it seems know one cares at all for some reason.
Sort of like self voting with an alt account? Nothing is actually harmed, but it just smells bad?
I'd think sooner or later that problem would tend to be self correcting. Irrelevant is a powerful tool.
Just for the record, I've never hit trending. I'll bet I haven't been there more than three times on Hive and two of those were accidental clicks.
Depends how large the stake is. When there is 1M HP behind it and it is doing it literally 10x a day, 7 days a week for years on end - it isn't great.
I don't visit Trending for content, more for research :) Though, it would be lucky to see me once a week.
With @themarkymark tossing in his hat, we are gonna see what abuse would have been without him.
Voted for
Voted for
9 is good, it gives people a chance to have a decent sleep and still get in the window - while not being long enough to get abused by late voters who are trying to vote shit under the radar.
Voted for
Voted for
Users who are dedicated to the platform as their raison d'etre can possibly do the whole early voting thing in 9 hours (and maybe that's a good incentive to be dedicated to it), but I consider 24 hours is reasonable. I often don't see new posts for 2-3 days at times, but if I know there is a more reasonable 24 hour window I might be inclined to look at the platform more to vote more and comment more earlier. Too small a window seems like a window designed for bots/auto-votes and not humans. Too larger window creates no incentive. It's certainly a balance.
what about the author can choose the time window for each post? from 1h-48h?
or maybe 1h/6h/12h/24/48 to keep it simple.
So the market will choose the right window because of rewards. Would be the smartest thing to do.
I don't use dpoll at the moment. Might give it a whirl later. But for now, consider my vote cast for either 12 or 24 hours.
Voted for
Voted for
Congratulations @theycallmedan! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
I think 12 or 24 is the best way to go.
Voted for
Voted for
Would consider as long as say 5-6 hours, but I think 24 hours is too long. At that point, you might as well just switch to linear rewards. 90% of the voting is done in the first 24 hours.
Voted for
Voted for
Well, it's not you only - majority of people who are not full time would probably earning less than 10 for sure. I think, 12 hrs is a good option, given that, people from different time zones get opportunity to curate.
Voted for
Voted for