Hehe, here we are again... I'm no mathematician, but I think it depends on what we want to measure.
The simple average (current logic) gives us the average efficiency in terms of percentage per vote. The 'weighted' average (efficiency * [vote_percentage] / 100) would show us the average in terms of how much we really earn. Of course, if we would be as efficient as the simple avg. shows (for each of our votes), we would have the efficiency in terms of earnings.
I'm still not sure, what would make more sense here.
What about displaying it as:
Avg. Efficiency | 67.12%
Weighted Avg. | 56.87%
'Weighted Avg.' might not be the best name for it though.
I'm open for any ideas :)
Problem solved, just show both :D
I only need the simple average, but I understand if people want the weighted one which is closer to reality but worse for improving curation results.
Maybe just call it avg. efficiency including(or factoring in) vote percentage
Hi, hope you're well. One query from my side as a mathematician but not coder, isn't the weighted average easier/faster to calculate in that it is a recursive addition of the numerator/denominator of the quotient?
And... yes, if there is space, can show both :-) I agree the names are not immediately obvious, perhaps, to many users.
the avg.eff. is the "average return per vote"
the weighted avg. is the "average return per stake" (or per SP)
What do you think?