| operations | | 0. | | 0. | comment |
|---|
| 1. | | parent_author | ura-soul |
|---|
| parent_permlink | steem-improvement-a-generosity-rank-algorithm-a-method-of-increasing-post-quality-that-promotes-a-reduction-of-payout-pool |
|---|
| author | wellwell |
|---|
| permlink | re-ura-soul-steem-improvement-a-generosity-rank-algorithm-a-method-of-increasing-post-quality-that-promotes-a-reduction-of-payout-pool-20180112t034956741z |
|---|
| title | "" |
|---|
| body | "(disclaimer: italian here, not perfect english at all)
I think I have a solution (maybe :) )
After reading a lot (your post, the comments, white paper), I find out that it's not a "generosity" issue, it's not a "groups of the same interest" issue, it's a "cost of finding" issue.
In short: Votes are not all equal. There is a big extra value in every random distributed vote (you called this thing "generousity", for me it's only a random vote to somebody I don't know, somebody I find out for some strange reason). The extra value it's in the fact that they have huge costs by the voter: the cost to find out the good, unique, marvellous content. So a random vote in my opinion must have full value. Instead, a vote to a friend post or to myself (also with the same good, unique, marvellous content) doesn't have the cost of finding the content, it's in your feed (and a vote for self content have obviously zero cost to search, I post it now! I also knew that's it's good!). So the vote "not randomy distributed" must value a little less, let's say only 20% less.
Impact giving 100% of value to random votes and let's say 80% on high correlated votes:
- for natural groups this doesn't impact a lot the boost of their posts: when they vote, they votes have only 20% less value, but after all there is no cost of finding the good post when all the friends have the post in their feeds, and in big groups a lot of immediate votes from friends are easy to have in a post (so whiy value at 100% this easy votes? It make no sense to me, easy things have almost always less value, 20% less it's the minimum).
- randomly distributed votes are full 100%, this 20% more compensate the cost of finding, by the way it cost a lot (not only a 20% difference) to find a good random post: you must find out this post, probably read a long text or watch a long video (maybe 1 minute boring, but then BAM, 9 minuts of amazing content, but if it was 10 min boring? Who pays my time? This extra value must go when I find the amazing content), and you must analize well this new content hidden somewhere not near you, it's not in your feed, it's not easy, this random vote must have more value, full value!
- for bots that vote a lot the same people, I think that this 20% less on the vote can change a lot, because I think that they make money on the difference, for example now they get paid 100 and vote for something like 95, and they gain 5. But with a 20% less power, they go in negative zone (-15%), so they go instantly out of market (at least bots with non randomly votes).
- with less bots, natural groups have also an indirect advantage (a compensation for the 20% less value of votes): to have less bad competition." |
|---|
| json_metadata | {"tags":["utopian-io"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
hiveblocks