You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Bloggers: Would you mind sharing 50/50 with those that upvote you?
I want to disagree..
50% of 100 dollars is more than 75% of 10 dollars... 25% might not be enough for most voters to be incentivised to vote more on content they see... as I wrote further down I am more concerned with people then voting for garbage as 50% could be enough incentive to do so... so there should be some idea to attract people to high quality content...
I don't understand where you are getting these numbers from solarwarrior.
Regardless- there are good whales who spread love and think of the long term success of the platform - and there are those looking for short term gain at the expense of the platform. 25/75 or 50/50 makes no difference to their behaviour anyway.
But over time the influence of the bad actors will be dilluted as they sell to the good actors.
So don't change the system and is my advice.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
I assume (and yes it is just an assumption) that 50/50 will increase the motivation to vote enormously...
of course I can not proof it... but just look how many people create self voted garbage.. hence I believe there is a high likelyhood they say.. hmm. yes.. 50/50 is fair... I am getting paid for my interaction... so lets do it
It increases the incentive to vote but also (by design) shifts the incentive away from voting for yourself (100% under any of these setups) and closer to voting for others 50% vs. the current 25%. Voting for others is still smaller, but by a lesser degree. We expect more downvotes on (a baseline smaller number of) exploitative self votes and vote selling to make up the rest of the difference, unleasing a large wave of new votes for the purpose of curating and rewarding.
agree
It shifts the incentive away from voting for yourself by insisting that a higher minimum percentage of your votes is used to reward yourself.
This continues to be nonsensical at every turn.
When voting for yourself, 100% goes to yourself. It can't be any higher than that.
What matters here is the balance between the alternatives. Both 50% and the current 25% are clearly still less than 100%, but 50% is a lot closer. Therefore balancing the incentives becomes more within reach at 50%.
A more extreme alternative would be 90%. At this point the benefit to self voting is only 1.1x and far less likely to be worth it. We'd likely see hardly any farming/self-voting at that point because it wouldn't be worth the risk of getting your trash downvoted for that extra 10% when you could be an average or even slightly below average curator, find some non-garbage and go vote on it.
We're in favor of 50% because (unlike say 90%) it is a moderate and the pain in terms of author reduction is relatively modest (33% reduction) relative to the increase in curation (100% increase) and therefore it is a number that has a good "return on investment" (using that phrase figuratively) when it comes to shifting of incentives.
I don't understand where you are getting these numbers from solarwarrior.
Regardless- there are good whales who spread love and think of the long term success of the platform - and there are those looking for short term gain at the expense of the platform. 25/75 or 50/50 makes no difference to their behaviour anyway.
But over time the influence of the bad actors will be dilluted as they sell to the good actors.
So don't change the system is my advice.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android