TOP 200 effective Steemit сurators that encourage discussion for the last week (2018.04.02-2018.04.08)
I want to share with you statistics about the most effective Steemit curators of the last week.
This statistic is not about how much the authors or curators have earned. This statistics shows the list of curators, whose contribution to the reward pool distribution is the most significant.
What does this mean?
You can say that there is nothing interesting in this statistics. That it is clear that the reward pool is distributed by whales. But!
The most interesting thing is how the curator distributes the reward pool. He can vote only for his posts and his comments. He can vote for a selected circle of authors and affiliated accounts. But also he can vote for a large number of authors who publish interesting content.
Thus, an effective curator is a curator who has sufficient Steem Power (he can be an investor or a popular author who has earned his Steem Power by publishing interesting content), devoting time and effort to the content curating at Steemit and distributing a reward pool in favor of the authors. And the efficiency level is estimated by how much SBD curator distributes among as many authors as possible.
But this time we will review those curators who reward the discussions, that is, they vote for the comments of other users.
According to the ideology of the Steemit creators, the discussion is as valuable an element as the author's content. Confirmation of this is the allocation of a separate pool of awards for comments.
How it works?
Votes - Each curator distributes a certain part of the reward pool with his votes (upvote / flag).
Authors - This part of the pool he distributes between a certain number of authors.
VAS (vote average strength) - For general awareness, we can estimate the average vote strength in percents (%), with which the curator votes.
Contr. (SBD) (Contribution in SBD) - The distributed part of the pool is the contribution of the curator, it is calculated in SBD. In this case, the author's reward is taken into account. The curator's reward is not taken into account.
Share % - The percentage of the curator contribution among the contributions of all curators, we can also estimate for information purposes in %.
Eff. - The effectiveness of the curator is estimated in conventional units and is calculated as follows.
The total number of authors who published rewarded comments for the period under study is determined.
Then the contribution of the curator is divided by the total number of authors, and then multiplied by the number of authors for whom the curator voted for the period.
Thus, we see that, having distributed even a smaller number of SBD between a larger number of authors, the curator can be more effective than other curators. At the same time, having a greater voice power, but not actively voting, supporting a small number of authors, the curator takes a lower position in the rating.
And now, statistics.
21636 authors published their rewarded comments during this week.
24590 accounts participated in the comments curating according to information from the database.
326653 votes were made during this week.
29926,17 SBD - is the total author rewards for this week.
TOP-200 effective comments curators for the last week (2018.04.02-2018.04.08)
№ | Account | Votes | Authors | VAS(%) | Contr. (SBD) | Share % | Eff. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | @gentlebot | 564 | 508 | 15 | 387,87 | 1,3 | 9,11 |
2 | @utopian-io | 62 | 62 | 6 | 1707,09 | 5,7 | 4,89 |
3 | @cryptoctopus | 911 | 88 | 3 | 876,04 | 2,93 | 3,56 |
4 | @sniffnscurry | 678 | 85 | 4 | 823,33 | 2,75 | 3,23 |
5 | @surpassinggoogle | 330 | 213 | 1 | 279,69 | 0,93 | 2,75 |
6 | @neoxian | 547 | 229 | 2 | 226,51 | 0,76 | 2,4 |
7 | @czechglobalhosts | 312 | 139 | 2 | 199,55 | 0,67 | 1,28 |
8 | @dimimp | 299 | 23 | 95 | 936,12 | 3,13 | 1 |
9 | @trafalgar | 295 | 35 | 3 | 609,89 | 2,04 | 0,99 |
10 | @pharesim | 405 | 219 | 0 | 96,57 | 0,32 | 0,98 |
11 | @utopian.tip | 185 | 51 | 40 | 235,87 | 0,79 | 0,56 |
12 | @ctrl-alt-nwo | 194 | 114 | 4 | 104,62 | 0,35 | 0,55 |
13 | @acidyo | 111 | 63 | 4 | 180,42 | 0,6 | 0,53 |
14 | @javybar | 286 | 98 | 11 | 88,38 | 0,3 | 0,4 |
15 | @goldmatters | 211 | 128 | 6 | 65,53 | 0,22 | 0,39 |
16 | @stephenkendal | 296 | 142 | 5 | 58,24 | 0,19 | 0,38 |
17 | @khaleelkazi | 71 | 22 | 53 | 346,79 | 1,16 | 0,35 |
18 | @jaki01 | 225 | 145 | 3 | 49,11 | 0,16 | 0,33 |
19 | @adm | 1164 | 7 | 1 | 1016,19 | 3,4 | 0,33 |
20 | @xpilar | 345 | 124 | 5 | 54,58 | 0,18 | 0,31 |
21 | @shaka | 171 | 91 | 4 | 73,2 | 0,24 | 0,31 |
22 | @josteem | 1112 | 312 | 5 | 21,36 | 0,07 | 0,31 |
23 | @derrick829 | 88 | 29 | 61 | 198,05 | 0,66 | 0,27 |
24 | @thetruth36 | 170 | 78 | 18 | 70,98 | 0,24 | 0,26 |
25 | @krnel | 221 | 130 | 4 | 37,77 | 0,13 | 0,23 |
26 | @alexbeyman | 303 | 82 | 10 | 57,74 | 0,19 | 0,22 |
27 | @greenman | 167 | 144 | 6 | 32,57 | 0,11 | 0,22 |
28 | @dj123 | 445 | 118 | 5 | 40,66 | 0,14 | 0,22 |
29 | @dragosroua | 280 | 125 | 11 | 37,16 | 0,12 | 0,21 |
30 | @cron | 57 | 21 | 60 | 206,84 | 0,69 | 0,2 |
31 | @rok-sivante | 56 | 33 | 53 | 127,4 | 0,43 | 0,19 |
32 | @onceuponatime | 145 | 86 | 2 | 48,44 | 0,16 | 0,19 |
33 | @aomura | 2811 | 108 | 4 | 38,84 | 0,13 | 0,19 |
34 | @abh12345 | 493 | 221 | 4 | 17,85 | 0,06 | 0,18 |
35 | @gamer00 | 273 | 77 | 5 | 49,55 | 0,17 | 0,18 |
36 | @tarazkp | 425 | 147 | 1 | 26,04 | 0,09 | 0,18 |
37 | @dividendgrowth | 65 | 18 | 57 | 199,81 | 0,67 | 0,17 |
38 | @breathewind | 245 | 13 | 94 | 267,19 | 0,89 | 0,16 |
39 | @exyle | 230 | 109 | 1 | 31,56 | 0,11 | 0,16 |
40 | @surfyogi | 97 | 78 | 9 | 43,76 | 0,15 | 0,16 |
41 | @cynetyc | 188 | 114 | 72 | 28,97 | 0,1 | 0,15 |
42 | @lucky2 | 53 | 48 | 97 | 67,19 | 0,22 | 0,15 |
43 | @gardenofeden | 133 | 64 | 7 | 47,9 | 0,16 | 0,14 |
44 | @armdown | 190 | 149 | 22 | 19,8 | 0,07 | 0,14 |
45 | @transisto | 22 | 11 | 65 | 261,11 | 0,87 | 0,13 |
46 | @whatageek | 63 | 38 | 61 | 74,95 | 0,25 | 0,13 |
47 | @senseicat | 90 | 39 | 22 | 71,54 | 0,24 | 0,13 |
48 | @leeyh | 174 | 130 | 5 | 21,25 | 0,07 | 0,13 |
49 | @hebrew | 69 | 63 | 13 | 42,95 | 0,14 | 0,13 |
50 | @double-u | 202 | 39 | 21 | 72,77 | 0,24 | 0,13 |
51 | @broncnutz | 171 | 92 | 2 | 28,39 | 0,09 | 0,12 |
52 | @brian.rrr | 126 | 62 | 7 | 42,71 | 0,14 | 0,12 |
53 | @ulfr | 219 | 97 | 8 | 25,76 | 0,09 | 0,12 |
54 | @cryptoeagle | 196 | 134 | 36 | 19,22 | 0,06 | 0,12 |
55 | @agawolf | 106 | 29 | 37 | 89,55 | 0,3 | 0,12 |
56 | @smartcome | 126 | 43 | 100 | 59,34 | 0,2 | 0,12 |
57 | @ackza | 249 | 145 | 24 | 16,76 | 0,06 | 0,11 |
58 | @introduce.bot | 335 | 332 | 2 | 6,99 | 0,02 | 0,11 |
59 | @francisk | 272 | 101 | 12 | 22,86 | 0,08 | 0,11 |
60 | @investing | 69 | 50 | 21 | 49,26 | 0,16 | 0,11 |
61 | @nomad-magus | 156 | 79 | 13 | 27,2 | 0,09 | 0,1 |
62 | @gbenga | 208 | 123 | 9 | 17,67 | 0,06 | 0,1 |
63 | @steevc | 341 | 158 | 6 | 13,75 | 0,05 | 0,1 |
64 | @talanhorne | 103 | 69 | 50 | 31,04 | 0,1 | 0,1 |
65 | @comedyopenmic | 117 | 53 | 8 | 39,57 | 0,13 | 0,1 |
66 | @spectrumecons | 210 | 139 | 5 | 15,38 | 0,05 | 0,1 |
67 | @louisthomas | 108 | 59 | 100 | 32,44 | 0,11 | 0,09 |
68 | @canadian-coconut | 90 | 41 | 1 | 48,83 | 0,16 | 0,09 |
69 | @sjchoi | 62 | 37 | 76 | 53,62 | 0,18 | 0,09 |
70 | @majes.tytyty | 179 | 60 | 11 | 33,46 | 0,11 | 0,09 |
71 | @oliverschmid | 281 | 97 | 69 | 20,51 | 0,07 | 0,09 |
72 | @thedamus | 217 | 74 | 20 | 27,48 | 0,09 | 0,09 |
73 | @babsboard | 64 | 26 | 73 | 67,59 | 0,23 | 0,08 |
74 | @sharonomics | 54 | 35 | 100 | 51,2 | 0,17 | 0,08 |
75 | @anomadsoul | 75 | 69 | 1 | 24,43 | 0,08 | 0,08 |
76 | @socky | 56 | 27 | 38 | 59,06 | 0,2 | 0,07 |
77 | @armentor | 91 | 33 | 24 | 43,67 | 0,15 | 0,07 |
78 | @richard-921 | 84 | 41 | 95 | 34,72 | 0,12 | 0,07 |
79 | @virus707 | 53 | 17 | 7 | 93,51 | 0,31 | 0,07 |
80 | @v4vapid | 52 | 41 | 2 | 39,52 | 0,13 | 0,07 |
81 | @cicbar | 211 | 157 | 5 | 9,05 | 0,03 | 0,07 |
82 | @bytzz | 114 | 56 | 17 | 22,66 | 0,08 | 0,06 |
83 | @meesterboom | 242 | 93 | 2 | 14,29 | 0,05 | 0,06 |
84 | @luckystrikes | 105 | 78 | 15 | 17,86 | 0,06 | 0,06 |
85 | @fulltimegeek | 59 | 40 | 1 | 30,53 | 0,1 | 0,06 |
86 | @mandl | 60 | 20 | 49 | 68,62 | 0,23 | 0,06 |
87 | @justtryme90 | 17 | 12 | 89 | 104,93 | 0,35 | 0,06 |
88 | @jgullinese | 54 | 31 | 19 | 42,17 | 0,14 | 0,06 |
89 | @beanz | 33 | 20 | 31 | 60,33 | 0,2 | 0,06 |
90 | @michaellamden68 | 131 | 32 | 27 | 39,54 | 0,13 | 0,06 |
91 | @fucktime | 19 | 16 | 58 | 80,94 | 0,27 | 0,06 |
92 | @sndbox | 48 | 37 | 1 | 34,92 | 0,12 | 0,06 |
93 | @bigram13 | 54 | 15 | 34 | 79,6 | 0,27 | 0,06 |
94 | @englishtchrivy | 114 | 34 | 46 | 41,16 | 0,14 | 0,06 |
95 | @d-pend | 81 | 46 | 7 | 27,9 | 0,09 | 0,06 |
96 | @crypt0 | 28 | 19 | 64 | 69,59 | 0,23 | 0,06 |
97 | @bleujay | 42 | 24 | 26 | 42,61 | 0,14 | 0,05 |
98 | @kevinwong | 69 | 50 | 2 | 19,73 | 0,07 | 0,05 |
99 | @emperorofnaps | 167 | 18 | 3 | 62,56 | 0,21 | 0,05 |
100 | @steamsteem | 198 | 53 | 11 | 21,38 | 0,07 | 0,05 |
101 | @floridasnail | 81 | 59 | 12 | 17,34 | 0,06 | 0,05 |
102 | @djohan | 129 | 26 | 50 | 39,15 | 0,13 | 0,05 |
103 | @adamkokesh | 46 | 42 | 1 | 25,09 | 0,08 | 0,05 |
104 | @newsflash | 30 | 23 | 38 | 45,16 | 0,15 | 0,05 |
105 | @cryptopie | 182 | 75 | 15 | 13,28 | 0,04 | 0,05 |
106 | @knircky | 32 | 24 | 32 | 46,99 | 0,16 | 0,05 |
107 | @abajnath | 53 | 35 | 74 | 33,34 | 0,11 | 0,05 |
108 | @darsico | 107 | 48 | 26 | 20,82 | 0,07 | 0,05 |
109 | @madpuppy | 29 | 2 | 93 | 462,82 | 1,55 | 0,04 |
110 | @limesoda | 121 | 82 | 17 | 10,67 | 0,04 | 0,04 |
111 | @rahemanali | 53 | 35 | 100 | 23,81 | 0,08 | 0,04 |
112 | @crypto-p | 84 | 18 | 70 | 45,35 | 0,15 | 0,04 |
113 | @pouchon | 86 | 22 | 43 | 38,52 | 0,13 | 0,04 |
114 | @estabond | 105 | 12 | 7 | 78,5 | 0,26 | 0,04 |
115 | @igster | 1209 | 79 | 1 | 12,1 | 0,04 | 0,04 |
116 | @forealife | 205 | 93 | 11 | 8,44 | 0,03 | 0,04 |
117 | @bwells | 58 | 6 | 94 | 159,97 | 0,53 | 0,04 |
118 | @steemyoda | 64 | 12 | 33 | 77,38 | 0,26 | 0,04 |
119 | @jack8831 | 78 | 55 | 4 | 16,09 | 0,05 | 0,04 |
120 | @bue | 154 | 48 | 100 | 17,06 | 0,06 | 0,04 |
121 | @chbartist | 151 | 124 | 84 | 7,83 | 0,03 | 0,04 |
122 | @sridevik | 104 | 6 | 80 | 147,91 | 0,49 | 0,04 |
123 | @holic7 | 88 | 54 | 7 | 15,43 | 0,05 | 0,04 |
124 | @jeezzle | 77 | 39 | 26 | 22,05 | 0,07 | 0,04 |
125 | @iliasdiamantis | 94 | 38 | 33 | 15,75 | 0,05 | 0,03 |
126 | @zer0hedge | 27 | 22 | 42 | 27,01 | 0,09 | 0,03 |
127 | @kibaek | 103 | 18 | 65 | 36,64 | 0,12 | 0,03 |
128 | @destinysaid | 41 | 25 | 53 | 23,39 | 0,08 | 0,03 |
129 | @alhofmeister | 55 | 3 | 95 | 209,79 | 0,7 | 0,03 |
130 | @cryptokidd | 43 | 8 | 78 | 69,72 | 0,23 | 0,03 |
131 | @nonameslefttouse | 104 | 59 | 4 | 9,19 | 0,03 | 0,03 |
132 | @etcmike | 170 | 54 | 11 | 11,49 | 0,04 | 0,03 |
133 | @apolymask | 123 | 47 | 22 | 11,66 | 0,04 | 0,03 |
134 | @leemikyung | 116 | 78 | 1 | 7,39 | 0,02 | 0,03 |
135 | @jonny-clearwater | 44 | 36 | 17 | 18,78 | 0,06 | 0,03 |
136 | @goodvibrations | 90 | 53 | 6 | 12,04 | 0,04 | 0,03 |
137 | @tobixen | 59 | 28 | 28 | 23,49 | 0,08 | 0,03 |
138 | @minnowpowerup | 55 | 17 | 36 | 31,98 | 0,11 | 0,03 |
139 | @doctalk | 92 | 21 | 79 | 26,01 | 0,09 | 0,03 |
140 | @kartiksingh | 224 | 10 | 12 | 56,85 | 0,19 | 0,03 |
141 | @uwelang | 93 | 63 | 4 | 8,7 | 0,03 | 0,03 |
142 | @dhimmel | 64 | 32 | 59 | 19,98 | 0,07 | 0,03 |
143 | @velimir | 89 | 44 | 11 | 15,75 | 0,05 | 0,03 |
144 | @sismaru | 189 | 109 | 3 | 5,58 | 0,02 | 0,03 |
145 | @ericvancewalton | 45 | 32 | 81 | 18,07 | 0,06 | 0,03 |
146 | @theaustrianguy | 69 | 58 | 4 | 9,56 | 0,03 | 0,03 |
147 | @bbana | 42 | 30 | 23 | 18,52 | 0,06 | 0,03 |
148 | @lukestokes | 45 | 35 | 5 | 19,49 | 0,07 | 0,03 |
149 | @ernestfung | 75 | 30 | 100 | 22,31 | 0,07 | 0,03 |
150 | @quinneaker | 150 | 28 | 5 | 26,55 | 0,09 | 0,03 |
151 | @boxmining | 38 | 32 | 100 | 19,74 | 0,07 | 0,03 |
152 | @whatsup | 100 | 67 | 12 | 11,28 | 0,04 | 0,03 |
153 | @donkeypong | 39 | 36 | 1 | 18,71 | 0,06 | 0,03 |
154 | @lyndsaybowes | 273 | 129 | 4 | 4,67 | 0,02 | 0,03 |
155 | @bronevik | 50 | 13 | 55 | 44,99 | 0,15 | 0,03 |
156 | @sultan-aceh | 254 | 86 | 14 | 7,86 | 0,03 | 0,03 |
157 | @schamangerbert | 102 | 72 | 7 | 5,49 | 0,02 | 0,02 |
158 | @firepower | 19 | 17 | 21 | 20,65 | 0,07 | 0,02 |
159 | @protegeaa | 36 | 21 | 57 | 19,38 | 0,06 | 0,02 |
160 | @take5 | 215 | 51 | 7 | 9,51 | 0,03 | 0,02 |
161 | @pfunk | 14 | 12 | 14 | 28,01 | 0,09 | 0,02 |
162 | @barbro | 12 | 8 | 100 | 42,62 | 0,14 | 0,02 |
163 | @oncebey60 | 71 | 26 | 47 | 20,18 | 0,07 | 0,02 |
164 | @havok777 | 78 | 44 | 16 | 7,65 | 0,03 | 0,02 |
165 | @themightyvolcano | 41 | 10 | 85 | 39,11 | 0,13 | 0,02 |
166 | @otage | 140 | 62 | 14 | 8,18 | 0,03 | 0,02 |
167 | @jamesbrown | 25 | 5 | 81 | 81,99 | 0,27 | 0,02 |
168 | @atmosblack | 78 | 24 | 48 | 20,15 | 0,07 | 0,02 |
169 | @craim100 | 71 | 11 | 83 | 35,06 | 0,12 | 0,02 |
170 | @schmidthappens | 43 | 30 | 16 | 15,65 | 0,05 | 0,02 |
171 | @surfermarly | 48 | 41 | 63 | 12,7 | 0,04 | 0,02 |
172 | @sorin.cristescu | 80 | 31 | 33 | 11,61 | 0,04 | 0,02 |
173 | @michalx2008x | 218 | 115 | 9 | 4,09 | 0,01 | 0,02 |
174 | @yoo1900 | 9 | 1 | 87 | 344,49 | 1,15 | 0,02 |
175 | @nnnarvaez | 37 | 26 | 71 | 13,53 | 0,05 | 0,02 |
176 | @steembasicincome | 77 | 43 | 9 | 10,85 | 0,04 | 0,02 |
177 | @tatjanastan | 68 | 36 | 8 | 14,36 | 0,05 | 0,02 |
178 | @richq11 | 127 | 58 | 13 | 7,38 | 0,02 | 0,02 |
179 | @michiel | 50 | 24 | 100 | 14,53 | 0,05 | 0,02 |
180 | @glenalbrethsen | 271 | 56 | 17 | 6,22 | 0,02 | 0,02 |
181 | @taskmaster4450 | 94 | 55 | 5 | 8,09 | 0,03 | 0,02 |
182 | @sebastianjago | 36 | 13 | 60 | 31,87 | 0,11 | 0,02 |
183 | @momoggo | 32 | 29 | 75 | 14,3 | 0,05 | 0,02 |
184 | @aidasfg7 | 48 | 23 | 25 | 14,41 | 0,05 | 0,02 |
185 | @noaommerrr | 74 | 1 | 100 | 343,81 | 1,15 | 0,02 |
186 | @balte | 179 | 47 | 8 | 7,21 | 0,02 | 0,02 |
187 | @coruscate | 98 | 72 | 11 | 7 | 0,02 | 0,02 |
188 | @thedarkhorse | 195 | 86 | 12 | 4,9 | 0,02 | 0,02 |
189 | @miti | 130 | 68 | 27 | 5,78 | 0,02 | 0,02 |
190 | @mammasitta | 131 | 73 | 2 | 4,99 | 0,02 | 0,02 |
191 | @rebeccaryan | 54 | 43 | 12 | 8,84 | 0,03 | 0,02 |
192 | @vikisecrets | 100 | 46 | 11 | 9,97 | 0,03 | 0,02 |
193 | @ruth-girl | 163 | 69 | 7 | 5,3 | 0,02 | 0,02 |
194 | @mightpossibly | 132 | 52 | 37 | 8,14 | 0,03 | 0,02 |
195 | @winnerslosers | 87 | 33 | 13 | 12,24 | 0,04 | 0,02 |
196 | @reiseamateur | 135 | 83 | 21 | 4,18 | 0,01 | 0,02 |
197 | @papa-pepper | 43 | 26 | 60 | 19,24 | 0,06 | 0,02 |
198 | @tasauver | 185 | 37 | 63 | 12,34 | 0,04 | 0,02 |
199 | @falconcash | 48 | 3 | 95 | 159,69 | 0,53 | 0,02 |
200 | @salahchiva | 81 | 17 | 62 | 19,12 | 0,06 | 0,02 |
I took all vote bots (most of them are working like pay for vote) in the separate table. Because we can't call them effective curators. Their work depends on authors payments and activity.
If you know another bots in the list above please tell me about it.
№ | Account | Votes | Authors | VAS(%) | Contr. (SBD) | Share % | Eff. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | @booster | 624 | 62 | 1 | 474,37 | 1,59 | 1,36 |
2 | @speedvoter | 3169 | 132 | 1 | 116,44 | 0,39 | 0,71 |
3 | @boomerang | 12 | 3 | 19 | 109,94 | 0,37 | 0,02 |
Now you know all these heroes. Their daily work increases the interest in the discussion, gives hope to some authors, and some even a decent income. Their work attracts new authors in Steemit and makes existing users remain.
Information sources
All information is prepared by querying data from a SteemSQL - SQL database containing information from Steem's blockchain, as well as by calculations based on this data.
Special thanks to @arcange for SteemSQL and for the advice provided to me during the development of this project.
This is so awesome, to make it again in the list! It just shows, that what I'm doing here, is absolutely heading into the right direction. Thank you so much for compiling this list and showing to all fellow Steemians the way to go! Blessings! 🙏
You are very welcome! It's your merit to be on the list!
You are one of them who doing great work here. 8)
Nice to make your top 200 list! Sure that lists like this will only become harder to make as time goes along so I'll enjoy it for now. Thanks for for sharing and pulling together all the information.
Congratulations! 8)
You are absolutely right! There was a time when I was doing a TOP 200 Effective curators on whole Steemit for a month. Then it started to take a long time and I started to publich a weekly TOPs. In January my server started to make such a weekly report in more then 7 days. I had to stop doing them for a few weeks until the number of active authors has decreased. 8))
Not to spam your post, but you might like the contest I'm running. Take a look if you get a minute. It's a curation contest to help pay it forward and reward lower reputation score (newer) bloggers for producing good content.
Thanks for the invitation. I consider this an excellent initiative. But due to personal circumstances, I will not be able to participate in it.
No problem. If down the road things change come and join us as the plan is to keep this going. Not doing any paid promotion for the contest, so if you are able to help with a vote or resteem that is always appreciated.
Yeah, I voted for it 8)
Thank you very much for the support!
Woot! Awesome to see I made the list again and actually went up a bit this time. 133 now! Illuminati numbers! Lol. Thanks again for sharing this useful information with us! Was cool to learn that.
keep working at it man top 100 soon enough! :D
If I don't go blind first. Heh. ._.
Though.. Who knows! Maybe it will happen.. I'm just trying to keep up with the IFC, was never aiming for this.. I guess we'll see where trying to keep up with the IFC takes me, but right now.. I feel like I'm already at my limit. Not sure how much more I can humanly do in addition to what I'm doing, lol.
No yeah I can see by how active you are and how well you respond to everyone in the community! I seriously don't know how you do it man.
I dunno how I do it either. I really believe in this project I guess and I want to see it grow into something really big and amazing. But it's too much on me and hopefully in time I don't have to do this much and when it gets more popular we get more people who want to help out and take the weight off me.
You are welcome! 8)
It took me a while to figure it out myself. And I was sure that this information will be useful to many users. I'm glad that you confirm this.
Yeah, it's nice to know all the work I'm putting in makes a positive difference and I knew that already, but your stats sort of help me put that into more perspective and to measure it and understand it more. :) Good work! It's indeed a useful service.
Great article, again! We see a lot of familiar names from the DACH/#deutsch Community :)
Thank you very much! As I see, deutsch community is very active and it is in the top 5 national and language communities of rewards
I am glad that i could stay in the Top 200 again! Thanks for your work!
You are welcome! 8)
https://www.youtube.com/paulbegley34
good post man
Thanks!
Thanks you very much for this update , it really help those who rely on comment to find their effective curator and by so doing earning a living.
You are welcome! 8)
I'm still trying to figure out how I even made this list, but I'm glad to be here. :)
So, there must be a part of the table that is missing? The curator effectiveness column where the ranking is determined doesn't show up. I'd love to know what that number is.
Also, if I'm calculating this right, all of us on the list rank in the top 1% of all curators according to our effectiveness at distributing the reward pool for the week sampled.
That's pretty amazing. Thanks for doing this. :)
Thank you! You are welcome 8)
This is all because you actively supported the discussion with your votes.
You might be looking this post on the busy.org? I don't know what's the problem but on steemit.com you will see that missing column.
I'm not sure that I understand it. Sorry, english is not my native language 8)
So, I am on Steemit. This is what I see. It kind of looks like the share% column is cut off, so I thought maybe there might be another column with the effectiveness score in it. Otherwise, I'm not understanding the rankings, since the numbers in the other columns are all over the place.
This is what it looks like on Busy. I can actually see more here, including the effectiveness column I was thinking there must be. :) I'm using FireFox for both.
Okay. Just checked this in Safari and now I can see everything. It must be a browser-specific problem then.
re: top 1%
I was just trying to say that if we're on this Top 200 list, and the sample of curators for the week is just under 25,000, that if I'm doing the math right, that puts us all in the top 1% of curators according to our effectiveness.
Hey, I'm glad that the solution to the problem was found, because I use Google Chrome and did not even know about it. You are the first to report this problem.
re: top 1%
Now I understand what you mean. Thanks! 8)
I'm not sure about the accuracy of your calculations, but those who are on this list will really bounce back to a very small number of those who are doing the weather here 8))))