RE: The Top 2% of Whales on Steemit: Visual Stats/Trends...Curation Counts!!
Sorry I read this a few times........ I think there is a misunderstanding?
I researched what tags to use before I set the post and sent it because I read what the #curie @curie project was about, and it is tied to #curation - because that is the jist of my post and the graph and the comments in my post -- that Curation matters and I broke down WHY visually from the graph on the steem site. I explained why based on the lines and graph info you can clearly see there. I just think we have a miscommunication here, to me, that shows some pretty clear interpretation of data in that graph.
I may be missing something you are trying to convey so pls. reply and LMK - I would appreciate it. TY very much for the comment, I know you are trying to help me. I think so anyways LOL! Thumbs Up!
The number 100 in the rankings that you shared is your curation score. It has nothing to do with your rank on this list of #997. That 997 number is your ranking based on how many posts you have made during the period of time selected.
I think you're reading the data wrong. A curation score of 100 is not good. The others have a score of 0 because they have upvoted nothing. But that has nothing to do with the rankings - because the ranking order has to do with post count, not curation.
If you look at the girl below me, by one spot... we both have the same amount of posts. (301) --- yet I ranked above her. Yes, I know and I said in the post so everyone knew I had filtered this search by the AMOUNT OF POSTS. So I was trying to decide why the system / algorhythm chose to rank me 1 above her, rather than below her.
All that said, when I look at the data, you said it yourself.... 100 of my category compared with 0 for the other 2 beneath me, is still, let's call it what it is --- 100 for me, and -0 for them -- thus to me all the comments and data I referred to originally seem to be why I was ranked 1 above her yet tied with the same amount of posts -- the 301.
My 100 in the curation department as opposed to their 0 - along with other curation/sharing info I discussed, seem clear to me, as to why I am ranked 1 above and not below. I don't know what else to say. Thanks.
Or it could just be alphabetical, as the people below you are also tied in post count at 300 each. Yet the account ranked higher has a lower curation score - but it starts with an 'A' and the other with a 'K.'
I never gave that any thought at all or I would have mused about it. I just likely assumed this system is more technical than that with the algo's in place -- how funny would that be if that was actually why eh? LOL!! Glad you interacted with me tonite, TY for that. I will follow you now!!!!
I forgot, I had already followed you!!