Happy Saturday Steem Flag Force

I wanted to take a moment to report back on progress of the project. The SteemFlagRewards Python script is currently 95 lines of code containing 5 functions. There were a few improvements made this morning. They are as follows:

Script Improvements

• Leveraged get_posts method with while loop to allow list of posts being checked for downvotes to exceed the existing 100 post. Currently, the loop iterates 4 times but will likely be increased for greater probability of finding a good flag post.

• Added more post metadata to be used in the good flag post body. These include author, title, and the first image link in as well as the existing vote metadata.

• Added export csv function with timestamp for simplicity.

Here is a portion of the code that I will be running periodically and manually reviewing the posts for juror submission. I've reviewed a handful but there doesn't appear to be clear flagging motive or rationale. Of course, this is subject to interpretation. I've been experimenting primarily with posts sorted under "trending" and "hot" but I may want to consider "created" as well.

list=[] 
posts = get_posts('hot','','')
i = 0
list += posts
while (i < 3):
    posts = get_posts('hot','',list[-1].identifier)
    list+=posts
    i+=1
    
dvp = get_downvotedposts(list)
for post in dvp:
    for item in (get_votes(post)):
        vl.append(item)

export_csv(vl)

Additional considerations

Self vote ratio used as a metric to help positively identify good flags

Considering using self vote rshares / net rshares threshold as criteria for good flag. Just not certain what this threshold should be. I think if a post has at least 90% self vote ratio that there is a good probability of it being overvalued. What do you think? I think, if nothing else, that metric should be used as a tool to help find the good flags.

Juror communication

We are encrypting messages to our juror candidates. We are waiting on 2 responses and the other is currently reviewing to understand the process.

We may opt for another approach which would entail creating a post requesting willing participants to leave a comment. Those that comment in the affirmative will be placed into a pool for the randomized selection process. Hopefully, that may speed things along.

Plan at this time is to follow up with the juror candidates, give it a bit of time, and, if we have not confirmed within 48 hours, we are going to go with Plan B.

Please, let me know your thoughts in the comments.