You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF 19- The Clu$terf*ckening and Unintended Consequences
I'm not sure what you mean by pig pile incentive. It is actually setup the exact opposite. If you vote on a post that already has high rewards, you get practically no curation - it all goes to the people that already voted. At that point you are basically hoping for more people to pig pile, because that would be the only way to make rewards in that scenario. It is a very misunderstood aspect of curation.
Tim. You're a good author and everyone loves you. I know that when your next post hits it's going to make 1k or more. I'm going to put a lot of my power in there between the 20-30min mark to try to sneak in and get as much of that reward as possible. Lots will follow. yes, I'm only incented by the people that come after me, but I'm gambling on pot odds that since you're adored that folks will follow. If I bet on a minnow it probably dies there. So, my incentive even after a bunch of big votes have been cast on you is to stay the course and pile the pig.
Thanks. I do agree that there is a fundamental problem with curation in that it is more about trying to predict winners than it is trying to identify good content. I've written a few posts on the subject. I don't have a good solution, but I also don't really think that HF 19 is really going to make the problem significantly worse either. There are actually some hypothetical changes in user behavior where it could get better actually. (If you are predicting that I'm going to get 1,000 - what happens when a large portion of my regular voters have already spent their 10 votes for the day..?)
They aren't going to spend their 10 votes for the day. They are going to wait for the 10 highest posters post and gamble on them. Their won't be any power left for a minnow. If you have 300kSP which is like top 100 account or so you can make 2800 on 1 upvote... It's going to be insane. if you have 40 votes or more you can't just upvote the same 10 people all the time. You have to dig to find people to support.
It won't take long to see this Tim. The scoreboard, ie trending page, will reflect it within a week is my guess. A week for payouts, and a week for the start of the exodus from "why the fuck am I bothering to do this"
With the removal of squared rewards and a switch to linear, the upvote of a single whale is no longer going to have as much weight - especially when it gets added to a post that already has lots of votes.
I'm ball parking squared to linear will take the rewards pool control of whales from 99% to 93%. It's not that big of a change. So the math is a $50 bet x4 is now 200 *93% = 190ish. The pile on will be bonkers.
That people need to consider the relative value of their curative reward in their curation debases the value of curation. Posts aren't upvoted because they're good posts, but because it pays better.
This kills good content.
Why in the world is there a reduction in the value of votes for an article that is already showing it has value? This reduces the reward for posts that are of higher value, and reduces the reward of curators that see this value.
Make it simple and fair. Let value be determined by the curators, rather than tricks.