You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The seed of self-upvoting was sowed more than 12 months ago, hf19 just watered it.
Interesting idea. There have been a lot of tweaks in the year I have been here, and even more before that too.
I wonder if there is a middle ground between linear and quadratic that balances equality of votes with the network effect of voting for popular content? If I recall correctly, @nonlinearone proposed an alternative. I had a quick look, but couldn't seem to find it.
I think you are on to something with the emphasis on curation as an incentive to spread your vote though. Has anyone done any studies on the effects of HF19 on curation and whether minnows are now also earning more on this front too?
I can't see how quadratic weighting is meant to stop self upvoting.
I can appreciate how it would keep minnows honest, but whales with sock puppets can make money hand over fist.
We need to stop trying to stop it, and start looking at making legitimate voting more attractive.
How's your little girl doing btw?
Self upvoting isn't the problem. The problem is when people self-upvote and no one else agrees the content is worthwhile. Quadratic weighting stops that, assuming everyone is equal in vote power. Because a post/comment with one vote will only get one ten thousandth of the reward (that is to say, nothing at all) compared to a post/comment with 100 votes.
In practice, people are not equal so this model is false, and it was largely false in the original whitepaper as well. What it really did was let orcas and whales self-upvote or vote for their friends or business partners while the bulk of the user base might as well not vote at all.