RE: Observation and Analysis - Who is the Best Curator 观察与分析之最好的点赞者 🔍
Man, I am pretty sure people use bots to vote :
look at tools like Steemvoter.
Especially when your vote is worth a lot, I guess you don't want your vote to be wasted. And as nobody can spend several hours per day each day during one year or more to really find good content, then people turns to bots to not waste their vote.
And they set the bot to vote for the people they know.
Also you have things called vote trails : you set a bot to vote exactly the same content than someone else.
And that is quite a problem imo, because then people get autovotes whatever they post... The users of these bots don't necessarily adjust their rules to vote before a long time.
But you know that, don't you ?
I wrote all this and then realized your last question in your post was too naive to be a real question..., lol :)
Hey, Brother, You may not know the background of my post.
@paulag tried to use data to show some silly conclusions. I simply want to tell her: Your data are wrong. Go back to check your data carefully, before you jump to any silly conclusions.
I fully understand people use bots to vote and I am ok with it. However, @paulag wants to prove that @surpassggoogle is the best choice for @ned.
My point is: If @surpassggoogle uses bot to vote, why doesn't ned use the @bot directly? Why does he need @surpassggoogle?
Anyway it's @ned's SP. He can do whatever he wants.
Hi @nationalpark, I guess whenever we deal with data analysis it is important to run it past the sniff test/sanity check first, and even as a scientist I miss this sometimes because of cognitive biases that we all have. I was thinking that even if ned wanted to use bots to vote directly, it would still be less biased if he picked someone that might not use the same bots to vote (unless surpassinggoogle uses exactly the same voting bots). Anyway, I guess this is what they mean when they say that with Steem power comes great responsibility :D
Hmmm.. Indeed, I didn't have all the background, it is more clear now. Thanks for your explanation.