Observation and Analysis - Who is the Best Curator 观察与分析之最好的点赞者 🔍

in steemit •  2 years ago

IMG_0064.JPG
Eclipse of 2016 二零一六的月蚀

Two and a half months ago, @ned, the founder of Steemit, delegated half million SP to each of the following seven steemians:

A few days ago, @ned took SP back from six of the delegatees, only kept @surpassinggoogle's delegated SP unchanged. Then, rumors fly.

I have my own theory about the this, but I don't want to disclose, because I have no concrete evidence to support my theory.

@paulag published an article to analyze the data and she jumped to some conclusions.

@paulag's report looks very beautiful and great. However, when I have a careful review about the first chart in her report, I realized her data in the first chart are not correct at all. Becase @paulag want to speak with data, I suggested her to make her data correct first, then we can discuss about her conclusions. Otherwise, her conclusions are totally baseless.

Let's have a look at the first chart in her report:

This image comes from @paulag's report

This chart shows that on average @surpassinggoogle votes 1,327.4 times per day. Let's assume he vote manually. Then he needs to bring up the post or at least bring up the page that has the link to the post. If he reads the post he votes, he will need at least one minute. Therefore, we just assume he can vote once per minute.

Let's assume @paulag's data are correct. How much time @surpassinggoogle will need to cast 1,327 votes? The answer is 22 hours and 7 minutes. WOW!

If @paulag's data are correct, and if surpassinggoogle does not use bot to vote, then he needs more than 22 hours per day to vote and less than two hours to sleep.

So my conclusion is @paulag's data are not correct, or @surpassinggoogle uses bot to vote.

Later, I found out in the chart it shows @nicolemoker votes 207.6 times per day on average. At this point, I realized @paulag data are totally wrong. I did research @nicolemoker voting pattern before and this number does not match my research at all.

Because the data in the first chart are not correct, I cannot believe any data in her report. Therefore, I suggested @paulag to check her data throughly, before she can jump to any conclusions.

@surpassinggoogle are you here? Can you tell us how many times you vote in each day? Can you tell Ms. @paulag that she was wrong? Thanks


两个半月前Steemit创始人ned把50万SP代理给七名成员。前几天ned拿回来六名成员的SP,只留下了surpassinggoogle的代理。于是谣言满天飞。

有关此事我有自己的猜想,但是由于没有确凿证据,我就不讲我的猜想了。

paulag女士试图用数据说话,于是她写了一篇文章分析数据并且得出一些结论。

她的报告有很多漂亮的插图,看上去很好看。但是我仔细看了第一幅插图里的数据就发现跟本不对头。既然用数据说话,就把数据搞对了再说话。数据都不对,说什么话?

图中显示surpassinggoogle平均每天点赞一千三百多次。假设他手工点赞,看文章加点赞一次需要一分钟吧。这样他需要22个小时7分钟才能点完,每天剩下不到两小时睡觉。

开始我以为此人用机器人点赞,当我看到文章说nicolemoker平均每天点赞两百多次我就知道她数据完全搞错了。

所以我建议作者先把数据搞对更正好了我们再讨论其他问题。数据文章数据都搞不对还写什么写?


纽约纽约


更多系列游记


数据、观察、分析系列


技术系列


© Copyright 所有照片与文字皆为 @nationalpark原创。All photos taken by @nationalpark. All rights reserved.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

我知道我的数据她算得不对,我平均每天大概只有100次点赞。她似乎不知是怎么算的,77天总共7700次,那不就是平均每天100次吗?每天有20%的点赞能量,也就是1000%的点赞权重,平均下来,每一个赞是10%的点赞权重。如果算出我的数据不是这样子,基本上就是错的。

还有一个可能,假如数据是对的,但:

G的点赞是否是通过机器人点赞的呢?

或者是有一个团队同时进行点赞呢?

又或者完全是看到文章不分好坏,也不阅读就直接点赞?系统3秒钟可以点赞一次,那样倒是不需要2个小时。

但无论上面哪种情况,都偏离了点赞的意义。

让一个人去点赞那么多,还要要求人肉操作,并且不让烂文章也被点,确实是一个艰巨的任务。

·

她的点赞数据肯定是错的。而且我知道她错在哪里。否则我哪里像她那样自信。我不想告诉她错在哪里就是为了让她检查所有数据,别拿错误的数据蒙大家。因为我没有技术能力检查她全部数据。

·

她数据是错的

她数据错误,逻辑错误,对一些事情一无所知: Can the Gossip Tell us Why Ned Undelegated SP? The answer is no —https://cnsteem.com/steemit/@dapeng/can-the-gossip-tell-us-why-ned-undelegated-sp-the-answer-is-no

傷害已經造成了,她這麼輕率的判斷實在是很不負責任。

·

是啊,这人以言论自由的名义不负责任

You should provide some more specific data, and explain your process, and why your research disagrees with @paulag's.

·

She's too confident. I just hope she can check all of her data including the data I have no ability to check.

I noticed @dapeng wrote an article, which can answer your question:
https://cnsteem.com/steemit/@dapeng/can-the-gossip-tell-us-why-ned-undelegated-sp-the-answer-is-no

看着大神们分析交流也是一种享受,哈哈

·

她就是对自己的错误视而不见。过于自大

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.

她這樣真的非常糟糕而且不專業!!

·

错了不要紧,问题是她不肯承认

·
·

讓我們來教教他們,所謂知錯能改善莫大焉~~

@nationalpark, thank you for drwing out the charts and analysis so that we can see the picture more clearly. Much appreciated.

·

谢谢