utopian-io: Weekly overview of the Analysis category - Week 1 - 2019
This is a weekly overview post of the Analysis category at @utopian-io. The report aims to provide insight into the topics covered, the scores provided, staff picks (if any), and a look at how the current week has fared against recent weeks gone by.
Any other work taking place and my personal thoughts in relation to the category will also be included.
If you have any suggestions for additional information that could be included in this report, please comment below.
Analysis contributions summary
Week 1: January 3rd-9th (inclusive)
- One staff pick this week - 'lostmine27'
- 5 contributions, 4 scored, 5 unique contributors, and 1 new contributor
- An average score for the week of 77.75 (62.2 including the 0 score)
- An average of 20 comments per contribution (close to the average)
|holger80||Monthly Full-node report||68||9|
|uyobong||Steemchurch account analysis||0||18|
|lostmine27||Proof of brain/Power of Bid-bot||91||51|
|crokkon||How frequently do the Witness ranks change?||84||12|
|dalz||dtube 2018 analysis||69||11|
This week, a broad selection of topics and some healthy scores for the contributions. The staff pick dominated the comment charts and provided a good discussion on how bid-bots have changed the Steem landscape over the course of 2018.
It is understood by many that delegating to a Bid-bot provides the best return on investment from the Steem blockchain at present, however the effect on the morale of content creators seeking natural visibility and the apparent tarnishing of the Trending page are harder to quantify. 'lostmine27' takes the time to both analysis the growing trend in bid-bot delegations, as well as providing a lengthy conclusion which discusses the long-term negative effects Bid-bots could have on Steem.
Again this week we had one contribution that was unable to be scored. 'uyobong' submitted and analysis on 'steemchurch' accounts - however, it is not 100% clear if the post was meant for utopian-io, even though the main tags was used. The main reason that the contribution could not be scored was due to the scope of the work. 'steemchurch' is not an open source project, and analysis of one account not relating to open source is out of scope for utopian-io. The reviewer stated:
Unfortunately, your post does not fall into the scope of Utopian. Utopian is rewarding contributions to open source projects. @steemchurch, while a reputable Steem community, is unfortunately not an open source project. As an analysis of Steem as a whole, the @steemchurch project is only a very small aspect and "Analyses of social and behavioral changes of a specific group involved in the project" are not in the scope of Utopian.
Analysis and visual reporting
The aim of this section is to represent the current weeks activity along with a recent set of data. The current data span covers the previous 15 weeks.
Weekly Average Score and number of Contributions
An average score of 62.2 this week is just under 10% lower than the 12 week average of 72.02. The contribution scored 0 having a sizable effect on the average, as was the case the last week. Five contributions is 1.4 higher than the 15 week average.
Contributor Totals and Average Score
One new contributor since the last update.
'paulag' still tops contributor table with 14 contributions over the past 15 weeks. 9 contributors have an average contribution score of 70 or above, over the past 15 weeks.
Contributions that did not receive a score are not included in the charts above.
Review Totals by Reviewer (Scored/ Not scored)
Two reviewers assessed all 53 contributions that received a score in the past 15 weeks. Four contributions have not been scored during this period.
Although not directly relating to the Analysis category, I have been involved in a couple of conversations recently that have mentioned the reward for the reviewer of a given utopian-io contribution. The main point was that the reviewer received a greater reward for the review than the contribution itself.
I concede that this does not look great on first look, but would like to state the following. The time to review a contribution could be anywhere from 20/30 minutes to over an hour. As a minimum, the reviewer needs to understand the work submitted, which may require additional reading around the subject, potentially perform tests on data/code, and then write the review itself. If the contribution is of a good quality, it is very unlikely that the reviewer will be rewarded higher than the submission itself. However, if work is not scored well, the same process needs to take place by the reviewer and there could be a chance that the review is rewarded greater than the contribution.
In addition, there are additional votes (likely seeking curation rewards) that are placed on the review which are of course out of the hands of utopian-io. I hope that this information helps allay this concern somewhat.
That's all for this week.