RE: Utopian bot VP analysis - 2 more rounds are available per year :)
Thank you for your contribution to @utopian-io!
This one I see has already been visited by the developer of the voting bot, who has answered some questions and provided further information.
I'll be reviewing as an analysis submission, even though suggestion/idea/development is here too :)
An analysis into the voting bot for utopian-io is quite a narrow scope, but due to the fact that delays are loss of curation, and a potential loss of reward for contributors, I think it is valid to investigate.
I'm wondering how LLN gave you the number 2.5 (mins) in delay?
From the chart, It seems that if the delay is approaching 5 minutes one one run, the next run starts quite sharply in comparison, and vice versa. This is a bit puzzling also, any ideas?
Thank you for the conclusions, these are useful for looking into the reasons and areas for potential improvements.
Asher [CM - Analysis]
Your contribution has been evaluated according to Utopian policies and guidelines, as well as a predefined set of questions pertaining to the category.
To view those questions and the relevant answers related to your post, click here.
Need help? Chat with us on Discord.
p.s. I see your post linked has been rewarded :)
Hi @abh12345, thank you for your review and comments. Regarding LLN, it's so simple. If the cronjob runs the bot every 5 minutes, what's the average? 2.5 mins. That's all! Of course, sometimes it could be very close to 5 or 0 as you said. But on average it should be 2.5 if we have enough datd, which is the case here. If it's longer than 5 mins, it was at least 26 minutes, so I'm pretty sure that the current cronjob runs every 5 minutes. Please let me know if you have any more question.
I also have one suggestion. In general, I'd prefer some analysis not many people want to do on their own :) Because, if it's a popular topic for everyone, someone will do anyway :) So people like me already know that it's a narrow scope, but may still quite interesting and have values to some people. So you don't need to say "quite a narrow scope" in the comment explicitly :) I'm absolutely fine with a lower score due to that, but it can be done just with the scoring system not by comments. Of course I know that you're using that word to guide contributors, so no worry about it and thanks a lot for your suggestion.
I think you saw my suggestion post, the post in danger (and now it's gone for sure) was a dev post which had quite a decent amount of jobs: - Busy - 3 new features and 2 bug fixes - powerdown information, zero payout, 3-digit precision, etc But actually many dev posts couldn't get rewarded this week. Feel free to vote my dev post if you're using Busy :) Thanks again!
Ah I see, LLN quite straight-forward :) It was this part of the chart that seemed so show large swings, and I was wondered if the previous delay had influence on the next delay.
I understand your suggestion, but as you say, we score the contributions based on a questionnaire, and one of the criteria involves scope. So I would rather mention this to provide other readers with information on the review/reward. For this part of the questionnaire, it's not really a question of 'popularity of topic'.
However, I will try to word reviews more positively in future, as I do appreciate every contribution to the category and don't want to scare anyone away!
Sorry your other work missed a reward, I was indeed looking at the wrong post :(
Thanks a lot again for your comment! Yes, I agree that that part looks not so random, but I think it's another randomness of randomness. lol
And yes, I understand that. Especially for the first-time contributor, you should better inform them for improvement. Hope you could remember me even if I made another narrow-topic post :) so you could use more positive wording with low score behind the scene. haha. Thanks!
lol
I would rather make the comment and try to give the best score possible - that's the approach I've taken the past year and it seems to have worked, so far! :D
:D haha thanks!
Thank you for your review, @abh12345! Keep up the good work!