Interesting solution. I have always envisioned a sort of lottery system for curation, where everybody just votes on great content and receives a predictable curation, but there is also a bonus pool that gets created that is awarded to some subset of voters, irrespective of when they actual voted.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Interesting concept about lotteries.
That’s similar to a thought I had recently about randomly varying the early vote window thresholds, different thresholds for each post, unknown to anyone a priori. Manual curators just curate and sometimes they get lucky with the windows and sometimes they don’t.
Randomness would discourage early voting by bots.
Labeling a post as "naive" diminishes your standing as a legitimate debater, imo. Bots do not love randomness. Yes, they will compute the 'ideal' spot based on the parameters, but that is just the point. The creators of the parameters can use randomness to shift the 'ideal' spot in such a way that potentially diminishes their overall negative impact.
I was not saying this was a 'good' solution, but merely one of many to openly discuss and debate. It's not a position I would favor (nor is a straight lottery), but worthy of being 'out there' for folks to consider and debate.
Fair enough.
I do not claim to fully understand the architecture of the game. By all means, call out anything that might be inconsistent with the status quo or otherwise infeasible.
@themarkymark did a great job of explaining the current 'rules of the game' in principle here, but I have yet to dig into the code; so my comments and perspectives very well might 'miss the mark' in that regards.
A bold statement coming from an alt account.
Assuming your algorithm is shit.
As opposed to hard coding their sweet spot as it has been?