Low deviation isn't entirely good, it is actually a can be a sign of bad voting as much as good.
Curation snipers typically drop low votes on many authors for the best chance of curation rewards. Many of the curation snipers drop $0.00 votes to get 8x the curation reward of the typical user. It is fairly common to use the same weight votes (appreciator, for example, votes 9-12% 99% of the time, and curation snipers voting 0-1% most of the time with no specific favoritism as it is just sniping as many posts at ideal times as possible).
In the case of some of the largest "curators", it is a different problem, finding posts with little rewards and voting them very late to get near 100% curation. But it uses the same technique, large amount of similarly sized votes, none of them based on quality.
Both of these types of "curators" will perform well on these charts (and do).
In the case of @curangel, it is nearly impossible to be a sniper as it has a very delayed voting process. I think it is still only voting twice a day - but it could have changed. The posts are submitted by the community of curators and I am pretty sure it won't accept suggestions over a certain payout amount.
I understand that about Curangel, my point is correlation is not causation in this case.
Yep, that is fair - just pointing it out for others :)
Yes I know what you mean and you are right about this.
But in general having more accounts voted equaly, from the largest stakeholders is good for the distribution.
What is good curation can come on the same level of debate, as what is good content.
In my opinion the large stakeholders should play a totaly diferent game than the curation game :). Onboarding and development. That can increase their stake value much more than a few percent from the curation game.
The top 2 on this chart are not snipers, that I can tell for sure :)
In this list of curators, your personal account and buildawhale should not be even considered because you are also one of those curation snippers who vote others at 3-4 minutes to supposedly gain more curation on your personal acocunt followed by trail of buildawhale.
So in other sense, you just explained how you place those autovotes because they are popular authors.
I don't vote popular authors, a lot of the people I vote don't get many votes. I don't try to hunt anything that has no votes regardless of quality, I am very particular about who I vote for. If someone abuses my votes, I stop voting them.
You don't do anything yourself , its your curation snipe bot doing most of your automated snipping job for you.
Most of the cases I have seen you have removed your auto-votes are those who get sliglthly less popular later on so there are no more high curation rewards due to minimal automated efforts.
You can check how many popular and un-popular authors you have given automated votes to in last 8-10 hours.
You sound defensive.
If you want to turn this into a strawman argument, let's look at my last 3 votes and your last 3.
My votes:
Yours:
Notice a pattern?
So you just proved my point to be correct and simply lied about yours.
Do you want to go meet at the bike rack after school or something?
Lol, not really. I have better things to do
Not sure where you got that, but ok if you say so.
I wish I have your vote. 😅
Exactly this. Quality curation will always mean lower diversification as quality by definition is rare.
76-85 is good curation. 100%? Imposible😀
Nah, you can do 800%. I was experimenting with an AI bot that was getting 150-800% even when curation was only 25%.
It is definitely possible to go over 100%.
Yes possible but if you know 100% the post will get big upvote. (Manual curation). Big whale never get big curation if curation manual. Often people get vote after 2 hour. The best curation 5minutes. That is only my philosophy😉😀
Curangel curators manually find the posts that are fresh, original and have almost no votes. The posts then are added to the queue for the Curangel account to vote throughout the day, so the voting is delayed in accordance to how many posts are in the queue. There is no way for curangel to snipe a post. Often times a lot of other groups have managed to vote the posts that have been in curangel's queue and as a result it votes after them.
I never said Curangel was sniping. I was saying that sniping behavior shows up as a "good curator" according to the above metrics.