Also I don't believe I have all the answers. When you are TRYING something new to address potential issues, you'll find I will be supportive. We differ in some areas in terms of voting, but overall I believe we both want to see this platform grow, and it seems that in some areas of voting our views align. I am also willing to change my views. I hope your efforts bear positive fruit.
We differ in some areas in terms of voting, but overall I believe we both want to see this platform grow, and it seems that in some areas of voting our views align.
Probably more than you think.
As i said when i drafted you into part ii, one of the reasons i used your argument as an example is because i do believe it is well thought out and well intentioned.
Oh, which reminds me i actually thought of a way to remove downvotes from curation while i was walking my dog this morning.
right now, you vote up or down, and assign rshares and vshares=rshare^2
instead of that you could vote a "rating system"... i don't know, say 1-5 stars and have
vshares=[Rsahres*(stars-3)\5]^2.
or a scale of 1-10 and have the rating be
vshares=[Rsahres*(rating-5)\10]^2.
Of course, this would largely be an accounting measure... a 1 star or a rating of 1 would still be a down vote, in effect, but it would more accurately reflect the subjective nature of the vote. ANd it would be, perhaps, less offensive than a flag or a downvote.
It would also give you a little more fine control over your voting, especially the 1-10 scale.
The interesting thing about that system (though i think i may have muffed the numbers) is that you have an option the current system lacks.
So if a post has a $100 potential payout, a 3 star rating could add to the weight of the average, making it harder to change up or down. .. which is to say, you could vote to say "i think the current payout is appropriate and should not be adjusted either way"
Also I don't believe I have all the answers. When you are TRYING something new to address potential issues, you'll find I will be supportive. We differ in some areas in terms of voting, but overall I believe we both want to see this platform grow, and it seems that in some areas of voting our views align. I am also willing to change my views. I hope your efforts bear positive fruit.
Probably more than you think.
As i said when i drafted you into part ii, one of the reasons i used your argument as an example is because i do believe it is well thought out and well intentioned.
Oh, which reminds me i actually thought of a way to remove downvotes from curation while i was walking my dog this morning.
right now, you vote up or down, and assign rshares and vshares=rshare^2
instead of that you could vote a "rating system"... i don't know, say 1-5 stars and have
or a scale of 1-10 and have the rating be
Of course, this would largely be an accounting measure... a 1 star or a rating of 1 would still be a down vote, in effect, but it would more accurately reflect the subjective nature of the vote. ANd it would be, perhaps, less offensive than a flag or a downvote.
It would also give you a little more fine control over your voting, especially the 1-10 scale.
I was thinking I might like that better as well as I was describing how online stores tend to rate things in stars 0 to 5 stars, 0 to 5 eggs.
It I think gives a better overall impression of perceived value than ALL IN or OUT.
The interesting thing about that system (though i think i may have muffed the numbers) is that you have an option the current system lacks.
So if a post has a $100 potential payout, a 3 star rating could add to the weight of the average, making it harder to change up or down. .. which is to say, you could vote to say "i think the current payout is appropriate and should not be adjusted either way"