pull down to refresh

30 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Nov \ on: Research in Public #07: The incentive structures on Stacker News (WIP) econ
Sorry it took me a while to read this.
When you're discussing incentives to zap content, it may be worth mentioning that there's a potential free rider problem that would lead to suboptimal zaps towards quality content.
Relatedly, how @anon posts get zapped might tell us something about how much zapping is for the purpose of retaining creators.
Edit: Also, I believe the rewards algorithm has been shared in various posts. So, it's "unknown" in the sense that most of us don't have it committed to memory, but not in the sense that it's secret.
Also, also, I don't think post quality influences one's trust score.
write
preview
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker OP 19 Nov
Ah, thanks for the feedback. Can you point me to a post where the rewards algorithm was shared? I thought it changes pretty frequently.
I think your trust increases when people zap your posts, which is how post quality increases trust.1

Footnotes

  1. Trust increases when user A zaps something user B previously zapped. In that calculation, user B is considered to have zapped their own posts an amount equal to the posting cost. This is how I understood the code, but maybe @k00b can clarify. ↩
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 23h
It sounds like they changed something, then. I pitched that exact mechanism pretty recently and k00b told me it was on the roadmap.
Good point about rewards changing often. The exact formula being implemented may not be known but versions of it have been publicized. The current phrasing makes it sound like a complete black box and that’s not quite right.
reply