reply on: Incentivizing cowboy zapping power? 🤠⚡ (controversial topic) \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

1499 sats \ 15 replies \ @siggy47 2 Jan \ on: Incentivizing cowboy zapping power? 🤠⚡ (controversial topic) meta

In the SN FAQ, you can find this:

The ranking of an item is affected by: the amount a stacker zaps a post or comment the trust of the stacker making the zap the time elapsed since the creation of the item Zapping an item with more sats amplifies your trust, giving you more influence on an item's ranking. However, the relationship between sats contributed and a stacker's influence on item ranking is not linear, it's logarithmic. The effect a stacker's zap has on an item's ranking is trust*log10(total zap amount) where 10 sats = 1 vote, 100 sats = 2, 1000 sats = 3, and so on ... all values in between are valid as well. To make this feature sybil resistant, SN now takes 10% of zaps and re-distributes them to the SN community as part of the daily rewards.

Some of what you are suggesting may already exist.

360 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Jan

And you know he's got a point because of his cowboy hat streak.

287 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 2 Jan

And yet you resist calling me sweetie pie?

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Jan

It was difficult, but I managed.

210 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 2 Jan

Thanks, while reading I thought about replying something similar.

Interesting idea though

110 sats \ 2 replies \ @satoshiplanet OP 2 Jan

This point is not clear to me, does it refer to cowboys? If so, to what extent does it influence? Thanks for your comments

the trust of the stacker making the zap

151 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 2 Jan freebie

Not necessarily. Trust is a measure of a stacker's history of zapping good content. A cowboy is simply someone who has zapped a certain amount in a given day. The quality of the zap is irrelevant, so far as I know.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @satoshiplanet OP 2 Jan

Thanks

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @zuspotirko 2 Jan

Maybe it's just me being a dumdum but I don't understand who is the zapper and who is the zapee in these sentences.

I guess it makes intuitive sense that my trust increases when I receive zaps. But I didn't understand that from this quote.

5 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 2 Jan

No, you read it correctly. Your trust increases when you zap quality content posted by others. Like in life, it is better to give than to receive.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @zuspotirko 2 Jan

I know I have it the correct way round. I'm just saying it isn't clearly worded in the quote.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 2 Jan

You had better bring it up with customer service.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko 2 Jan

@k00b @ekzyis here is an alternative wording:

The ranking of your item is affected by: The amount other stackers zap your post or comment The trust of the stacker zapping you The time elapsed since the creation of your item Zapping your item with more sats amplifies your trust, giving you more influence on an item's ranking. However, the relationship between sats contributed and the stackers influence on item ranking is not linear, it's logarithmic. The effect a stacker's zap has on your item's ranking is trust*log10(total zap amount) where 10 sats = 1 vote, 100 sats = 2, 1000 sats = 3, and so on ... all values in between are valid as well. To make this feature sybil resistant, SN now takes 10% of zaps and re-distributes them to the SN community as part of the daily rewards.

I changed the subject to "you" and "the stacker". Alternatively "the zapper" and "the zappee". Or "sender" and "recipient". I like the last one the most because it's clearer. But I guess you probably insist on the "stacker"-lingo.

30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Fabs 2 Jan

Pretty much this, you're becoming one of my favorites, sweetie-pie.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @satoshiplanet OP 2 Jan

Thanks for commenting mate

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @quark 2 Jan

We can't see what is that trust score, right? Can't verify if we have to trust a hidden trust score. But I guess it works well.