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

pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @zuspotirko 2 Jan \ parent \ on: Incentivizing cowboy zapping power? 🤠⚡ (controversial topic) meta

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.