pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Mar \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
I figured it was something like that.
This will tie into something darth brought up, is the algorithm non-linear in such a way as to discourage trying to game it by splitting your activity across multiple accounts?
Trust cannot be created in an isolated part of the graph. Those accounts can only gain trust by someone trusted agreeing with them. If someone trusted isn't agreeing with them, they remain isolated. If someone trusted is agreeing with them, they can gain trust, but as we downzap the content they are promoting, it effectively re-isolates the subgraph and destroys the trust of the persons agreeing with the sockpuppets.
Zapping your own content also costs money so this all is less common than it would be otherwise. We only take 10% of zaps now, but it's something we've considered increasing should this behavior become more common. It's a simple way of putting pressure on the behavior should we not want to spend a lot of time doing cluster detection in our trust graph.
reply
I guess what I'm asking is more like if someone who is an authentic user could increase their influence by splitting their activity across multiple accounts.
They're posting quality stuff from each (and zapping it from the other) and they're zapping all the same posts from other stackers, but with half coming from each account.
reply
Yes. If their multiple accounts are engaging in a way that many people trust, they can increase their influence.
This isn't something we've attempted to address directly, but this kind of behavior would most likely show up as a very well connected sub-graph, ie a cluster, and we can penalize such clusters.
reply
That's interesting.
reply
reply
Ok, but you would look like 10 men doing 1/10th the work of one man, plus whatever reciprocal zapping you're doing between your accounts.
The non-linear rewards disincentivize this behavior, though, right?