I use zaprank in two of my territories to reward top posts. Often posters will question my ranking, which can vary from stacker to stacker. This of course makes sense, as each user experience will be different based on individual preference. However, sometimes the rankings can be wildly divergent. I will see screen shots from other stackers whose results are very different than mine. It was my understanding that any difference would be mild and subtle, but this does not seem to be the case.
Am I right to assume that the most objective view of zaprank would be to log in as anon? That's what I have been doing lately based on @0xbitcoiner's suggestion.
log in as anon is showing the content based on the global trust score, but once you log in, the posts will be based on your local trust.
Every stacker has a global trust score. Rewards use these global trust scores which factor in the PoV of everyone; Ranking of posts/comments use local trust scores when they're available, ie you're logged in and have a significant affinity for another stacker's zap taste as indicated by your zapping.
Am I right to assume that the most objective view of zaprank would be to log in as anon?
correct.
I use zaprank in two of my territories to reward top posts.
why you are the one to reward? πŸ‘€
reply
log in as anon is showing the content based on the global trust score, but once you log in, the posts will be based on your local trust.
I understand this. My real point is that any difference we notice is supposed to be subtle. In my experience it's often dramatic.
why you are the one to reward?
I own the territories and choose to reward top content.
reply
what a nice territory owner! so posters are getting double rewards. πŸ‘€
reply
I did it for a while, but daily was too much for me to manage, so now I randomly give extra rewards, also based and zaprank.
reply
I enjoy being free πŸ‘€
reply
Actually I have been doing it for a while in bitcoin beginners. In fact, @Fabs and I are running a new, slightly different contest starting Monday.
reply
95 sats \ 13 replies \ @Fabs 25 May
Bang the drums, siggster!
reply
I am! I'm planning a reminder post tomorrow.
reply
You know, I don't think that it'll attract much- if anything at all, it's too quiet; but maybe I'm wrong. πŸ˜Άβ€πŸŒ«οΈπŸŒž
reply
I'm concerned too. It would be nice if @Natalia was interested in earning extra sats by writing a quality post, and I have reason to believe that @Radentor might have something soon, but I'm not going to just tag guys like @grayruby, @Undisciplined, @cryotosensei, and @Coinsreporter just to get attention.
I am very excited for it. What kind of contest would it be?
reply
Thanks for asking! Here is the information: #550150
reply
Thanks for sharing post
reply
Wait, the ranking differs from person to person and is different for global/anon? 🀯
reply
SN is full of black magic πŸͺ„πŸ˜‚
reply
Is there any way to see the inside of the black magic?
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Natalia 25 May
you can't see it, it's meant to be experienced:) πŸ‘€
reply
reply
Yep, and sometimes by a lot.
reply
i mean ... at least on reddit this is clear because all and home are different feeds.
But here? One just doesn't know if they don't know πŸ€”
reply
what happened to the fun of figuring things out? πŸ€”
reply
This has caught my attention before since I frequently use the SN in incognito mode.
reply
141 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 25 May
Maybe we need two variations of zaprank for using top sorting. Global consensus and individual. and we can toggle between or select in settings.
reply
this
reply
I thought zaprank was same for everyone. But now as you're asking it's a fair point if zaprank is diffrent for everyone how can we decide that a post is above than the other. Anyways I'm new here so just learning new things and am happy to read everything.
reply
I'm glad you're accepting my suggestion. I think it will be fairer.
reply
I think so.
reply
I think it's better to reward posters on the basis of your judgement. I know nobody will challenge your decision. You would be much like a mentor then.
reply