30 sats \ 5 replies \ @Taft 18 Oct \ on: Zapping More Might Solve Our Leader Board Wizard Issue meta
Great post, as always! I zapped it after reading. 😁 I think your advice is good, even though I don't like the idea of this ranking (I'd prefer it to be the way it was before March), but since this is the way things are, it will be good to take your observations into account.
write
preview
10 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Oct
This is how it was before March, too (at least, sometimes it was like this). I remember them playing around with only rewarding zapping or only rewarding posts/comments, too. I actually preferred only rewarding zapping, but that didn't win out.
What was different before March was that you knew what your rank in each area was.
reply
36 sats \ 3 replies \ @Taft 18 Oct
Not exactly. There was no leaderboard, and the rewards were distributed among more than 100 stackers.
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Oct
That's right. Both of those things were different too. I liked knowing my rank in each thing, but I don't think we need to know everyone else's.
I understood the logic of cutting off the tail of the distribution, but it probably shouldn't be fixed at 100. There should at least be an adjustment for how active stackers are and how many stackers are active.
reply
27 sats \ 1 reply \ @Taft 18 Oct
but it probably shouldn't be fixed at 100.
Yes, exactly.
reply
28 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 18 Oct
I always thought it would be interesting if it was just invisible. Im not saying take it away all together, but just not let it be seen. Then people would post and everything, without trying to work the leadership board.
reply