You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 0000000000000111 - Proposal to Change Focus
Well, if nothing else, everyone on the Steem blockchain is learning a little biology with Quorum Sensing 101.;-)
One thing that I would add is that with this model, the person who reports the PAP should also get a reward if the consensus agrees that it is flag-worthy. That didn't come up earlier because I was thinking that the initial candidate PAPs would come from an automated crawler.
As to priorities, I'd say they're both important projects, but my personal opinion is that abuse-reduction is a more pressing problem than another front-end for authors and curators. If the game gets participation, doing it first might help to expand the userbase for eventual adoption of the reskin project.
Biology eh? Right up there with history as my least favourite subjects at school.
I agree and perhaps like the posting reward pool, I think that they should receive the bulk of the rewards.
The prioritisation appears to be split evenly down the middle and I wonder if I can work on them simultaneously.
It also crossed my mind that as the owner of any new front end, I could hide all of the content from users that people are fed up with seeing (whether that's plagiarists, spammers, other abusers) so that the new site is clean and hides all of the crap that people get annoyed and demotivated by. This would be totally subjective with me as the sole arbitrator 🤣
True, and you can also add a revenue stream by letting people pay to have their posts placed in "prime locations" (like @steemchiller does with the upper-right corner of SteemWorld).
Another point in favor of splitting the submitter rewards and the evaluator rewards is that you want to reward the submitter only for posts that wind up being scored as abuse... otherwise, people will just submit everything.
OTOH, for the evaluators, you want to reward them for getting "the right answer", whether that means that it's determined to be abuse or not.
You could tune the ratios as things develop.
This has always been the way of it. There are soo many possibilities of things that could be done, but we don't have the right mix of funding and skills here to move very quickly.
In the end, something is better than nothing, no matter which one you choose to focus on.
Three other tangential thoughts:
I like your thinking. @danmaruschak had a good idea that rewards could go via an exchange and then they'll be completely anonymised - the downside is it would have to be done manually. So I'd probably work on a "monthly league table" approach of some sort which is stored in the background. Users can see their own league position (as an incentive to increase their ranking) but nobody else's.
With PAPs that are simply crappy accusations, once a level of "this is crap" is reached, then that PAP could have a lower priority to appear within the game so fewer people see it. And similarly, if somebody repeatedly posts crap (or the continually choose the "wrong" result), their reputation will be lower which will make it harder for them to climb the league. I think that building in these kind of controls should be straightforward too.
That is a good idea, although the need for manual processing basically means that it can't scale. I think it's possible to code bots to work with the exchanges, but I have no idea how difficult it would be. It's almost definitely not a short-term thing.
I had a similar thought in the past, that exchanges could set up staking and anonymized delegation services, which could be used by abuse fighters to disguise the source of their delegations.
The use of exchanges hadn't occurred to me in this context, though.