pull down to refresh
62 sats \ 14 replies \ @Coinsreporter OP 4 Nov \ on: CricZap’s Ultimate Champion Crowned! 🎉 Year-End Results & Rewards Stacker_Sports
Do you see this post in your 'hot' for SN? I can't.
@grayruby and @Undisciplined
What else is needed?
No, it's buried a few pages down.
Six zappers is on the low end of what shows up in Hot. Sports posts don't generally do well, because most of the high-trust stackers don't zap sports posts regularly.
It does show up in Hot for ~Stacker_Sports, as would be expected.
reply
most of the high-trust stackers don't zap sports posts regularly.
Yeah, that's what the case is most probably. Let's see if the zaps to winners make any difference. I'm also a high trust stacker ;)
Nevermind but a post in ~econ or some other territories will see a post on the 1st page if you and @grayruby zap that 420 and 250 sats respectively. That's why it seemed like a bit of partiality to me for ~Stacker_Sports, haha
reply
reply
You're right. I agree.
But the problem I have is with the posts that have souch less sats by a single zapper but are ahead.
reply
maybe those were zapped by k00b
he gave himself perfect trust early on
reply
right.
But who knows!
reply
reply
Yes. We (you, I and @Undisciplined) must be very low trust zappers on ~Stacker_Sports!
reply
I think it depends on the activity within the post too. My NFL pick 'ems don't always get on the hot list even though they get sats and a lot of comments because no one is replying or zapping in the comments. Whereas if we are shooting the shit about a trade deadline move with a bunch of people weighing in and zapping, I think that is considered higher value.
reply
Considered
Who considers?
A post irrespective of the territory shouldn't be buried if zapped by multiple users, similarly a post should not be ahead from it if only zapped by a single user and only zapped in very low amounts.
reply
Probably the trust system weighs too much on trust and not enough on zaps. The contribution of a zap to an item's trust-weighted-score is:
trust * log10(zap). This means that someone with half the trust will have to zap 10 times more to get the same effect as someone with double their trust.There's also a heavy time decay as well. So your older post is going to be downweighted relative to newer posts.
reply
Actually my math might be wrong with the double/times 10 statement.
But the point is still the same. A proportionate increase in trust has a bigger effect than a proportionate increase in zap amount.
reply