Reasoning: I know some people may choose to hide the hat, but IMO, no hat means none to little contribution to the staker.news pool that rewards the content creators.
Where you aware the HAT represents that the user is zapping content and the number close to the hat, the days in a row that have been zapping?
I know that if you go on vacation and do not zap or create new content for a day you lose the hat, that is a bit harsh, I wish that it was at least two day of no activity before losing it, but at the moment that is the way and in my opinion is a great motivator for many...
What do you think?
I know that if you go on vacation and do not zap or create new content for a day you lose the hat, that is a bit harsh, I wish that it was at least two day of no activity before losing it, but at the moment that is the way and in my opinion is a great motivator for many...
If it weren't difficult to maintain the hat, it wouldn't be as fun to have one.
reply
I maintain my hat over 90% of the time, but I do have a family, so there are days I don't get to stacker news. Unfortunately, that makes my number pretty low.
I don't want the hat to change, but if it did, I liked the idea of the hat becoming colorful over time and fading from lack of use.
reply
Nice! I like the idea
reply
I like that variation. We generally want to add more games like this.
One we were thinking of is that they top spender for the day becomes The Sheriff and gets a sheriff badge.
reply
That's awesome! You can have a similar "Days in office" count for that.
reply
Days in office is keeper. We are definitely going to use that.
reply
reply
Ha! amusing :)
reply
I don't think that is a good long term strategy. I get that you're trying to increase engagement. But by playing these games, you are diluting the meaning of your own ranking system. Incentivizing/gamifying votes will seed distrust in scores, and that will cause people to stop zapping.
If I see a highly zapped post, I should never have to think "hm maybe this one happened because someone tried to become 'the sheriff'".
Imo you should be doing the opposite of these games. You should do everything in your power to ensure that "all zaps are created equal". Then, if a post has, say, 2144 sats, users KNOW EXACTLY how that post compares to all others. Incredibly valuable!
reply
I respect your hypothesis but you assume wannabe sheriffs will zap without concern for what they're zapping. I can imagine them reducing concern but I find this less probable than them just spending more on stuff that they like (or simply donating the sats to rewards).
I think you also underestimate the disincentive to spend at all. These kinds of games are designed to counteract a very strong disincentive. The disincentive creates the signal, sure, but if it's too high content creators/sourcers don't have incentive to create/source.
There's a balance to strike and we are experimenting to get there.
I get that you're trying to increase engagement.
We are trying to increase spending. Engagement is likely both a cause and effect of spending though.
reply
Nice, thanks for the response. I've been looking at your code and see I greatly underestimated the lengths you go to prevent what I was talking about. I'll try to think of some ideas to help out. Great site!
reply
reply
Tell me the rules and I'll do anything to keep this fucking cowboy hat
reply
Part of the fun is supposed to be discovering it. I don't want to ruin that for you but you can probably get someone else to tell you.
reply
I'll post and upvote everydamn day if I need to
reply
You've had one for 8 days already. So you're doing something right.
reply
In the dim glow of neon screens, Where crypto trades are made unseen, My cowboy hat, it gleams, it gleens, Invoking thoughts, some rather obscene.
On stacker news, they know my name, Not just for Bitcoin, but the game, That cowboy look, it lights the flame, A sexy secret, no one can tame.
Cypherpunks whisper in hushed tones, While in the shadows, the market moans, By steak-lit dinners, secret loans, And heated glances, passion dethrones.
Laser eyes, piercing, intent, Lingering where desires are spent, Yearning for that wild ascent, To climactic highs, pure and unbent.
Lightning bolts, electric touch, This crypto world can be too much, But with every sizzle, every clutch, My cowboy hat's the final crutch.
So when you see me, heart rate spikes, For beneath this hat, are naughty likes, In the Bitcoin realm of lusty hikes, I ride the waves and all its likes.
reply
reply
Nice! you have been zapped! ;)
reply
I don't think you need a hat (need to zap others) to provide valuable contribution to stacker.news. If you make good comments, or good posts, you will get zaps, which means the pool gets larger. I think that is valuable.
reply
If one doesn't have a hat but has stacked a lot, it suggests they might be greedy, no?
reply
Sure, that's a possibility. Or maybe they don't find much other content zap-worthy, for whatever reason.
My point is, value contribution can come in many ways
reply
Given the plethora of content on this site, I find that extremely hard to believe. It still seems self-serving if you post here to get sats, but somehow find no other value to the website.
reply
Good argument
reply
Why do you avoid zapping people without a hat?
Never mind you answered that.
reply
Sometimes it pains me when I see good content and the user does not has a HAT, I go and check if it is a new user..., but; correct me if I am wrong; the HAT is given to those that are active zappers of content and content creators and therefore, users with no HAT are not zapping content and therefore not active adding value to the ecosystem, unless they choose to hide the HAT, Am I wrong?
reply
To be fair, posting and commenting costs sats that do go to the reward pool.
I agree though. It's sad that folks don't zap but expect to be zapped. Many people do hide their hats though.
reply
reply
Partially right. If you explore the meaningful features your settings page has to offer, you'll notice a really cool one, with an option to hide your hut... why?
reply
Some people don't want people knowing their status in the game.
reply
reply
I like the reasoning
reply
reply
Just zap stuff you enjoy why overthink it
reply
Because I like to reserve my sats to reward those that are adding the most value to the ecosystem
reply
I think that is gamification and that some people have active lives away from the computer. I've lost my hat many times at this point because I can't always be on my computer. To each their own. I boost anything I find of value.
reply
thanks for sharing, valid argument
reply
deleted by author
reply
Having a hat does not mean - at all - that you write good contents. If you got that hat I see near @rod, you should know how you got it ... right? And isn't definitely writing good quality contents.
reply
Agree with the argument that it does not mean that is not correlated with good content, but, it is correlated with being involved in zapping content, thus, increasing the poll of rewards distributed for the content creators that have the most engagement.
reply
Good, I'm glad you're studying 💪 keep reading, writing... and zapping!
BTW: there's nothing wrong you could possibly do... so, no worries
reply
reply
I lose my hat all the time
reply
You are doing a good job, 7 days, nice!
reply
deleted by author
reply
reply
Even during peak reddit I wasn't using it every day.
reply
Great movement ⚡🫂
reply
So that's what the hat is! I'm a simple man: your post good, you can has zaps. Your post bad, no zaps for you. :)
reply
So that's what the hat means!
reply
So in order to wear the hat, you need to zap? Any amount?, how many post per day?, how many days in a row?
Thanks
reply
My understanding is a minimum amount per day, I do between 300 and 500 min per day, not sure on the minimum, maybe 10 sats are enough, you need to test it I guess
reply
lol, hat or no hat just keep contributing, donate and zap. You will be OK... It reminds me about Black Mirror episode when people would do anything for "likes" or points. Relax, the hat doesn't define you. YOU define YOU... Have fun and be nice to people :-)
reply
reply