pull down to refresh
180 sats \ 9 replies \ @Undisciplined 18 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: I zap daily minimun 5 posts, avoiding the ones with no HAT, Am I doing it wrong? nostr
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.
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
+1
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