I'm still trying to figure out how I even made this list, but I'm glad to be here. :)
So, there must be a part of the table that is missing? The curator effectiveness column where the ranking is determined doesn't show up. I'd love to know what that number is.
Also, if I'm calculating this right, all of us on the list rank in the top 1% of all curators according to our effectiveness at distributing the reward pool for the week sampled.
That's pretty amazing. Thanks for doing this. :)
Thank you! You are welcome 8)
This is all because you actively supported the discussion with your votes.
You might be looking this post on the busy.org? I don't know what's the problem but on steemit.com you will see that missing column.
I'm not sure that I understand it. Sorry, english is not my native language 8)
So, I am on Steemit. This is what I see. It kind of looks like the share% column is cut off, so I thought maybe there might be another column with the effectiveness score in it. Otherwise, I'm not understanding the rankings, since the numbers in the other columns are all over the place.
This is what it looks like on Busy. I can actually see more here, including the effectiveness column I was thinking there must be. :) I'm using FireFox for both.
Okay. Just checked this in Safari and now I can see everything. It must be a browser-specific problem then.
re: top 1%
I was just trying to say that if we're on this Top 200 list, and the sample of curators for the week is just under 25,000, that if I'm doing the math right, that puts us all in the top 1% of curators according to our effectiveness.
Hey, I'm glad that the solution to the problem was found, because I use Google Chrome and did not even know about it. You are the first to report this problem.
re: top 1%
Now I understand what you mean. Thanks! 8)
I'm not sure about the accuracy of your calculations, but those who are on this list will really bounce back to a very small number of those who are doing the weather here 8))))