More Comments = More Viewability
For every X quality comment that occurs, it increases viewability Y.
Comments would need to be valued as well, in order to reduce gaming. Values such as length, variability in characters and words, number of unique users, etc. would go into play. But it could be valued to some measurable degree.
Other Platforms Use Similar Concepts In Their Algorithm
TikTok uses the same philosophy. If a video has views past 5 seconds, it gets spit out to more viewers. If it gets comments, it gets spit out to more viewers. If it is watched to the end, it gets spit out to more viewers. If it gets likes and physical touch-scrolling interaction, it gets more views.
We could do something similar here, within reason. There are ways to TRACK if a post is doing well. This is important because if a post is doing well, it is likely going to generate more interest and engagement on the platform. If something is liked, then other people will probably like it too, which means we should probably spit it out more so we generate more interest.
I wanna hear from the investors and whales
Is it worth it to you to attract more people who are not necessarily putting more money in, but who likely add value in other ways. Will you still get your investment back if we are taking from the voting pool? I talk about the minnow thing here.
What is the goal? Are we trying to attract more users?
If the idea is to generate more activity, increase enthusiasm, and attract new users, all while still retaining the current userbase, could this be one way to speak to the average new end user?
@sircork recently gripes about the pay-to-play kenundrum, getting high views and votes without any particularly intrinsic value. The post is here if you wanna read it.
@sircork's question is valid:
How can a post with 3 votes about something that is barely "quality" anything, be the alleged most viewed post when the two right under it (and we will discuss that in a moment) are MASSIVELY more viewed and voted on with the numbers to prove it right there. A flaw in the interface maybe?
Pay To Play Should Be Rewarded
I do think pay-to-play investors should be rewarded to a degree that encourages investing into the platform. But what about time and curation investors? Do we add to the value of the platform, or are we ultimately money grubbing by taking away from the REAL investors by receiving votes without putting our money where our mouth is?
It might make more sense to pay-to-play investors and to the platform at large to think long term as far as encouraging OTHER content and users to thrive as well. Not instead, but in tandem. We bring projects, DAPPS, smaller investments, games, networking, other investors, and ecology to the place.
Let me know your thoughts.
A) would this be too easy to game?
B) Is this already happening cuz I don't think it is
C) does bringing more proof-of-work users syphon away the HBD value from investors, or does it create an opportunity for more?
#allthecooltagsthatdothethings
#qualityorquantity
#voteforpedro
BUT... I WILL give you one of those command things below... Because it's a really good thing we need to think about...
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 65/75) Liquid rewards.
Thanks Wes. You are a peach for the tipu. I think it will be a subject I'll bring up again and again. If we're trying to grow the userbase, then quality comments should increase the visibility of a post, especially from non-stake-holding individuals. But this would need to be regulated and meted out carefully, so as to prevent bots and AI comments from tricking and gaming the system. That is probably why they haven't done it yet...
Also, that guy opening the chair like that? Totally fuckable chair opening strategy.
I agree that additional metrics would help boost posts with interactions.
My concern are the bots. It's easy to spam a post with lots of artificial comments.
No, a lot of interaction in comments does not help boost the visibility of a post
It's difficult to say. If investors simply desire ROI, they can purchase HBD and put it in savings and watch it grow effortlessly. If investors want INFLUENCE, they could purchase a ton of HIVE and power it up and upvote and downvote to their own pleasure. It takes a lot of effort to grow at 20% APR, so anyone investing their time and effort is doing it for other reasons than just ROI.
True.
Also true.
So....for the ROI types, why not just put HBD in a savings account then? Why put up with all the crustaceans in the Hive bucket?
Also, and not insignificant, is the fact that for every 100 minnows, you might catch a whale. If we are a proof of stake chain, then it needs to be advertised that way, and we need to be gathering the stake holders to invest. (I think this is @sircork's point). It's just a little unclear as to what the goal is...I like to think it's a decent place to play for one and all. I'm still for paid advertising, but as a monetized option, like on YT.
Nailed it.
Why do I have such a SCREAMING headache!
Sometimes a meme image makes me very very curious about it's source.
But that woman does have lovely nails. I wonder who her maniscarist is?
yikes
The question really should be: DO MINNOWS ACTUALLY HAVE A NET POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE PLATFORM?
The only thing I can think of as a fiscal net positive (aside from DAPP dev) is GROW THE USERBASE AND THEIR DAPPS SO WE CAN ATTRACT INVESTORS IN THE LONG GAME for sponsored ads down the road. If that's our goal, we should whole hog the shit outa that.
But if not, then what are we doing? Should we be helping minnows at all?
Congratulations @littlescribe! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 600 posts.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts: