We should be clear here, because to me "reset" means "as if you voted at the new time", but in reality, the current behavior is "give up curation altogether on the post". I would like to ask if we can do the "as if voted at new time" deal.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This makes the most sense to me as well.
Ah really? I didn't know that. I thought it was give up your current position (timing) for the curation rewards and replace it with the new one, for the new vote.
What's the downside about keeping the curation ratio if the vote weight is changed from 100% to 50%? The voting mana isn't returned, so there's already the downside from that. But I don't think it needs to be treated as a completely new vote.
Example:
100% vote => 40% curation effectivity
a few hours later
50% vote => 15% curation effectivity
Currently, we would use the newest curation effectivity, but why not use the first one?
Not sure, have to think on it. Is there a difference down or up?
All I know is that treating as a new vote is better than complete removal. If this other suggestion has no weird quirks it could be fine too.
Posted using Partiko Android
It should only work if the vote weight is being reduced, otherwise, you could spam very small votes (0.01%) and adjust their vote weights once the curation effectiveness is known.
A good example of my initial point is:
Let's say I'm automatically curating a specific author, but a specific post isn't as valuable as I thought, so I want to reduce the weight.
I thought of that, but if your weight doesn't change in the up direction, the rshares that you piled on top don't have curation weights associated to it. Granted, it might still be better than voting 100% at the later time to begin with, but have to work out those numbers.
But if up vs down matters, I think treating as if you only voted late is the more consistent approach.
(Btw I don't think vandeberg proposed treating as new weight. It looks like it will just be forfeited altogether, unless I misread)
Posted using Partiko Android
Re-read the post and you're right. Well, that sucks. Is there a technical limitation for that? Even if the vote would be added on top, the code could look for the newest vote from voters.
As I noted elsewhere, I think penalties, even fairly harsh, for changing votes are reasonable given the inherently sequential nature of voting. Your vote may induce others to vote after you and then when you change your vote, their votes may be hurt.
Changing is needed in some edge cases like when a post is discovered as plagiarism after people already voted on it (actually even this is debatable since the early voters could and perhaps should have been more careful in vetting, and the solution is just pile on downvotes) but it shouldn't really be normalized to too large an extent.