It tries to. It's still under heavy development.
But all is based on the median or mean (still testing which of the two is best). For example, I look at the last 10 posts of an author and how the votes were distributed. And I look when I should vote to be in the 5 first votes and before 1% of the total payout of the post and I apply it for the next post.
Problem is that past data doesn't reflect what will happen in the future, so I'm still "fine tuning it" - I'm thinking adding a tag restriction as some authors have big payouts when using a tag and low payouts when not using it.
And sometimes authors use bots to upvote their posts and sometimes not, and you can't predict that. So it can't be perfect, but you can try to maximize your curation rewards. And for now, my problem is that I'm extremely limited in voting power, so I can't upvote all upvotes that the bot is suggesting. So there's luck involved too for now.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is an important point to stress: when an author uses bots to upvote his post, it increases the rewards for the curators (often dramatically). And as currently using voting bots is almost "revenue neutral" (it loses a bit of money when steem goes down but it earns money when steem goes up), there are few reasons not to use them. Those reasons not to use them are
a. if you abuse and push a mediocre post too high in rewards you can draw a whale's attention and get downvoted (flagged)
b. if you don't have SBD or liquid STEEM, obviously you can't use them
And here comes my pledge, described in the "Best way to grown on Steemit": I commit to using voting bots to increase the rewards on my posts! - therefore people following and upvoting me are guaranteed to get the best curation rewards!
What is the problem with such a commitment: I might be tempted to abuse the system like haejin and to start pumping useless content. Hence one risks ending up "cautioning", upvoting for abusive content. And here comes the second part of my strategy: I'm using my real name as an additional guarantee that I will not be tempted to abuse people's trust and turn into yet another a haejin. Because if I do that it will ruin my real life reputation.
oops, I must have had too many open tabs and caused a bug ... this comment seems to appear twice ...
Hmm, in the first 5 votes, but after 23 minutes? That probably excludes high profile authors. I've seen cases when they have more than a dozen votes in the first few minutes.
There's a lot more selection criterias (the first one is the median of the percentage of the votes' rewards made after 30 minutes). Then a "score" is calculated taking in account this median, the median of the number of votes before attaining 1% of the total post rewards, and the median of the time it takes to attain 5 votes. And it's this data (and some more) that determines a score of profitability for an author.
But it sure excludes some high profile authors like haejin for example who isn't profitable except if your vote weights a LOT. But the goal is to maximize the ratio Value of the vote given / SP received from curation.