RE: HF Idea / Proposal: Witness Disapproval Feature

[steem-ua]

Hi @scipio!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.212 which ranks you at #226 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 298 contributions, your post is ranked at #1. Congratulations!

Evaluation of your UA score:

• You've built up a nice network.
• The readers appreciate your great work!
• Great user engagement! You rock!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

Comments

[scipio]

Yay! I ranked #1!

• yes, yes, I'm one of the two UA dudes, but the algo doesn't "know" that
• I'm not a witness! And my UA_Account rank is "only" 226
• my post didn't even generate in the hundreds of dollars on rewards, so that doesn't matter either
• but my post did get quite a lot of user engagement with other high-UA account people!

^^^ and that is the trick to learn from, and get motivated by as well!
The big "take-away" to learn from this, is that if you're not a top-ranked UA account (yet), you can still be the #1 post

[indigoocean]

This is so awesome! Congrats on having a #1 post, and thanks for explaining this. I'm really trying to understand this system thoroughly, both the UA scores in the first place and then also different possible uses of them, such as the steem-ua upvoting. I'm hoping there will be an SMT that uses UA in another application. I would love to see the scores used for deciding RCs, for example.

I think maybe it could be done with the current code (or currently planned HF21 code that brings in SMTs in the first place) because STINC already put in a mechanism for allocating additional RCs by giving just the power as if someone had more SP. You don't even have to delegate SP. Just share the RCs.

So an SMT could use UA scores to decide how much additional RC power someone gets. That way the ability to contribute on the platform would be decided by the value of the person's contributions as measured by the community's reaction to them.

[jaki01]

The trick is to give witnesses high UAs first, and then post about ... witnesses, so that they comment. :-)

I would agree with your suggestion of less witness votes per account, so that one big stakeholder cannot appoint all relevant witnesses anymore.

Another idea would be that the weight of ones witness votes doesn't depend on ones STEEM Power only but also on ones UA ... (Or on ones 'voting CSI).

[tarazkp]

upvoted for some discussion on preference.

I think the highest I have ever got is 10th for the day.

Obviously it depends on who comments so the posts that are engaging those with higher ranks will get favoured. This post has had quite a few witnesses in the conversation with comments strings as well as other pretty highly ranked UA (I would gather) which from my understanding helps push rank.

I am interested in how these things progress and evolve over time as they indicate how Dapps and interfaces could categorise the content later. As soon as an algorithm is implemented it will be imperfect but the idea is to find a good fit for the user base.

[scipio]

Yes, the base formulae for the @steem-ua curation rounds is as follows:

Step 1:

UA_Vote = x * UA_Account + y * UA_Post + z * UA_Comment

where

UA_Post = sum(VS * UA_Voter)

Step 2:
All posts UA_Vote scores in the same curation round / window are than compared relative to eachother, and then those relative scores are voted on percentage-wise.

So indeed, it depends on who comments / engages on a post, which is in this case quite some high-UA accounts (not just witnesses though!)

[scipio]

And arguably, favoring high-UA commenters makes sense:

• let's for example take @blocktrades as a commenter on this post. @blocktrades is a top witness, but also a high-SP account and runs a crypto OTC (?) conversion trade service that doesn't require registration to be able to use it;
• when I joined steem(it) at that time all exchanges were closed to newcomers and I had no account there, so my only way to buy BTC was via @blocktrades . So for me, @blocktrades "saved me";
• probably a lot of other people feel the same way!
• which justifies the high UA-rank of @blocktrades , because UA is an influence metric. If it weren't for their service, I would have probably left or at least not (so) active. But because of @blocktrades I stayed. That makes @blocktrades very influential, for me at least, and probably to a lot of people.
• very influential people get bombarded with interactions, opportunities, they need to be very selective;
• so if and when a very influential person (having a high-UA rank) feels the need to comment, then the post is arguably important and interesting enough to engage with.