A space for introductions, questions, and updates from the Relevant Team New to Relevant? Check out [this guide](https://relevant.community/general/post/5f442f65800055001716f84f).
28815 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
A space for introductions, questions, and updates from the Relevant Team New to Relevant? Check out [this guide](https://relevant.community/general/post/5f442f65800055001716f84f).
28815 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
0
14.9
Who is supposed to evaluate my articles myself or the other users in the community?. Let start by defining Reputation? The reputation of a social entity (a person, a social group, an organization, or a place) is an opinion about that entity, typically as a result of social evaluation on a set of criteria. (Source Wikipedia). The question we need to answer as a community is this? 1. In whose hands lies the task of evaluating my activities ? Myself or other users. If I am giving the right to evaluate myself, Will I really give a fair, unbiased judgement? I don't think so. Why because that atom of greed and selfishness in me won't allow me to be fair. Therefore the right to examine, if I truly deserve an upvote or an increase in Reputation should be in the hands of a third party. Which is in this case other users in the community. This post was motivated by the fact that I discovered this morning that I could upvote and bet on my own post. I don't know if this is a bug. But if not, I don't think this feature won't help us develop a fair community for all. Imagine this scenario. I am a high Reputation member, I publish an article link. Then I upvoted It and bet with over 5000 Rel tokens. Push the article to the top of the relevant page. I win in three ways.. 1. More reputation because I will get more upvotes.. since my articles is topping the relevant page 2. More Rel token rewards because I was the first to bet on my articles 3. More Rel tokens again because he or she bet the highest amount. I don't think this is fair for most users with small amount of Rel tokens. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Way forward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(( We need to see how we can leave out evaluating articles and post by only third parties. Let other users evaluate the relevancy of my post and articles. The software has to be adjusted to limit the impacts of whales in this system. In a case where we have an article with a total contribution of atleast 100000 Rel tokens contributed by just 100 users. If look at the contribution of each users, you find out that only 5% contributed 95000 Rel tokens. While the remaining 95% contributed 5000 Rel tokens. Can we we really use this statistics to measure the true relevancy of this post or article across board.. I will say the article or post was FORCED to be relevant. Please [@slavia](/user/profile/slavia) [@Relevant](/user/profile/Relevant) and the Dev team. please kindly look into this. If we really need a healthy and transparent community. As always this is only a suggestion
0
14.9
Who is supposed to evaluate my articles myself or the other users in the community?. Let start by defining Reputation? The reputation of a social entity (a person, a social group, an organization, or a place) is an opinion about that entity, typically as a result of social evaluation on a set of criteria. (Source Wikipedia). The question we need to answer as a community is this? 1. In whose hands lies the task of evaluating my activities ? Myself or other users. If I am giving the right to evaluate myself, Will I really give a fair, unbiased judgement? I don't think so. Why because that atom of greed and selfishness in me won't allow me to be fair. Therefore the right to examine, if I truly deserve an upvote or an increase in Reputation should be in the hands of a third party. Which is in this case other users in the community. This post was motivated by the fact that I discovered this morning that I could upvote and bet on my own post. I don't know if this is a bug. But if not, I don't think this feature won't help us develop a fair community for all. Imagine this scenario. I am a high Reputation member, I publish an article link. Then I upvoted It and bet with over 5000 Rel tokens. Push the article to the top of the relevant page. I win in three ways.. 1. More reputation because I will get more upvotes.. since my articles is topping the relevant page 2. More Rel token rewards because I was the first to bet on my articles 3. More Rel tokens again because he or she bet the highest amount. I don't think this is fair for most users with small amount of Rel tokens. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Way forward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(( We need to see how we can leave out evaluating articles and post by only third parties. Let other users evaluate the relevancy of my post and articles. The software has to be adjusted to limit the impacts of whales in this system. In a case where we have an article with a total contribution of atleast 100000 Rel tokens contributed by just 100 users. If look at the contribution of each users, you find out that only 5% contributed 95000 Rel tokens. While the remaining 95% contributed 5000 Rel tokens. Can we we really use this statistics to measure the true relevancy of this post or article across board.. I will say the article or post was FORCED to be relevant. Please [@slavia](/user/profile/slavia) [@Relevant](/user/profile/Relevant) and the Dev team. please kindly look into this. If we really need a healthy and transparent community. As always this is only a suggestion
Yeah you are right to full extent. Upvoting own post should be prohibited. And yes you are right the to evaluate you is not in your hands. Your reputation in directly dependent on community users that how they see you through your posts. And indirectly related to you. Yes it is also related to you and i am saying this because if you do not post any spam or do any type irrelevant activity then you do not get downvotes and your reputation will never be effected. That's why i am saying this (indirectly related with you). You have the power to guide people how they treat you. Whether you want up or downvotes through your posts. I hope this may help you a lot. Good luck with all your bets. Be happy. Regards: Main Kashif ----DoYouLoveMe----
Yeah you are right to full extent. Upvoting own post should be prohibited. And yes you are right the to evaluate you is not in your hands. Your reputation in directly dependent on community users that how they see you through your posts. And indirectly related to you. Yes it is also related to you and i am saying this because if you do not post any spam or do any type irrelevant activity then you do not get downvotes and your reputation will never be effected. That's why i am saying this (indirectly related with you). You have the power to guide people how they treat you. Whether you want up or downvotes through your posts. I hope this may help you a lot. Good luck with all your bets. Be happy. Regards: Main Kashif ----DoYouLoveMe----
This is NOT a bug. This IS fair. And you are incorrect about several mechanisms. That said, it is probably to your advantage to read everything below. I will explain: 1) You can vote on your own content, because the person that finds/shares it should be rewarded. I mean if you are unwilling to stake your own REL on it why would we want you incentivized to share something you think is irrelevant (prevents spamming a million things in hopes that one of them catches on)? 2) You DO NOT get REP from up votes on articles shared, only comments. You could get 1,000 up votes / bets on an article and your REP will not improve. The same is true for down votes on shared content. Your REP reflects the quality of your contributions not the quality of the articles of others. However good or bad that score is, that number was earned through action within the Relevant community. 3) If a member is always able to pick winners, that means they must know the relevant community very, very, well and that is what I personally want to see: a community with high-quality articles, not a community with a bunch of mediocre ones. Accordingly, those that help the platform succeed should be rewarded. 4) I will give you the exact boogey man scenario you mentioned, but in reality. So the only users with more REL than me were either on the site day 1 or on the team (only 2 or 3 in total I think). I posted a really good article (an interview with the author of The Fifth Risk) that likely no one here was aware existed. I shared it. I voted first on it. I voted all available REL on it (somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 I think) and it got hundreds of up votes. My payout? 602 REL. Now for many that will seem like quite a bit (and this was), but even in the best/worse case scenario that is a 1% return. I am betting that most new users would do MUCH better percentage wise in that scenario (or at least not worse). It is very possible that a new user in the same scenario might have made a 200 REL return on a 100 REL stake a 200% return. 5) What you describe might have still been possible 2 months ago, but now the bigger concern is semi-bots (coordinated but irrelevant humans). Because of that you WANT established members to have great power so that we can disincentivize the semi-bots and add real oomf to your good picks. 6) The only people who might be anywhere near the power of which you speak are either on the team or have been continuously and constantly active for a year or more. That power took work to acquire and it is largely in the hands of those who most want this project to succeed (and have the most to lose if it does not). 7) Since the top 50% of articles in terms of relevance pay out, as the community grows in size the ability to stake large on any significant proportion of articles decreases. My guess is that there are a community or two where bringing a high-level game would get out-sized rewards right now. If I were starting from 40 REL again, I know what I would do today. (Why don’t I do what I alluding too? Because I am giving myself carpal tunnel down voting spam and answering questions. As members have more stake in the community and its success, their behaviors will probably change from getting as much REL as possible to making sure the REL is worth as much as possible due to having an awesome, active, and healthy community.) 8) EDIT I initially was not going to do this, but I will drop a hint for those that read. Read the White Paper and understand the math involved and you will see WHY your concern is not really a concern. I would spell it out here, but I do not want to do that because it might encourage a totally different kind of problem. Long story short, there is a profoundly simple mechanism that levels the field in a way that takes most of your concerns away. Read the White Paper and the math, but do not post it if you figure out what I am talking about. So all of the above was a little smoke and mirrors, but the basic point is still the same. It does not quite work the way you think it does and you probably do not want this mechanism changed because it actually adds far more power to newer users than established users (again I will not say why and I ask that you not make it explicit if you do figure out why). As An Aside: If you want to see something scary/cool look at the White Paper idea of up vote / down vote power = Community REP * REL !!! I do not think that has been implemented, but think of the above concerns but with someone like me having 50,000,000 power instead of 99.
This is NOT a bug. This IS fair. And you are incorrect about several mechanisms. That said, it is probably to your advantage to read everything below. I will explain: 1) You can vote on your own content, because the person that finds/shares it should be rewarded. I mean if you are unwilling to stake your own REL on it why would we want you incentivized to share something you think is irrelevant (prevents spamming a million things in hopes that one of them catches on)? 2) You DO NOT get REP from up votes on articles shared, only comments. You could get 1,000 up votes / bets on an article and your REP will not improve. The same is true for down votes on shared content. Your REP reflects the quality of your contributions not the quality of the articles of others. However good or bad that score is, that number was earned through action within the Relevant community. 3) If a member is always able to pick winners, that means they must know the relevant community very, very, well and that is what I personally want to see: a community with high-quality articles, not a community with a bunch of mediocre ones. Accordingly, those that help the platform succeed should be rewarded. 4) I will give you the exact boogey man scenario you mentioned, but in reality. So the only users with more REL than me were either on the site day 1 or on the team (only 2 or 3 in total I think). I posted a really good article (an interview with the author of The Fifth Risk) that likely no one here was aware existed. I shared it. I voted first on it. I voted all available REL on it (somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 I think) and it got hundreds of up votes. My payout? 602 REL. Now for many that will seem like quite a bit (and this was), but even in the best/worse case scenario that is a 1% return. I am betting that most new users would do MUCH better percentage wise in that scenario (or at least not worse). It is very possible that a new user in the same scenario might have made a 200 REL return on a 100 REL stake a 200% return. 5) What you describe might have still been possible 2 months ago, but now the bigger concern is semi-bots (coordinated but irrelevant humans). Because of that you WANT established members to have great power so that we can disincentivize the semi-bots and add real oomf to your good picks. 6) The only people who might be anywhere near the power of which you speak are either on the team or have been continuously and constantly active for a year or more. That power took work to acquire and it is largely in the hands of those who most want this project to succeed (and have the most to lose if it does not). 7) Since the top 50% of articles in terms of relevance pay out, as the community grows in size the ability to stake large on any significant proportion of articles decreases. My guess is that there are a community or two where bringing a high-level game would get out-sized rewards right now. If I were starting from 40 REL again, I know what I would do today. (Why don’t I do what I alluding too? Because I am giving myself carpal tunnel down voting spam and answering questions. As members have more stake in the community and its success, their behaviors will probably change from getting as much REL as possible to making sure the REL is worth as much as possible due to having an awesome, active, and healthy community.) 8) EDIT I initially was not going to do this, but I will drop a hint for those that read. Read the White Paper and understand the math involved and you will see WHY your concern is not really a concern. I would spell it out here, but I do not want to do that because it might encourage a totally different kind of problem. Long story short, there is a profoundly simple mechanism that levels the field in a way that takes most of your concerns away. Read the White Paper and the math, but do not post it if you figure out what I am talking about. So all of the above was a little smoke and mirrors, but the basic point is still the same. It does not quite work the way you think it does and you probably do not want this mechanism changed because it actually adds far more power to newer users than established users (again I will not say why and I ask that you not make it explicit if you do figure out why). As An Aside: If you want to see something scary/cool look at the White Paper idea of up vote / down vote power = Community REP * REL !!! I do not think that has been implemented, but think of the above concerns but with someone like me having 50,000,000 power instead of 99.
I am highly admiring your reply, not a fan of commenting under replies, but the explanation you put here is indeed a great. It has answered alot of questions in the minds of many including me, the truth is, relevant can only stay if depends on establish users. Since I first join, I follow your old post and order admins to be equip, and I agree, it takes time to grow and relevant only want passionate users. So I just focus on contributing. I believe everything shall stay the way its.
I am highly admiring your reply, not a fan of commenting under replies, but the explanation you put here is indeed a great. It has answered alot of questions in the minds of many including me, the truth is, relevant can only stay if depends on establish users. Since I first join, I follow your old post and order admins to be equip, and I agree, it takes time to grow and relevant only want passionate users. So I just focus on contributing. I believe everything shall stay the way its.
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.