And you are right it wasn't perfect earlier on but it was certainly better back in 2017 than it is now in 2019.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
And you are right it wasn't perfect earlier on but it was certainly better back in 2017 than it is now in 2019.
I disagree outside of having more attention it didn't work any better except for a handful. A very small handful.
However, I do appreciate the opinion though.
I support the changes in this post, but I would also not agree necessarily that it was "better" in 2017. It was certainly "different" but there were other problems which were still very serious.
Since there is no suggestion to go back to the previous rules, I don't think it actualy matters. You have to evaluate this new proposed set of rules on its own merits, as they are significantly different from both the current rules and the 2017 rules.
At least in 2017 there was the incentive to create good content. Sure not all good content was being discovered but at least some was. Now there is no incentive. So yes in 2017 at least some content discovery and incentive existed even if flawed.
Now it's just bots and basically pay for popularity. This is also called pay to win.
And yes the current rules differ from 2017, but anything is better than to do nothing with the current proven broken economics.
Much of the problems I feel could be addressed by a better "pay for popularity" system that is part of the actual platform. The promoted tab failed in this and bidbots took its place. If we were to give some real thought into building an advertising economy into the platform, we could pull in top bloggers and vloggers and provide facilities to pay for popularity without diverting the whole reward pool through the bidbot economy.
If I had to score them out of 10
Hyperinflation - 1/10
n^2 - 2.5/10 (this appeared to have worked better because people weren't as sophisticated back then and abit and smooth were incurring some of the costs of making it work better than it otherwise would have)
our current system - 1.5/10
I think we can do maybe a 5.5-6/10 on our next attempt if we frame the problem correctly and identify both the benefits and costs of each of those measures to reach sensible numbers.
That was only for a relatively short time in order to demonstrate some of the negative effects of unrestrained n^2.
For most of the time it didn't really work at all, and people claiming that it did either weren't around at the time or were out of the loop and didn't know what was actually going on.