@FrenchLegalAspect
edited
Why there is no Read.cash Writter's Top ranking them ?
Hey folks, I was wondering about why there is no Writter's Top ranking them by number of followers or published articles ? I mean, Read.Cash is a great platform to publish anything, and there are several really usefull and interesting articles on it, but it may be difficult to find them. Development of communities make that research easier and I like the way communities be a more important part of the platform life. I think it should be interesting to implement that kind of feature, and it seems to be possible as @Read.Cash posted : *"According to the random rewarder you are in Top 30 authors (out of 7000+ users), despite the fact that you've been here for only 2 weeks. You're doing everything right. Don't overthink it." :* *https://read.cash/@Jdine/confused-with-the-new-update-ddd1d644* I think it could be good for the platform, a good source of information for users to know if they are doing it right or wrong, and help new users to directly find good content (if we agree together that most followed accounts have good content). In other hand it may be more difficult to new writters to gain followers and readers. But I think the implementation of "first post" and "older post" in the frontpage resolve this issue. It's just a new little suggestion. I am interested to know your opinion on it, especially older users than me who have more experience on using the platform. Feel free to give your opinion or other idea which could improve manners to find easily great content. If you enjoyed the reading you can tip me below to encourage me to write more content like that. P.S. : I would like to thanks @scottcbusiness for becoming my first sponsor on Read.cash. He seem to really get into sponsoring on this platform as I have seen him sponsoring other writters. I hope you found my content interesting ;)
34 comments
I don't actually Support this idea tho but it is good
Why don't you support that idea ? I wanted to know other point of view on it. I know @Read.cash team try to read everything, so feel free to give your view on it (I think it's about the issue I mentionned on the effect on new writters)
Actually making it public makes a lot of crowd Follow those at the top making it difficult for those downward to rise up . This happens mostly with ranking and also I support it because it helps one to know his/her status..
I understand your view and quite agree with it. Permit users to know their ranking but maintain this information private and not public could be a good feature in my opinion after adding your view.
But how can that happen?? Both ideas can't work
If users only know "their" ranking and not the ranking of others users it could be. Maybe some of them will post a screenshot of their owns, but it will change (daily, weekly, monthly ?), and they won't be able to communicate about other users ranking who doesn't want to publish that information.
That will be through notifications .. Don't you think it is going to be a lot of work?? Let's leave it like this..
I think it already exists, so it may not be hard to do, but it's indeed that they are focus on others updates before considering that suggestion. Also, I always though that a project needed to work with their users to improve real needs. Maybe it will be implemented in years, but still think it is a good idea ;).
Let's leave it to @Read.cash to take care of that one
Sure.
The idea would be kind of discouraging to new users who still have yet to figure out how to make it through the platform, don't you think? Much more so, if they get intimidated by the top users. Although sure, some may ise it as a sort of guide but then not everyone will have that kind of mindset and adaptability to do so with how frequently the system updates
In my view, new users could be incentived to reach the top, by having more motivation in knowing what is working and how much it could make them earning. Competition develop skills,
I understand that view and I'm all for it but with the fact that a majority of people never really came here to for the sake of being able to express their thoughts and improve on whatever skills they have. Add the ranking to it and i don't think the userbase will grow sufficiently to make the site prosper, even if you try to hide a bit of information about the author. But i don't favor leaving things as is also, improvement will still be made for the long run of course and that should always be welcomed but the platform is not ready for a ranking system yet when it just recently got rid of all the nonsense spammers
By reading comments users made I am quite agreeing with the fact that implementation of that kind of ranking is maybe too early. Maybe in the future.
Yeah, hopefully in the near future but did you see the contest? It looks appealing and is kind of like a glimpse of a ranking system. I think regular contest like this would make a great start though
Yep I have red Read.cash comment below last @Cain article speaking about contest as a new way to gain points here. I am waiting for further announcement but it sound great and is in the way of my post searching to improve and reward good quality content and Read.cash users activity.
If readcash thinks it would be better for everyone they will do it. It is nice for me to know my ranking. But this is just me. Mind that everyone is not as willing as we are and others may be easily discouraged or disappointed. It's also that the possibility to subscribe and the articles of those that are in high ranks might be people's only choice and makes it hard for other writers to cope up. And even if they make it like you're the only one to know you're rank, people as we know has a stubborn nature. hehe. Some people will (I'm sure) snip it and/or take a screenshot and post it. So there's no sense in making it private when that happens. Readcash will do what they think is the best for everyone. Lets just let them do what they do best. But yes, it was nice for me to know and I appreciated it. We all have our lucky moments. No offense intended. Also, thanks for including my article in your article. Shows that you read it (especially that the quote was in the comment and not in the beginning of the article) and was interested (maybe) in it... And I'm grateful for that.
To fill with your writting style, " I am quite confused about your comment". No offense intended dear Jdine, we all have lucky moments. I understand your first sentence "If readcash thinks it would be better for everyone they will do it" as a "be quiet, if you don't like it then leave it now" that quite upsat me. Morever, I made a distinction between private informations user wanted to be public and public informations. You should do same. Learning by watching comments below your post that users could randomly know their ranking just make me think about it, and I wanted to share that with you. You are welcome for your gratefulness, I have red your article and founded it interesting.
> To fill with your writting style, " I am quite confused about your comment". No offense intended dear Jdine, we all have lucky moments. --oh no, no offense made. :) >I understand your first sentence "If readcash thinks it would be better for everyone they will do it" as a "be quiet, if you don't like it then leave it now" that quite upsat me. --that's not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say is "I am not sure it would be better to expose or give everyone their ranking but I would love to but yet I am not really sure it will work and i don't want to sound rude for telling that i am not sure it will work..." but then I think I sounded rude even more with my first sentence. I'm sorry that's wasn't I meant. Actually I was also shocked when I read the comment. I was like, "oh there's ranking? nice nice..thanks" I was grateful to know. I would love people to know. I am not sure how, I am not sure if it's gonna work, I'm not sure if people really want to know. But thanks for reading my article and taking time. :)
To determine a rank is a complex task and it will needs bots to filter out thousands of users quality content. Mere more subscriber doesn't mean top author, it has to passed through average content score and who will decide that score?. Manual deciding that score will be impossible, so better to leave it as it is now and wait for the whole system to evolve as they are trying and experimenting every option to build and grow this community. From my view, ranking of author shouldn't be implemented because it will be like Pyramid Structure of authors/content and it will be unfair for new users to compete against them. So, I guess if the one wants to decide the authors credibility, for that, i think it should be based on past articles average content score. That will increase more quality content.
I mostly agree with all you said. It needs many work to be implemented, and ranking by followers can't be a great way to rank (I remember Upvotes groups). I am quite convinced by your opinion that best parameter to rank authors is past articles average content score (average it's quite a good way to rank, morever it allow to compare Authors with few quality posts and other with numerous average posts). I am just disagreeing with the most shared opinion of users commenting my post which is basically "better to leave it as it is now", mostly because if all users said that before, older system point should be working now. My suggestion is just about helping users to think about improving actual system which work well since the latest updates, and our debating could help Read.cash team to decide, not by just following these ideas but by thinking about it, wether they thinks it's bad or good.
I think many users aren't understanding purpose behind continues change of rules. They basically a bit of confuse now how random rewarder works so are they saying "better to leave as it is now". At start many users were getting points for every action they do on read.cash and were happy seeing the money they earn by just doing a small task (like 4-5 words comment, random upvote, randomly commenting without reading article and were able to post spam article without any issue)! But now suddenly old point system has gone and again some of them wants it in old way. But from my perspective, rules should be changes to filter out spammers and for quality content. Again Authors ranking shouldn't be developed as of now but whole system should focus on only quality content. Why? 1) Right now, we are lacking in user base and it will be very early to rank authors. Even if professional writer will write article here he will get a hundred (more or less) views without boosting. So currently focus only on quality content that should displayed on front page..its very important. 2) Now we have pledge fund more so better to push platform for marketing that would create more user base. 3) Give reward for the new user when he does post first article here, that would motivate him to write more. As the current random reward system will have few chances of getting point due to bad quality content (I am assuming new users aren't familiar with reward system so they may post bad content and doesn't seeing earning may leave site too). 4) Create weekly contest for authors to write good quality content on read.cash and reward them with noticeable amount. I think that would motivate others too to write more good content to win the contest next time. So basically we needed to pushed platform up so that more users are getting paid and will write more good content. If any question can ask I will try my best.
I am really glad to read a thorough and developed comment below my article. I totally agree with your statement that Read.cash priority is to improve quality content and avoid spammers. Also, I often don't remember that Read.cash is a so recent project, so maybe my suggestion could be more relevant in a mid-term vision, according to your 1). It is also true about the fund which fastly rewards more user than tipping, original way to earn on Read.cash, according to your 2). About 3), I never though about effect of no-rewarding first posts users on activity of a new account during time. Also, I though your idea to have a minimum reward for first article could be a great idea to improve that issue. That idea could be implemented before ranking and doesn't seem to be impossible to be used with it. Your 4) creating weekly contest for authors to write good quality article as Publis0x and other crypto-blogging platforms develops is a very good idea ; not expensive or tecnical to add, and will improve users activity and, at least attempts, quality article. Also that suggestion have all my support because it imply an (existing) Author ranking my suggestion is related (how will the authors be compared each others, average points cannot work with average point per... on article submitted to a contest). Authors are already ranked, why don't make that information available in future, at least only for the concerned user, or using it to implement authors contest ?
I have no idea publishOx or other platform has that kind of program. It just came in my mind and gave that suggestion. Once you make ranking public, you can see change of subscribers pattern and i already told you mere more subscriber doesn't mean good author. As you are seeking parameter for ranking author, its complex, so better to wait for at least 20-25 days now and make weekly contest start and see the result yourself. But i am against ranking authors because its unfair to rank 1 aaa rank 2 bbb rank 3 ccc..etc though ccc may have put more effort to write that articles than aaa who is professional or inbuilt writer. If Scientist are making great innovation doesn't mean they are above the par of common. In fact, more common means more friendly. From my perspective, I will see read.cash as more friendly.
It is still possible to see ranking by parameters as number of followers, number of article, average point per article, old on Read.cash, subsection with users that have less than 1 month registration... with different users in each. More tecnical to implement and too early. I caught your point on the more common content making Read.cash more friendly, vision they seem to follow when the Read.cash team speak about extend platform to non-crypto related content.
Lets say for score out of 10.. 100 followeres in bch domain topic- 4 points (assuming 25 followers 1 point), number of articles per day 2 so will get 2 points (assuming 1 article 1 point), average points for articles 2 points (it would decide by the system), old on 6 month - 1 point (assuming 3 month 1 point) Total Socre= 9 Now, for history domain: 12 follower 0.5 point, number of articles per day 2 so 2 points, average points for articles 4 points (decide by system), old on 1 month 0.5 point so Total Score=7 Are you getting my point?. Here is the problem, though history domain writer producing 2 times much better quality content than the bch domain writer but still he gets below the rank. So better to avoid it for now.
I understand what you mean but I was thinking about independent parameter ranking you can switch. In your example : BCH domain before History domain in follower ranking History domain on the same rank than BCH domain in number of article per day ranking History domain before BCH domain in average point per article ranking BCH domain before History domain in old ranking (could be limited to active users with adding reconnexion users to avoid permanent top) History domain author is recognized as a better author than BCH one in term of average points per article, which could be expression of content quality.
BCH topic got more leverage here because of payment system in BCH, so thats why more followers while Hisytory writer is more innovative and creates much more qualtiy content, so does more points per article. So if you announce ranking now, it means those who have more follower are top authors and mass flooding of article will be on that domain. Ultimately, this creates like reverse pyramid structure those producing less article but with more quality content will see at bottom. Switching different independent parameter? I think its not feasible to switch as each parameter has its fixed own weight..so switching from one parameter and changing weight will create more complex system. If you are still insisting for ranking, make ranking like Top Popularity author aaa in BCH, Top Expression Content writer bbb in History, Top Law writer FrenchLegalAspect in Legal domain, Top Filipano writer ddd in filipano domain, top bengali writer eee in bengali domain...the list goes on... also this will be more inclusive list and more parallel domains..not Pyramid Like Structure content/author where top author are in particular domains only and mass flooding of articles in particular domain just by impersonating top authors interest/views. I want this system more inclusive and more parallel domains are running simultaneously (not just only BCH) with quality content. Eventually, after 3-4 months every user will be much more skillful in particular domain. I have a idea for how to run weekly contest. Rules: 1) Participant all users. 2) Minimum article per week to qualify for winner list is 10 articles (assuming 1.5 articles per day, so 7*1.5=10.5 i.e.10 articles). 3) Minimum words that must count in each article should be like 400/500 words. Why? as some short post or short articles could be eliminated. 4) Final score would depend on top 10+ articles score of each user. Score should be calculated for each article as, Ratio of Likes or Dislike/ total Views, Ratio of Comments/ total Views, Ratio of Power user Upvotes/ total Views. (and likes & dislike should be counted as one..like is a good thing but dislike is also a good thing as the reader is noticing articles conclusion ) 4th point is most important as it will show how much it appeals single article to reader. All Scoring system is within the article and each one can verify his articles score by seeing comments, likes, dislikes, views, upvotes. Also, it compels to creates more interaction of users with articles. And eliminates more subscriber authors, more spammer articles, more more etc...:) Its just simple and giving fair chance to everyone as the user will sole responsible for quality content and how appeals that article to readers.
Maybe you are right, I caught tecnicals issues about switching parameters, but implemention for 5 general parameters could be possible and fair. Concerning your contest idea I find it well-though, but I might have changed the number of article, only one submission per author by contest is way much less difficult and incentiving to make one great article although 10 average articles. If there is rewards for top 10 it will still more reward than 10 average articles points.
This will be the first contest and more people will be eager to participate (as I hope). So, everyone will invest in writing and will create much more quality content. By doing this, we are setting a standard of writing for future articles/contest as each one will be more familiar with writing skills, that's why i said 10 articles. 10 articles will improve a lot of skills. But if you set 1 articles per user, then someone might have miss the chance of getting some useful content. Also, 1 article means Mr. Perfectionist will win :). You can reduce it to 7 articles and make duration of contest for 10 days. I have recommended these rules because it sole depend on an article content and appeal. So, it will be sustainable and will be more creative. I agree number of follower does matter as it denotes how one is performing but implementing parameter won't go anywhere, it will still confused many of them as I guess. Is there any drawback/problem of rules (about scoring system) that I have mention above?.
I think that publishing a top ranking is a bad idea. It would lead to the best authors getting more and more readers and more and more satoshis. New very good authors will have no chance to gain readers. That is the nature of the thing. Good authors are always better paid anyway, because they will get more and more readers anyway. You have not to support it even more with a ranking.
Every argument with "it is the nature of the thing" doesn't make me changing my mind at all, sorry. And as you said, Good authors will always get better paid, so why ranking them could change this statement ? There is already an implicit authors ranking in each users mind. Thanks for sharing your opinion with us.
Maybe you didn't understand my argument. A ranking will make it harder for the new authors to assert themselves. The users will only read the top authors from the ranking. That's the problem.
I was speaking about number of followers or article as example of which parameters could be used to rank. I can't figure how a ranking by average point per article (idea suggested by @CryptoSmart in comments who totally convinced me) will make more difficult users to get known. If your first article is really good, then user will directly go on the top and doesn't have to post numerous articles. In my view it is just a way to improve quality content, but maybe I missed the point you highlighted. Edit : adding a minimal rewarding point per first post could resolve that issue, but won't resolve spamming issue if users keep creating account to gain their first post reward.