Awario Scoring Recap & Proposal (July 31)

[cuevasm]

I'll forego the format given there are numerous tickets on this already. In continuing with Awario, we have 3 options (of course we can iterate on any of these going forward).

Related:

• 120
• 117
• 129
• 130
• 131

1) Awario with no policing whatsoever. Let people do what they like in terms of marketing, spamming, influencer based stuff, etc. Do this knowing that this will be an increasingly expensive and ultimately unsustainable model for them, given the Growth score factor, though they can manage a few months of pumped numbers on their score from the Awario result.

2) Awario with policing. This would require a concrete set of rules (which seems difficult to create in and of itself, given the different perspectives in the community) and some kind of scalable audit process by which volunteers mark and remove Mentions according to the rules. Do this knowing that some are committed to staying just ahead of the rules in order to game the system, it would be somewhat a game of whack-a-mole and get increasingly time-consuming with things inevitably slipping through.

3) Awario with binary network scores. This would leverage the same tracking system and instead of looking to key off the Reach generated, we would simply be looking to see if the app was doing at least a small amount of public activity on online and on social networks, thereby encouraging that activity, but not incentivizing Reach pumping. The dry-run data for this is available here.

At which point the community has decided which one of these, we'll then need to decide when we want to this to start. There are competing schools of thought here, some say we shouldn't make a change in the period, others want to agree and iterate faster. The data is all being captured regardless, so I can spin back both versions next week (as July will be over).

In any case, let's settle on the one we want to go with for now and go from there.

[friedger]

Can we have the dry run data for September?

[cuevasm]

@cuevasm Could you please consider #129 when implementing Blended Awareness?

I think we should see what the data looks like first and go from there vs. trying to make all these changes at once. Ticket isn't going anywhere and we can always revisit.

I can't run any data for September until the month ends, at which point I'm happy to generate that.

[friedger]

@cuevasm This months growth score is the funniest so far, plus 5000% (= + 200,000 reach) gives you a 5.1 theta score, -100% (= -2 million reach) a -0.3 theta score.

My understanding was that the improvements #129 were already agreed. They should have been implemented before the blended awareness change.

[cuevasm]

129 was never agreed on. https://github.com/blockstack/app-mining/issues/129#issuecomment-518712057

[friedger]

PBC team discussed and we think this is a good change.

I was just referring to this about #129 😉. I didn't want to spread false information, I should have said ".. were already agreed in principle"