Observation and Analysis - Who is the Best Curator 观察与分析之最好的点赞者 🔍

Eclipse of 2016 二零一六的月蚀

Two and a half months ago, @ned, the founder of Steemit, delegated half million SP to each of the following seven steemians:

A few days ago, @ned took SP back from six of the delegatees, only kept @surpassinggoogle's delegated SP unchanged. Then, rumors fly.

I have my own theory about the this, but I don't want to disclose, because I have no concrete evidence to support my theory.

@paulag published an article to analyze the data and she jumped to some conclusions.

@paulag's report looks very beautiful and great. However, when I have a careful review about the first chart in her report, I realized her data in the first chart are not correct at all. Becase @paulag want to speak with data, I suggested her to make her data correct first, then we can discuss about her conclusions. Otherwise, her conclusions are totally baseless.

Let's have a look at the first chart in her report:

This image comes from @paulag's report

This chart shows that on average @surpassinggoogle votes 1,327.4 times per day. Let's assume he vote manually. Then he needs to bring up the post or at least bring up the page that has the link to the post. If he reads the post he votes, he will need at least one minute. Therefore, we just assume he can vote once per minute.

Let's assume @paulag's data are correct. How much time @surpassinggoogle will need to cast 1,327 votes? The answer is 22 hours and 7 minutes. WOW!

If @paulag's data are correct, and if surpassinggoogle does not use bot to vote, then he needs more than 22 hours per day to vote and less than two hours to sleep.

So my conclusion is @paulag's data are not correct, or @surpassinggoogle uses bot to vote.

Later, I found out in the chart it shows @nicolemoker votes 207.6 times per day on average. At this point, I realized @paulag data are totally wrong. I did research @nicolemoker voting pattern before and this number does not match my research at all.

Because the data in the first chart are not correct, I cannot believe any data in her report. Therefore, I suggested @paulag to check her data throughly, before she can jump to any conclusions.

@surpassinggoogle are you here? Can you tell us how many times you vote in each day? Can you tell Ms. @paulag that she was wrong? Thanks

两个半月前Steemit创始人ned把50万SP代理给七名成员。前几天ned拿回来六名成员的SP，只留下了surpassinggoogle的代理。于是谣言满天飞。

有关此事我有自己的猜想，但是由于没有确凿证据，我就不讲我的猜想了。

paulag女士试图用数据说话，于是她写了一篇文章分析数据并且得出一些结论。

她的报告有很多漂亮的插图，看上去很好看。但是我仔细看了第一幅插图里的数据就发现跟本不对头。既然用数据说话，就把数据搞对了再说话。数据都不对，说什么话？

图中显示surpassinggoogle平均每天点赞一千三百多次。假设他手工点赞，看文章加点赞一次需要一分钟吧。这样他需要22个小时7分钟才能点完，每天剩下不到两小时睡觉。

开始我以为此人用机器人点赞，当我看到文章说nicolemoker平均每天点赞两百多次我就知道她数据完全搞错了。

所以我建议作者先把数据搞对更正好了我们再讨论其他问题。数据文章数据都搞不对还写什么写？

Observation and Analysis - Who is the Best Curator 观察与分析之最好的点赞者 🔍

纽约纽约

更多系列游记

数据、观察、分析系列

技术系列