Good day for a @utopian-io community report.
Metrics: Week
Time period: 20-27 June 2019
- 2 contributions processed
- Mean score of 90 and median of 90 (no, these are not the same thing despite being the same result this week)
- Highest score of 96 and lowest of 84
All contributions were scored fairly and impartially in accordance with Utopian policies and guidelines and incorporating a predefined set of questions specific to the anti-abuse category.
Contributions
| Score | Assessor | Author | Post |
|---|---|---|---|
| 96 | @anthonyadavisii | @mathowl | Read Post |
| 84 | @anthonyadavisii | @jaguar.force | Read Post |
This is a slow week with only two contributions. Hopefully this is because of the summer holidays and other reasons external to the blockchain. That being said, it is also possible that with all the discussion going around the EIP and other proposed algorithm changes, users are simply too wrapped up for the meantime to focus on writing anti-abuse contributions. We will be able to delve into questions like this as we gather statistics and can look back over seasonal changes.
Active Assessors for the Week
Anthony handled the assessment of both contributions and we thank him for his time and attention.
Metrics: 2019
The highest month for contributions was April with 20 posts; the lowest was January with 7. June is up to 14 so far and is looking to be pretty average as far as contributions go.
The total sum of all 2019 contributions stands at 87 to date. (Four of those were subsequently rejected for various reasons but are still included in these numbers as having been received.) The rejections all happened earlier on and not in recent months, when the quality of contributions generally increased.
A total of 19 contributors made posts under the @utopian-io anti-abuse category so far this year. This week we got a new contributor, @mathowl, although he's a long-time anti-abuse supporter and generally excellent Steemian.
The top contributor is still @jaguar.force with 18 valid contributions, but @anthonyadavisii is closing in on them with his own 11 contributions. We hope we'll see more contributions from the other anti-abuse writers in the future as well as from new faces on the anti-abuse scene.
There are currently only three active assessors in the anti-abuse category, although over the lifetime of the category itself we had a total of five. This is just general attrition and people re-focusing elsewhere in their lives for necessity sakes and not due to anything to do with the anti-abuse category itself. It should not be taken as a reflection on Utopian or the category. [No change]
So far, a total of 4 contributions were rejected as wholly invalid for the category and were thus not assessed. This number hasn't changed from last week or the week prior and hopefully will not change in the future. We don't want to get invalid contributions. [No change]
This does not include contributions that were awarded a score of zero. A rejection and a low score are not the same thing. Rejections are not assessed, as aforementioned, but zero-scores are. [No change]
Optimization Tools for Contributors
- eSteem Search - this simple and fast search is part of the eSteem family of products developed by @good-karma. It is excellent for searching the Steem blockchain and has three modes of ordering your results. This search tool was invaluable during the infestation of phishing links. Below is an example of a search result.
Every week I'll change these up so watch this space.
Good Contributions to the Anti-Abuse Category
A good contribution doesn't have to be on a particularly pressing anti-abuse subject to be relevant. For example, you don't have to write about investigating plagiarism or something where you've personally gotten your hands dirty and put yourself at risk. [No change]
A good contribution will typically have the following checked off:
- The post will be interesting to read (you don't want to have the reader give up halfway through because of boredom)
- The post will be by someone who knows the anti-abuse landscape of the Steem ecosystem
- The writer will evidently care about the anti-abuse topic they are writing about
- The post will have some helpful metrics or images to guide the reader
- The post will strive to educate the reader on how to recognize abuse and empower them to fight it
Aiming for Educational Contributions
Everyone likes to write about what they achieved or discovered. When a tool gets updated, when a plagiarist gets caught, when a pull request gets approved it's a time to get a pat on the back and a "good job". We enjoy seeing inspirational posts about anti-abuse milestones reached or abusers discovered and neutralized. But those are just a part of the category.
The anti-abuse category also aims to encourage submissions that strive to educate the regular user who either willingly or accidentally stumbles on the posts. Contributors need to remember that this user may not know anything about the abuse situation on the Steem blockchain. Or, worse yet, they may have received incorrect information in the past. Posts that make it a point to educate the reader in one way or another bring a lot to the table.
We want to empower people to fight abuse through education. Doing so will in turn empower the projects and communities they are a part of and keep them resilient against exploitation. Scammers are very good at hiding in plain sight. While we don't need to be paranoid, we need to be aware that they exist and that they take advantage of everything and everyone they believe will lead to their illicit success. The more the userbase knows, the harder it will be for these scammers to succeed and victimise the Steem blockchain and its ecosystem.
Next time you're submitting a contribution to the anti-abuse category, take a moment and re-read it with the eyes of a regular user. Did you learn something to help you recognise abuse? If so, you've got a stellar contribution on your hands.
Previous Reports
These are the reports created by me since I took over from @iamstan. Eearlier reports can be found on his blog.
13-20 June 2019
6-13 June 2019
30 May-6 June 2019
23-30 May 2019
16-23 May 2019
9-16 May 2019
Please leave your suggestions in the comments below. Go ahead, suggest. I'm listening.
 |
Like what we're doing? Support us as a Witness.Go to https://steemit.com/~witnessesSelect or type in guiltypartiesClick VOTE if typed in
 |
