Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cost for opening polls (Req 1.1.4.1.4) Research #27

Closed
YigitSekerci opened this issue Mar 22, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

Cost for opening polls (Req 1.1.4.1.4) Research #27

YigitSekerci opened this issue Mar 22, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
Priority: Medium Standard problem priority Status: Done Work on the issue is finished Type: Research Research is needed for this issue Type: Wiki Wiki related issues

Comments

@YigitSekerci
Copy link
Contributor

YigitSekerci commented Mar 22, 2023

Problem Definition

We haven't decided the cost for opening polls. Please discuss under this issue for possible ideas and update wiki.

Problem Context

  • Requirement 1.1.4.1.4

Acceptance Criteria

  • Discuss possible solutions
  • Update wiki
@YigitSekerci YigitSekerci added Priority: Medium Standard problem priority Status: To Do The issue has been reported and is waiting for the team to action it. Type: Research Research is needed for this issue Type: Wiki Wiki related issues labels Mar 22, 2023
@YigitSekerci YigitSekerci self-assigned this Mar 23, 2023
@EmreBatuhan
Copy link
Contributor

This poll opening fee intends to discourage the users from opening improper polls. This fee also should not be too high because that might put an unwanted barrier for poll opening. Therefore I suggest a flexible option where the user can pay as much as he/she wants but this fee also affects the poll properties like maximum poll entrance. For example the poll opener pays 100 points as a fee and the new poll only accepts 100 points for its predictors.

@enfurars
Copy link
Contributor

I think there should be a fixed cost of opening a poll and after a poll is opened there should not be a restriction about number or point of predictions. Users should gain points by just entering the platform anyway.

@YigitSekerci
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flexible Option

This option can helps us to encourage newcomers to opening new polls.

Fixed Option

Since our purpose in this cost is to decrease the number of inactive polls (low interaction, not verifiable, etc.), fixed option can easily achieve this without decrease in functionality. Real question:

How much should be the cost ?

Veteran Users (users with the experience and points)

Assume this users have enough points to open poll whenever they want, since they can open lots of poll they may open improper polls. Even if this users can open lots of polls, they would tend to open polls that are either proper or exploits the system. So point cost is not applicable to veteran users, at least not the way we intended.

Newcomers

Since they don't have the experience or points, we cannot let them easily open polls. It is easy to restrict them with a fixed point. We can choose the cost as 5 * Daily Points to allow passive users to open poll in every 5 day. They may either wait or bet their current points to open polls faster. Either way they gain the experience we want them to have.


Conclusion

I suggest to choose cost as 5 * Daily point gain which allows passive users to open 6 polls in average every month and if someone posts improper poll we give them extra cooldown like 1-2 days. This way:

  • Newcomers gain experience until their first poll.
  • Veterans may open more polls but if their poll is improper is they got cooldown (like any user but they would tend to get more since they open more poll).

@YigitSekerci YigitSekerci added Status: In Progress Assignee is working on the issue and removed Status: To Do The issue has been reported and is waiting for the team to action it. labels Mar 25, 2023
@YigitSekerci
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have written 1.1.4.1.4 and 1.1.4.1.5 in wiki. Please check them for me and let me know if they're bad.

@YigitSekerci YigitSekerci added Status: In Review Waiting for reviewers response to changes. and removed Status: In Progress Assignee is working on the issue labels Mar 25, 2023
@bounswe bounswe deleted a comment from YigitSekerci Mar 26, 2023
@selinisik selinisik added Status: Done Work on the issue is finished and removed Status: In Review Waiting for reviewers response to changes. labels Mar 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Priority: Medium Standard problem priority Status: Done Work on the issue is finished Type: Research Research is needed for this issue Type: Wiki Wiki related issues
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants