loresome

Well, I wrote to you (Pioneer team) multiple times over this week. I actually sent all the materials for this article yesterday.

Edit: re-read your comment more carefully. To answer: because the exchange was not productive. I only saw general comments equating to "you don't understand our opaque system" without even acknowledging the arguments I was making.

To add to my previous comment. What separates "expert voting" from "leaderboard manipulation" the most in my opinion is the access to the leaderboard state. If experts vote in isolation, based solely on the project info and reports it's a "mixture of signals". If they have unlimited power, and change the scores to shape the leaderboard to a desirable state, it's manipulation.

Thanks! Made the first mention of Pioneer a link.

When one component of the system has infinite power over the other (moderation over quantitative metrics here), you can't call that a mixture IMO.

I would suggest these three things: (1) separate the concept of "experts" and "organizers/developers". When I hear "experts" I assume "independent experts". (2) change deceiving language on the landing page. Quoting: "All you need to do is convince other participants that your project is worth doing." and "Every week other participants will give you feedback and points. The more progress you make, the higher your score will be." No mention of experts, yet alone organizers at all. (3) Make the points transparent. That includes breaking down voting vs experts vs whatever and disclosing the details of the scoring and matchmaking systems. Doesn't have to be exact spec/formula obviously, but general details.

Hey, sorry for that! The title was changed by (I presume?) mods, and I have no power over it anymore. It had more context originally.

The second project that was upvoted by an "expert" (GreenGovernance) is at #20.

What I tried to say is: you can't explain the points manipulation with "experts", because "experts" changed little in that regard, as can be seen on that screenshot.

If you look at the last image in the post, you will see that "expert" votes have little correlation with points.

Well, the point is that what they claim on their website is very deceiving, especially for people outside of SV. I believed them, and I bet other people did. The post aims to explain how it really works.

Yes, absolutely. And not only with TODO, anything with an API. Think fitbit (reward running/workout), email (inbox zero), bugtracker, etc.

In fact, the API already exists, it's just not documented.

Thank you!

No, currently there are no limits, and I don't plan to add any. First, it's really boring and tiresome to grind the rewards, and second, there's nothing to get out of it apart from the feeling of guilt.

Perhaps some messaging stating the points above can also prevent cheating. Thanks for your feedback!