[nltk_data] Downloading package stopwords to /home/mitch/nltk_data... [nltk_data] Package stopwords is already up-to-date!
This document processes the outputs of the praise reward system and performs an analysis of the resulting token reward distribution.
Since praise gets valued on a scale, we can take a look at how often each value of the scale gets assigned by quantifiers. Note: This metric disregards scores of praise marked as a duplicate, since the score of the original is already being taken into account.
The ten highest rated contributions for this round were the following:
| Avg. score | To | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 31.33 | stellaachenbach#2991 | for putting up AMAZING back to basic study group sessions and spreading the word and learning of token engineering |
| 29.67 | Tamarandom#9361 | for articulating a proposal for the future of stewardship in the TEC. It was very thought out and I believe it will bring very positive changes to our organizational structure |
| 28.25 | Zeptimus#3359 | for sharing his knowledge on setting parameters with AragonDAO, hosting params parties and debates, getting funds in return, and planning to distribute the fund among General Magic, TEC Common Pool, and the Transparency WG |
| 22.25 | natesuits#4789 | for his genuine care to the TEC. I could point so many concrete contributions he has been taking on but I want to give extra appreciation to the way he navigates the community and brings grounded, safe and reliable qualities which impact the community in such a positive way. |
| 18.25 | natesuits#4789 | for being an amazing steward and host many calls these past months 💖 |
| 17.75 | Mark D#6686 | for hosting today's Back-to-Basics Study Group 🔥 |
| 17.75 | pat.zip (TE Academy)#5266 | for attending ETHMexico and giving a talk on Token Engineering Academy! 🌈 |
| 15.75 | ombudsman#3822 | for putting up AMAZING back to basic study group sessions and spreading the word and learning of token engineering |
| 15.67 | Irem#3362 | for taking charge in the communitas WG |
| 14.33 | LBS#6541 | for the workshop on non-verbal communication |
We can now take a look at the distribution of the received praise rewards. You can toggle the inclusion of the different sources by clicking on the legend.
We can also take a look at the amount of praise different users gave.
Now for something more fun: let's surface the top "praise flows" from the data. Thanks to @inventandchill for this awesome visualization! On one side we have the top 15 praise givers separately, on the other the top 25 receivers. The people outside the selection get aggregated into the "REST FROM" and "REST TO" categories.
Now let's take a closer look at the quantification process and the quantifiers:
To aid the revision process, we highlight disagreements between quantifiers.
This graphic visualizes controversial praise ratings by sorting them by the "spread" between the highest and lowest received score.
Please keep in mind that this is a visual aid. If there are several praise instances with similar spread and quant score, all but one end up "hidden" on the chart. For an exhaustive list, take a look at the exported file "praise_outliers.csv" .
Let's see how different quantifiers behaved by showing the range of praise scores they gave.
To interpret the box plot:
Bottom horizontal line of box plot is minimum value
First horizontal line of rectangle shape of box plot is First quartile or 25%
Second horizontal line of rectangle shape of box plot is Second quartile or 50% or median.
Third horizontal line of rectangle shape of box plot is third quartile or 75%
Top horizontal line of rectangle shape of box plot is maximum value.
Among 331 praises, 31 (9.37%) do not agree on duplication
Praise instances with disagreements in duplication are collected in 'results/duplication_examination.csv'. To compare, look at the last 4 columns: 'DUPLICATE MSG 1/2/3' and 'ORIGINAL MSG'.
Among 331 praises, 13 (3.93%) do not agree on dismissal
Praise instances with disagreements in dismissal are collected in'results/dismissal_disaggreed.csv'. You can further look into who dismissed and who did not.