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

chore: update .ubiquity-os.config.yml #197

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 25, 2025
Merged

Conversation

ubiquity-os[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@ubiquity-os ubiquity-os bot commented Jan 24, 2025

Via @ubiquity-os[bot]:

insert all missing defaults

insert all missing defaults

Via @ubiquity-os[bot]
@ubiquity-os ubiquity-os bot requested a review from 0x4007 as a code owner January 24, 2025 19:52
@0x4007
Copy link
Member

0x4007 commented Jan 24, 2025

@ubiquity-os-deployer
Copy link

ubiquity-os-deployer bot commented Jan 24, 2025

@@ -218,6 +226,7 @@ plugins:
multiplier: 0
rewards:
wordValue: 0
wordCountExponent: 0.85
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gentlementlegen you know, I always had this nagging feeling that this wasn't implemented according to the original vision. The vision was that there should be diminishing returns the longer your comment goes. Some day I would like to compare wordCountExponent: 1 with wordCountExponent: 0.85 and wordCountExponent: 0.5 on long comments to see if we get the results that are expected.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is applied as ^0.85 but that would be nice to draw a curve of the function we are actually using for the results.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have a feeling that it just linearly lowers the returns instead of exponentially.

@0x4007 0x4007 merged commit 7cc0639 into development Jan 25, 2025
3 of 4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants