Problem
The main problem with the Internet is the lack of accurate information storage (AIS).
And the creation of AIS is impossible without ranking users.
Today in the Internet the main rate is made on the amount of information,
and because of the high competition, the amount of information on the Internet is increasing exponentially.
As a result, the increase in the amount of information leads to an increasing decrease in the quality of information.
The accuracy and reliability of information is getting worse every year.
And according to the author, the crisis of information is not yet, but has already come.
Wikipedia is a good resource but has 2 serious problems:
1. There is no limit to the number of characters,
therefore, it is used only by analysts and future scientists.
And simple users, which 95%, need another AIS,
its simplicity and brevity reminiscent of instagram.
2. The information in English Wikipedia and national Wikipedia is very different.
This is already a confirmation that Wikipedia is not sufficiently protected from erroneous information.
The next problem with the Internet is that the information does not unfold,
95% of the authors give a one-word answer to the question,
it is not touching that under different conditions of different readers, the answer to the same question will be different,
even if the person who asked the question is 100% satisfied with this answer.
As a result, readers who ask the same question, but have different conditions,
they believe that they also fit this answer, but in fact under their individual conditions,
the answer must be different.
Summing up, the author believes that the repository of accurate information on the Internet currently does not exist.
In the Internet, the rating information is enhanced by regular users, and sometimes by cheating program.
Ordinary users are not a competent resource in assessing the accuracy and veracity of information,
a program and does not set such a goal,
this leads to the fact that on the contrary false information has a higher rating than true.
And the shorter the answer, the more inaccuracies and untruths it contains.
The problem is most pronounced in short texts of less than 1000 characters.
short texts require a high level of competition.
According to statistics, 50% of users do not read the text more than 1000 characters to the end.
In the future, the number of readable characters will be further reduced, this will lead to an even lower quality of information.
Decision
Now, when it became available a ranking of users, the company can begin to create AIS.
And here it is very important that the user asked his question (because you can not feed the fed).
First of all, there must be a need for the information provided.
It is obvious to the author that AIS should be based on the question (need).
The author believes that for the effective work of AIS users should be divided into classes,
and between classes create competition, in this case we get double control
over who asks the question and over who answers the question.
The author offers 3 classes of users:
user, expert, critical.
Weight in any of the three classes to be earned, initially each weight is zero.
In this case, one person can not earn weight in all 3 classes.
Otherwise, he will be able to ask himself questions and answer them.
This is already spam, and for the effective development of the service you need a real need for the question.
The author offers the service to organize the authorization, so that the first authorization,
the user has chosen which class he belongs to. And at the stage of authorization to consider the mechanism of protection,
which will make it impossible to participate in different classes at the same time.
But it is necessary to provide for the possibility of growth and change of class, because with age a person becomes smarter.
In this case, the user will save only Nebulas Rank (NR), and a career in a new profession will have to start from scratch,
after all, in life it is always so, experience in a new profession is acquired from scratch,
but a high level of intelligence contributes to a faster experience.
"spirit" is a person who has not earned weight.
"user" is the person who asked a lot of quality questions and his questions further have additional weight.
For its contribution, "user" should not receive a reward in the form of tokens, it is enough that its weight will grow.
Otherwise, it would lead to spam, and the goal is to acquire quality,
and as we found out earlier, the quantity has a negative impact on the quality of the information.
"expert" is a person who has created many quality answers and his answers further have additional weight.
For its contribution, "expert" should receive a reward system tokens, this is an indisputable fact,
without material motivation, the quality of experts, and as a result, the quality of the information itself will be extremely low.
"critic" is a man who challenged a lot of responses and criticism then has an additional weight.
There is no need to allocate additional tokens for criticism contribution,
as a result of his successful work, not only the weight of the expert Advisor should be transferred to him,
but also tokens as a critic of the expert should be taken away.
In regard to maturity of work the tokens of an expert remain pledged to the system,
and are charged to the expert at the moment when his work from the preliminary section goes to the main one.
Or they go to criticism.
Without a General Charter, neither the expert nor the critic will understand what is required of them,
therefore, it is necessary to force familiarization with the rules of remuneration,
otherwise we would again get quantity instead of quality.
Instructions for the expert and critic.
- Expand the answer so that it satisfies not only the person who asked the question,
but other readers, the input conditions are different.
That is, the answer should exclude the possibility of several interpretations.
But since 1000 characters in most cases it is impossible to fit a detailed answer,
in this case, the expert should create several question forks.
To do this, we need the function " Create a variant for other interpretations"
If the critic finds that the answer that is not deployed does not have enough forks created,
then he has the right to challenge and annul this answer.
The creation forks under other conditions is considered as one work.
"Feedback" - a critic should have a tool that will point the expert to an error.
"Coauthorship" - If the work is generally good, but has inaccuracies, it is important to keep it.
You need an additional marker, which will be marked as a whole good work,
but corrected by a critic. In this case, the critic becomes a co-author,
This work is placed on the wall of both authors and marked with a coauthorship marker,
I do not see any point in further complicating the function and marking which of them was the author in this work,
and who critic. A coauthorship token is enough.
"expert blog" is a wall where you can see all the works of the expert Advisor under the filters (only successful ones)
The wall is necessary for the effective work of the critic, since the authors if they make a certain kind of mistake,
then this error will be repeated systematically.
The service must be multilingual, that is, it is connected to the translation of the text,
this will give a significant saving of tokens, which will result in a higher reward
and will lead to a higher quality of information.
Priorities:
removal-to remove work critic must have more weight than expert,
(the reward and the weight goes criticism)
editing-to edit and return the work, the critic must weigh at least 50% of the expert's weight.
(the reward and the weight is divided equally)
return - With a weight of 25-50% critic can mark and return to work.
(the critic gets an extra weight of 25% and 25% tokens)
If the weight is less than 25%, the critic can not take part in the criticism of this author.
"mature" - full maturity comes at the age of 28 days,
after that, critics no longer have access to this work
"half-ripe" - Partial maturity comes in 14 days,
after that, all the actions of critics are possible in full,
but the reward they receive only half of the given algorithm.
The remaining part is not spent by the author.
"expert archive" - only the author has access to the section.
All deleted work, you need to move to the archive, still it is the property of the author.
Process description.
Preliminary section " question to expert"
Description:
- The user asks the experts a question (limit of 100 characters).
- Selects tags from the proposed standard options.
- Experts with the help of filters choose their questions.
It is necessary to arrange that questions are automatically sent to the expert Advisor on the settings and topics that he chose.
If he has enabled this feature.
- The expert gives an answer to the user's question (limit of 1000 characters).
You can of course make 2000 characters in instsgram to facilitate the work of experts,
But this first lowers competition among experts,
secondly, the service where you have to spend 10 minutes to read each article,
It will become obsolete in 5 years, and in 5 years even the knowledge base will not have time to gather,
In General, he will die before his maturity.
- Other experts give their answers to the same question.
- At this stage, it is important to connect an additional mechanism,
which will prohibit the placement of similar text.
The mechanism should check the new texts against those in the main AIS section,
that is, with texts that have reached maturity, for which a reward has been paid.
If the text matches more than 50%, the work should be blocked.
This is perhaps the most important service mechanism,
it will protect AIS database from spam.
Otherwise, the attacker will be able to get each time a new reward for copies of existing works!
It is very important not to make such a mistake!
- All answers are sent to the user who asked the question.
- The user is forced to select the finger up or finger down,
until it makes a selection, access to the AIS and pre-partition will be closed for it.
That's significant. This is the only effective way to assign weight to the work.
But only for those works, which he opened.
It will be incorrect and undesirable for the service to force the user to evaluate the works that he has ignored.
Importantly:
The user should see the weight of the expert Advisor in the title of the work,
otherwise, the advantage will not be those experts who ensure the quality of information,
on the contrary, those who answer many questions very quickly and provide quantity.
Let me remind you that the key to success is that the number should be ignored and priority should be given to authors with high rank and weight.
- After user evaluation, the answer goes to the main section"AIS".
From the moment of transition of work in AIS, the countdown of maturity begins, and only here the critic will have access to the work.
- Answers ignored by the user are returned to the experts.
Answers that got a finger down, just go to the AIS section,
On here is with them criticism will be dealt with,
it is impossible to decide the fate of the work on the basis of the assessment of one person.
Critics, since they are also users, will have to set the weight of the work, with a finger up or down.
If maturity occurs, and the work will remain with a negative weight, of course she has to go back to the author.
Work with a negative weight in the AIS is not the place.
Importantly:
After maturity, users can also evaluate the work, but can not change its status.
These estimates are necessary for developers at the first stage.
If a lot of low-quality work falls into the AIS, here you need to edit the algorithm of competition expert and criticism.
After fully debugging the competition mechanism, developers should disable the ability to control AIS.
The tonnage of the quality of information (TQI) & user weight (UW)
To assess the weight of the user is offered the formula:
userUW= Nebulas Rank (NR)*number of Mature jobs in the main AIS section
expertUW= Nebulas Rank (NR)*number of Mature jobs in the main AIS section
criticUW= Nebulas Rank (NR)*number of Mature works included in the main AIS section marked with the marker " Coauthorship"
That is, we do not encourage criticism to remove the work, and encourage him to co-author with an expert,
although if its weight is high enough, you might just want to delete works.
Since the expert Advisor is controlled by user and critical, and criticism is not controlled by anyone,
it is important to criticize the harsh working conditions and to make higher demands on it.
This formula of weight gain criticism gives the system control over the quality of its work,
and prevent the misuse of its status from critics.
To assess the job weight offer formula:
TQI=userUW+expertUW*UR
UR (user rating) - calculated by the formula:
UR= from the sum of NR of all fingers up (NR1+NR2+NR3+NRx, ) subtract the sum of NR of all fingers down ( NR1+NR2+NRx)
( UR - attached after the occurrence of a maturity of work in the formula is not considered )
The author assumes that the payment which is capable to become an incentive for the expert 1 AIS token for each answer.
There is no need to conduct ICO and set the starting price of the token,
over time, employees themselves will appreciate their work and with increasing competition among employees,
and as the knowledge base accumulates, it will become increasingly difficult to mine tokens,
this will increase their value and capitalization in the future.
This fact is enough for the most intelligent and far-sighted people to start filling the knowledge base even then,
when the value of the token is still zero. Especially in such an important matter for humanity there are enthusiasts.
I believe that the nebulas campaign team should develop AIS on their own.
After all, this is a very important part of the ecosystem, thanks to which the cost of the Nebulas project as a whole will grow much faster.
And the team already has enough interest in development, additional stimulation is not necessary for developers.
Moreover, the author himself described 90% of the algorithm of the service.
Career ladder
( The main tool of motivation to work )
The author analyzed the behavior of the cryptocurrency market, and therefore has full confidence in the following information:
The bottom of the cryptocurrency market will come around 2019.01.07
The next bottom will come about 2023.01.01 and it will be the last significant bottom,
After that, the adoption of cryptocurrencies in the world will come and the scenario of price fluctuations for more stable but moderate growth will change.
The author tried to use these data in the preparation of the service career ladder.
The author also believes that this motivation is enough to complete the main volume of AIS writing in 5 years.
Schedule of changes in the cost of work:
1 AIS-from 2020.01.01
0.8 AIS-from 2021.01.01
0.6 AIS-from 2022.01.01
0.4 AIS-from 2023.01.01
0.2 AIS-from 2024.01.01
0.1 AIS-from 2025.01.01
Next-0.1 AIS.
The essence is the same as bitcoin, but with faster catalysis.
Result
The service will allow experienced people to adequately monetize their intelligence.
Nebulus will receive and store accurate information,
designed for 95% of Internet users.
The world will become much better if lies disappear and the truth accessible and clear to any person will come to its place.
Even a person with a very low level of intelligence who does not like to read, will be able to gradually improve!
The author is willing to sell the copyright on this idea for 100 AIS, (about 1 AIS=$1)
subject to acceptance of the proposed Career ladder.
And guarantees that no one else will get free tokens except the author of the idea.
varan.ru@gmail.comCitation of the text without reference to the author is prohibited
A. A. Artemov, 2018.12.07. All rights reserved
