The comments we considered for the monthly results are the feedback that delegates gave during that particular month. In this case, only the feedback you gave during December will be reviewed. The ‘Presence in Discussion’ parameter doesn’t determine if a comment is taken into consideration or not.
We’ve been discussing this internally and based on this feedback, we’ll execute some changes:
We noticed that there were proposals included month by month, with little activity, which was detrimental to the majority of delegates who did not participate IN THAT MONTH (because the denominator of proposals contemplated increased, and this decreased the participation score of the delegates).
We decided to implement a change from January in which we will consider the comments of the delegates in the discussions with little interaction (less than 5 comments) but we will not consider these discussions in the total discussions parameter of the month. In this way, we record the comments of the delegates, and at the same time, we do not harm the others whose scores would be drastically lowered.
Although there are several of your comments in this thread, none of them are individually good enough to score to the Delegates’ Feedback. This is based on the fact that, despite you have asked the proposer some questions, we do not believe they were sufficiently relevant to contribute to the scoring.
This was not the case, for example, in The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO's Grant Misuse Bounty Program - #5 by Larva where you provided a valuable approach of reporting management.
On the other hand, comments marked as valid but scored with zero are those the program administrator deems irrelevant to the discussion. This negatively impacts the scoring. The goal is to discourage spammy, repetitive, or shallow comments like those generated using AI tools.
In this case, our original intention was to mark this series of comments as invalid and to score this other comment (originally marked as invalid) as 0 where the proposer is wrongly suggested to apply for a grant program that is no longer available.
So after making the adjustments, the score will remain unchanged. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency.
Finally, we would like to remind all delegates that while a comment may have good “timing” and “clarity,” the merit of feedback lies in its relevance and reasoning. To improve scores, we recommend:
- Take the necessary time to provide feedback. A 1–2 day extra delay won’t heavily impact timing.
- Thoroughly review the discussions and follow subsequent feedback. Paying attention to details and fully understanding the proposal will help ensure your comment is relevant and avoids repetition.
- Focus on proposals where you can genuinely add value. This is crucial. The changes to the DIP aim to avoid “commenting for the sake of commenting.” Rather than discouraging participation, the goal is to promote thoughtful and organic involvement.
- Avoid using ChatGPT to “reason.” While we have no issue with its use for grammar corrections or translations, using it to generate feedback is discouraged.