This is on a different author. Authors vary because they have different followers and voters. Some authors have very aggressive voters. Some don't.
We can see though that at least for this author a 3m vote at 90% yielded less than a 3% vote a 3m15s. The 15s later vote got better curation returns than the earlier vote at 90%. My luck here actually looks pretty marginal since all the values are near/around 30%.
I only have one vote at 90%, so I still need more data.
Try it with 11, 100% Up-Votes per Day, for a Week and I believe you'll see a Very Big Difference...
July 11, 2021... 7.5 Hollywood Time...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would need more data. Would need to be for a month. I think you're saying a week because of the week payout, but that's not really that important in data gathering. We just need variety of circumstances. I just need more data points over a significant period of time with enough randomness that I can build actual results from.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There. Approx 1 week's worth of 100% upvotes. Only 15% returns. It's actually pretty lousy. I feel like 1 week of 100% upvotes really isn't a good test though. It doesn't seem like a good way to gather data. I just just go back over my votes for the last several months and build a data set from that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit