First of all, I haven't found a way to do this. Voting Power and vote weight are two different things entirely.
The first is the vote you can give out, depending on the stake you have, and the second one is how valuable your vote is, as determined by the percentage of vote you have at your disposal.
So maybe before you finish reading this post, you might have discovered an intuitive way to maintain yours. In recent times keeping my voting power above 85% for more than 24 hours has been impossible.
The earliest tactic I employed to combat this was reducing the percentage of vote I offered the users in my auto vote, this worked for a while, but with the influx of new users what I do is to spread the remaining percentage to the new users.
This means that I've spent the voting parentage I should have reserved which has unknowingly brought back the problem to the surface again
The second tactic was sticking to a certain measurement of vote. There are authors I offer 25%, some 30%, and 50 to 80% for others.
I maintained whole numbers to make my calculation simpler. But then, I maintained stability for some sometimes, and after a while, I began to offer votes in odd numbers, because I always have a problem with ascertaining what's quality, especially when I didn't want to go too high or go too low.
There are unusual scenarios when I go on a rampage of manual curation, and forget that I'm targeting a certain number as the limit for curation whether it's automated or manual.
Firstly I set 70% as the voting limit.
When I hit this Mark, I stop my auto and manual curation for over 12 hours or more. Hoping I could get back to that 80% range, but the problem with waiting till I hit 70% is that I end up slipping to 68 or 69% especially when I do a last-ditch vote that I deem necessary.
So I changed it to 78% immediately, so when my voting power hits 78% I stopped my auto and just ease a bit on manual curation.
The only way I manually curate at 78% is if the post was really good, or the engagement was really nice, or maybe it's been a while since the author posted. This makes me compromise and choose to give a manual vote even at 78%.
Author's behavior sometimes acts as a cushion
...and while this is a good thing, it mostly destabilizes my voting habit and forces me to lose control.
Now, it's a great thing when the author/user decides to change their posting or content habits, it often shifts or tilts voting behavior to some certain level of change, especially in manual curation.
This is healthy for the chain and creates the need for change however, I always end up failing to hit my target of getting to 90% voting power. In fact, in over one year, I've not had my voting power at 90% and sometimes I think this isn't healthy.
Nevertheless, I don't think there's any metric to measure the health of one's voting power.
It's believed that above 90% is the magic figure
A lot of curators like to maintain their vote weight by staying above 90% but that's because even 7% of their weight is substantial, big enough to give a voting depth that would represent the curator's opinion on the content.
Whether it's "fair, good, very good, excellent" or "wow". But having a small stake sometimes makes it difficult for a stake owner to truly reflect their thoughts.
For example, a manual downvoter or a manual upvoter are always having reflective reasons as to why they do what they do.
A Vindictive User
Sometimes a vindictive downvoter gives 100% and even employs the stake of others who might or might not agree with his reasons for downvotes, but then, this is the downside of being an absent curator, when you're absent, a vindictive person might use your stake to enact their nefarious agenda.
This is the same with upvotes. But the main reason why I'm using this as a vivid example is that. Having a good stake can reflect the true thoughts of a person behind a slider.
However, this isn't the case with having a small stake. It's just like when a 5k HP account is voting and a 100k HP account is, the difference is huge, and having the latter truly reflects who a curator is.
The Curation Game
The depth in vote weight would mean that the latter would have the luxury of keeping their voting power above 90% even if the handler of the two accounts are over-curators.
We cannot deny that curation is a beautiful game, it's easy to get caught up in the razzmatazz of choosing what to curate when to curate, and the percentage of vote percent that you're going to allocate.
What I've discovered is that being constant on the chain can help one maintain a very healthy APR. I average 9.15 APR according to hivestats.io and the reason why I don't really care about it is that I care more about curating than maximizing the returns.
Interested in some more of my works?
Reviewing A $400 Samsung Galaxy A72 (photos Included)
Hive's Scalability & The Compromise Of Commitments
Money: The Consequences Of Making The Right & Wrong Decisions
The Nigerian Economy: Monopolizing Incompetence
The Experiential Process of Understanding Money
A Case Of Theft On Hive: Here's Why Some People Choose Scam.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta