so i know i am going to get beat up on this, and downvoted, and just start an all around shit storm but i have to ask. Aren't they supposed to spread the love. When i went and looked at their outgoing votes last night steemotion had over 300 votes (sorry i did not take a screen shot) from them in the last 7 days. This morning when i just now checked it had rolled over to him having 41 votes right now
So in the name of being educated on a subject can someone inform me of why this would happen. sorry if this comes off as me being a dick, i am not trying to be. I am just a numbers guy and those numbers seem off.
[EDIT] April 10th, 2018 10:56pm UTCHey @doomsdaychassis thanks again for bringing this to our attention. You appear to have spotted some scamming going on that received support from Curie through a curation trail we followed. I am actively investigating to shut it down ASAP. Thanks for your service to the community! Cheers - Carl
[/EDIT]Hi @doomsdaychassis, So first I noticed that you had this sorted by count. These are TINY % votes, and they are coming from the @curie vote trailing a sub-community's curation team. Curie supports a number of interest and regional specific sub-community curation teams with a vote follow at a very small vote %. The most famous of these sub-communities is probably #steemstem but the entire list of sub-communities that Curie supports is published every Sunday in the "Weekly Update" on the @curie blog. Each sub-community has its own guidelines and is an independent operation (to be clear, a sub-community is not Curie, the curation is not done by Curie curators, etc.). Because of the number of these sub-communities that Curie supports, and the tiny vote % for each vote that Curie casts following the trail of the sub-community curators, sorting by vote count is beyond pointless. If you go check the @steemotion blog, you will see that these are TINY votes. E.g. in past day that account received 8 Curie votes, but the SUM TOTAL of pending payout on all 8 posts is < $3! I can't tell at a glance which sub-community this author is receiving support from, but it is obviously not a big deal in any case. The Curie vote is at such low % that the Curie vote and trail isn't even showing up in most of these posts among the list of top voters because the votes are coming in at such negligible %. The majority of the (small in the first place) payout on @steemotion's posts upvoted by Curie is not actually coming from the @curie vote and trail.
The website you are using is really not very useful at all for an account like Curie that makes a TON of votes, as the website limits results to top 250; sorting by weight is slightly more useful here (and you will see that @steemotion drops off the list if sorted by weight), but the TOP vote receiver by weight only received .61% of the Curie outgoing vote weight in the time period. A much more useful website is http://steemreports.com which will allow you to see ALL votes. Here is last 2 weeks outgoing votes from @curie:
Then why even trail the a sub-communities' curation teams? If the impact and reward is so small? I see this in different places, where one vote leads a large number of tiny, tiny upvotes. In reading about HF20, those tiny votes will just become 'dust' and be sent to null anyway. I've wondered about this for awhile, so thanks for your comment that explains part of what's going on.
The short answer is that Curie sets the follow % for the vote trail, and then it is up to the sub-community curation teams how they use their votes. Some sub-communities e.g. #steemstem are much more conscientious in parsing out their vote power, giving large enough % votes that the Curie follow vote is still meaningful. Other sub-communities have decided to spread their vote % out far and wide; the mechanics of a trailing vote necessarily mean that if you are trailing a vote at a reduced %, and the original vote is actually cast at a low % to begin with, the trailing vote is going to be tiny. The bigger point here is that each sub-community's operations are independent from Curie. Curie has set the cap for total vote % of the follow, but the sub-communities have freedom to determine how to best use it. Some of decided to opt for spreading it out to a very large # of recipients, even if that means the reward going out to each is quite small.
Thanks for the explanation.
so this guy is just gaming the vote by posting a stolen pic with one sentence under it stating that the rights belong to the photographer with out even bothering with a source?
Ah, digging farther it looks like Curie has already removed support from that author. If you visit steemd.com/@steemotion you can see that the Curie upvote (small as it was to begin with, and coming from sub-community follow, and not part of normal curie operations), has been unvoted from his posting still in payout.
how recently? because as I stated earlier he had over 300 votes from them last night if memory serves me right. I was just sitting there drinking a beer thinking " how is this mother F'er getting over a vote a day from them? " I hope they go through and check everything going on internally because as everyone knows they just droped out of the top 20 witnesses and if they keep letting this stuff slide they will keep going down. People are getting tired of the reward pool abusers and unfortunatly I think curie is aiding a lot of these abusers that have found a way to game the system while noone is looking.
Looks like votes were removed 22 hours ago. it is not possible to review and police every vote going out from the sub-communities that Curie supports; on the other hand, every large vote that curie casts as part of actual Curie operations is human reviewed twice, first by a Curie curator, and then by a Curie reviewer. I can tell you that very few, if any, accounts that are giving out large rewards in the form of upvotes have two humans reviewing each post before a large upvote goes out.
The sub-community upvotes on the other hand are not large, and are not a part of Curie curator/reviewer operations. You understand what a vote trail is right? I didn't explain that previously as I assumed it was self-explanatory, but perhaps I should have explained. When I say that the Curie vote follows the vote trail of the sub-community curation teams, that means the sub-community is the one reviewing the post and deciding to upvote it (not Curie!). Curie is supporting those sub-communities' curation efforts with a "vote trail" which means that the Curie vote will automatically be cast behind the vote of the sub-community curation team, at a reduced % of the original vote strength cast by the sub-community. We are talking very small votes there; while the total number of votes that Curie casts through sub-communities is large, as a % of total curie outgoing vote weight they are small. The votes cast by @curie after a post has been submitted by a Curie curator and reviewed by a Curie reviewer, on the other hand, are large.
As noted previously, the sub-community curation teams are not a part of Curie. Curie follows their vote trail at a small %. There are hundreds and hundreds of votes cast daily by the sub-community curation teams that Curie supports. It is not possible to review every one of these votes - the majority of the Curie votes coming in behind a sub-community curation team are < $5 votes, and most are FAR smaller than that. Curie is already running at a deficit maintaining manual review of every large vote that Curie casts through Curie curators / reviewers - it takes time to review posts. Curie lists the sub-communities and lists the Steem usernames of each sub-community's leaders on the @curie blog's weekly update - this is done precisely so that if there is an issue with a sub-community votes, it can be taken up directly with the sub-community. If an author being supported by a sub-community turns out to be plagiarizer/scammer, Curie will of course remove the upvotes (as happened here).
yes i understand a vote trail. On that note should the higher ups of curie review who they are trailing? How often do they review these things? It is tax time here in the USA so maybe it is time for curie to audit themselves on some internal level of what is going on. I realize they are huge and it will take some effort but they are going to have to sometime or else they will become a feeding trough for scammer piglets.
edit: it seems like we are trying to say the same thing except i am more pissed about what is going on here.
Well for one thing, the votes had been removed 16 hours before your comment here - so obviously it had already been caught and corrected. Two of the founders of Curie, as "high up" as there are in Curie operations, are @donkeypong and @kevinwong and they have actually removed themselves mostly from "regular" Curie activites and have dedicated their time to supporting and monitoring the sub-community teams (@donkeypong supporting/monitoring the regional specific sub-communities that receive Curie support; and @kevinwong supporting/monitoring the interest-specific sub-communities that receive Curie support). So yes, Curie higher ups are already doing exactly as you suggest.
Listen it isn't like I am not angry when a plagiarizer or spammer gets a reward. But I also have the big picture of Curie operations in mind. In past two weeks, 1729 votes outgoing from @curie and 1679 of those were to unique authors. That is 97%. The remaining 3% of authors that received multiple upvotes from @curie during that time period were largely from the sub-communities, and certainly it is not the case that all or even many of those were given to spammers/scammers/plagiarizers. The Curie vote record stands up to close inspection, and indeed, more so than any other major account I can think of. I would be interested to see what account you think is doing a better job than Curie in ensuring that outgoing votes are both spread out to a broad number of authors, and has instituted manual review of EVERY post that receives a large upvote.
it is a good start. how about going down to number 6 on the list. his name is gee-world and ironicly he is drawing a curie vote for a series of very very short posts named ............... the smart but lazy man................ i got a good laugh out of that one
i would downvote it but that is worth more than my entire vote. Maybe they should just hire me on to hunt these pricks down. Do they have any job openings for headhunters?
Glad I could be of assistance. Thank you for hearing me out.
I was going to say it would probably be a person that was curied and was designated as a person that would receive a small curie community upvote to keep the person engaged yet when I looked at the content of the account well I have some questions as well.
Given the amount is really small but a vote to that account and 7 votes in one day does make me scratch my head.
I think it is a perfectly normal question
https://steemit.com/colorchallenge/@steemotion/colorchallenge-fridayblue-skull-0cc57d545d483
this is a 1 sentence post saying the photo isn't his and curie upvoted it. all of his posts are trash
this is pissing me off now that i dig deeper. they just lost my witness vote that i had for them
I still believe in what Curie does and by bringing this to light they can make steps to investigate their trail on a community vote.
I will still retain my vote to curie and the witnesses that support them.
i can respect that. Another poster pointed out that @curie is now going back and taking their votes away from that poster. If they review what they are doing and i can check in and see for myself i will vote for them again. I am just tired of people abusing the system around here. I believe in steemit and I delegate some of my limited steempower to @newbieresteemday because i believe they are here to do good. It makes me mad when i see curie resources and votes going to trash that could be going to newbies that are pouring their hearts and souls into their posts for absolutely nothing because some A hole figured out how to get daily vote by using a certain tag or something.
I saw that Carl answered you on this and it was good that you pointed it out.
Small community votes and trails would not be as scrutinized as their bigger votes.
Even in our local community, I have a few trails and when I saw that mine was being abused I removed myself from that trail.
That is what we need in a decentralized platform for people to care and question how things are done. We need people to be accountable for and know the power they hold when giving out votes that have trails.
Interesting. I think it’s a perfectly valid question to ask. Why is one account getting six votes per day? And the second on the list is getting three per day?
you can go to steem world and the top 250 register for the last 7 day. if i scroll clear down to number 250 that guy has recieved 3 votes in the last 7 days. Just saying
Hi @ats-david. You were mentioned by @apolymask as a witness our team should keep an eye on. I will definitely do so seeing that you are engaging in here!
See my detailed reply above :)
Hey @doomsdaychassis. We run into each other here of all places. I just found out today that @curie has supported some of the same authors 10+ times. I thought they spread their upvotes around and only shared 2-3 upvotes per author, but then again, I'm still learning about curie and witnesses myself. Interesting point there!
Edited: I looked up steemotion with the curie bot, the upvotes are from community support. Meaning this account has received a total of 93 upvotes for curie community support, but the upvote value is minimal, in the 0.36% range.
You should check out Asher's (@abh12345) curie post. There are accounts there that have received 10+ upvotes from curie and they don't even support curie as a witness! (Not saying that is a requirement for curie support)
yeah, i feel like even making this post just put a huge target on my back but that is the story of my life. I hope bringing this to light motivates them to do what they were meant to be rather than keeping down this new path of circle jerking the same people. This could be the very reason that they got dropped out of the top 20. Maybe curie needs to do an internal review of what is going on and what needs to be fixed.
An internal review would be for curie to decide. I have seen some of the same authors receive curie support, and seeing Asher's post, I know many of the same authors receive curie support. Some are small community support so I agree those could be ruled out. They are there to encourage budding talent. Some though are big curie upvotes supporting the same individuals.
I thought it an interesting read that many of them are not even supporting curie as a witness!
i stopped over and stirred the pot a bit. lets see how things shake out :)
I'll stop over to read your boiling witch brew later, lol. I have to get back to work. I don't make enough (any) on steemit to lose my day job.
thank you @ats-david and @maverickinvictus for seeing what i am seeing. It is nice to have someone higher up the food chain agreeing with me. I thought for sure i was going to get downvoted to hell and back for this one. you might stop by this post about curie delegation and see if anyone finds a diffrent point of view or reasoning on why this is happening. Maybe one of you gentleman could go upvote my post and bump it up tot he top, it is lost in the mix right now with my tiny $.12 vote. thanks