You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Flag, The Down Vote... my semi-frequent update to this idea... hopefully those in favor of the downvote read it
I view down vote as up voting everyone else, but the downvoted item, just more efficient. Every upvote implicitly reduces rewards of everyone else.
What if everyone viewed the flags (that's what they're called on the site) this way? What if, instead of every post having something like 100 upvotes, they had 50 upvotes and 50 flags? What purpose would that serve? Instead of flagging content that you don't like, why not just upvote the things you do like, as curation was intended?
The system calls it a "flag" and it's treated as some form of abuse. That's how users see it. The code treats upvotes as a reward for the content, while it sees a flag as a punishment to reputation and the removal of rewards. I don't see how either of the latter options are a good thing. What is the actual benefit of flagging when it's based on content preferences?
"To redistribute rewards," is the common response. But as @dwinblood points out - why do you feel that the rewards that were allocated by other stakeholders to certain users ought to be redistributed to others rather than voting for those other users yourself with your own stake? Or do you think it would be right to flag one post because you don't like the potential payout, then also upvote other content that you do like and think deserves more rewards?
I just don't see the efficiency of everyone flagging posts that they don't like as a way to allocate rewards to posts that they do like. The upvote is more than capable of taking care of stake-weighted rewards allocation, isn't it?
The best example I can give to the conundrum Dan has to face on solving this. Your sock puppets you found. They are the perfect example of how it can be gamed. So what programmatic thing could answer that without having other potential negative ramifications.
It is a tough problem. I am just glad to see he agrees, he simply doesn't know how to do it yet. So with time maybe we can all solve that problem.
Well, it seems to be one of those things that's exacerbated because of the fairly small number of users and the skewed distribution of stake right now. If this was a platform six months or a year into the future with 100,000+ active daily, or even weekly users, would those things even make a difference? If distribution of STEEM Power was more like 5000 users holding the top 20%, would we still have to worry about gaming and collusion like that? I can't imagine it would be as big of a deal as it would be in the current environment.
I believe it will always be a potential problem. Especially for new users. They are the ones that can get swatted like a fly. I HOPE that it would get better.
We also have pretty smart users. What happens when some wealthy SJWs join, and swat anyone that triggers them, and swat all of that person's posts.
I think it could get worse if we get bigger, because we'll likely attract a lot different type of people.
But if it's upvote only, they couldn't do that. That's what I was talking about in my comment above.
Sure. Yet in an up vote only situation how would we stop sock puppets from getting most of the steem power votes, powering up themselves, and then voting on even more sock puppets? You could quickly have a concentration of power with no real way to tame it.
It sounds like Dan is in favor of up vote only if a way can be devised that is resistant to quickly being gamed.
Yeah, I knew that every up vote implicitly reduces the rewards. I don't know your actual algorithm, but I assume you're essentially taking the TOTAL STEEM POWER across all posts at a given time snapshot and then determining the percentage of that total each post has, and then awarding the percentage of the reward pool based upon that.
This is me guessing. If that is not the case then let me know as a different arrangement would likely change my view.
There is a difference here though. We all understand potential payout so if we are up voting it will adjust the price across the platform. It does not target and selectively cancel out specific people, topics, etc.
The down vote does that. If there are people interested in a niche topic and it is not spam, abuse, or plagiarism then a down vote by someone that doesn't like that topic could KILL any potential to earn by people that do like that topic. Since it is niche that is likely a very small reward, but it is still something.
Also I DO trust you and Ned. I know you've seen my other posts on this. I've been occasionally vocal about it. I am still looking for a really compelling reason for a down vote beyond spam, plagiarism, and abuse and I just don't get it.
I do not see how disinterest or someone else subjectively thinking something someone else is interested in is not worth that much is relevant.
I did see some people gaming the system and consistently up voting sock puppet accounts. I also realize that down votes ended up being the only way to combat that. (combat) Could that be considered abuse? That's dancing a fine line. I've considered that is a case beyond plagiarism, spam, and abuse that it makes sense. It'd need to be proven I think.
And yes this is no EASY PROBLEM. I'm not expecting you to hit the red "It's Easy" button and fix things.
Thanks for your response.
Without power to cut the bad, the good gets lost.
Eventually people will realize that if they all upvote one thing and then split rewards proportionally that they can capture rewards for nothing.
You are not thinking like an attacker attempting to get something for nothing.
True I am not thinking as someone trying to game the system. There has to be another way. Yet it is definitely NOT an easy problem.
I want an upvote only system, but have yet to identify an ungameable approach.
It's good to see you write that. What is it specifically that isn't preventable? Is it just the collusion aspect of it?
Well I will keep thinking and share if I think of anything. It definitely is a tricky situation. I think it is doable, but I don't think it will be simple. It definitely will require some out of the box thinking to get there.
Also, I don't know an algorithmic way of doing this yet. So all I really have is the occasional attempt to REASON with those that are powerful and seem to be subjective in their wielding of the steem powered sword. Perhaps I can get through to them. I don't LIKE writing these posts. It seems like I write one about once a month. It is usually in reaction to seeing people hammered by someone, or seeing a particularly moving post by someone else that was impacted.
Tonight was inspired by Mr. Wang's post. He was not my only inspiration, he was just the tipping point.
So if you see my every month or so post... that would likely be my goal. Sway some minds via words and persuasion.
Until you, I, or some unknown genius provides us with a workable programmatic approach.
An upvote only system would be very unifying and good for community morale, nice to know you are thinking along those lines.
IMO this might be impossible to have system which will maximize happiness of voter with upvote system only.
Do you know STV system?
This shows, that people need to have a way of saying that if their choice "not win", then they prefer seeing 3 other things before seeing particular X as a winner.