RE: Would some random votes improve the ecosystem?
Coincidentally, I recently learned that Ed McMahon never actually worked for Publisher's Clearing House (PCH). But, while I was reading about that, I was also wondering about how the PCH Sweepstakes model might be applied to Steem.
I was thinking about it as a method for generating, "Proof of Attention" (for lack of a better term. Other forms of "Proof of Attention" are the German community's Scrabble/Wordel games and @the-gorilla's quizzes.)
In this version, the large stakeholder might randomly reply to a post with a remark like, "You have been selected for a random upvote Sweepstakes. If you would like to participate, reply to this comment within 60 minutes.". Some sort of verification like a numeric code in an image or a captcha link could be added in order to make it harder for auto-responders.
Then, one of the replies would be randomly selected for an upvote. The idea is to prove and reward human attention.
I think that would get a response, but in the abstract I think adding energy from that direction would encourage more wait around type behavior. I think we need more authentic, organic, agentic behavior for the ecosystem to be healthy (which is really hard to engineer, of course, it's much easier to incentivize straightforward patterns).
0.00 SBD,
0.00 STEEM,
0.76 SP
If I were a website operator, I might do it with custom_json notifications, and a countdown timer in the web page. The "wait around" behavior would still translate to larger audience sizes for authors, and by making the website stickier, it might increase engagement too.
I'm not hung-up on any specific solution, though.
The main point is that there is a variety of ways to inject randomness, so I agree that experimentation would probably be useful.
Your comment has been supported by THE PROFESSIONAL TEAM. We support quality posts, Original quality comments anywhere, and any tags
Thank you, @sduttaskitchen.