This seems like a good place where I can expose that @grumpycat is actually using the reward pool and intentions to fix it as a shield to do mischief with the reward pool.
@Grumpycat Uses 6th Day Voting Bots
Let's analyze @grumpycat History
These are 13 days old, but at the time they were 6th day voting bots and @grumpycat was actively using them.
@grumpycat abuses the award pool with round-robin and self-votes
Many of @grumpycat votes are just voting for @checkthisout useless posts. @checkthisout then votes back. They're all the same person.
This is 2 kinds of abuse on the award pool by the same account and people are in love with this guy. The injustice cannot continue.
Trying to read all said on the subject, @grumpycat has got a point.
Proof of brain is the keyword here.
As I said, I support his cause but I object to the blind bully methods he is using. Just carefully selecting targets would justify his fight and he will find support.
FD.
Agreed. The voting bots are spamming up the system, but blind downvoting doesn't help. Something smarter is needed, especially if the abusers have 20x more SP than those trying to fix the system. People need to get organized, on something like Busy. And deal with the spammy bots, perhaps by organized upvoting, which also redistributes just as well. No?
I think what you propose would lead us to some kind of a moderated system.
We can have and we have in steemit such systems, best example utopian.io.
Personally, I believe in freedom. If a person wants to share just one picture with a word he should be able to do it.
I am also tired of spam, mostly promoted spam but I can not figure out a solution without touching the freedom that makes steemit a great place.
I want to see steemit for everybody, not only for some intellectual elite because everybody has a story to tell and I am happy to read these stories.
If the price of this is some spam, let there be spam...but what must be prevented is abuse and promoted spam.
FD.
Oh, I basically agree, regarding freedom. I, too, like Rothbard.
(I actually think Utopian has too much moderation. Too much in the sense that, paradoxically, using that platform for open ended MIT media lab sort of projects, say to implement a formally specified algorithm with Steemit participants is not currently supported by Utopian, while making a logo or a bot or solving a bug is supported. Due to the specific wording of the moderation rules ... oh, well.)
...
Rather, what I suspect we need is a loose organization involving a threshold couple percent of the user base that stubbornly only upvotes high quality content. And coordinates timing. Merely in addition to Steem as it currently does exist. Basically, it involves using renormalization for something positive for once..
What do you think?
Moderation, which restricts freedom, actually won't even work, and I am not suggesting it. We need organization, which is something more general. They are not binary. (0 1) is neither greater nor less than nor equal to (1 0). There are also the options (0 2), (1 3), etc.
It simply exceeds the budget (including time) for the majority of users of the platform to search the platform for quality content. If a search costs 1000000, to review even 1 percent of the posts, and the user has 100, then even if they use 100% of their budget to search for quality content that is not trending, and a search that finds quality content that is not trending requires 5 percent of the posts searched, then most of the time any investment in search is wasted. Users don't search much. This leads to positioning rather than search. King.com spends 100 million promoting games that costs 150 thousand to make each. If almost all budget goes into promotion, then quality is almost never achieved.
Moderation involves 100000 users banding together, giving 50 each to moderators in the organization, to search for them while they do other things and give above threshold results.
This however fails, too. Why? Simply because moderators delegated to in any such organization can promote whatever they like, in the end of the day. Which is not necessarily the best, or even good. It's not like users, who delegate to them, can do any better, or even check what is going on for the same reason that most individual searches are below threshold. Such moderation typically opens up users to instability of outcomes and risk. Freedom and decentralization is needed for quality. It's the only system where any possibility of recourse or feedback exists. Agreed.
Users themselves must curate, but a critical number of them must do so with timing organized. Otherwise vote buying will always outbid them. 50 votes in 1 minute are not the same as 50 votes over 2 days, when collusion and vote buying are in the mix, and users cannot search and positioning, not search decides what most users have access to. When amidst the hugger mugger of collusion and vote buying and worse, flagging wars, the same 50 honest votes whose timing is off have no effect, except where they are by sheer coincidence arriving at near the same time. Which is too infrequent.
Curation is currently too weak. Microeconomic in effect without macroeconomic effect. Perhaps we need to improve organization of timing of existing curation, that's all. Not implement moderation or restrict freedom, yes, even to spam, in any way.
As it is, I had trouble finding even that your (200 points) post in all the soup! Two days went by! Out of seven! Do you see what I mean?
Very vice words @tibra.
I would not agree more on your "treshold quantity of users" to trigger improvement of quality content.
Current curation method in steemit is "follow the money" instead of "follow the content" and it is assumed that money should follow the content but it does not thanks to purchased upvotes.
Search of good quality (this is also a relative subject)will always be outnumbered by earning money.
Any attempt of curation will be too weak according to this factor.
There are good curation attempts like @sneakyninja who pays 1 SBD directly to the curator for undervalued posts.link to @sneakyninja
What he is doing is awesome and should be supported.
Guess more curators like him is increased, people search for good undervalued content and get paid for finding them.
( I am not sure I know how the economy works on this...)
This may be a good solution.
It is good that you have found my post...
FD.
It's good that you posted. (And that @grumpycat resteemed and it was read widely enough.) You pointed out the problem and took steps to solve it, by declaring what you consider strictly unacceptable.
As mentioned, a small but unbudging minority of a few percent ends up deciding what the majority does, thanks to asymmetries, costs of nonstandardization, etc.
Many people agree, but until a few reveal clear stances most are is unsure about that. So everybody takes a wait-for-others-to-do-something approach. And the others take a wait-for-others-to-do-something approach. They are unsure whether anybody agrees with them. So nobody does anything. Everybody waits for everybody else. Yeah, they go far like that. All that until a small minority begins to speak, clearly, about their stances. (This is why anybody who wants to prevent change suppresses freedom of speech.)
Furthermore, people are more likely to do what they believe, if they or somebody else says it. People are shy, and afraid of others finding out what they think. Predictable means vulnerable. What they think is revealed both in their communication and behavior. If they or somebody publicly declares a thought, they are more likely to do what they already believe, even though they believe it no more or no less than before. Rather, because everyone already knows what they think, or other people reveal they agree with what they think, they see no additional harm in behaving honestly according to what they think. Which is what is needed!
I will further look into @sneakyninja. Looks good.
Basically, nobody, including the contributers of upvote proposals, can perform an above threshold search. Each one samples more or less randomly for ten or twenty minutes and what they get is as good as anything they find in an hour or two or three. They start looking in different places.
The Daily Sneak seems like a good project.
By having many individuals sample the stream of content and submit individual upvote proposals, the variation in which content is seen and evaluated is much larger. In this case, it's that of the sum of as many random variables as curators, not just of one. And it's multiplied by a constant, which is larger as the diversity of categories and accounts where different contributers start looking is greater. How much that translates to a higher probability of finding quality content, I would have to think about some more. It depends on how quality content is distributed, clumped on Steemit. Which is an unknown factor. The less clumped, the more probable it is for sneakyninja to upvote quality content missed by most users. If he's having some success, it's probably not too clumped at the moment. The fact that voting is then done by a larger account, an all at once bump, is good.
Maybe a hundred Daily Sneaks, operating uncorrelated, then comparing approved proposals, before voting around the same time, is going to be good enough for higher quality to appear to regular users. That will bring more people in, and with more people seeing quality content, more expensive to spam unlimited.
No, what he is doing is NOT good for the platform, or good for anyone. How is this
good for anyone other than grumpy cat making out like a bandit? selfvoting to 163 dollars a bullshit comment of "Rubbing it in"? This is more harmful to the platform than any of the spam posts he is downvoting.
We will all keep an eye...
I doubt @grumpycat used randowhale to downvote himself, that doesn't make much sense..
No. That's @randowhale doing the right thing to stop the reward pool abuse. Sure @grumpycat gets downvotes, but it's not enough. The account has just too much STEEM power.
SO shut your mouth power up and do something about it besides whine like a bitch all over steemit about how you can't profit from buying votes.
Sounds like the only one whining is you. I'm just exposing @grumpycat. If I couldn't buy votes tomorrow, I'd be fine with that personally. That's not what this is about though.
You're not exposing anyone. @grumpycat is not hiding. Every flag incoimg or outgoing is a win-win. You don't seem to understand the game is all.
LOL. I think you're not the one getting it. Unless you are @grumpycat and you're actually inside that head, the actions don't line up with what you're saying.
You sure that I'm the one that doesn't understand?
1.) @grumpycat is sucking up the payouts of the vote bots he is using which keeps the shit buying posters at a loss
2.)Every flag @grumpycats gives or receives is a win. He is not flagging anyone not buying a vote
3.) It is not real money until you EARN it after 7 days waiting.
See, you do not understand
NO, you really are the one that doesn't understand.
Please, in your glorious wisdom, explain to me how self voting 163 dollars on a BULLSHIT COMMENT is a win for anyone but grumpycats pocketbook??
NO, you don't see what is going on. grumpycat is hiding behind "good intentions" to blind people like you from the fact that grumpycat, ieatrewards and rewardpoolrape are all circle jerking each other, self voting for ridiculous amounts, and monopolizing a system so that he is the only one that can take advantage of it. How is a comment like this good for the platform???
This is not helpful to anyone but grumpycat getting fat and getting paid for behavior that is far worse than anything he is crying out against. If he actually looked to see if the content he downvoted was spam, that would be one thing, but he isn't. he is blindly downvoting people just because they used a specific bidbot, and then he is using those same bidbots to reward himself, on his posts that have little more "quality" to them than the ones he is flagging. Stop sucking grumpycats dick in the hopes of getting one of those massive upvotes. That's just as trashy as the behavior he is crying out against. Do a little research, instead of just blindly following what this jackass says, just because he has so much steempower.
I never said he was hiding behind good intentions. He is just fucking over the correct users who abuse the up-vote bots and cost every other person trying to get noticed their bids.
And yes he invites anyone and everyone to down-vote his post as well as he rubs it in your face he is scamming the scammers. The only people being affected here are scammers.
Unless you feel hundreds of dollars in up-vote bids isn't a fucking scam.
I do feel that the upvotes he gives himself is spam. It is one of the biggest scams on steemit right now. But I provide good content and a valuable service to steemit. I am not the only innocent account to be flagged by grumpy. He has stated himself, he is lazy, so rather than looking to see if what he is downvoting is spam or not, he is just blindly downvoting everyone who uses a bot he says not to. That doesn't help anyone. Blindly downvoting a good post just because they used the same advertising tool that grumpy uses himself? SOME of his flags are a good thing. In fact, a lot of his flags are. The problem is his selfvoting, and though it may not be many, flagging innocent accounts is uncalled for. I have expressed all of this in a couple of different posts. I think we may be advocating the same thing, just from different perspectives. I think there was a miscommunication somewhere. Please, take a look at THIS POST.