You downvoted with 3 whale accounts at 100% each. Taking the post below $38 in the process. Doesn't that seem a bit drastic? Would you consider reducing the downvote percentage or number of whale accounts doing the down voting?
Dude, you still have the #17 ranked post out of probably 1000+ active posts, earning an estimated $38 compared to a mean of probably around $5 and a median of probably around $0. Is that not good enough?
Well that wasn't really the point, the point was whether you felt reducing this post's rewards by around 60% was really necessary? I mean with the kind of voting power you have why not go out and find posts you think deserve to be higher and upvote them? Positive reinforcement for people instead of negative.
That and there are numerous examples of "whale swarms" but you chose this one specifically? There are other ones on the trending page that were ahead of this post right now actually. There was a post several weeks back from Busy.org that made over $1000 and literally was the epitome of a "whale swarm", yet there was no downvote there from you for a "whale swarm". Now, lets be clear, I am not saying that the Busy.org post didn't deserve it, because it probably did. They probably deserve every penny they get. I am just saying you seem to be picking and choosing your "whale swarms" to downvote. This particular one was ironic to me personally in the fact that it was more of an everyman type post, similar to what you told me last time we chatted that you would like to see more of when you downvoted another post of mine a couple weeks ago...
That and there are numerous examples of "whale swarms" but you chose this one specifically?
I'm not the 'whale swarm patrol' nor am I paid to be. What I happen to notice that looks off to me, I downvote,
There was a post several weeks back from Busy.org that made over $1000 and literally was the epitome of a "whale swarm",
Value is subjective. I happen to believe that a very active development project that promises to improve the user experience on the platform brings far more value than the typical 'everyday' blogging post. It is understandable that most of the largest stakeholders (and many of the smaller ones) would agree with me on that.
The latter is of course still welcome, but some of the most powerful whale accounts working together to concentrate rewards on a few such posts when there are hundreds of others getting next to nothing does not make sense to me.
This post was upvoted at 75%, as SG staff have been trying to work around ways of managing rewards, both in posting frequency and overall voting percentage used.
Still... come on dude (shuffles to the side to whisper a message). Does this not just promote a message of its not what you do, but who you know on Steemit that will determine your rewards?
If the steem guild is for user retention and adoption, what's worse than pouring fertiliser over a few places and letting the others die?
This should be a place of competition, of warring ideas and crazy posts. A hive of activity! Don't feel unfairly targeted when you use the votes entrusted to you to upvote yourself and become one of the top trending authors of the month. Anyone who is top trending will be scrutinised to see if their content is worth it long run to Steemit or not.
Don't feel attacked if one of the largest stakeholders thinks that maybe the market should make the decision rather than a swarm of whale votes that you control. I mean, it makes sense once you take a few steps back. Right?
You downvoted with 3 whale accounts at 100% each. Taking the post below $38 in the process. Doesn't that seem a bit drastic? Would you consider reducing the downvote percentage or number of whale accounts doing the down voting?
The fact that my accounts happen to be split up compared to other whales who use one account for all their methods of earning doesn't change anything.
Ok, that is true, which is why I also mentioned voting power percentage?
Dude, you still have the #17 ranked post out of probably 1000+ active posts, earning an estimated $38 compared to a mean of probably around $5 and a median of probably around $0. Is that not good enough?
Well that wasn't really the point, the point was whether you felt reducing this post's rewards by around 60% was really necessary? I mean with the kind of voting power you have why not go out and find posts you think deserve to be higher and upvote them? Positive reinforcement for people instead of negative.
That and there are numerous examples of "whale swarms" but you chose this one specifically? There are other ones on the trending page that were ahead of this post right now actually. There was a post several weeks back from Busy.org that made over $1000 and literally was the epitome of a "whale swarm", yet there was no downvote there from you for a "whale swarm". Now, lets be clear, I am not saying that the Busy.org post didn't deserve it, because it probably did. They probably deserve every penny they get. I am just saying you seem to be picking and choosing your "whale swarms" to downvote. This particular one was ironic to me personally in the fact that it was more of an everyman type post, similar to what you told me last time we chatted that you would like to see more of when you downvoted another post of mine a couple weeks ago...
I'm not the 'whale swarm patrol' nor am I paid to be. What I happen to notice that looks off to me, I downvote,
Value is subjective. I happen to believe that a very active development project that promises to improve the user experience on the platform brings far more value than the typical 'everyday' blogging post. It is understandable that most of the largest stakeholders (and many of the smaller ones) would agree with me on that.
The latter is of course still welcome, but some of the most powerful whale accounts working together to concentrate rewards on a few such posts when there are hundreds of others getting next to nothing does not make sense to me.
Fair enough. So I take it your answer to my original question was... "no"? ;)
Technically upvoted with 4 whale accounts consistently without regard to quality. Also at 100%.
Just saying...
This post was upvoted at 75%, as SG staff have been trying to work around ways of managing rewards, both in posting frequency and overall voting percentage used.
Still... come on dude (shuffles to the side to whisper a message). Does this not just promote a message of its not what you do, but who you know on Steemit that will determine your rewards?
If the steem guild is for user retention and adoption, what's worse than pouring fertiliser over a few places and letting the others die?
This should be a place of competition, of warring ideas and crazy posts. A hive of activity! Don't feel unfairly targeted when you use the votes entrusted to you to upvote yourself and become one of the top trending authors of the month. Anyone who is top trending will be scrutinised to see if their content is worth it long run to Steemit or not.
Don't feel attacked if one of the largest stakeholders thinks that maybe the market should make the decision rather than a swarm of whale votes that you control. I mean, it makes sense once you take a few steps back. Right?
@smooth you are the biggest asshole walking this planet