RE: Steemit Open Mic Week 84 - Point Hope (Indigo Girls cover)
Didn't like my reply? Or why flaggin'? Did I say something untrue? I just wanted to point out what seems to be unclear to many steemians, which is fact, that besides 2 to 3 Dollars of Upvotes from the audience, this post is totally payed for votes, as you can read within the statement of @transparencybot above (much needed service by the way). In my Opinion Steemit is about to fail because of this vote-bid-bot, vote-discounter shit. This way it will just remain a greater fool ponzi. I won't say that your post is shit, it's really not that bad, but man, first place into trending is ridicolous. It's a simple, average sung and played pop-song. Sorry about that kind of honesty you may definitely not want to hear. But I decided to quit that small talk stuff and everyone is happy and nice to each other thing a little bit instead of beeing a little bit more honest when the trending page is sorted by "who has payed more" rather than quality. There was a Hip Hop Song a few weeks ago where I wanted to state that and I didn't have the confidence yet to tell. Now it happend just at your post, sorry for that, but it had to be said from my perspective. If your content is quality you may wait for @curie or other curation trail to set in with a whale upvote, you will be in trending also but no need to buy votes and have that negative connotation that comes along with it.
I feel all of your frustrations @senzenfrenz, however, I am of the opinion that you should make a specific post on your personal blog expressing such valid observations vs. embedding them amid the comment thread of an otherwise innocent artist who just happened to get swept up by all of the forces that are encouraged to impose themselves on the platform. Aside from any bots or promotional "paid for" votes, to which by the way, my simple mind is not privy, I totally loved this entry on its face - three chords or otherwise... Much love to all across the board...
Hey @passion-ground, I respect your opinion on this matter. In the mean time I am totally against any of those pay for vote systems. They will eventually kill steemit, a project that means a lot to me, so therefore making a statement within a comment-section of a post using such bots who's author seems also pretty much aware of it ( https://steemit.com/steemit/@tcpolymath/understanding-the-four-major-types-of-paid-upvotes-on-steemit ) seems a must for me, because many people comin along think it's really that valuable while it was just bought value. I will also be upvoting any comment that states simliar things rather than neglecting this kind of negative impact on the reward pool. To me behaviour like this is just greed and abuse whereas I did not say that the content of the post was bad but average, I looked at the channel of @tcpolymath there are several other boosted posts and none of them quite equals the amount of Upvote Value. So I won't qualify my statement and I think it is showing up just the right place. And I also hope that there will be much more steemians stating things like this when happening.
I respect and appreciate your perspective and opinion on these matters in kind @senzenfrenz. In fact, I share many of your concerns in this regard. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Could you explain why exactly it is wrong to use bots? I have been searching and I want to figure out what is the reason that some people are against and others are not? I am pretty newbie here so I want to learn as much as I can about the steem. I believe in this platform and I am here for the long-term! @senzenfrenz
Well, I see steemit as a competitor to other social networks. It rewards authors (who are writing posts) and curators (those who upvote). Through their upvotes the post gets its value. There is a specific amount of steem held in the so called reward pool. The curators decide through their upvotes, how this pool is devided among all the authors and curators. There are some services that offer votes for money. So like this guy (@tcpolymath) you could- instead of posting high quality content - just post some whatever you like shit and buy a huge upvote. You can send lets say 100 SBD to @smartsteem and their curation trail will be upvoting your post. In fact they won't really ask about the quality, because they all earn curation rewards out of this. The abuse about it is, that this value in upvotes is not in the rewardspool any longer, so there is less steem available to be devided between honest authors that are putting up high quality posts and earning just a few bucks with it. The meaning of a vote is nothing when its bought whereas it originally is designed to reward quality content. The community will decide what content is worth beeing on top of the lists. Like here, out of the community this post would have reamined almost unseen and at least earned a few bucks, until this guy invested 100 SBD in buying upvotes. At least this is going to end up as a snowball ponzi and some day possibly new people who want to join steemit will look at the trending page and just walk away because it's full of scam that was bought in. It corrupts the whole idea of what a rewards based social blogging platform should be. Used like this, steem is a scam in the end. There is no real value in it if everyone behaves like those guys. Just a greater fool ponzi.
Thank you for your response and but I am still not fully convinced with why using bots is bad. I understand that they can be used wrong and drain the reward pool but does it make bots bad? I can see that they can be used wrong but is the fault really in the steemit? I believe that the "GOOD PERSON TOKEN" could fix the spam/bot problem thought.
Here few posts that I found useful related to topic:
GOOD PERSON TOKEN: Something Big Is Coming From Steemit Inc!
Vlog 302: The value of STEEM on a blockchain full of SMT's. Many things will change.
A bot per se can not be bad or good or so, because he is just a program and we are not in any matrix (as far as I think;) you're right with that. But raping the reward pool with the help of such bot, even profiting out of that because often the upvote value is higher then the investment or selling votes and earning curation rewards for that, is bad in so far, that steem will go to zero substantially when behaviour like this spreads all over the place. Because that way, no real value is involved it is just crypto money sent around. It becomes a greater fool ponzi. You can count that! And with the post you are linking, that just proves that I am right, because they are already searching for an alternitive to implement where pay for vote is no longer possible the way it is at the moment. Bu this would be another token, I am really not convinced by that idea. New tokens and ICO's everywhere, everyone seeing this from an outside perspective would surely think this is a great big bubble which will pop very soon. The idea behind this steemit community must be a responsible rewarding system and this has to come from the joining people themselves, whether they are whales or minnows or whatever. In a decentralized system everyone is allowed to do whatever he or she wants. And so it can only work when peoble take responsibilities for their part of the game instead of just substantially draining it.
You didn't get flagged for your content, but to remove the value of your self-vote. As you can see I left the comment visible.
You're welcome to dislike the song, and I think treating Trending as if it should be your personal curation service is both stupid and counterproductive but I wouldn't flag you for it.
I do not dislike your song, I think it is an average, honestly not too bad perfomance, but I don't like the way you put yourself on top of trending lists by buying votes from whatever pay for vote services when besides that your post would remain worth a few bucks. And I figured out that you are doing this regularly with many of your posts. This is no honest behaviour and this is what I am complaining about. Without that I could even consider to label your music authentic, nice or real or whatever and give it an upvote.