You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: People Rank - Using Page Rank Algorithm for Better Curation and Rewards
People are voting on "sure shots" for the sake of curation rewards.
It's like going to bet on a horse race, but the favourite, who has won the last 5 races, has the same long odds as the outsiders. Naturally, you bet on the favourite.
Something needs to be tweaked to encourage people to actually vote for what they like, rather than voting based on the "form" of the author.
As far as I'm concerned, this is one of the most pressing issues on the platform right now because the current paradigm is so extremely polarising. It causes a feedback loop at the top of the foodchain.
No, people are voting on "sure shots" because they don't understand the curation rewards.
This post is a great example. 94% of the curation rewards are going to Dan. At the current post value of about $2000, that leaves approximately $30 curation rewards total for everyone else, with the earliest high-SP voters getting most of that. The later voters are getting virtually nothing to literally nothing (I believe many will indeed round down to zero and not be paid at all). If you voted for this post hoping to get curation rewards, you wasted your vote.
While the details may differ, all of the high payout posts are essentially the same. The author and early voters get almost all of the reward; people voting later and who are the ones boosting the rewards to the stratosphere are getting little to no curation rewards in return.
There is often a lot of piling to a relatively small number of posts, I'll agree with that. But the reason is not the curation rewards, it is something else.
Would it not be useful to have two upvoting options? One for rewards and one for "likes"?
There are different desires when I vote on something.
If other users understood better about how they are going to get paid for upvoting they would not pile on and inflate a post that doesn't warrant it. And if they had an option of showing their appreciation at least with a "thumbs up", they could feel like they are showing appreciation. Instead, some users are voting for things they like, but don't necessarily want to reward due to having no other fast option of showing their approval for a post.
If people could thumbs up any post they wanted to, the poster and others could at least have some indication that the post in question had some value and maybe is going in the right direction. Currently when a new user makes a post, I think most other users feel that since it will more likely be a wasted vote because it won't be voted on by a whale, they are reluctant to vote. They may like it, but they won't waste their vote on it.
Anyway, there may be good reasons why separate thumbs up and thumbs down button would be counter-productive or take something away from how the system currently rewards, but I can't think of it.
Any thoughts?
And I liked your comment as well. It was informative and ultimately should help users make better choices.
I have a similar idea how we could evolve the voting. here are my thoughts to it:
We should also think about improving voting:
I would suggest to allow 3 different kind of votes:
Important posts could be valued higher lets say 10x your voting power, but should be more limited then normal up-votes, lets say max 30 in the last 30 days.
This would also solve the problem, that many post get lot of payout, that simply link to a breaking news, like for example the post of the bitfinex hack. With this in place we could just make the post with the braking news more visible without giving an extra money for a post that is done in 10 seconds and would be more like a normal reddit / facebook like.
The same voting we could also do the opposite way:
The above is part of a bigger post where i tried to outline how we could evolve voting and some other current issues:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@arcurus/tagging-and-flagging-hidden-by-a-whale-how-to-evolve-further
Read your article and liked your ideas. Hopefully something similarly interesting is in the works.
Maybe? This raises some complicated issues like what does it mean if someone votes to reward but dislikes. Is this some sort of attack? One of the reasons Steem features posts with higher rewards in terms of visiblity is so people have the opportunity to scrutinize the post and rewards before payout, possibly downvoting if the reward is undeserved or outright abuse (for the same reason, when a post gets votes close to payout time, the time is extended). Perhaps disliking a post would make it less visbile, subverting this protection?
Of course there are many details that would have to be worked out with such an idea. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, just asking questions and thinking it is undeveloped and would need a lot more work to define and analyze before seriously considering it.
Here an suggestion to evolve the post visibility, what wecould do about the voting i posted bellow in the comment:
Fair visibility for all posts
Currently posts are not only rewarded exponentially, but also they get a lot more votes if they become visible on the trending page. So even with linear vote-counting, they are rewarded exponentially, because they attract more voters through being visible.
It would be much more fair if the posts which are displayed on the main site as default are drawn in a lottery like style. Every time you reload the page the displayed posts on the top site could be drawn through a lottery. The more votes they have already the higher the chance to be selected. This would give all participants a fair chance to be listed at the top and therefore attract more votes.
@arcurus I like that idea! It would prominently display some posts that haven't received a lot of voting interest yet, but might if featured. Good thinking.
@arcurus I also agree.
I think the scrutiny of high-value posts to identify subjectively undeserved rewards is an important part of curation that is very hard to get right and people fortunately/unfortunately have been erring on the side of caution.
I agree, vote should reward. If you don't feel it is worth the vote, you can comment. It promotes the posts visibility still and helps in a back end way. Flagging should have a tiered options as to reason (all with same penalty) but clarity as to why it was downvoted. Also, what would you think of whales using algo to designate small small amounts f voting power based on historical upvotes lining up with point of views per whale? I am sure there's logistics I have not realized or thought through as yet on that... but it's a thought
Agreed needs fleshing out and seeing what are the potential pitfalls.
I can see that being a viable option actually. There are posts that you can disagree with vehemently, but still feel that the person deserves a reward because their opinion can be just as valid as yours, but you don't agree with it. So you reward them for the effort and opinion while at the same time let them know that you don't automatically agree with it, JUST because you rewarded it.
I may be in the minority on feeling this way, but I've seen quite a few posts that I think should be rewarded, but I don't think they are my cup of tea and want to still give them support. Like there is some user, whose name I can't recall, that has some rather creative opinions and posts. They make me cringe at times, because it's not something that I like, but I think that others should be exposed to this users meanderings, so I would like to reward, and thumbs down. Considering the thumbs down is only an indicator of ones approval and doesn't need to affect visibility, I'm not sure how it can be gamed or thought of as an attack. If it were to affect visibility then there might be a problem. Hrmm, just thought of something else, but this comment is already too long.
I'll see if I can find more posts talking about the voting system and try to find an elegant and simple solution. Though, I really hate to be spending our time discussing something that isn't listened to by the devs or that is already being worked on by them. I'm not the guy out there that loves to talk about what player should be drafted as if they were a GM of a team. If we have no say, then we might as well go on our way.
Thanks for being out here in the wild so much sharing your ideas, Smooth. It's appreciated.
Its a good point and its interesting to follow the development of these tools. I would suggest that there are two separate ways of appreciation - a "vote" = Like and another "upvote" that is as present "Like+reward" - The flagg option likewize split in "Dislike" and "Downvote". This will allow for more detailed feedback from readers and followers. And again - the collection of power to whales is a really counter productive idea.
Since your idea is basically my idea, I approve, but
This isn't entirely the problem. Perhaps the weighting is too heavy, but I'm under the impression that an alteration to their vote power is in the works such that they can choose to give heavier or lighter weighting to their votes. We shall see. Sooner rather than later, I hope.
People not understanding the curation rewards is a very simple UI problem. It would be trivial to add an indicator by the upvote button that gives you information about what sort of reward might be possible for your vote. "Percentage of curation rewards remaining" or something like that. This would help people understand how curation rewards work. Their confusion is understandable for two reasons:
Agreed. It would seem that the devs have a habit of thinking everyone understands this system as well as they do. That isn't a slam, I think it is valid criticism and something that all of us are guilty of. Doctors are notorious for using jargon and talking over the heads of patients and this is something I know from first hand experience and takes constant concerted effort to improve.
Anyway, you make good points. We are in beta and I can only assume that the UI will get a dedicated team to deal with making it more new user friendly. If we are to get many new users here, and keep them, this will surely need to be addressed.
Lol, I can see you are not an experienced developer. No offense. But that would lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.
Haha, it's true - I'm not a developer.
But the opacity of the current interface is already leading to all sorts of misunderstandings. It's also leading to people "wasting" their votes on trending articles. I don't know, maybe that's the point.
What are the misunderstandings that would be so egregious?
@biophil, I am very very sleepy so this reply may not be so great. In short, the masses won't ever understand it, the cognitive load is too high. K.I.S.S.
People want to know that someone took the time to see their post. A simple view counter will let people know there was interest without giving a reward.
Yep, this is yet another thing that I've mentioned would be helpful for all users.
If 100 people see a post and 100 people upvote it, versus 10,000 seeing it and 100 people upvote it, that can tell you a lot.
Is there any downside of everyone being able to see how many "views" a post has? Can this then be gamed? Are views even saved in to the blockchain? I assume it's Steemit.com only.
Anyway, I can only imagine how much better the site will be a year from now with all the user input that we have at our disposal. Keep it up!
People like to show approval. There should be a LIKE flag and count as well as a vote flag and count. Steemers need to be educated further to understand the voting mechanism and reward but provided with the means to express approval. Both voting and approval could feed into the reputation algo. This may help to stem swarm voting, but does nothing to improve the rate and breadth of steem power distribution. The whales/dolphins need to gift/seed some stake rather than lend it....though how you accomplish that in a fair way, I don't know.
People upvote what they think is important. Most people are not often optimizing their curation rewards, including myself.
Our discussion of curation rewards is most for identifying vulnerabilities that can be gamed.
Nevertheless the curation reward incentive (or the misunderstanding of it) is apparently driving the initial stage of the groupthink where those who do try to optimize their curation rewards and frontrun whales try to get in early on voting for blog posts. Then this boosts visibility and thus boosting votes (helping to get the crucial whale attention thus somewhat self-fulfilling) from those who vote on what they think is important.
Also I think much of the groupthink has to do with an inherent groupthink in interests of those who are on the site and have significant voting power. Most of us are coming from affiliation with Bitcoin or in the same household with someone who was into Bitcoin.
I think we need actual surveys of users as to why they vote on things. To be honest, I can only use anecdotes and I think everyone else is pretty much doing the same.
The dollarvigilante "joke" post is a prime example. 800 or so upvotes isn't because they thought it was a valuable post. It wasn't that funny, it wasn't that informative. It would be nice to know what so many thought was worthy of upvotes. Were some upvoting in protest of the downvotes? Fanboism? We are all guessing on these matters.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. I've seen you around for awhile and enjoy your input.
That but I think more that the way he responded with some degree of willingness to change and also how he better explained his background and admitted some of his mistakes. There was some (modicum of) humility. Thus he gamed some sympathy vote for the @berniesanders downvote. Community likes to see progress. That was likely considered important progress and upbeat.
But what if I just want to give you a reward without expecting anything in return?
@smooth thanks for taking the time to reply..
I agree, people wrongly think they can get worthwhile curation rewards from late votes on big posts. But I stand by my assertion that people are betting rather than voting ("genuine content mining")..
I've written more about it here..
I feel that their should be rewards for people that are early to upvote content that becomes very successful. (This may be in place, but it is not been a concrete fact in my mind). This will keep people checking the new feed instead of only what is trending.
And while I love the feed of people I follow, at the same time when I'm looking at all my favorite posters, I am not discovering new people. This would frustrate me if I was in their shoes. Not everyone is incredibly creative, but everyone has the ability to make interesting content about something they enjoy.
Rewarding people for looking in the new feed should be encouraged. And also for new users there is almost no reward for curating. I don't know how to fix that, but it should be addressed.
Also the first #introduceyourself post should have its own feed and rewards increased to encourage people when they start out. Even giving just a higher percentage to the poster and a smaller amount to the curators would be ok. Like 85% to the poster for their first post in a certain tag and then back to normal for others.
The more new people can be engaged and have contests and things where they feel they are being heard, the better. If steemit doesn't keep up the userbase it will not be as successful as it could be.
That is exactly how the system operates right now. People who find posts already in trending and then vote for them get little to no curation rewards.
I think everyone should get equal part of the rewards whatever time the upvote is given within the first payout time frame. It is better to read an article in full before deciding if you will upvote. Rather than following the whales and upvoting blindly
right...thks u
What's holding back the user base is the current log in system. I have friends and family who are following my blog and now have an account but simply can't log in. The only people I know logging in successfully are techys. I don't know the solution for this but here is a suggestion
I agree with you. I don't know if it is the only thing or the primary thing holding back user growth, but It is quite user-unfriendly. Nevertheless we've gained 2000 daily active users, almost a 50% increase, in the past 3-5 days. So the growth is there, still.
I think the other thing holding some users back is the way the system forces you to upload pictures to a service and then add the image into the post.
I think steemit would be a great place for some older people to share their wisdom (grandparents, great grandparents), but it is unlikely many will be able to figure out how to post images and videos and format the content.
A site like facebook has a more intuitive feel and allows drag and drop and simple copy and paste of url's into a post.
A text editor like microsoft word that would allow you to work on multiple stories at the same time would be a great addition to steemit. Being able to drag and drop videos, picture, and gifs and make a variety of text formatting easy from italics to bold to headlines etc.
Most people are already familiar with word or writing emails, so I think tapping into the older generations with an ease of use functionality would bring some new ideas to steemit.
I'd love to see an old motherly or fatherly wise whale or shark embraced by the community and given a platform for their thoughtful "shark/whale song"
My sister joined, then left because she didn't like the login system.
When it expands to mobile being anle to use fingerprint would make it easier..... pc...... not so much
@bendjmiller222 definitely agree with your first statement. That's generally how I go about reading posts. I go to the new section of whatever topic I'm interested in and vote on articles I enjoy. I tend to be one of the first few people upvoting because of that and 98% of the time those posts don't trend and my curation is little, but I rather read stuff I enjoy. Beneath it all majority of people will cash $$$s though. Just how society is wired.
Yes and that is another thing about steemit I like. Not everyone wants to make large sums of money or treat it as a job. You may simply enjoy reading articles and making a little money commenting or posting pictures you've taken.
Steemit is one of the few places I know where the people at the top are not consumed with greed. I don't see @ned and @dan looking for ways to cut back rewards and pad their own pocket. They are building wealth by allowing others to become successful and may take a pay cut to do so. But can anyone honestly tell me they would rather have Zuckerberg running steemit than @ned and @dan?
All Your Base Belong to Zuckerberg
I agree with the goal and reason why we need it, but the algorithm you suggest (which is in place) does not accomplish the goal and appears to incentivize the opposite result of a circlejerk groupthink as @condra above as well I explained.
I believe you are actually supporting a feature which is destroying what you want.
It is a situation that definitely has a complex solution needed @anonymint. I'm not steadfast in any position and great ideas can flow from people with multiple points of view, so the more people that weigh in the better.
I wish I had an easy answer, but I believe it will take some trial and error putting together this solution. But keep up the good conversation. I really value everyone's opinion as long as they are adding insight to the comments beyond throwaway comments like "Great post!" Those do nothing in my mind except make me leery about following them.
Comments are just as valuable as content and should be treated with the same respect and thought when possible. Not only does it engage others, but it shows you actually took the time to read the bloggers content instead of simply upvoting and making a quick comment hoping a whale will feel generous that day.
In response to @anonymint: if I'm not mistaken, steemit related posts are declining as a percentage of total posts. And whale holdings are also declining as a percentage of total steem/steem power. So I think we're moving in the right direction -- toward having a more diversified platform on multiple levels.
Could things be tweaked and refined? Of course, but I think it's a far stretch to say the reward for early voting (of content that becomes popular) defeats the purpose, let alone "destroys what you want", as you so dramatically put it.
That trend reversed:
https://steemit.com/stats/@liberosist/steem-power-distribution-trends-august-update-the-re-distribution-skips-down
One thing that can be tweaked is to change attitudes which currently discourage downvoting.
Downvoting plays an essential role in setting the right incentives and we just had a vivid illustration of this with the @berniesanders / @dollarvigilante incident. Many people voted for the "sure shot" of @dollarvitilante's post, and that worked great until @berniesanders (and some other whales) decided to downvote it.
Then everyone's curation rewards were wiped out in an flash, and, from the point of view of rewards, their votes were wasted.
Next time (or perhaps it will take a few more of these late downvotes), perhaps people will consider more carefully just what it is they think is a "sure" shot.
There are a lot of heated opinions on this. I've read a lot of people say that you shouldn't downvote unless it is a major violation like spamming or threatening someone, etc. Others look at it as you do, and just a different way of assigning value to posts.
One worry I have is retaliation. If I downvote someone's post, then I'm worried that they will start going out of their way to downvote all of mine. It could turn into a downvote war.
"Can't we all just get along?"
In any system with people there will be conflicts. You have to decide whether you want to let others exploit a platform that has value to you and do nothing to avoid retaliation, or if you are willing to take a stand. People will of course make different decisions.
I didn't and wouldn't say it is just a different way of assigning value, but when people are voting in a parasitic manner by piling on "sure things" without sufficient regard for quality nor consideration of the good of the platform that is also a form of abuse, and downvoting/flagging is exactly the way to control it.
The new reputation system makes it even harder to do what you are suggesting. Let's say someone writes an 'average' post, and a ton of people upvote it because it is trending and they want to get a good curation bonus. Then a person with high SP comes along and decides it is too high because everyone was colluding. It wasn't a bad post or anything - it is just overvalued. If they flag/downvote that person's post to lower the amount it gets paid, that person's reputation is affected too. Most likely the person who wrote the post didn't do anything intentionally wrong or bad to make the excessive upvotes happen. Yet their reputation score is penalized by the person who downvoted/flagged their content.
@timcliff All those upvotes (assuming the voters had positive reputation which is usually the case) increased the reputation. The later downvote reduce the reputation, reversing the effect of the upvotes. As long as the downvotes aren't extreme and overwhelming (which usually only happens in the case of serious abuse), reputation will usually be only slightly affected or even increase a little if the payout is merely reduced and not driven all the way to zero and beyond (which would be a waste of vote power by the downvoters).
@smooth I agree with @timcliff. You are trying to fix a disease by ingesting more of the parasite. Pouring more of the wrong to try to make it right.
Conflicts are a sign of a system that is not designed to be harmonious. I am entirely against your propensity (when given the role to do so) to want to top-down manage discussions and forums. I am ENTP. Seems you might have some J in there?
There will be blowback from judging. Remember Matthew 7. Instead let's figure out a way for every coterie to have their own rankings and preferences. One-size-fits-all are always power vacuums that we must fight over.
I have a good example for you. I came across @acassity spam posting a link to his content in a ton of posts. It was done in a way that was completely irrelevant and off-topic. I downvoted him, and he retaliated by going to my blog and downvoting posts of mine.
When I see 4 meta posts in a row for quick buck I will flag indeed and I care not if someone will pursue me and maybe even destroy my account. If people afraid to express true opinions the system is flowed.
Don't have down voting. You down vote by not voting at all.
Missing a few sure shots isn't going to stop people looking for them. The problem is there is too much incentive to look for them and ignore anything that from the outside looks like it won't take off...
Does voting on a post and voting on a comment use the same amount of voting power? And are the curation rewards on comments too? I realized that I did not know for sure.
They are treated the same.
Except they aren't because gambling on comments instead of blog posts is only done by a math retard, because comments (except maybe in rare circumstances) never can get the same voting potential as blog posts.
That's a shame. Because I like to use my votes as "approval" rather than "investment". But I'm not making anything on curating anyway so why bother trying make money curating? Better just to use it to show approval.
@jonno-katz if you aren't making anything from curation (and this is the case if your SP is small, say <1000), then you might as well do exactly what you are doing. Vote for purposes of approval to increases rewards authors you think should be rewarded more and exert a small influence on the type of content you want to see. It seems to me you are doing it exactly right.
@anonymint your comment is oversimplified. Remember, early votes are worth lot more than late votes. Most blog posts you encounter are already heavily voted, and late votes on even posts with high rewards are still virtually (if not literally) worthless. Most comment posts have 0-1 votes. Opportunity is not always at the location with the brightest spotlight on it.
@anonymint Wouldn't you receive a higher amount of curation from voting on a comment with $100 and being an early voter, than on a blog post that receives thousands of dollars when you have relatively little steem power.
I see the value of both, but curation for minnows is very rarely more than $.001 so it is important for them to make themselves known as one who makes valuable comments and blog posts before than can really dive into curation.
It is my belief that users should vote on content they like, and not just gamble on an article without reading it in hopes that it will make a lot of money regardless of how well it was done.
That's not an accusation to anyone, as everyone's vote can be used as they wish, but I think the more steem power you earn, the more you see that what you vote on can influence the entire platform of steemit and steer the ship in a way to benefit the maximum amount of users.
I was referring to seeking out posts to vote early versus betting on comments which don't even receive an upvote 50% of the time. I haven't done the precise computation, but I can't imagine it ever pays to focus on curation rewards from comments because they most often receive 0 votes and those which have more than 1 vote are rare and even rarer are ones upvoted by whale. The odds for comments have to orders-of-magnitude worse than seeking out blogs.
Thank you during this time.
Now, my Reputation in steemd is displayed as "Reputation 21,630,279,218,817".
Than the Reputation in Steemd acquaintances, is a high score. However, it is in Steemit "5".
Why is that?
The I'll try it has a post not good what?
What's left is the influence of the previous Down Vote?
How do I me?
@smooth, downvoting won't really discourage gambling for "sure" shots, because otherwise the ROI on curation is mostly not worth anyone's time relative to the SP they have at stake. The only way to entirely remove the gambling groupthink calculation is to radically reduce or eliminate the curation rewards, which is what I would suggest.
As I explained to @bendjmiller222 in a comment on this page, removing the early incentive (in lieu of removing curation rewards) would just cause everyone to vote for the most voted posts after the fact.
The problem with current incentives to upvote is just how many people are playing the game. As long as everybody else is playing, the game seems worthwhile as the rewards are higher.
I wouldn't suggest removing the curation rewards completely, but the stake taken from the original post could be changed so that instead of 25% of the total, curators receive a limited amount. That probably wouldn't eliminate the incentive to upvote, but you might find less people voting this way if there seems to be less people playing the game.
Currently the hole system is designed to generate exorbitant payouts.
Instead of downvoting exorbitant payouts, wouldn't it be better design the system so that it does not create these exorbitant payouts?
Right now the curation reward makes no sense at all. It just leads to upvote the same stuff from the same known people. This then makes the post trending which leads to even more votes.
What do we have to change?
I would suggest to drop the curation reward completely. If people understand that its their money they distribute they will take care for what to spent. Another solution would be to limit the curation reward per person per time period.
Second: Making the payout more linear would also reduce this over pay effect and on top of that would make the system much more simple and easy to understand. On top of that payouts could then be done instantly with every vote. Through steems blockchain transparency Self-voting could be easily detected and accounts flagged.
Third: Using a lottery like display of posts as default display option. The more votes the more chance to be chosen. A comment could also be counted as a vote with the users voting power.
If we implement these three changes the current self made over pay problem would most likely be solved.
I don't think the "$ value of a post" should be visible until payout time. Let it be a mystery.
Instead, we have people scanning values of posts, and soon as a post is at $50 or $100, all of a sudden everyone starts upvoting the post so they have a better chance at making money as a curator.
That's the current problem with steemit. Even if these values are in the blockchain, we don't need to make the problem worse via the gui by showing the dollar value of a post before payout.
You can't hide that data. It is on a public blockchain. You'll just incentivize someone to make a tool which can display the computation.
Umm, I suppose you didn't read the next part:
You must seem to think that 99% of people "use tools". They don't. Most people are lazy, or just take things at face value.
Right now, I bet you only 20% of people even use steemd.com to look at data IF - that..
So, I repeat:
Even if these values are in the blockchain, we don't need to make the problem worse via the gui by showing the dollar value of a post before payout.
It's kind of weird. I knew someone would come along and point out it is on a public blockchain, so I even acknowledged the fact they are on a blockchain, my suggest was strictly for the GUI. (..and of course tools can supplement steemit).
::face palm::
I think I'm just going to go sit down and let someone else point out the obvious again.
Sorry if the facts offended you. Users will demand to see the $ amounts. The GUI will meet demand.
But that is still distributing wealth and if the post hit $100 it probably caught the eye of someone who found it helpful and everyone else upvoting is ok by me. It encourages new people especially. It does have its drawbacks, but I like the system as it is now and would be disappointed if it were removed.
That's a great idea. Make the earnings invisible until after one month.
Maybe some sort of algorithm that says if you vote XX or more and your posts were XX % successful, you get a bit extra? As to spread out the votes but in a sort of way where everyone gets to vote on more widespread content, as opposed to the "sure thing" votes that tend to be cast. Also I think more content discovery methods would help ALOT. We are walled in right now to a list of hashtags and need something more intuitive... IMO.
I think you should get more curation rewards for voting something that is not expected to do well but does( value investing in my field) For instance if a poster averages 5c a post and then nails it , the curation rewards should be higher for the value of post above 5c ( or Lower if under 5c) This encourages posters to read, consider if this is really good and not just reward posters with good track record. Maybe it's a 25% bonus or penalty for voters in first 30minutes on all value above the average. The later voters would be he source of this reward.
Although this idea seems really great at the surface, it has deep Sybil attack vulnerabilities and be gamed to destroy the system.
This is why non-experts are not allowed to design the system. But thanks for sharing your idea any way. Open source is that maybe via enough sharing of ideas, we can happenstance on a winning one.
I like that idea, because you are using the same amount of voting % whether you are voting on a new posters content, or a veterans content.
What would you think about each day having some sort of "bonus" vote carrying a bit more weight. Maybe 3 a day that would give you a higher curation reward. I don't know if that is feasible, but I think it would be something interesting to explore.
Without the early incentive, you'll just vote for all the most successful posts late.
We agree, but no one knows how to fix that. Not Facebook, not Reddit, not Twitter, etc.. It is an industry wide unsolved problem.
I completely agree. While incentive only exists for voting for predicted popular posts, actual quality content will continue and increase to fall by the wayside. Right now posts are considered valuable by vote volume and SBD, and posts with low readership are disregarded, despite whether 100% of the few people who did read it thought it was a quality piece. Currently 'successful' posts are not a true reflection of quality, and the current system makes it extremely difficult for anyone else to rise up. @condra, I read your post yesterday and actually wrote a post with a possible solution. https://steemit.com/steemit/@rhi-marie/freeing-minnows-caught-in-the-net-a-proposal-to-propel-quality-content
I've also been concerned about good quality posts getting bypassed simply because of vote value and SBD.
I wrote a post about a new feature "The Whale Feed", check it out. Unfortunately not a lot of people saw it, because ironically, without the whale feed, I got missed. :) Look at it here
Agree there is no economic nor recognition incentive to form communities, rather only to cater to the groupthink.
Post views can be attacked. A vote which costs nothing can also be attacked. Those are non-solutions.
I think I have a solution which involves not voting, but I am not quite ready yet to present it, as I am still analysing it.
It doesn't hurt to brainstorm. I look forward to seeing your solution
I agree. With the people I am following I started to think. "Maybe I should follow the people who are on the auto upvote list for some of the whales and then when they post I can camp out on the Feed and upvote those people right away." And then I was like.... wait a minute. That just gets away from actually looking at what I want to look at and voting on content that I like. It is a very tough problem to solve.
I will admit to doing this on many posts, and I'm sure others have done the same. I upvoted this post. Why? Because I know that hundreds of other people will be upvoting on it soon, and my early vote will give me a better curation bonus than the other posts I could vote on instead.
Does this post deserve my upvote? Yes - I think this is a very important change being discusses, and I am really happy that @dantheman and the Steemit team are giving it so much thought.
Would the amount that got added to this post make a bigger deal if it got distributed to some awesome minnow who just spent the past 6 hours creating the best post of their lives? Yes!
There are a lot of other posts out there though that have really good content too, and they are only getting a few cents per post.
Thank you Tim for being honest. This was the right time and place to let them know. I know a lot of people are voting up high $ value posts, because you know its going to be worth something rather than voting a post stuck at 10 cents or 15 cents. :)
Agreed! And some great content creators may only try three or four articles that took days to make if their reward is only $1.00 This post obviously needed to trend so that it would be weighed in heavily and commented on so a best solution can be implemented
I agree totally with you, voting and curating should be reassessed, I have noticed several irregularities; it's more like a "postcode" lottery where they are more concerned in the rewards instead of the content. Not very democratic or is it?!?!
The whole scenario is quite a conundrum, therefore I think it will take something extraordinary to remedy it!! Ultimately, we are still in the early stages of steem; we must encourage and nurture it like an infant, eventually it will find its own way?!!!
I agree. Why invent yet another complicated voting process to game the system when you should just vote on the things you find valuable.
Someone will just come up with some way to game your new system you've made and the cycle won't end.
Because as I explained in great detail, straightforward linear weighting can also be gamed to degenerate outcome.
Non-experts commenting on suggested algorithms involving game theory is kind of amusing. I don't mean that as an insult, but I hope you guys realize that if we gave the keys to you, the system would burn down to the ground.
You need to really broaden your analysis when entertaining game theory. The attack vectors come from complex scenarios you would not intuitively think of.
I think if you look at a site like google it is more difficult to game than a site like reditt. Granted they are two different beasts, but the more features that limit the amount of abuse of the system the better. If it doesn't work, it can always be returned to the way it was before.