You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How would you like rewards to be allocated?
There's one fault with Steem-Ua - I don't think it filters out its own posts when ranking your engagement, or those from well known curation communities such as curie, c-cubed, or ocd.
It's a good problem to have when you get a jumble of those interspersed in your own comment section! I used to use busy for a little while, but haven't touched it in ages, in favor of steempeak.
That voting technique that you have described that they use sounds like an enticing model for genuine content creators.
It's a competitive place for front-ends right now!
Something that folks haven't seemed to realize about reputation is that it is ultimately subjective. Each of us assigns reputation to others based on our personal values and experiences. Any blanket reputation metric cannot do this.
Accordingly, I reckon that the metrics on which reputation is based on should be ranked by individuals, or the reputation number simply plugged in by individuals based on their personal subjective assessment. This means that no universal reputation score would actually exist, but that each account would assign the reputation score relevant to them personally.
When your buddy recommends a contractor to you, your assessment of your buddies' reputation is the basis for evaluating his assessment of the contractor, and that's how reputation works in the real world. That's how it can work on Steem, rather than simply being the result of gaming algorithms.
If people you hold in high reputation hold another in high reputation, that is a useful gauge of folks unknown to you. The opinion of people you do not hold in high reputation may well be contrary to your own assessment. For example, folks that Trump or Clinton hold in high regard are all people I will not. This makes reputation necessarily only as useful as it is subjective, and this particulary is a poignant aspect of a real social media platform. We are not algorithms or bots. The values of algorithms or bots are not those we hold, and it is our actual humanity and society that is the point of our engagement.
Reputation is only useful to people insofar as it is actually the result of our subjective opinion, and this makes it impossible to assign objective measures to. Bots and algorithms cannot assign reputation, except per our individual use of them per our preferences. A mechanism to reveal reputation of someone unknown to us but known to folks we follow based on the assessment of those we follow is useful as a means of recommending them to us, or discouraging us.
Money is not reputation. UA is an attempt to reflect that fact, but it is not able to reflect the fact that the esteem of folks I do not esteem is actually contrary to my esteem, and I don't see how an algorithm might reflect that fact. The truth is that the reputation of any person is different to each other person considering them, and no universal reputation score has real value.
Thanks!
I definitely agree with your statements. Reputation depends so much on your personal level of trust with an individual on the chain. For instance, some people in the Steem Monster community have previously asked for me to act as escrow, as they held the view that I could be trusted to not take the money and run.
However, if that same trust needed to transfer into the steem silver gold community, I probably wouldn't have that same level of engagement and "trust-worthiness" to them,
I'm a big fan of the 1 person = 1 vote, and for you to be able to "review" people's profiles based on your feeling for their reputation. Reputation is a funny thing in that regard, however; and could be gamed. If people pay for votes, there's surely someone out there that will pay for reputation.
That's what a lot of political activists end up doing. There's no perfect system. I like to use my gut. The reputation number is nothing than a number.
Actions speak louder than numbers. :)
Thanks for your well considered response!