My biggest pet peeve is that people upvote without reading.
That's something that is akin to setting the whole steemit idea on fire. Don't upvote just because "dantheman" upvoted, READ THE FRICKING POST!
Don't upvote because YOU THINK it's gonna be popular, READ THE FRICKING POST and make your own opinion.
That's how you make steemit work...
/rand over\
;)
:)))))
maybe it would be a good idea to only make the upvote available inside the post, not on a list view of posts
And maybe even a time delay to ensure you don't just open and vote. Just like 15 seconds or so. This would only be annoying to those who don't read the content.
It really doesn't matter, most early votes are done by bots.
The main issue with this request, sadly, is that most people are just lazy. They want to dump out the box of cereal and get the prize as opposed to arriving to it after going through the process of eating several bowls of it.
...hey! don't kill my faith in people and steemit. we will not be like the rest, we are not lazy :D
You and me both buddy, you and me both.
Hey, I eat the cereal...
I think the upvote button outside the post should be removed as it just encourages people to vote based on a title or it's payout value. Removing it wouldn't stop people from jumping down the page and doing it, but at least it would make it more of a nuisance to people gaming the system that way.
this can be done easily, also hiding the post value at the time could be a cool idea for an hour or so, although people voting because they see a whale upvoted won't be stopped by that :)
I really like this idea. It would make people actually curate for quality.
Organic voters that have enough SP who upvote before they read the post is a small, negligible minority. My bot doesn't read any post, yet it correctly predicted 6 of the 8 top trending posts yesterday (similar most other days).
Let me know when actually reading content becomes as profitable. The problem isn't in the culture, it's in the voting system.
fair point. i disagree on your view though, a greedy approach is cultural but of course, can't be helped. Your bot did well and you see it as an argument that "reading is not profitable" I see it as a sign that lack of diversity and not enough whales upvotes are chocking steemit\s potential growth...the sooner we see more posts and different authors making trending the better.
That being said, I liked your post and upvoted.
Thank you for your comments!
Why do you say you disagree if you say it can't be helped? ;)
Even if it were possible, wouldn't changing the "greedy" approach also go against the very essence of Steemit (getting paid for content creation/curation)?
Well yes! I hope, for the sake of this platform, that this bot issue will get better, otherwise there's just no point in manually curating/reading content. I think the diversity is there, tit's just not on those vote bots' authors list. There's really no reason for the problem to disappear. From an economic perspective, voting for someone who isn't on those lists is almost always a bad decision.
This means that the relative rate at which authors are added to those bot lists is necessarily going to be less than user growth/content creation. So the problem may appear like it's getting better, while actually getting worse. Scary thought!
interesting insight, man. I wouldn't have thought of that but I see the point! Looking forward to reading your stuff, you have quirky and original way of thinking.
I 'agreed' with you 2 (closing on 3) months ago, so I cannot see why not do it again.
Solution to the Curation Rewards
I agree, but we are not living in a perfect world.
A Steemit AI code should fix this in the future.
what does this even mean? that people act out of greed against their self-interest but thinking they are actually acting in their interest? yeah. not perfect.
Holy cow, that statement is like a conundrum wrapped in a state of confusion. I'm still wrapping my head around it! :D
i triple checked: legit sentence!
Well! It is correct that you do not say so! But there is one - but? Under the terms of payment the first voted has bigger percent from profit. It's put in a system. If as you speak at first to read and then to vote. My voice will be 135 for example when I will read it, I will make the comment and what turns out on my statistics? At the end of payment, my vote receives that? In what there can be a reason?
actually voting at 20-30 minutes is "optim" but i'm not talking about that here. I'm talking about voting for the right reasons mostly.
I really don't think that's true. Probably closer to 10 mins on any popular author.
I agree with you. It is not correct to vote without analysis. The article has to it is pleasant. But considering that we now on the new use upvote. Earlier they had no weight.
I get it, you said "rand over" at the end to see if anyone read to the end!! ;0)
I wish, but it was just typo :D