Your title is wrong, you are talking about Steem, not Steemit. Making changes on Steemit ( which is just a website) is meaningless.
The Steem blockchain is open, so how would you get rid of bots? By making the blockchain operations only workable by Steemit? Steem is a diverse ecosystem. Doing so would kill the hundred of Steem Apps that exist such as Busy Drive Utopian eSteem, etc. So how would you do that?
Self voting is an issue. But if we implement your method, whales who want to selfvote will just create dummy accounts
Rather than imposing rules, I believe that with some time, the community will self regulate, more and more initiatives aim to punish the abuses and reward those who deserve it. Of course it will take time and that won't be easy but that s the only way IMO.
Thanks @stoodkev for reminding everyone that there's a difference between wishing Steem would change in some way and having a technical proposal that could actually push the network in that direction. It turns out to be extremely challenging to engineer incentives without unintended consequences. And in a free market where upvotes have value, I don't see how you could successfully regulate vote selling.
Curation rewards are somewhat of a regulator... you have more incentive to vote for good content that others will subsequently upvote than bad content. But push the pendulum too far in this direction and people will start only voting based on what others like.
Totally agree. I think it is already generating this tendency of just liking what others like.
I wouldn't kill bots but there should be some criteria that will stop possibility of upvoting shitty posts.
Ok I don t disagree with the intention, but how do you plan to achieve that?
What does shitty post mean? Is that a concept that someone can code? Or every post should be reviewed manually? Then how do you verify that?
I think that people behind bots should do self regulation. In comment here from @ebargains which help I am using is nice explain.
I strongly agree with the self regulation comment. In fact, most bots already started to self regulate and imposed different new rules/restrictions on their voting processes, including and not limited to 3.5 days post age limit, blacklists for serial abusers/scammers, etc., limit of upvotes per user per round.
All in all, most stakeholders do realize that preserving the value of the network is the number one priority. Add features and efficiencies will come with time, but we must all make sure that the network itself is valuable and not corrupted.
Keep in mind that bots also have human operators behind them, and most of the operators are constantly on the lookout for up and coming new authors and curate/upvote/resteem content manually as well. At least I am :)
This is exactly what all people behind bots should do. Self regulation. To make Steemit better.
Hmm, I never thought of bots that way. Thanks for rhe insight.
@stoodkev - agree with your points: Steemit will likely self-regulate. I would argue that it already is self-regulated. Many posts that are innately stupid or just contain a pic- might have a couple one-liner replies, i.e."cool pic man" and this type of post will rarely make it to the Trending page where the big money is made. Good comments! Upvoted & followed.
Mob justice? Social justice?
Sounds scary :P
Steemit needs a better UI, so, I disagree with you.
I meant for the kind of changes he was mentionning, and that are at the blockchain level, nothing to do with UI.
For the UI, I couldn t agree more with you, as a matter of fact I created SteemPlus extension to solve these problems.
I saw it, personally I don't like it, needs better UX. ;) See if you can "steal" the UX from steemkr. Good luck. :)