RE: I Will Upvote Constructive Comments by 5-10 Cents - Let's Improve Content on Steemit Together
I’m not vying to be a winner in your promotional offer, although I do not intend that to be a derogatory stance towards it. I simply want to comment because I think it is important to make a point about it.
My thought is that comments are very important (perhaps the small text in that comment inspired you to write this blog?), but that we need them to occur organically and not driven by some monetary circle-jerk. I wrote about economics matters.
Specifically I think the 1-10% of society who are the productive leaders actually make the content and products which the other 90-99% use. (That is nature, not my preference). So my objective for an onboarding, token distribution, marketing, viral growth, and monetization design is to target those 1-10% who will thus bring in the other 90-99%. But do it in such a way that all 100% are involved and motivated to interact (e.g. make comments). The creators make sure they create apps and content that creates discussion, use, and uptake. They are marketing and developing and they are closer to and more knowledgeable about their target markets.
I will publish the details eventually (this year).
I second what @anonymint has to say. I don't comment by the rules ...making me count how many words I've written or whether I have provided a link or not. I don't want to feel stupid if I comment more than 20 words as all those extra words won't earn anything to me, it's a waste of all my efforts! And if you are decided that you won't upvote my comment twice in 24 hour period then you are actually discouraging me to comment more.
I read your terms as:
...And much more. I don't wanna keep on writing about that. But what I feel is that comments or for that matter any interaction should be spontaneous and appear natural. If everyone of your move is guided by some strict rules then you are not a human but some machine!
Sorry, I ain't sounding any pleasant here but I'm not here to earn 5 or 10 cents. At other places, my comments can earn several dollars. Why I'm wasting my time where the upper limit is only 10 cents! I'm really stupid, you know!
If our knowledge is astute, we can earn more trading in a group where they trade back valuable knowledge. Knowledge production is worth more than 10 cents. That is the Inverse Commons.
I don’t think you intended to be unpleasant. You’re just expressing yourself.
The OP was not intending to restrict degrees-of-freedom. You’re pointing out that he inadvertently did. There are tradeoffs. I hope we can find models that are not too one-dimensional.
Yes @anonymint, knowledge too is the Inverse Commons. My sincere thanks to you to link to that article. It was really an interesting read!
And yeah, I do feel that the author of this post is in quest to establish some ideal model for encouraging and adopting a right perspective towards content generation on this platform. I was just trying to post a critique of his model. (But it's also true, personally I didn't like his approach. But who cares ..."your blog your rules" 😉)
Voting incentives spammers such this one linked below:
https://steemit.com/@saqib/comments
I downvoted many of his comments, because he is just spamming the system hoping to get 5 and 10 cents here and there. Must be a bot or someone from a third world country. I suspect he is operating many sock puppets and replies to himself with them:
https://steemit.com/@saqib/recent-replies
It’s quite pointless for me to waste my time downvoting to try to lower his reputation. The downvoting design of Steem thus incentivizes pointless activity. My main motivation was to retaliate for him downvoting my recent blog about Marisa Mayer, so as to let him know that downvoting is highly discouraged on Steemit and should only be done to flag low quality, spam, fraud, or abusive content. To express disagreement, one should post a comment, not issue a downvote. Punishing quality content creation with downvotes (which impact the author’s reputation score) is the antithesis of incentivizing the growth of Steemit.
@xyzashu Your comment has provided me lots of value and things to think about, I appreciate that.
This campaign was an experiment designed to see what types of comments I could get considering I am fairly unknown on Steemit. I want to kickstart my blog by incentivizing people to follow, interact and provide value. So far the experiment has proven very successful and I am considering simply upvoting all constructive comments (not just for 5 days) in an effort to bring more people to blog and to get more people in the mindset of providing value.
I'm hoping that by offering this type of incentive, people will start commenting and thinking about the topics I write about regardless of whether or not they are compensated. Maybe I'm just being idealistic :)
Either way it's a work in progress and I'm going to adapt as I get more feedback like yours, thanks again!
Great that you found my comment of some value. It shows your positive approach to things.
But I'd add that whatever works for you is good if you are satisfied by it. Who am I? You can't please all!
And thanks, I loved the amendment you made by quashing the 5 day limit. 😊
All the best to you! Steem on! I'm following you now to see how you progress and would like to learn from your experiments too.
@anonymint, I liked your opinion. For Steemit to succeed, we need to treat is as a currency. Trading votes for donations is saying that you agree that this amount is equal to this amount of vote(s). For sometimes horrible but other times wonderful reasons, this is not true.
It’s distracting actually to have to remember to think about voting, because it is supposedly the obligatory mechanism for making the monetary incentives work around here.
Money is society’s information system for identifying and incentivizing the productive (notwithstanding problems of corruption of money systems which distort the information system and cause misallocation).
Voting as a monetary signaling system is not very effective nor efficient. Democracy has proved that. There’s nothing voting ever does efficiently. “Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.”—Lazarus Long. Groupwise decision making doesn’t exist. A group can only disagree. Consensus is a way of not testing our disagreements to see which is the most productive. Consensus thus destroys production. Democracy basically exists as the alternative to civil war, but it only works for as long as we can fund it with debt.
P.S. I read your informational blog post about Portland. Never tasted MJ, never will. I don’t even drink alcohol any more. What is going on in the USA now is far from my experience there in the 1970s and 1980s. If you’re interested in exploring other cities, I was born here.
Hey @anonymint, you bring several good points to the table when describing money's function within a society. In that sense value is indeed arbitrary. (just don't prefer the idea of vote for vote or pay x amount SBD for upvotes)
I can agree that if everyone agreed on everything all the time, there would cease to be any growth within a society. Your reply interests me, as I'm currently taking World Civilization as my History requirement.
In terms of Steemit, all I am saying is that I don't think some people take it seriously enough and share regurgitated information to try to make a quick buck and are not seeing the whole picture of the long-term.
Oh! In the islands we have our own kinds of comfort foods as well, I always wanted to visit where you're from. Good guess! Unfortunately I am not Filipino c:
Cheers!
Indeed. That is why I proposed a different mechanism for incentivizing onboarding, which I posit will incentivize us to invest in the long-term growth of the paradigm.
You nailed it. Nature requires defection else there can’t be any change. Change is required for adaptation and resiliency. OTOH, society requires some mechanisms to prevent defection, to the extent that capital needs to be aggregated for some outcomes (e.g. putting a man on the moon or industrialization). A goal I see for decentralization and our lurch out of the industrial age is reducing the monolithic capital requirements.
I suggest Martin Armstrong for an alternative take on world history. Wikipedia will tell you a lie about him. Dig if you shall find.
As I remembered it, it was very informal, lack of pretension, and uninhibited, especially in the non-white venues. My mother put it best when she explained to me she was just standing along the road not intending to catch a bus, and the city bus stopped, door flung open, and the lady driver exclaimed, “girl you need to get on this bus” in an affectionate demeanor.
@anonymint Your comments impress me as always, upvoted! I also commented on that insightful comment you linked to in the comment above :)
It would be great to have all comments flow organically although I'd argue that the beauty of Steem is that we can offer authors such as myself an opportunity to create a community focused on giving and receiving through the medium of extra SP purchased. SP is what gives me the motivation to write a lot and to write well now because it offers me the option of encouraging constructive comments in a way that would not be possible without it. I wouldn't be spending all this time writing articles and comments if it were not for SP (or I might but I'd not go all-in from the very beginning as I have).
I want my readers to think, "I could comment on this FB post or reply to this tweet or I could give my feedback to this or that Steemit top author, but I won't get rewarded for my insight. But @blockchainttmft always rewards me for my insight and makes me feel appreciated, I think I'll go post my comment there".
Yes I can see that motivation but I’m contemplating if it is perhaps too one dimensional. People have a myriad of triggers on their priorities. For example, an addictive game might take precedence over earning SP from comments. So much so that the user might even be willing to pay more than just his time for playing the game. Or even a business app or access to a technical blog might provide more productivity utility than the earning SP from commenting. One might even comment for free on a technical blog because they get more value from it by doing so.
As for your case of wanting to earn more SP, I have a solution for that in my design also. The more you use the system, the more tokens you get just for using it (presuming you use it as advised) as well as driving the value of your tokens higher because the system gains more sticky use.
It is likely too one dimensional and I intend to rethink how to change it as time passes by. Maybe I'll only be so generous until a point where I have 1000 followers and show people that there is value to be had in reading my blogs. Until then I think an incentive such as the one I created makes sense.
A business with an incredible product and little to no marketing has little to no chance of succeeding and the opposite is true too. I am considering the most effective ways of marketing my blog and the value people can get from reading it and interacting in the comments.
You will not make anyone rich from upvoting comments. They are more likely to value you for attracting them to Steem, if your blog could actually reach people outside of Steem.
(And my Bitnet if I ever get it launched is going to be a much more ideal way of you achieving that)
I have serious reservations about both the product and marketing of Steem. But for the moment, it is probably the best we have available for blockchain onboarding and blogging.