RE: Curation problems (incentive, rewards and self-voting)
Another problem to add to the list:
When flags 'are' used, they are sometimes used irresponsibly. Incidentally I feel that flags should always require the individual doing so to include an explanation. Its not like the community cannot see whodunit.
Incidentally, while we are talking about modifying curation rewards, might I humbly draw your attention to my post about data flowers? Its only semi-relevant but it is what it is (but might influence your thinking on this topic).
To bring this back on-topic however, I personally find the '30 minute rule' and the 'early curation rewards' to be rather conflicting. I have caught myself refraining from up-voting a post because its still minutes away from 30 minutes (I waited 2 minutes before up-voting yours...) - and thats not right.
I am not sure what I'd propose as replacement - but I am sure that such will come to me eventually. I am personally leaning toward suggesting that votes are anonymous up until 30 minutes or even an hour after publication.
As an aside - I really like any suggestion that encourages people to 'spread out more'.
However I find it tempting to suggest a slightly different curation rewards structure.
1st, = snipe
2nd-3rd = secondment
4th-7th = confirms
8th-15th = green light
16th-31st = etc.
These would have their pools mostly shared - so the 16th and the 31st are relatively equal, but there would be a small jump between the 16th and the 15th.
I find that I am rambling on, so I'd best post this before it gets longer. Thank you for seeking to tackle this topic @calamus056 :c)
I don't like it either that you can't vote whenever you want. Indeed spreading out might be the key to all this instant voting stuff without even reading the content whatsoever.
It's all really complex, but i'm pretty sure major improvements are possible without leaving it too vulnerable to attacks.
Absolutely. I also find that the minnows/dolphins/whales classifications seem to also affect who people hang out with. Small fish gravitate to big fish in the hopes of big crumbs.
And yet it seems to me that the 'smart' thing for whales to do is to engage in circular voting among themselves. I would 'really' appreciate it if you or anybody else could explain why I'm actually mistaken in this thinking. :c)
You're right, they're all asskissing each other for votes. STEEM POWER is way too influential when there aren't any systems in place that ensure quality curation.
This is regretable and a clear short-coming in the structure of the system.
It will be a challenge (for me) to think up any solution that would also serve the interests of whales. Still - it needs to be done.
Thank you for confirming my suspicions.