If You Accept the Upvotes, You Really Need to Accept the Downvotes
Some things never change on Steemit, and lately an air of nostalgia has been brought to the platform by, you guessed it, flagging drama.
People still see the flag as a personal attack against them, which is not how it should be.
People still feel entitled to their potential payouts, which is not how it should be.
What seems to happen a lot on Steemit is people attracting regular big votes long enough for it to become standard, and then they feel that's the way it should be forever and ever. They get used to the fact that once they post, they make, say, $100 every time, and they are entitled to that.
These people seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how Steemit, and the allocation of rewards, works.
There are two types of votes: upvotes and downvotes. These don't differ from one another in any other way other than being opposite to each other.
When a post is upvoted, it's upvoted because the upvoter feels that particular post should be rewarded more.
When a post is downvoted, it's downvoted because the downvoter feels that particular post should be rewarded less.
It doesn't have to be anything personal, it's not like all upvotes are personal, either.
It's hugely hypocritical to accept the upvotes, but reject the downvotes. It reminds me of a certain other trending author from back in the day, who was more than okay with the fact that he was getting upvoted by both dan accounts, guaranteeing huge rewards, but once he got downvoted, he went on a nonstop tirade FOR WEEKS about how it's soooo wrong that one or two users on Steemit dictate who does and doesn't deserve to be rewarded.
Why wasn't he ranting about the same thing when it was indeed one user ensuring him the rewards on a regular basis? How was it any different when it was upvotes instead of downvotes? Why were the upvotes not an "abuse of power"? It was largely one user deciding he should be heavily rewarded.
Of course, it wasn't. The only difference was that the upvotes made him money, while the downvotes reduced his potential payouts.
When it's a whale upvoting, there's never a problem with "one user" "abusing his power", but when it's one user downvoting, it all of a sudden becomes an abuse of power.
Even though both votes do the exact same thing: allocate a large portion of the resources, based on the whim of that particular individual.
And there's nothing wrong with that. The voting is stake based. I feel silly having to even explain this, this is the entire basis of how Steemit and STEEM Power work, but obviously there is still a significant portion of the userbase that doesn't quite seem to grasp how this Steemit thing functions.
Stake based voting means that the more STEEM Power you hold, the bigger the portion of the rewards you control. This counts for both upvotes and downvotes. A stakeholder can use his or her stake any way he or she sees fit.
I repeat.
A stakeholder can use his or her stake any way he or she sees fit.
So, as an example. Large Stakeholder A decides to upvote a post. This is how he decided to use his stake today. Large Stakeholder B decides to downvote that post. This is how he decided to use his stake today.
No crime is being committed here
Recently, we had a situation where @transisto felt that a particular poster was being rewarded heavily, in relates to his view count. His logic was that the author's posts were not attracting a large enough view count to justify the rewards on those posts.
Now, people can either agree or disagree with the logic, but that is @transisto's logic, and he is an investor, something STEEM needs more of. As an investor, he is interested in bringing value to Steemit, and wants the rewards to go to posts that, in his eyes, bring value to Steemit. And, to him, the view counter is one way of measuring this.
I think this needs to be encouraged. Not enough whales care about the reward pool, or the long term value of Steemit/STEEM, at all.
People need to get over the idea that they are entitled to their potential payouts. This is long over due. The term "potential" is there for a reason. All payouts are subject to community/stake holder consensus, and during the payout period, people have the right to upvote and downvote as they please.
I can not, for the life of me, understand what it is about this that is so hard to comprehend for so many people.
This is not me kissing anybody's ass. Personally, I, too, post fiction on Steemit. They attract around 30-40 views on average. My other posts attract a lot more, and I know what to post to break the 200+ mark pretty consistently. I'm fine with the fact that fiction is not a huge draw on Steemit - since very few people read Steemit posts to begin with - and it's different type of content that attracts readers. I'm also way too lazy to promote my posts, or anything of that nature, in any way.
So, no, I don't post content that brings value to STEEM in @transisto's eyes, and that's totally okay.
I think a lot of people are overvaluing their posts on Steemit in general. Go anywehre else on the internet, and a blog post that gets 30 views is valued at precisely $0.
Steemit is this unique thing that can make posts like that valuable, but it doesn't mean they hold any value in the real world.
Personally, if a story chapter of mine that stood at 30 views, attracted a vote from one big whale, and got rewarded to $150 for example, I'd be totally fine with someone deciding to flag it to around $30 or whatever. If a large stake holder digs it, great - but at the same time, all other stake holders are entitled to disagree with the rewards.
And it's the resulting consensus that ultimately determines the final payout.
I generally post two types of posts:
- My story chapters, because it's fun
- Whatever happens to amuse me at any given time
Any payouts I make are a bonus.
Of course I like money as much as the next guy, but I'm not entitled to anything. Steemit doesn't owe me anything.
Steemit and the reward pool are not about me!
And they're not about you, either.
People always use the argument that it's "original work" and this, that and the other thing, but they fail to realize that there are tons and tons of people posting on Steemit that never attract whale attention, and make a few bucks, if that, per post. The rewards that one poster loses upon being flagged are not burned, they go to all the other posters not making a dime.
They post "original work", too.
That's not to say there aren't copy and paste artists raking in the rewards, we all know that there are. But this all goes back to there not being enough whales with the interest, or the balls, to really go against these people. And the community attacking big users flagging surely doesn't encourage doing that.
People could also think of it this way: if posts that bring value to the blockchain are encouraged and reward, then the smaller rewards made by other posts - such as my fiction - will grow as the price of STEEM grows in the future.
Now, I personally am not in the camp of believing that blog posts could really bring value to the blockchain to begin with, but that's another discussion. A lot of users here sure see to think that their posts are a godsent, and the platform would be doomed without them.
I'm not one of them, I'm perfectly fine admitting that my content is not needed on this platform. If you like what I post, awesome! But it's not like my absence would make a dent in anything. Also, I'd like to say that I'd appreciate genuine engagement more than bigger rewards, since my personal finances do not depend on Steemit. Everything I make is a nice bonus, and I think that's a healthy way of looking at Steemit rewards. That way, I don't take anything personally.
Recently, I've just sent my Steemit rewards to my sick mom to help her with her bills anyway.
Steemit is not your job, and if you truly are talented, you can find occupancy elsewhere, I would think. If you can't - hey, maybe you're just not as good as you think you are.
And I know I'm going to be getting those "Well, I guess you don't mind being flagged then!" people, and to them: No, I don't. Bring it.
However, conversation about this topic is welcomed! Agree? Disagree?
Leave a comment, let's talk.
Great points, well made.
I think it's a psychological thing. We see the pending $$$ against our names and instinctively it "feels" like the “money” is ours. If we get a regular payout, we normalise it. Anything that disrupts our "good thing" is anathema.
We forget (or ignore) the rules of the game that we signed up for. We also forget the reality of what happens outside of the platform.
I still can’t get over when people felt bitter that they were “only” getting $2k per post because others were getting $10k+.
The reality is; if you’re a Content-Creator the real currency is not the STEEM you earn but the following (real following not fake follows) you can amass/ bring. I.e. the attention and engagement you can garner. Steem is in the attention economy business and if Steem stakeholders do not see value what you bring to the platform, another platform will (assuming what you bring is valuable). I think sometimes people give themselves titles like “minnows” and relinquish their own power to better their situation.
Complaints about downvoting, about no longer getting upvotes, about others getting undeserved upvotes will be par of the course for any platform like this.
....and yet many "whales" are in this perpetual back-scratching club called auto-upvoting. One well-known whale makes a post and they have 800 upvotes worth $200 in 10 minutes. So much for being a "Content-Creator" driven platform.
Back-scratching, yes can be a problem - but it is different from autovoting.
Auto-voting is just a tool. Used effectively it can benefit Content Creators. I know many people that use auto-voting to provide consistent rewards to Content Creators that produce quality content.
I use auto-voting myself and I've lost count of the number of Content Creators that have thanked me for supporting them. I do not have the time to read every word of every post they make. But I do I review their blogs periodically and adjust my auto-vote, even removing my vote if warranted. Also I'm always on the look out for new Content Creators to add to my list.
I think it is important that we define the problems we see properly. Back-scratching, circle-jerking or whatever we want to call it exists and it is a problem. I'm not sure it can be completely irradicated but it can be mitigated. However eliminating or demonising auto-voting does not solve it. It is just as easy for a relatively small group of 'whales' to manually vote for each other as it is for them to auto-vote.
What doesn't scale so easy is trying to reward hundreds or thousands of Content Creators through manual voting, there simply aren't enough hours in the day. Auto-voting helps with this until we reach a point where larger Steem Power holders can run their accounts like a business and hire people to professionally curate for content. We're a long way from that point, so auto-voting is the best we've got to consistently reward good Content-Creators.
As funny as it seems apparently youtube algo rank higher videos that are controversial. So in the same spirit someone getting a +100$ worth upvote and a -90$ should feel way happier than a guy that get 10$ and almost no attention whatsoever.
The $$ part is very predominant on Steem. while this is good for transparency. It also encourages greed and makes new users feel like they aren't compensated well enough for their efforts.
I agree with this sentiment
Exactly. A very good addition to my post.
Loved this part so much!!
Yup... even if steemit dies tomorrow (hope not).. what I gained is the people I met because of it. The contests I took part in and people who taught me writing (@bex-dk, @tinypaleokitchen and @rhondak)
That's a big comments and it's a great I appreciate it @nanzo-scoop 👌
I really can't think of adding any more to this post...
Put simply... This is one of the best Steemit-based articles I've ever read and hence, one of the easiest 100% upvotes I've ever given...
Thanks a lot, man!
Couldn't agree more.
Thanks, @shaka. :)
That's a great comments I appreciate it @ezzy 👍
Growing pains. Crypto seems to attract a lot of overly entitled, delusional, greedy or hubristic people. Such a personality is not suitable for publishing content on the internet, and it's just a matter of time they are replaced by actual bloggers who can handle a negative opinion about their work. Indeed, there's been great progress on this front, and the frequency of flagging dramas seems to have reduced greatly over time.
One can only hope there's truth to this statement. It seems the latest new thing to Steemit is the resale shop.
Is this a platform for creators or sellers of unrelated content?
Peace.
Which type is you?
I don't claim to be a blogger, though I do like writing occasionally.
Wow - just, wow. It's extremely rare that I read something like this which completely changes the way I have thought about something.
A big part of the problem and why people (including myself) don't see it the way you are describing is because in the UI it is called "flagging" instead of "downvoting" which has a completely different connotation.
I've heard people say before that it shouldn't be called "flagging" but I didn't understand why and thought that "flagging" was a fine thing to call it because that's how I thought downvotes were supposed to be used.
Thanks to you it's clear to me now that downvoting and flagging are very different and I think SteemIt would benefit from having both. Downvoting would be what "flagging" is now - and should be used just like the opposite of upvoting.
Then a separate "flagging" feature should be added to flag posts that are illegal, inappropriate, spam, etc. Flagged posts would often also be downvoted, but downvoted posts would not necessarily often be flagged.
Thank you for this!
Yes, the flag should definitely be changed to downvote on the UI! It's a "downvote" everywhere else except the actual GUI.
Agreed, I found that very confusing as a new user. I guess the intent was to make "flag" sound more serious than "downvote"?
You read my mind (and posted what i thought 2 minutes after me ;) )
I honestly want to know how to quote a text within a reply.
Just put a “>” as the first character in the line before the quoted text.
Thanks for this @yabapmatt
I totally agree with you. I've been on steemit for about a week now and though it's not a long time but it has been long enough for me to notice that some persons feel their posts are "heavenly" and so they should be rewarded greatly. Steemit is supposed to be a place were we all as humans come together to share ideas and experiences with one another and the fact that there are rewards attached to contributions should be seen as bonuses. We should look beyond these rewards and add value to this community. Let us learn from eachother and grow together.
You're a new user. Someone who still sees all this "from the outside", so I'd say your opinion is very valuable. Those of us that have been here from the start pretty much can easily get stuck inside the "Steemit bubble", which can skew our views.
Good to hear from a new user.
Thank you. My walk around steemit has been great. I've learnt a lot of stuff i can actually apply to my everyday life. Some of the blog posts of some users are quite helpful.
I agree with you!
I actually just commented on one of the posts about this:
https://steemit.com/writing/@michelle.gent/my-flagged-posts#@ats-david/re-michellegent-my-flagged-posts-20171120t164715100z
It's mind-boggling to me that this is even a thing right now.
it's still a thing and don't forget to flag a ham :D people always have a thing for their own view, so it's hard to see other's perspective on whatever.
I got trolled, received tons of messages in discord, was implicitly blamed for witch hunt for downvoting. -_-
These people only make things worse.
If there were two equally positioned buttons one for upvote and another one for downvote then you would be right.
When one is called FLAG people naturally assume that it is to be used to penalize someone for bad behavior, like spam, scam, violations of rules here and so on and certainly not a simple innocent downvote.
When someone flags you for no reason other than that someone wishing you to earn less money, yes it maybe perceived insulting, offensive and taken personally because in the mind of the authors they didn’t violate any rules and didn’t deserve to be “flagged”.
Also I have an issue with your approach because of reputation. When you donvote/flag someone their reputation suffers as well. So it’s not only your disagreement of how much you think they deserve to be paid. You are damaging their hard earned reputation and it is a big deal and a good reason to get personal.
There is a huge difference between disagreeing with someone’s position and to disrespecting the person stating it. Flagging is associated with disrespect. If done without very strong reason other than payment consideration it feels defamatory too.
If you could RESPECTFULLY downvote without affecting reputation then I would partly accept your position.
Let’s say you have a very smart opponent whom you respect but just don’t agree with their position let’s say on politics, religion etc and but the person is making very logical arguments to which you can’t say anything proving them wrong, you just don’t like it... and then instead of respectfully disagreeing you come and smash the person in the face.
This is how it Coomonly felt here when someone downvotes for no apparent reason, as it seems to the majority.
Hope you can see the difference.
What @bix said.
Excellent observations, stated very graciously.
😄😇😄
Thank you
Nail it.
Well written. Gues it's just human psychology. When you read about what happens when people start to earn more money it takes like one month to mentally get accustomed to. But once you lose your job or have to take a rather significant paycut it takes three times as long to get used to.
People get comfortable with their rewards and assume everyone will always agree that the rewards should be there. Yeah it sucks to get a flag. The current trend now is to attribute every flag to being abuse and to publicly complain about it; we are no longer asking ourselves whether the down-vote is the voter simply using their stake.
My personal level of involvement and giving a shit in any flag-related drama is pretty much zero. Or in any drama for that matter.
Woops, didn't mean to re-arrange the rank of the comments here. Thought this was posted on my post. :P
Too much #price lol
You can always re-re-arrange the rank of the comments:))
First I want to say that I upvoted this because I agree with the base thesis: Complaining about downvotes makes no sense if you're not also complaining about upvotes. They are part of the same system.
However, there are a lot of details that I feel you get wrong (or, at least, I disagree with them).
For one, you say that you don't depend on Steemit for income, yet you are powering down - essentially giving up potential returns in the future - in order to help your sick mother.
While I believe this is admirable, I also believe the statements are contradictory. If you really didn't need Steemit at all, you wouldn't need to power down to help your mother.
I think that everyone has some level of dependency on Steemit. What you mean is, your level of dependence isn't very high. And that's fine, great even.
But I think there's a small insinuation that a person might be a bit of a loser if they do depend on their income from Steemit. I disagree with this. If it makes money, it's fair game as a means of survival.
However, this is also why I agree with your base thesis: what people don't like about Steemit is that it is perfectly fair. You put in more of a stake (either through the sweat equity of writing posts and doing projects or through a direct financial investment) and you get more say in how the platform works.
I like that you invite people to talk at the end. You can be a bit of a character so I was unsure about you, but I think the lucidity and equanimity of this post has earned my follow (I'm sure you care).
I also disagree about blog posts being valuable. Value is what we say it is, the more people that percieve that value and engage with it, the more value is inherently brought to the platform. Steemit might be able to survive any specific blogger leaving, but it certainly could not survive all of us (or even the top 20,000) taking off at once.
I've seen things developing and certainly understand both sides, but people threatening to quit the platform really turns me off, especially when they're fortunate enough to have been making that much a post regularly.
If they can downvote you and you don't like it, become resolve to become more powerful.
As you say, people can do exactly what they like with their power on this platform, and it behooves all of us to attempt to act in the platforms best interest the more we have invested in it.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. My personal finances do not depend on Steemit. What I meant by this is that I don't use the rewards on myself. I have no use for them at this point in time, so I feel that it's a good little way to help her out. She does depend on my finances right now.
But you make fair points, I must say.
What @jenkinrocket said...
Excellent observations, stated very graciously.
😄😇😄