You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [Dear Steemit] An Open Letter to Steemit Inc.
I'm wondering if making the ability to flag an unlockable achievement - say at rep 30, would solve this.
I'm wondering if making the ability to flag an unlockable achievement - say at rep 30, would solve this.
In a way... that’s kind of what the upcoming updates will do. With the proposed revamped system, new users will start with 0 Steem Power, not the 15 SP delegation they receive now. If someone sits at the initial 25 rep, sure they can throw flags all they want... but with 0 weight and no effect. Attaining a 30 Rep is rather easy, I’d guess the positive votes needed to hit 30 only amount to about 2 SP of value at most. Essentially a 30 rep account will have unlocked the ability to throw 2 SP weight flags. The main abuse ongoing here is the use of unearned, delegated stake for these trolling purposes. Steemit Inc. does already allow for reporting of these bad actors to have their delegation removed however.
So essentially, you’ll be unlocking flagging power as you raise in reputation (which can only occur with positive earnings.)
The other part is simply education of new users. Once users realize the flags they are receiving have no impact on their post or earnings, and are completely random & automated by asshats, I’d hope they can easily look past them. If not, an open social media system will never be the right fit for them.
That may just be treating the symptom more than the problem.
I have expressed in past posts (my opinion hasn't changed) that downvotes and reputation should be inversely calculated. The reason for this is that IMHO, every single downvote reduces your credibility as a content curator and that should be reflected as such. Each downvote is a negative reaction to content; therefore, (even in good intentions) it the downvoter should be affected negatively. To be clear, I don't think downvotes are bad, it's just that they reduce credibility. It should be reflected as such in your reputation. I'll bullet for clarity
That's a simplified explanation for brevity. The advantage here is that you need reputation to downvote. For more affective downvotes, you need more reputation. As you downvote, your reputation drops because your credibility drops. This forces curators to not just downvote, but to engage in the community for support and produce content in order to gain more influence for downvotes. This also begs the question whether content upvotes should be the only path to reputation increments.
It's a set of checks and balances to prevent bullying. Also, it allows communities to vet curators. Better curators will have higher reputation and will be more affective at downvoting because they have community support through upvotes. Bad curators won't have that support and their reputation will stay low reducing their ability to downvote. This allows curation communities like steemcleaners and qurator to have more control.
I also think that reputation shouldn't be calculated linearly. It should be a matrix calculation based-on community standing and tagging. Perhaps even a single reputation value may not be enough. That is another discussion though. I'm just saying I think the solution here is a pretty involved one.
Your technical ability far exceeds mine! Some really good ideas there though, and I think a more complex system is definitely needed personally. You're definitely onto something when you say it would keep Curators in check. I can see why people might take issue with this idea, but at this late stage in the game I think we need to try a few different methods out. Right now, reputation doesn't mean anything since it can basically be bought.
Exactly. Many people complain about downvoting and call it censorship, but I think what they really have a problem with is the whole reputation system.
I noticed on busy.org they just have likes and dislikes, which I think clears the whole thing up a bit. I realised the other day that if you compare Steemit to YouTube, another platform that's monetised, the whole dislike thing isn't that big of a problem here.
I agree that it's the reputation system that needs more focus, or just heck, Steemit Inc do something! The whole "censorship" argument just comes across as childish to me
Steemit recently released hivemind api that would allow communities to build with better integration to the social media system having to be coupled to the blockchain. I mention this because I think steemit really favors community involvement and crowdsourced curation initiatives.
Therein, may exist the solution. To let community standing become the new reputation system. I like this concept because it's like the Wonka elevator of reputation systems. It doesn't have to follow a simple linear calculation or even be a number. Each community can handle standing differently.
I haven't read about that, off to go do some research now. Definitely sounds like an interesting idea.
It takes Steemit so long to get anything done, I just wonder whether it's got the long-term potential I want it to have. I've been looking into existing and upcoming alternative platforms, and there are a couple that could absolutely blow Steem and Steemit out of the water.
I think STEEM is too big to fail, but steemit not so much. It seems like they're going in a lot of directions all at once, but they're also spread way too thin. IMHO, they should dump the condenser. There are a number of interfaces out there that do it better (busy, zappl, pretty much anything...). It takes focus away from them being able to build a platform, tools for the blockchain, and witnesses. It's time to throw in the towel on that one. They've proven decentralized condenser works.
That is something I've thought about before actually and forgot about. I can't see why that wouldn't work, it's not a hard milestone to achieve and stops these accounts from instantly being able to cause havok.
It would be interesting see what a witness / coder thinks about this. I'll tag @themarkymark here as he is familiar with the doofus league and might have some thoughts on the matter.
I'd really appreciate that bud, I'd love to hear what someone more qualified and experienced has to say. There could be a few things I'm misunderstanding.
Maybe we should limit the ammount of flags you can throw per day - I mean really who needs to flagg 100 posts a day?
That's a good point actually, I don't see the need for the average account to have more than say 3 - 10, maybe allowing for certain community trusted accounts like @steemcleaners to have extra
I doubt this would happen though... to many people here would moan and say its all about free speech and freedom to flag however they want to
I'm sad.
Why? What's happened?
Sadly, the SDL accounts are so weak that they'll never bother an account like that.
I mean, you have my support, I hate false flagging campaigns, although that's not really worth a lot if he's flagging you.
France beat Croatia.
Giving a 100% upvote to this not because I agree with it but because I can't understand why it's flagged.
I guess on reflection my only issue is it doesn't really address the issue of a loss of value in Steem.
It is somewhat surprising that this kind of thing hasn't been addressed before at a code level.
The only other way I can see of stopping or masking it would be for steemit, busy etc. to shadow ban accounts like this at a UI level.
I think that's what's surprised me the most, the lack of attention from SteemitInc.
That's definitely a creative solution to the problem, not something I'd thought of. I know they have a philosophy of not wanting to prevent anyone from interacting with the blockchain, but there surely has to be some kind of limit to that tolerance.
I think maybe it has gone into the 'to hard basket' - but without any changes and ignoring it, it will probably just get worse and worse
You've summed my concerns up well! I'm so bad with words...
Ha! You write good blogs mate so you are good with words! Sometimes I struggle to express what I want to say too
I know what you mean, IRL I don't come across as anywhere near as well spoken. Words just kinda get muddled up in my mouth, it's nice to have some time to think things through!