About the Whole Self-Upvoting Debate-- Let's Examine the BIGGER Perspective!
As of late, one of the hottest topics around ye olde "Steemit Water Cooler" seems to be the increased use of "Self Upvoting" since HF19 took effect.
Red flower in our garden
Earlier today, I was reading a post by @calamus056 which was basically a listing of Steemit users who had been materially upvoting themselves since HF19 (popularly dubbed "equality") took effect on June 20th.
I won't get into the deeper motivations behind the post nor it's "effectiveness" (or lack of) but it did start a very active discussion on the pros and cons of self-upvoting, and whether the practice will have a positive, negative or neutral effect on the Steemit community, and the overall future of Steemit.
It also made me think of a post by @joseph from a few weeks back, addressing meaningless comments & spam.
I bring both up because it seems to me there's a bit of a connection or "bridge" between the two: namely variations of "taking shortcuts."
I'm not here to moralize on whether that's "good" or "bad;" I just want to name it according to how I perceive it.
TL;DR Version
History from other "content sites with rewards" over the past 20 years has shown that not keeping spam and "abusive gaming of the system" under control is likely to cause a site's gradual demise.
Solitary gull on a rock
Just because Steemit is "on the blockchain" does not exempt us from having to deal with the darker and more selfish sides of human nature.
Junk content and system abuse/exploitation inevitably drives away legitimate users, leaving junk/spam to dominate. Such content makes a venue unattractive to new users; eventually membership stagnates; ultimately the site dies.
Steemit can't "go bankrupt," but the Steem token can become regarded as "yet another shitcoin" and we could end up with 1/2c Steem as a result of junk content and antisocial behaviors being allowed to proliferate.
We must remember that our actions TODAY become the permanent "advertisement" for recruiting new Steemit members 5, 7, 10 years from now. Is the action you take now in alignment with what you want to tell a potential newcomer Steemit "is about," 5 years from now?
We must have open discussions now to consider how we want to shape Steemit for the future.
End TL;DR
A Couple of Personal Notes
Cairn in the sun
A lot has already been said at the micro and "local" level when it comes to self-upvoting, spammy comments and begging for votes... and I have little to add to that. So I'm taking a more macro approach.
As a personal preference I have the "upvote" box UNchecked when I post. For me, that's a choice because upvoting my own posts feels like going into a bookstore and buying a copy of my own book in order to boost my sales. Again, personal philosophy... not implying anyone else should feel the same.
I occasionally will upvote one of my own comments if it is a long screed addressing an issue in a post with lots of discussion. I do so purely for visibility; that is, to lift it out of the cloud of "nice post, please follow me" spam at the bottom of the comment stream.
But let's back out and take the meta view here-- the 50,000-foot overview.
Part I: By observation-- based on 20+ years of web content creation-- as soon as there is money or "rewards" involved on a user-generated content site, some people start behaving badly. Or if you don't like the idea of "badly," let's just call it selfishly.
Exotic hydrangea varietal
If such practices are left unaddressed, there appears to be only ONE possible outcome: Site failure.
I was there when Nirav Tolia launched epinions in 1999... I was on themestream, I was on writtenbyme, gather, associated content, squidoo, bubblews, tsu and about 50 other sites that all rewarded content. Most "died" within a couple of years, some lasted longer.
Most had good visions and plans but pretty much all grossly underestimated the destructive nature of unchecked human greed.
The evolution tends to go the same, every single time. Someone has a great idea and starts a project. Legitimate users flock in, grateful for the opportunity, and start using the venue according to the original vision (or white paper). People are happy. Then another type of user notices that "people are making money." For the most part, they don't really care about the site or its vision-- they simply see it as a "free cash dispenser" they feel compelled exploit in whatever way they can possibly think up. If the site were called "counting frozen tacos," they'd be there. If the site was called "herding donkeys" they'd be there. After that? It tends to become a one-way ticket to nowhere, fast.
Red flower in our garden
This "thing" we're just experiencing the beginnings of here on Steemit? Not new.
Of course, the typical "defense" I hear around here tends to be "Yeah, but Steemit is DIFFERENT. We're on the blockchain and we have our own currency and we have INVESTORS."
Allright-- then let's look at Part II: What IS Steemit?
Is it actually a "Social Content Platform?" Or just a "bit of fluff" attached to an investment vehicle... namely the Steem token?
It's an important question.
Because if this is merely "a bit of entertainment" to be enjoyed while we invest and trade on the exchanges, discussions like this are no more than a very insignificant storm in a very large teacup.
But if Steemit is-- as I suspect-- actually the "flagship app" that lends validity and substance to the Steem token? That's a whole different kettle of fish.
How so?
Thinking About "Investing"
If we allow the flagship representative of the Steem token to just become a giant ocean of spam and selfish behavior... as an investor, I would probably take a quick look at that and then pass on by.
Bald Eagle, juvenile
Why do we invest in things? (Sorry folks, "day trading" is not "investing." It's a whole different beast.) Usually in hopes of appreciation, which piggybacks on the expectation of growth and maybe profits, which typically are a product of a thriving venture. Point? If Steemit doesn't look "thriving" to the world, getting those investment dollars will get harder and harder.
Sure, something will still be "here" and a bunch of people can have fun trading their 1/2c Steem because most people will look at this otherwise brave new social experiment and think "Oh yeah... that's just another shitcoin." But sure, all the "investors" will have the freedom "to do whatever they want" with their upvotes. Have at it!
If that sounds unattractive-- or even "over the top" to you-- maybe it's time to have a conversation about what we're trying to achieve, here.
So What IS Steemit, then? An Analogy
Here's a bit of my own analogy and thoughts on "what Steemit is:"
Our "Princess Tree" in bloom
I see this community as most resembling a big ship, and we're all out on the ocean, sailing towards the future together. All sorts of people are on the ship, with various intentions, aspirations and histories. Some will be selfish, some will be selfless. But as different as we may all be... one would still assume we share the common goal of wanting the Good Ship Steemit to keep sailing.
Now, I'm all about the whole "free to do whatever we want" thing... so the question arises of what to do when some insist that their "freedom" involves drilling holes in the hull of our ship "because they feel like it?" What do we do when some choose to exercise their "freedom" by using the ship's fuel oil to light their BBQs on deck so the ship runs out of fuel?
I know some of the community's "Freedom Absolutists" are going to to start saying that any regulation is a bad regulation... and somehow addressing self-upvoting is like a form of communism or "government."
I don't think so. I think it's a form of giving a shit about our basic survival.
If you have termites in your house, do you take steps to ensure the survival of the structure... or do you just hit the metaphorical "mute button" believing you are thereby granting the termites their "freedom" to be termites while not being able to "see" them somehow means they don't exist?
Might work... UNTIL you wake up one morning, and all that's left is a pile of dust.
So what's my point of this post?
Eucalyptus tree in bloom
I think some people are losing sight of the fact that we should probably focus a little more on the broader aspect is what it takes for Steemit to thrive and survive in the long run... rather than get bogged down in "who's entitled to do what" in the short run.
If there's no Steemit left, it doesn't really matter a whole lot whether you get to upvote yourself... or not.
It also seems to me that a lot of these "mini crises" we encounter are the result of people acting out of short term self-interest, at the expense of long term stability and growth.
It's not my place to judge that... but perhaps to toss out a cautionary word or two, pointing to the danger of possibly killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, like in Aesop's fable.
A Final Thought...
I am not convinced this is all that much about "good" or "bad" so much as it is about "short term thinking" vs. "long term thinking."
Desert sunset
What's perceived as "selfish" behavior typically revolves around very short term thinking-- i.e. "What can I put in my pocket, RIGHT NOW?" It tends to disregard the long term "price" or consequences of focusing on short term gains.
So, in a sense, my reasons for writing this article are COMPLETELY SELFISH! That is, I still want there to be a thriving Steemit community, in 2025!
I think it's high time we started looking at Steemit as a long term proposition, rather than a series of short term fixes.
How about you?
What do YOU think? What is your vision for Sreemit, 5-10 years from now? Or do you even think that far ahead? Do you believe self-upvoting, short spammy comments and vote begging will hurt Steemit in the LONG run? Moreover, does Steemit "matter" to you in the long run, or do you see it more as a place to make some "grocery money" RIGHT NOW? Do you think these issues can "solve themselves" if we simply "mute" or ignore the offenders? Or does the community need to take action? Or does some of the underlying code need to be rewritten to prevent certain windows for exploitation? Leave a comment-- share your experiences and feedback-- be part of this important conversation!
(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly for Steemit)
Published 20170727 16:05 PDT
1. What is your vision for Sreemit, 5-10 years from now? I want to still be on here. I am hoping by then the junk will be vastly eliminated. I do think there should be some sort of limit on actual posts per day. Because one user a while back had 22+ blogs "written" in a 7 hr period. They were all copy paste jobs and poorly done at that. Some had dangerous info /suggestions in them that would've been harmful for diabetics, or just flat out misinfo. I called this person out, they had no good answers for their posts just that it wasn't their opinion....Okay then why'd you post it? I digress.
I think you are right that STEEMIT is like a big ship. As such there will be lots of various circles of like minded people. Likeminded for the good or bad of steemit. Yes, some people will be offput by shitty, spammy content. I am. I can't tell you how many thoughtless comments I've received on my posts bevause people didn't actually READ it. Some were flat out sexist and rude. So I flagged those comments. I think flagging should be in place. Truth is, i really don't think there's one person on here flagged into the single digits that got there via "unfair" means. They may be bitter and continue trolling around, but keep getting ignored/downvoted and eventually give up/go away. That's for the "minor offenders".......
For people who have known histories of unlawful things like um, being directly tied to someone's suicide for instance, that's not something i want around here. Just a random example. I feel if someone can fairly explain a bad situation that's good. But if you are ignoring questions of your moral integrity that's a red flag Right there. Why can't you address it?
There needs to be something in place for the extreme circumstances of bad or really fishy people. To ensure the safety of the community. I mean or ship. If one part is burning, eventually the whole ship will.
As i mentioned above, there will always be various circles and groups of People. I personally can't stand the superficial crap that's going around like "watch me go to the grocery store " i think we need sustenance. But as i said there will always be the groups that enjoy that sort of thing. Or the braggy look what i Just bought at the mall posts, or look at my bank account. ..digressing again.
2. Or do you even think that far ahead? think i just covered that. Lol
3. Do you believe self-upvoting, short spammy comments and vote begging will hurt Steemit in the LONG run?
Selfupvoting - I do not think self upvoting of your own post that you put effort into is bad. That's just me. If I wouldn't upvote it, why should i expect someone else to? In other words, i think My post is good enough it deserves my own vote.
Self upvoting of your own comments though? That's a bit different. By the time you are in the comment phase you are more or less conversing with your followers. To me, upvoting a comment then seems kinda like saying "hey guys, i like what i just said." Especially bad of all you said was "good post, follow me, I'll follow you" there will always be the superficial folks upvoting their own lame comments though. Although as you pointed out it is different if you put a lot of thought and effort into a comment. At that point, I would like others the be upvoting my comment though if it was that good. Lol.
The vote beggers and these voting cliques will end up getting bored in my opinion. Simply bevause that behavior isn't earning them much, if anything
4. Moreover, does Steemit "matter" to you in the long run, or do you see it more as a place to make some "grocery money" RIGHT NOW? as far as me personally i think I've made this clear. However I'm extremely bothered, even concerned, for the people thinking steemit will do that for them. I saw a post a while back from a relatively new steemian who decided to Just sell all their stuff and steem only. If you are that confident in yourself, good on ya, but don't count your chickens before they hatch
STEEMIT is merely supplemental income to me at this point. I enjoy the interactionsand all the cool people like @denmarkguy that I've met
I'm in this thing for the long haul. It actually matters to me to contribute, learn from others,
encourage the good, discourage the bad, have People enjoy my posts, or maybe someone even learns something from me.
5. Do you think these issues can "solve themselves" if we simply "mute" or ignore the offenders? Or does the community need to take action? Or does some of the underlying code need to be rewritten to prevent certain windows for exploitation?
The "minor offense" trollers will as i said be eliminated by the community the way they are right now. By the fact they won't get anywhere.
People suspected of serious crimes should have their accounts plac3d on hold AND hold it to a community vote?
To discourage the IMMEDIATE *good post follow me" shit we are getting on things that took us two hours to write....I think the developers should implement some timed mechanism so when someone clicks your post they have to be on it for say at least 2 minutes before they can comment to try and encourage people to READ
@chelsea88, thanks so much for the long and well thought out comment! I really appreciate you taking the time.
I'm pretty much on the same page as you, with respect to most of your points. I have actually contributed to a couple of sites that had timers on comments to cut back on spam; they also made it so you couldn't paste anything to the input box... but, of course, determined hackers come up with scripts to bypass pretty much anything.
My personal opinion is that the best approach is simply to make "undesirable" behavior unprofitable. Most people who try to "game" systems are 100% money motivated... which is also what makes them a threat to the platform.
@denmarkguy not being able to paste would be difficult, but hopefully the timers will be implemented to cut back on spam. Thanks for the supprt on my comment. Sometimes i get a little long-winded so I am glad it made some sense to everyone. :) keep it up, i always appreciate your insightful posts
I totally agree!
Better yet, people should actually have to look at the article first in order to up-vote. Go look in the "Hot" and "Trending" sections, and you'll see all the top articles have more up-votes than views... so pathetic really.
So true. I say two minutes before they can comment. Because just in case they are a skimmer.....we don't want it to be too long or people might forget to comment at all. Lol
Ha ha, yeah, but somethings gotta change for sure.
All articles have an indication of how long read it is on Esteem. Maybe add the duration of embedded video into that and there you would have it. You could no longer comment or upvote on things you haven't seen. But:
The most common bots wouldn't be able to upvote anymore, trailing votes, automatically upvote your favorite bloggers wouldn't be possible anymore. You would change a very large part of what Steemit is today.
And I kinda love it here as it is, imperfect yeah, but still a great place.
Fair point (s)
All of this!^^^ So much YAY!
Glad you and I are on the same boat literally @egregorian =)
You got to the key issue at the end after a long ramble.
Who sets the long-term goals for steemit?
Is the long-term goal to be the premier blogging site in 5-10 years?
Once the goal is established, then actions that are essential to getting to the goal are easier to define.
You'd think that the development team that has $1M each into the platform, would be all over actions that can drive STEEM up by 10x or 100X. Cash out in 5 years and set for life to blog till the cows come home.
On the other hand, if the platform is just a play toy to run a social experiment, then leave things as they are.
This could become an online version of Big Brother. Really crappy TV that I assume no one ever watches.
@davebrewer, some of this has been confusing to me, and continues to be confusing to me. I know we have the original White Paper and we have an ostensible "road map" but it seems mostly concerned with "what we're going to do next" and "features we'd like to add."
As of this writing, I have not seen any cohesive 5-year or 10-year plan with any sort of benchmarking. Of course, I can hear the peanut gallery murmuring about such things being "the evils of centralized structure."
Well, not really. They are the building blocks of a well thought out project. A constant series of "course corrections" aren't much good unless you have a carefully laid plan to follow.
I do it also very often for that reason. I think it is very reasonable.
Which also means-- on quite a few occasions-- that my self-upvote might only be 10%.
I upvote my own posts. But I also feel that I've put enough time and effort into them for them to be worth the $0.20 or so cents my upvote is worth. Also, I generally only post once or twice a day so I still have plenty of upvotes to spread around the pool.
However, it might be a double standard, but I do think it's unfortunate when people whose upvotes are worth a significant amount of $ use most or all of those upvotes on themselves. That seems wrong to me. But as you said, with no set rules in place, it's up to each of us to decide where we draw the line.
@redhens, I really have no issue with people upvoting their own original blog posts, especially if they are creating quality content. Besides, the default setting on the posting page is "upvote."
My concern is mostly those who'll apply 80+% of their daily voting to upvoting their own comments... which are often just "nice post." The sad thing is that they are really "scamming" themselves as much as they are "beating the system." If you're not out there curating and interacting with others... don't expect to get a long-term following.
I completely agree. It's frustrating to see people reap huge rewards for little effort when others, such as yourself, strive to create excellent content and build community -- the two things that will ultimately determine whether Steemit is a success or not.
This was a great post. I really appreciate your thoughts on this subject. It seems like the Steemians whose work I like best all seem to be on the same page when it comes to these things, which is a positive sign.
Thanks! There's certainly a "selfish" part of me that knows (a) that it's a pain in the butt to have to "evacuate" 100s of articles when a site is about to shut down, (b) I hate having a lot of good content associated with a "crap" venue and (c) I understand and appreciate the VALUE of having a body of work published in ONE place for a LONG time. If you have to hop from one site to another, you lose a BUNCH of subscribers every time.
Hence, I want to see Steemit do well, in the long run. Blogging here is a long term investment in my writing. As such, I am fairly protective of the venue... and if I see things that threaten those long term aspirations, I am going to shine the light on them and do my part to make people pause and think about their actions.
Yes. The people that do this will not have many followers. I would think they would eventually get bored really. Because to make a "quick buck" on steemit by using scammy comments, you would have to invest a lot to begin with. I do like your analogy of the termites. It is not something people will turn a blind eye to though. I have seen some almost battle initiatives against major abusers. People will work together that just enjoy being here in this community of communities.
And there's part of the irony @egregorian-- sometimes the time and effort to figure out how to "game the system" is actually more than simply using the platform legitimately, as it was originally created.
It is really sad to see high quality content make pennies while poor quality posts make hundreds because of unequal voting power and folks who upvote themselves... It is also frustrating to read through spammy comments that are posted and upvote solely for the purpose of gaining followers rather than actually having a true response to various posts. The bots that post the same thing on multiple posts in a row I find disrespectful as well. I put effort and time into each one of my posts, and (this may seem silly but) I get excited to have a conversation about things I'm passionate about but when I scroll through several " follow me, I'll follow you, nice post" it's disheartening and a waste of my time to read. I want followers who genuinely appreciate my work and want to discuss the topics, not a million bots or spammy comments
Not silly. I'm passionate about it too. So the spammy bull shit posts are really really annoying to see making so much
I thought I was coming on this platform to make some pocket change and then quickly realized that I prized the commentary above the Steem. I want to make Steem, but only because of what I'm saying interests people, rather than the idea that I may have gamed the system the right way and always get votes.
I absolutely chose Steemit (over another couple of possibilities) because it seemed easier to use this rewards system than wrestling forever with installing Google AdSense on another blog... and dealing with all that hassle for a few cents a week. But whereas I like the rewards here, I feel like I want them for writing not because I happen to know how to code a "clever hack" to exploit the system.
We're in agreement.
I agree with you.. And i am a poor one who upvote my self
Thanks @lovewild... you bring up something that's part of my favorite part of Steemit-- "Community Engagement." Which happens to be important to me... and that's also why I use my upvote power to reward others, not myself. Among other things, I can actively curate responses on my own-- and other people's-- content, "sorting" the most meaningful to the top with higher voting power. Few things annoy me more than some boogerhead coming in and writing "nice post" and then upvoting their own inane comment to the top of the comment stream. It makes a mockery of those who sincerely try to create content of interest and value.
I upvote my own posts, but not my own comments. I also upvote the people who comment on my posts, and I upvote what I consider quality Steemit content by others. I am trying to build, rather than game, the system.
Before HF19, my vote was worth a couple pennies ta most, so self-voting was irrelevant. But after HF19, it feels like if I don't upvote what I write, sometimes no one will. And I put effort into what I write, and think it's freakin' awesome, and it deserves at least my own upvote.
I have waffled around on precentage voting power, and I think I will be 100%-upvoting most content, upvoting at a lower percent if I like something but feel like it's not up to snuff for 100%, and upvoting comments at 10% unless they look like spam.
@jacobtothe, I don't have an issue with upvoting original posts, especially when someone is posting quality original content. As for voting power, my rule of thumb is that if it's good/important enough that I'd resteem it, it's good enough for a 100% upvote. The rest of the time, somewhere between 10-50%... which works well with the amount of time I can give to curation on an average day.
Comments? Mostly 5-20% upvotes, unless I feel something said really deserves a boost. Or I am trying to vault it past other stuff to greater visibility.
Good points.
I personally don't agree with the logic people high up on Steem has about self-voting being a way to help "get yourself noticed". At the same time, there is a limitation that can't prevent self-voting since someone can just create another account and delegate to that account and upvote their own posts. It's almost like a catch 22.
It's up to the community and also the large stakeholders to determine what is the good "etiquette" to change this type of behavior.
I think a lot of people over look that this is a capitalist platform since it is Delegated Proof Of Stake.
With that said, I have come to view self-voting neither good or bad for the time being. I believe over time as the user base grows and with community tokens, each community can create what behavior is accepted within those communities.
Thanks @bitcoinparadise!
I'm definitely looking forward to see how "Communities" play out, when they finally come to market. I feel hopeful that they might encourage at least "pockets" of the community where the conduct is a little less self-oriented.
I don't see anything inherently evil about selfishness and capitalism-- the problem here is "short sightedness." Sometimes if all you focus on are maximum rewards NOW, you don't get to have much of anything in the future. I also recognize that this is "new territory" to many of the people high up on the Steem chain... they suddenly have $500,000 in assets, "just like that." That's exciting! But it also can go away again, JUST AS FAST as it arrived, as a result of poor choices.
Yes, I believe "communities" can encourage "pockets" of the community to do this.
I agree in some aspect of the "short-sidedness." However, the way this platform is designed, it's a race to get as much STEEM as possible. At the same time yes, poor choices can have quite an effect.
I think the way the system was designed it will be a difficult for those high up to power down to lose their influencing power on the platform and the "capital" to continue earning more. I think the community tokens will change things for the better.
I do remain quite hopeful about "Communities," as well as hopeful that we'll see something concrete from the development team fairly soon... as I recall, the estimated "delivery date" was 2nd Quarter for that.
Great article @denmarkguy. I don't upvote my own posts because it just doesn't feel right to me. If I do, it's most likely because I have committed to share the reward with someone else.
This is both a Steemit culture, and a system issue. Are we fostering a culture where it's fine to upvote yourself all the time, and reap the rewards which you may not deserve? Some will say "yes, because the system allows it." To me, that is where the problem lies. The system does allow it, but it was not intended to be used in that way.
I wrote a proposal a few days ago, with a system of diminishing rewards for self upvotes. In short, each self upvote you make results in a bigger and bigger reduction in voting power and weight, until after a certain number of votes, your voting power is zero. This system makes it more worthwhile to gain rewards from curation, rather than rewarding yourself first.
It's past its payout day, but would still like to see it get some consideration. It is here if you are interested:
https://steemit.com/steem/@bmj/proposed-hf-changes-to-bring-voting-back-in-line-with-its-intended-purpose-rewarding-quality
P.S; It also deals with delegated Steem Power.
@bmj, thanks for the comment, and also for bringing the whole ethical/philosophical issue to the table.
Looking at the original White Paper and looking at old interviews with @dan & @ned there's little doubt there's a strong element of idealism underlying Steemit. Sure, people are here "to earn rewards" but there's also a strong element of being part of something potentially game changing. Now we are dealing with an influx of people who are far enough "removed" from the original Steemit vision that they are basically just "here for the money."
It's a strange "get out of jail free" card. It's like going to work at a place where you can have free sodas from the cafeteria, which is nice... but then some people take it upon themselves to make off with a case of soda everyday because "there's free soda" and no fixed rule that says you can't take a case of free soda.
So we end up at where many ideologies fall apart-- the assumption that people are moral, ethical and work towards a common good. Sadly... wrong. Many-- if not most-- people work only towards their own personal gain.
I'll go check out your other piece.
The Steemit devs need to deal with the changing situation. We bloggers can only do so much. If the platform can be ruined, it will be, so Ned and his crew are the ones to take preventive measures. Steemit is a work in progress and will need to be tweaked as we go.
@chessmonster, agreed. But much as I admire @dan and @ned (and now @sneak ) and the Steemit vision... like most creators of potentially game changing ideas, I also believe they VASTLY underestimated the foibles of human nature and the depth of human greed. And that's not a blaming statement... you generally don't sit in a product development meeting and go "What are we going to do about the veritable army of cheaters who will try to bring this project to its knees in order to make 50 cents?" That's too much of a downer...
... and yet, it's a situation every site like this has to face and deal with.
I thought they designed the upvoting and reputation system to weed out the bad players. I guess we'll see how it goes. @denmarkguy
That was my impression, as well... but I'm guessing they just didn't factor in just how many people there are who are willing to sit and click links for a chance at making 1/2c.
Gotcha. So if people keep abusing Steemit, and nothing is done about it, the Steemit ship will surely founder. Getting rid of self -voting would be a good start.
I read a good suggestion somewhere... which actually got the attention of several of the witnesses... that the code be modified in such a way that people absolutely can upvote themselves... BUT it drains your voting power multiple times faster than voting for others.
I like it because it doesn't get into the gray area of censorship, but it does go a long way towards disincentivizing self-upvotes.
@denmarkguy ... Yes indeed...tweaking like that was I meant before. They'll figure out a way to handle these things. 😎 Steemit is just too good an idea to let it get ruined by abusers.
I upvote my own posts because at a certain point I noticed that my posts that I upvote get more upvotes from others than the ones I don't. My posts are not spam. I put alot of thinking and effort into writing them.
I agree with everything you are saying about spam, etc. but I don't think self voting is the real issue when it comes to that. Steemit should have better means for allowing users to control what they see, and that is what will really make the difference.
Me either like you mr. @orenshani7 i upvote my self post..
Agreed, we do need some better tools to sort content for viewing.
Scenario: A user writes "nice post" as the comment on 10 different posts, and then upvotes those 10x "nice post" with 100% self upvote, using up their max. voting power for the day. They give nothing to anyone else... basically, they treat Steemit as a "free cash dispenser."
Would that not present a problem, in terms of the site being attractive to anyone, INCLUDING new investors?
Good point. Still, as somone already mentioned, even if self upvoting will not be allowed (which I don't mind btw), people can still.open.another account and cross vote between.accounts.
Valid point, for sure.
Ultimately, I ask myself the same question: Why are people willing to put so much time and energy into finding "ways to cheat" when they could put the SAME amount of effort into simply using the system legitimately... and possibly even have better net results, in the end.
Now that is a good question that I don't have an answer for...maybe the "thrill" of gaming the system?
As good an answer as any... or maybe it feeds certain people's self-perceptions as being "rebels."
That is a question that was on my mind alot lately in a broader sense. I think the reason is that on the local level, cheating always seem easyer... but this is a topic to another discussion