You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: SteemFest² Speakers Inspire My New Upvoting System!
Automatic voting is the worst thing that has happened to Steemit!
This is the reason why new people cannot get on the trending page like they used to.
If you are not willing to manually curate it would be better to delegate your SP to someone that will, but if you are just going to reconfigure your bot and get all your friends to trail it, you are still part of the problem.
Also by making rules, forcing new people to use your tags and creating a guide to maximize your weird voting percentages, you are just unnecessarily complicating Steemit.
Steemit should be this simple:
- Vote for things you like
- Ignore things you don't like
Anything more than this alienates people.
"Automatic voting is the worst thing that has happened to Steemit!"
Code is law. Half-handed attempts at shaming will do nothing to prevent people from aligning their actions with game-theory.
If want to stop auto-voting, it must be disabled technically. If that is not possible, you are wasting your efforts.
I seriously doubt that holding our witnesses accountable for their decisions qualifies as shaming and I am sure that Jerry is not as delicate as you think.
I understand that people will game the system, but if everyone went this route Steemit would fail.
Since Jerry is running for witness he really should be above reproach.
If enough people voice their opinions about automatic voting, maybe the witnesses like Jerry might change the code before it's too late.
"I seriously doubt that holding our witnesses accountable for their decisions qualifies as shaming"
That's great? I didn't say it did. You seem to have assumed I meant that, which is understandable, but I didn't.
You'll note my support for removing Craig Grant votes going back almost as long as my blog does. Just a single example, but I don't believe in trying to control how others use their stake outside of clear shenanigans like referral link for Bitconnect/Genesys pushers.
"I am sure that Jerry is not as delicate as you think."
You don't know what I think about Jerry, so at best, this is baseless speculation, while in actuality, it is false. I am on the record repeatedly praising how Jerry generally handles criticism.
"If enough people voice their opinions about automatic voting, maybe the witnesses like Jerry might change the code before it's too late."
I agree that this is a valid path for this grievance.
However, have you bothered to look into whether it is TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE to do what you ask? I'm not sure that it is. Perhaps you can stop Steemvoter, or other specific creations that attach to an API...
How will you ever stop client side scripting? I can write a bot to type or vote for me entirely on the client side by pixel matching get.pixel colors. You can't distinguish it from a normal click without substantial data and machine learning.
Can we establish that this is even possible before we leave Rome on a massive war-time campaign?
PS - Philosophically, we are aligned, but I gave up swimming against the tide. Technically, it seems impossible to stop, even if we had witness consensus for a fork. I don't know how to technically achieve it, which makes discussing it a pointless venture.
Thanks for the discussion.
The only way would be to change the incentives. Shaming will do no good, as you say, or won't do much good in the long term.
We must change the incentives! The way for long term valuable content to be valued probably involves -
Lengthening payout time or creating drip faucets on locked articles based on views or under certain favorable conditions.
Considering a negative incentive for upvoting (probably automatically) an artivle that turns out to be worthless or of detracting value.
Basically we need more levers, we need more experiments!
Thanks Lex for cutting through the feelings to try to see the truth.
"Lengthening payout time or creating drip faucets on locked articles based on views or under certain favorable conditions."
This is an awesome idea. I think we should definitely implement it based on traffic brought to the Steemit website!
I tell you all my great ideas because you seem like a guy who know how to get things done! 😃
Quick addition:
"Steemit should be this simple:" (FOR NEW USERS).
All advanced functions, which we DO need, can be hidden in the settings menu and toggle-able like NSFW. Vote slider should be available in there from day 1, for any SP.
I cannot help but to also agree with this. Autovoting does take out the time/attention factor, and it does keep less mind power OUT of the steem ecosystem. Keeping mind power INSIDE the steem ecosystem is what will drive it--our conscious attention is incredibly valuable...and one of the only things that are truly scarce.
Truthfully, what things are scarce?
Source: Money's Fundamental Problem (the Truth)
"Keeping mind power INSIDE the steem ecosystem is what will drive it--our conscious attention is incredibly valuable"
You are completely ignoring the fact that brain power wasted on mindlessly voting for the same people and same type of articles, as most users do, cannot be used on creative pursuits.
I use an auto-voter so I can reliably produce more content, instead of spending my time managing the legion of sycophants who whine at me if I don't vote their most recent flower picture. (Not that they are getting a vote anyway, as I vet each person's post history via chainBB and weight their vote weight and frequency accordingly.)
Auto-voting does not mean you don't vet bloggers for quality, first and regularly. It just means I don't have to manually place 200 votes per day.
I use bots to help me optimise how I spend my time on steem for more human interaction.
I don't auto-upvote on my main account, nor am I too particular about vote timing/sizing to maximise curation rewards.
However, I do have an auto-voter running on an alt account that I have manually curated authors I would like to support long term. When that has spare VP then it throws votes about mostly randomly, but with some bias towards minnows. If we want steem to grow then we need minnows to grow into dolphins.
A huge fist pound for @gonzo. The struggle is real for minnows and an awareness shift is long overdue to help everyone succeed here.
Glad you've seen the light @jerrybanfield. This should help generate a lot more goodwill across the board. Replies talk, but per Steemit itself, "money talks". Giving without expecting anything in return is better than receiving for the long run.
"Giving without expecting anything in return is better than receiving for the long run."
Why is this the rule for whales, but the opposite is practically encouraged for minnows?
I can see I'm going to have to write a whole series called "Minnow Marxism".
I appreciate the engagement and dialogue, but honestly wasn't anticipating a public breakdown of each of my statements (and, yes, I know that I made a public comment to generate this). I respect all of your efforts and will reach out via discord. Re: your question here, you're making just as much of a generalized assumption as you feel I did. I see that you personally have used auto-voting for a good cause, so I'm glad for that. To be continued on private chat.
"you're making just as much of a generalized assumption as you feel I did."
What assumption would that be? I'm just trying to accurately describe what I percive as the "democratic majority's" viewpoint on this topic (ie minnows good, deserve more - whales selfish, need to give more).
Incidentally, I don't consider myself a whale, so I'm kind of in the middle of this situation. I'm just a perennial devil's advocate that likes to ask uncomfortable questions that hopefully prompt discussion. Don't interpret any curmudgeonly questions as offense or aggression (if possible, heh).
I'll keep an eye out for your dm.
"The struggle is real for minnows and an awareness shift is long overdue to help everyone succeed here."
What shift is that?
I support over 200 authors this way, most of them minnows. I could not do that otherwise.
Nothing personal at all really if you took it potentially that way. I'm sorry, but I need a bit more background as to what you're talking about so I can answer properly. Does this mean that you're automatically voting for a preset universe of 200+ people, mostly minnows? I'm personally a believer in manual quality over quantity in general because I want to read who and what I support, where upvoting is dynamic relative to their current content, as well as engage them on their blog posts when practical.
Please feel free to send me a chat at mattcoin8 if you'd like discuss. I'm happy to learn about your view.
"Nothing personal at all really"
No apology necessary, I'm not offended/annoyed.
"Does this mean that you're automatically voting for a preset universe of 200+ people, mostly minnows?"
Yes, and it was a huge task. I had to create a spreadsheet where I tracked their post quality, frequency, and created notes. However, it was either that or not support them at all, as focusing on my own work takes a lot of my time up.
That goes on for over 200 entries, and everything past about 30 is minnows with no SP.
"I'm personally a believer in manual quality over quantity in general"
Me too, but when you get to my size, you start getting people whining at you everyday for not voting or following them. You either put up decent people on an autovoter or take crap every day.
You can DM me in MSP PAL if you like.
This post may also answer some of your questions: https://steemit.com/blog/@lexiconical/i-finally-converted-to-steemvoter-partially-it-s-quite-a-relief-actually
Agreed 💯% .
Autovoting is not the best part,
Upvote is similar to a 'like' where you read or see content, if you find it good , press like or upvote button.
But auto upvote just for curation reward without even actually seeing the content doesn't seems positive for community growth. This will always leave newbie but excellent authors isolated.