To all downvoters: @jrcornel is now on board with newsteem
To all downvoters and their delegaters...
I am now on board with newsteem.
Can someone or someones give me a clear definition of what exactly that entails going forward?
Just from what I have seen on comments and elsewhere it appears that voting for anyone that also votes for you is now frowned upon, though there does seem to be some grey areas as that doesn't seem to be applied to everyone platform wide.
So, I think some clear guidelines for the community would be good so that we can all see what is deemed acceptable by those with the vast majority of voting SP.
Thanks in advance.
-Doc
There are snakes on the mother fucking plane!
Vote for what you think is good content that adds value to Steem by helping to promote it, helping to attract large amounts of high quality web traffic, helping to recruit new users, etc.
Do not vote because you are paid to vote, because you are trading votes with someone else, because you want to boost your own rewards, etc.
This. I mean, we talked about that 3 times the last weeks on discord, but if you need to hear it a fourth time:
Don't treat the rewards you can give as your property, you are not giving out tips, you are assigning rewards from the shared pool to people who bring value to this platform. The value in it lies in a diverse span of content from hundreds of authors. Don't vote for the same people you made friends with all the time.
There are a lot of services which can help you to achieve this if you're not interested in digging: c-squared, curie, helpie, steemstem, curangel, just to name a few.
In a round about way you are bullying people into using your service, you downvote them and the first thing you do is tell them they can delegate to you and all their worries go away, in fact you literally almost said that exact thing to me previously. Either play by your rules or deal with downvotes every day, your choice.
Setting that aside... what number is "good enough" for you? I have already stopped voting for slow, old, widsom, cryptopassion and a few others... If you look at my top 30 votes on any post you will see that I have only ever voted for a handful of those people. So a handful out of 30 is vote trading? I didn't make any deals with these people, I just voted for what I liked and some of them happened to vote me back, which is basically what is happening with the vast majority of accounts on here! Yet you to continue to downvote me every day regardless.
How about a couple witnesses that post just about every single day, some multiple times per day and get upvotes from mostly the same people every day? Ye they aren't being downvoted... and don't forget they are also collecting 334 steem per day as a witness, which amounts to 2,338 steem per week... them earning high amounts on random posts every day sounds like double dipping to me, at the very least.
My service is an offer (for free), I really don't mind if you use it, I don't get anything out of it. I also mentioned a lot of others.
You have (at least) 10 votes per day, worth $2 each. The last 7 days you gave those to 28 people. The last month to 50. These numbers show me that you don't care for the bigger community. So why should that community reward you?
But I thought it was about POB? Why should someone's voting activity dictate one way or another what a post is worth? That seems to contradict itself.... pretty mightily actually.
It may because vote trading and vote selling (which are equivalent) is damaging to the game theory behind PoB as has been explained in posts many, many times going back three years.
So it comes down to value. If someone is doing damage to PoB then they may not be contributing on net, even if their posts are otherwise okay, and rewards should follow value contribution, or they are a waste of money.
That, I guess, is the logic behind curangel and others prioritizing these downvotes, but that is up to them as with any stakeholder deciding how to use their votes.
That makes sense, though they don't seem to define what exactly vote trading is. If you vote for someone and they in turn vote for you later on despite any kind of agreement or anything of the sort, does that constitute vote trading? And for those that have traded votes, at what level does it become damaging? Many on here tend to vote for content they like, people they like, and people that vote for them, all somewhat normal social behavior. My question to those groups has always been at what point does it become a "downvotabe offense"? I'd just like to see some guidelines that are enforced community wide...
They're entitled to their opinion on what is vote trading, what is adding value, etc.
There won't be any, other than perhaps what emerges over time as a result of stakeholder voting behavior (but could also change over time). There is no such enforcement mechanism other than voting itself.
Do not vote because you are paid to vote, because you are trading votes with someone else, because you want to “boost your own rewards, etc.”
So says the guy upvoting his own comments. Pathetic and hypocritical. 😂😂😂😂
You really think I voted that to "boost my own rewards" by 0.04?
No I don’t actually because your not that type of guy so wondering why you did it at all......see I did just what you did, last week ONE TIME for the same reason you did....just to move it up to the top to get noticed. Then the fan boys you support like OCDB, Pharesim, Acidyo, Cure all chastised me and flagged for it. But it’s ok if you do it.....this place in in a deep pile of shit right now.
So you're not mad that he's upvoted his message for visibility (Vote for what you think is good content that adds value to Steem by helping to promote it), you're mad because you were "chastised" for doing the same, so you called what he did pathetic and hypocritical not because you meant that, but because of who you think his friends are and how they treated you?
No I’m simply saying if we are gonna have flag “gangs” at least some sort of guidelines should be PUBLISHED so people can understand and there is no double standard. Smooth is good for this blockchain in my opinion, others are not in my opinion but smooth can get away with things that others can’t. Is that ok with you? It’s not ok with me. I like Jcornell and his posts I used to vote him and he voted me because I assume he liked my content as well, why is that wrong? We PAID for our stake, we did not earn from the witness pool or got lots of tokens in the begging of Steemit. Why can’t we do what we want with our SP when it comes to votes? If you want more power....BUY MORE POWER....oooooorrr just con dormant accounts to delegate to you like Acidyo and Pharesim to centralize the power I guess.
It seems that you don't want guidelines as you directed snark at the suggestions made in response to the post, suggestions some consider mighty fine guidelines. Is it ok that some people can do things that other's cannot? Absolutely. Reputation is earned after all, and some have earned a repugnant reputation that follows them. No one said that it's wrong to vote for content you like, in fact it's the exact same guidelines that you ridiculed and sought to make it seem as if there is some "double standard" and hypocrisy where there is none. You CAN do what you want with your stake regardless of how you "earned" it, just as everyone else can do so. But then you didn't say anything after all, you only opened your mouth to remove all doubt as to the Reputation you Deserve, because nothing says you're a fag like hurling accusatory nonsense at some of the most respected people on here as the punctuation to your posturing about "double standard" or whatever the fuck preceded the nonsense.
#guessAGAIN
You certainly can, and others can downvote with theirs.
Am I good enough for the blockchain to justify a $0.04 payout? If you think I'm not then go ahead and downvote my comment.
Downvoting is not in my nature....guess you just miss my point.
Let me see if I understand correctly. You upvoted yourself for 0.04 last week and were chastised and flagged for it?
@smooth - vote for what you think adds value? So, by your own definition, you deem that almost nothing on here adds value as you vote for your burnpost every single day and rarely anything else? Which you collect curation rewards for btw and is akin to self voting 10x per day, you just happen to burn the other half. Noble? Debatable, but you are earning curation either way and not upvoting anyone else.
Ignoring that and continuing with your recommendation of voting for adding value, recruiting new users etc... I have brought close to 20 people here Smooth, I am betting that is more than you have. Most of them have left by now, but several are still around. Of those users I have brought several of them have invested well over $10k of their own money into steem, something I have also done. Regarding voting, I tend to vote for crypto oriented posts and crypto oriented authors, which is exactly how communities traditionally form. You find like minded authors/people and content you enjoy and that is where most of your time is spent.
Regarding posting, I have actually spent time researching and posting high SEO related/optimized topics and posts trying to bring the most eyes possible to steem. Which is actually why my blog is structured the way it is.
If you look at my posts I have only ever voted for a handful of my top 30 votes or so each day, yet that is considered vote trading? If I like someone's content, vote for them and then they vote for me, that is considered vote trading? It sounds like there is no regard for content. If that is the way it needs to be so be it, lets code in the fact that if someone votes for you, you may not vote for them within a 3 day period or 7 day or whatever. But dissecting everyone's voting activity on here is not sustainable or going to be applied equally platform wide, which is what we are already seeing.
My personal view is that there is not much being posted which adds enough value to justify its cost in inflation. Burnpost is basically neutral, at least as long as there is no SBD premium (value added = inflation reduced). There are certainly exceptions and I do vote for those. I especially see value in small rewards for comment engagement, which I vote constantly. I see less value in people earning a regular paycheck without demonstrated performance in growing the platform (and since the platform on the whole is not growing, it means no one is performing).
Not everyone has to agree with my view. It seems a fair number do though.
That's not how curation rewards work. Curation rewards on burnpost are terrible (as they should be) due to early votes, not even close to half. I could easily earn more voting elsewhere. But if you think burnpost is a bad use of reward funds, then please downvote it (which would reduce even further curation rewards for people who upvote it). Voting consensus is all about measuring agreement and disagreement and directing rewards accordingly,.
That is easily circumvented using multiple accounts.
Also, the nature of a voting system is to allow the behavior of the reward flow to evolve over time (sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly) based on stakeholder subjective view on what is important. Coding in things means being beholden to a hard fork schedule and introducing more risks of bugs and crashes, which we've already seen. We don't need more of that.
If you have ever upvoted any post of mine it has felt like a ratio of 50-1 in terms of downvotes to upvotes. Though further investigation shows that it is not anywhere close to that, though your downvotes do slightly outnumber your upvotes.
Irregardless...
That's fine, though it sounds like there isn't any form of content that you think is worth the rewards on here. Shame you have chosen to focus on mine while disregarding the majority of the other hundreds/thousands that you also deem not worth the reward yet rarely act on them.
Irre-irregardless, my point isn't about that, it is more about the people controlling the largest voting trail in the history of steem publishing some guidelines for their downvotes so that the community can know what is "allowed". Much in the same way they mention having standards for upvoting.
The level of drama on here is at a fever pitch and not likely to attract much of anyone.
Pretty sure you are wrong about that. I don't seek out your posts at all, and don't even systematically downvote at all. Your posts are among those which I see with high payouts everyday and I may downvote if I happen to notice, but hardly unique in this, I downvote plenty of others too. But do keep in mind that we only get 2.5 free downvotes per day if voting at 100%, which I usually don't, more like 50% so perhaps 5 votes. The only way downvoting is to have a real impact is if a lot of people were doing it, which mostly isn't the case. A lot of crap still falls through the cracks every day due to there being hardly any downvotes overall, unfortunately.
Posting anything is allowed (unless you are violating some law or ToS of a UI you are using). You are just not guaranteed to earn rewards ever. That is up to stakeholder voters.
Yes of course, allowed to earn rewards, which I was hoping would be pretty clear with the quotation marks around it. :)
Yes, you are right, the downvotes and upvotes were pretty close, it has just felt like a lot more and the downvotes were much more memorable and impactful on an emotional level. It may not have been targeted but when you see a lack of many other downvotes it's hard to not feel that it is, which is part of the problem with community downvotes in general, the feelings attached.
But again this is all so far besides the main point. You are free to downvote whatever you like, as is anyone else. However, when the downvotes come from the largest downvoting trail in the history of steem and continue day after day regardless of content or its value, that is when it turns from stake holder consensus to bullying.
Something that likely won't attract or retain much of anyone.
I just looked at my history. I have voted you 83 times, of which 37 were upvotes and 46 were downvotes.
Which BTW, is out of a total of 4457 downvotes.
Wow... those numbers still surprise me I thought it would have been worse in terms of downvotes to upvotes. I guess that further drives home the point about emotions being attached to downvotes... they become much more impactful and memorable. Thanks for looking that up by the way. I stand corrected about the 50-1 thoughts.
(There were a ton of edits here, so if I didn't respond to all of them it was because much of it was added after I responded)
No worries. I definitely edit too much.
Cant really help you here as i don't post anymore. i usually just vote on stuff i like, what gives me value. Hard to find at times, was definitely easier when circle voting but a lot more fun and free this way.
If you didn’t unfollow me maybe it would be easier to find. :) Joke.
By the way, these curation services are voting many of the same people every single day, because they trust the author and like their content. It's still a circle, it's just a larger one.
Thanks fir your upvotes and support.
Did this post get deleted? I was reading your comments and working backwards to find this post and it can’t be found. Was it by jrcornel?
Thanks
your welcome. yep by jrcornel, still here
I didn't delete this post? What do you mean?
A couple of whales want to dictate what to post and who to vote.
Code is the rule and we don't need guidance.
Hint: a post about Good Unchained will get you some fat upvotes ;)
Random sockpuppet with no activity has a lot of weight behind their echochamber words.
Just check hot and trending page and you'll see who is getting big upvotes.
Ten people riding curation trails. I was active for three years and saw all HFs and changes. This last one is a big step backwards and the worst. You guys enforced these changes and now you want to prove you were right.
I might be wrong but I'm quite sure I'm not.
Time will tell but numbers speak for themselves right now.
I refuse to participate in this toxic shit show and don't need your lectures and votes from your curation trails.
Most people have the same opinion than me but they don't want to expose themselves.
It's centralization, censorship and bullying.
Good luck with your effort.
Unfortunately from what I can tell the numbers haven't really changed either way after the last hard fork. Continuation of the same downward trend on most metrics, which makes it all very "ho hum".
The one clear change in terms of numbers is a modest increase in the amount of powering up. I'm not sure what to make of that beyond the observation. If there are any indirect effects, they're not obvious.
Considering that these changes were supposed to help with retention, I wouldn't call a continuing down trend in almost every metric expected. These changes were supposed to help turn the numbers around. I will admit that it is likely still too early to say for sure, but the early returns are not good.
Reasonable assessment.
lol, sure does not look that way considering your comments
I refuse to participate too ;)
ya, I'm getting beaten up by themarkymark as we speak.... dropped several reputation etc....
I think we should break up the whales and remove downvoting or diminish it... Now I see why facebook got rid of them....
They need to have clear guidelines and enforce them platform wide if they are going to continue with this, otherwise it is just bullying.
Exactly! I turned off my bot entirely....sill get lots of downvotes. Pushed my voting CSI over 20%...still get downvotes. It is bullying and there is no ther way to put it. And they expect me to just take it and not retaliate........wrong.
The platform is not theirs. We don't want their guidelines. It's pure bullying.
The platform is not
Theirs. We don't want their guidelines.
It's pure bullying.
- oldtimer
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
Agreed, but at least if they were to publish some universal standards, users would have an idea of how to avoid having their posts zeroed out by breaking one of their rules.
Well Steemcleaners already kind of have their own guide rules in place that they go by and make available to people. But it still doesn't work out because, 1. people don't bother trying to know how to stroke steemcleaners' ego, 2. steemcleaners only goes after those they can pick on without fear of serious retribution, 3. they also are corrupt and play favorites, for example, ignoring everything burnpost does...
Removing downvoting would be terrible, human. It serves a good purpose.
There does indeed need to be some decency as to how one downvoted a post however.
For example, Tub Cat’s downvotes tend to land on blatant spam.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Get out of the tub so that you can realize that downvotes do not work, cat. People now want to remove the STEEM reward pool all together and just have POB for SMTs because of the fact that downvotes can be weaponized.
A lot of whales or massively delegated accounts are aggressively trying to control what people can and cannot do on Steem. These guys are kind of worse that Youtube staff, not quite as bad as Twitter, those folks are still the most fucked up of them all, but Steem's up there now...
Steemit has become worse than YouTube or Twitter because of these large delegated accounts. They have nominated themselves czars, in the long run they will be exposed for the frauds they all are.
Moderators with downvotes and a universal standard gets my vote. Leaving flags in the hands of the community is a recipe for a toxic environment.
I'm not a fan of the moderator idea, because its still centralizing control.
In my view, the non-linear rewards curve was a good move for combating spam self-voting without causing aggressive changes. In fact, I'd trade making the threshold even higher for removing the new downvote mana bar.
I believe people need to choose between upvoting and downvoting. If taking a financial loss is worth it to the person to reduce the other guy's rewards, okay then, they just reduced their own network share for that decision.
Frankly, I can understand why people feel there is a need to have the flagging system. But it is an emotionally charged action that hurts the network by making Steem a hostile environment. I'd make downvotes cost triple an upvote on a shared mana bar so that it would be a costly decision made only out of necessity.
If people had to give up 3 upvotes to downvote 1 thing, they might think carefully about just how much they disliked it.
I like the ideas, but I think having it cost the same as an upvote was sufficient. Having more downvotes than upvotes is beyond silly to me. Most social sites are trying to get rid of negativity, we are fostering it. My vote would be to change the curator/author split to 75/25 (in favor of curator), lower the linear thresh-hold slightly (so that we don't discourage voting small users), and make downvotes cost the same as an upvote (if not more like you suggested).
I definitely agree with 75% to curators and 25% to authors. It allows for professional curators to theoretically earn enough to make a job out of it and if we had many career curators we might stop seeing so many bot systems and the authors would ultimately earn more.
A clear problem we are seeing is that people do not want to spend the time curating. Even the downvoting crowd goes off about how important Proof of Brain is and then thoughtlessly uses a downvote automation tool...
If we're going to do a "skin in the game" stake-weighted voting system let's do it right and make the risk/reward worth the investment.
!trdovoter 100
Congratulations @theguruasia, you are successfuly trended the post that shared by @jrcornel!
@jrcornel will receive 15.59886863 TRDO & @theguruasia will get 10.39924575 TRDO curation in 3 Days from Post Created Date!
"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
It means Steemit is a no longer a good platform. It's been going down for some time. With #newsteem it is suggested that now curation is important. However the facts do not lie. With the start of #newsteem the curation payouts have been going down at an accelerated pace. Which should surprise no one. People are leaving. Downvote harassment everywhere. Smaller players get nothing because of the none lineair reward curve. But some prefer to live in the #newsteem bubble. Until it pops and nothing is left. Well done.
It fosters an environment of negativity no matter much you try to normalize it. My vote would go to moderators the only ones with the ability to downvote/flag things.
Yes. And downvotes should only be done to remove people that use scripts to pull some random stuff from the internet and publish some useless garbage no one will ever read/find useful. Not to silence opinions.
Congratulations @jrcornel, your post successfully recieved 15.59886863 TRDO from below listed TRENDO callers:
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
the truth is I have the same doubts we would have to wait a little while as this happens in the future
?
You still here transisto? All your comments get downvoted by everyone.....well expect for you fan boy Pharesim. Your like a little lap dog. How cute.
Pharesim auto-upvotes anything certain users downvote, regardless of what or who it is. I am pretty sure transisto is not his lap dog in any way.
Oh, just good news!
This post is worthy of a chair to learn about the subject, by content and comments.
I will keep in my files for detailed study.
Stay Grea!
Oh, solo buenas noticias!
Este post es digno de una catedra para aprender del tema, por el contenido y los comentarios.
Guardare en mis archivos para estudio detallado.
Estay Grea!
Not positive on all the gritty details, but I think it involves giving traf handies...
Lol... if only it were that easy. I just want some clear guidelines for the community so there isn't all this confusion, drama, and anger when it pops up...