Thank you for adding this to the reasons why down-voting should only be used for reasons it was created: plagiarism, harassment, and vulgar spamming. I have ask if down-voting a post that has earned a large payout is really about "protecting" the prize-pool, and not just an act of envy and malice towards someone who is doing better than you are? I get chicken-shit for my post (for the record), and can barely read Jerry Banfield's post because of the poor writing and lack of focus, but I don't begrudge him his huge payouts. He puts the time in, and is social-media savy, whereas I can't stand working things that way. Not his problem, so why punish him for it? I never would even imagine doing so.
Like the A-bomb, the down-vote is something that some people just can't resist turning into a weapon to serve their own selfish desires - and to punish anyone who is doing better than they are. Or to censor free-speech. What to do about it? Only thing I can think of is to take it away from them.
"He puts the time in, and is social-media savy, whereas I can't stand working things that way. Not his problem, so why punish him for it? I never would even imagine doing so."
I keep re-reading this, and it pretty well encapsulates my own feelings.
" Only thing I can think of is to take it away from them."
Well, that would break the platform - a LOT - and, it would also be a kind of censorship, which I don't want more of.
No criticisms, I appreciate the post. I am a steemit rookie & am just starting to take the time to study the system. Seems very complex is my point, but love the idea
"There is a beauty in simplicity, steemit needs some beauty."
There are some mind-boggling complexities to Steemit, indeed. A lot of folks find the UI too basic, boring, or whatever, but for the very simplicity of it, I actually like it.
BTW, that bud in your avatar pic looks incredible!
Interesting data. I'm not sure that the answer is as simple as delegating power to individuals. I think that it is a good start in moving things in the right direction.
What we need to think about is breaking up the auto-votes. I believe we need to question the curation element of Steem. If we turned off the curation element we may actually solve many of the problems.
The reality is people follow and up vote people they think will get high curation, but over time this has turned into a popularity contest and a contest of who has the most SP, followers and established networks. Naturally more people join these existing networks to chase the curation rewards.
Without curation we could go to a simple system of upvoting as a simple tip system.
"Without curation we could go to a simple system of upvoting as a simple tip system."
I LOVE crazy thoughts! LOL
I don't recall hearing that suggestion before, and Imma think on it, because it does really seem like a way to break up the circle jerks... Very Damn Interesting!
You are so right that focusing on good curation is the key to improving the payout structure on steemit. If there are people actively seeking out great posts in each category, most of the good stuff will get rewarded.
We've seen with the @illuminati-inc muic curation project that 10 strong upvotes per day can make a big difference in a category. There are more good posts now than ever before.
"We've seen with the @illuminati-inc muic curation project that 10 strong upvotes per day can make a big difference in a category. There are more good posts now than ever before."
Part of why I suspect I am not the best pick of the folks who've been nominated for delegations, is that I've not joined any curation guilds or projects. Not because I'm agin' 'em, but I have such broad and diverse interests, and just naturally default to not joining.
I'm pretty asocial in a lot of ways, sadly, but it is what it is.
I'm hopeful that more of these efforts can continue to have the good effects you report.
I very much agree with you. I recently got 1500 in delegations and have been able to give upvotes, especially to my #freewrite community I couldn't do. And I really believe it makes a difference for people to see at least a small reward for their work.
If you post and spend the time to create a good post - and then nothing- that is so frustrating. And curation takes time. The more who are setting out to do that - the better.....
Thanks for providing your experience with this. It's the exact benefit I expect can come from this effort, and exactly what I think can dramatically improve user retention.
Gratz on the delegations! I am sure it is great to be able to better support those you reckon have it coming.
100 such delegations would provide such encouragement to 1,000 people a day, and a 1,000 delegations, 10,000. The total delegation would then be $5M, about the same as the stake for one, or a couple, votebots - but the benefits would be received by 10k Steemers, and no profits for vote selling would decrease the rewards pool without generating quality content.
Additionally, those 1,000 delegates would be gaining increased curation rewards, which also encourages them, icing on the cake.
Another great idea from a great mind.
I strongly recommend, particularly for @berniesanders, and those undertaking flagging to 'improve the rewards pool', to instead look at making moderate delegations to accounts you think will help to encourage struggling authors. C'mon guys, flag plagiarists, spammers, and scammers - leave authors who are benefiting from their original work alone - if you gotta throw your weight around.
I had no idea that flagging now is a trend against high-paid posts.
It is true that these people should give others a chance to survive, but I think ignoring them and focusing on the positive side is more beneficial than attacking them.
If people find their posts gets better paid, they will "hopefully" stop following highly-paid individual for the sake of higher curation rewards and start following for the sake of the post quality.
"I had no idea that flagging now is a trend against high-paid posts."
Well, you don't follow @berniesanders, and the soap opera 'As Steemit Churns', and I don't blame you. I doubt you'd find it of much interest. I'm interested in how he affects Steemit, and his acerbic voice kinda resonates with me. Sometimes things he says make a lot of sense, and cut to the chase.
I don't even disagree very often with his assessments. I just agree with you that it's better to go do something positive, rather than negative.
Thanks, as always, for your kind words =) You obviously live up to your own advice, and seek to reinforce positively. I positively feel reinforced!
I've been re-reading this a couple times now, and this suddenly clicked...
"If people find their posts gets better paid, they will "hopefully" stop following highly-paid individual for the sake of higher curation rewards and start following for the sake of the post quality."
Part of the issue with that, although I completely agree, is that not everyone does.
I simply don't care about rewards. I have gone through things in my life, and arrived at a state of mind that boils down to very simple needs. Imma die old, and my wages from fixing things for folks will keep me going until then. More than that is distracting from my enjoyment of those things that actually fascinate me, in terms of finance.
Not many folks I know look at things that way, and it's impossible for me to say they're doing it wrong, even folks who obsess over money. Since their satisfaction with Louis Vuitton bags, or Mercedes, or McMansions, or whatever, is real and theirs, I'm just left unable to identify with their particular interests.
On Steemit, I don't blame folks for their interest in achieving rewards, I simply look at how too many folks with lazer focus on ROI is impacting the platform, and user retention, and other things, and want to find ways to tweak the algorithms so that the problems that arise from human behaviour are mitigated, and seek to create benefits to the platform and community from real world behavioural effects.
I have very simple needs, and a broad range of interests, so spend my time appropriately, unlike almost everyone else. At the opposite end of the spectrum are folks that spend almost every waking moment obsessed with increasing their wealth. There's no limit on their desire for financial increase, so some folks will not see the logic of our stance.
Some folks BELIEVE greed is good, and live accordingly. @diabolika published a poem that both brought me to tears, and illustrates the effect this has on people that don't believe in greed.
I reckon most folks have a 'tipping point' where they are satisfied enough with their financial return to focus on other matters when they hit it. When folks that have no limit interact with the rest of us in endeavors that potentiate financial returns, they therefore garner the largest stakes, and if there's no metrics that establish value other than stake, the speech of those that believe greed is the highest law of the universe then dominates our world.
I haven't solved this equation, and don't expect to. I hope to keep working to, with you, and @ned and the delegation folks, and the greedy folks too, in the hope that we can at least prevent the worst effects of such power imbalances, and maybe arrive closer to the best possible means of universal happiness.
LOL I am too verbose =p
Just have to keep reaching towards pithy, from my starting point of practically unlimited wordiness. Props to @everittdmickey, who has demonstrably achieved pithy in his comment here =D
Delegating power to some experienced Fishes and Dolphins might help, but I think this was tried before and kinda failed, which does not mean it is a doomed idea. I think more good manual curation would help the platform a lot.
I would offer my service as a curator but I am quite tied up at work atm and I think you will do a great job ;).
Oh and I still love the concept of flagging people if you think their post is overvalued garbage, but that might just be the AngryGermanDude inside me ;).
If we're talking about @ned's delegations recently, they were 100 fold larger, and I believe that contributed to the perception of failure. @surpassinggoogle alone, IIRC, didn't sell votes or self vote to profit from the delegation.
I have addressed before the pressure on holders of substantial SP to manage their affairs with due diligence, and speculated that there is a 'breaking point' at which the loss of income from such holdings becomes an overwhelming incentive to seek returns.
If delegation can reward the delegate with $5/day by financial manipulation, the pressure is negligible for most. At $500/day, almost no one can justify not doing what is necessary to attain that income.
@surpassinggoogle is almost no one. Clearly his principles mean much more to him than mere money, and I cannot laud him enough for this.
Also, smaller delegations, in addition to providing far less incentive for abuse, multiply the solution vector. 100 times more delegates can be provided $5k delegations with a stake of $500k, which I believe was the size of individual delegations @ned provided. While the individuals upvotes are smaller, they are spread much more widely, and encourage a far greater subset of the users on Steemit, at least they can.
Several delegates have already been funded, and following them to see what comes of this second iteration of the experiment will be enlightening and instructive, and I applaud @ned that he didn't just give up, but looked carefully at the results of his first trial, and took a new stab at it.
Flag away! I'm not thinking it'll help the rewards pool much, but it might encourage such authors of 'garbage' to write better posts!
I don't have the balls to flag ^^*. Or rather flagging is not accepted by the Steemit community as an expression of opinion, but as an attack and since I dont want the unnecessary drama, I wont flag.
Spreading the delegation to 5K sounds promising, I hope it helps.
Thanks for the heads up! I'll make sure either to hide if it does, or listen raptly, so I can learn from my betters. Depends on my neighbors, who are after me to fix broken stuff again =p
Edit: welp, I couldn't hide from the neighbors =p I did at least scroll the audience chat after I woke up, and saw you'd linked it, so thanks very much!
Really wish I could have been present for any discussion, cuz it's a topic I'm pretty avidly interested in. Was there any substantive thoughts you can recall?
Good bit of investigative reporting @valued-customer. I applaud your efforts.
Thank you for adding this to the reasons why down-voting should only be used for reasons it was created: plagiarism, harassment, and vulgar spamming. I have ask if down-voting a post that has earned a large payout is really about "protecting" the prize-pool, and not just an act of envy and malice towards someone who is doing better than you are? I get chicken-shit for my post (for the record), and can barely read Jerry Banfield's post because of the poor writing and lack of focus, but I don't begrudge him his huge payouts. He puts the time in, and is social-media savy, whereas I can't stand working things that way. Not his problem, so why punish him for it? I never would even imagine doing so.
Like the A-bomb, the down-vote is something that some people just can't resist turning into a weapon to serve their own selfish desires - and to punish anyone who is doing better than they are. Or to censor free-speech. What to do about it? Only thing I can think of is to take it away from them.
I keep re-reading this, and it pretty well encapsulates my own feelings.
Well, that would break the platform - a LOT - and, it would also be a kind of censorship, which I don't want more of.
I can't think of anything better either.
There is a beauty in simplicity, steemit needs some beauty
The most frequent criticism I face is that I don't write simply =)
I am left trying to figger out if you're criticizing me, or agreeing with me XD
Either way, you're right!
No criticisms, I appreciate the post. I am a steemit rookie & am just starting to take the time to study the system. Seems very complex is my point, but love the idea
There are some mind-boggling complexities to Steemit, indeed. A lot of folks find the UI too basic, boring, or whatever, but for the very simplicity of it, I actually like it.
BTW, that bud in your avatar pic looks incredible!
I need to study up! & thanks about a week left to grow on that bud!
Interesting data. I'm not sure that the answer is as simple as delegating power to individuals. I think that it is a good start in moving things in the right direction.
What we need to think about is breaking up the auto-votes. I believe we need to question the curation element of Steem. If we turned off the curation element we may actually solve many of the problems.
The reality is people follow and up vote people they think will get high curation, but over time this has turned into a popularity contest and a contest of who has the most SP, followers and established networks. Naturally more people join these existing networks to chase the curation rewards.
Without curation we could go to a simple system of upvoting as a simple tip system.
Crazy thoughts maybe?
I LOVE crazy thoughts! LOL
I don't recall hearing that suggestion before, and Imma think on it, because it does really seem like a way to break up the circle jerks... Very Damn Interesting!
Thanks!
You are so right that focusing on good curation is the key to improving the payout structure on steemit. If there are people actively seeking out great posts in each category, most of the good stuff will get rewarded.
We've seen with the @illuminati-inc muic curation project that 10 strong upvotes per day can make a big difference in a category. There are more good posts now than ever before.
Part of why I suspect I am not the best pick of the folks who've been nominated for delegations, is that I've not joined any curation guilds or projects. Not because I'm agin' 'em, but I have such broad and diverse interests, and just naturally default to not joining.
I'm pretty asocial in a lot of ways, sadly, but it is what it is.
I'm hopeful that more of these efforts can continue to have the good effects you report.
Thanks!
I very much agree with you. I recently got 1500 in delegations and have been able to give upvotes, especially to my #freewrite community I couldn't do. And I really believe it makes a difference for people to see at least a small reward for their work.
If you post and spend the time to create a good post - and then nothing- that is so frustrating. And curation takes time. The more who are setting out to do that - the better.....
Thanks for providing your experience with this. It's the exact benefit I expect can come from this effort, and exactly what I think can dramatically improve user retention.
Gratz on the delegations! I am sure it is great to be able to better support those you reckon have it coming.
It really is!! I am hoping to be able to keep it up somehow....
Congrats, love! You deserve it!
Thank you so much!!!
Very well said (as usual ;D)
Another great idea from a great mind.
I had no idea that flagging now is a trend against high-paid posts.
It is true that these people should give others a chance to survive, but I think ignoring them and focusing on the positive side is more beneficial than attacking them.
If people find their posts gets better paid, they will "hopefully" stop following highly-paid individual for the sake of higher curation rewards and start following for the sake of the post quality.
Thanks for sharing :)
Well, you don't follow @berniesanders, and the soap opera 'As Steemit Churns', and I don't blame you. I doubt you'd find it of much interest. I'm interested in how he affects Steemit, and his acerbic voice kinda resonates with me. Sometimes things he says make a lot of sense, and cut to the chase.
I don't even disagree very often with his assessments. I just agree with you that it's better to go do something positive, rather than negative.
Thanks, as always, for your kind words =) You obviously live up to your own advice, and seek to reinforce positively. I positively feel reinforced!
I've been re-reading this a couple times now, and this suddenly clicked...
Part of the issue with that, although I completely agree, is that not everyone does.
I simply don't care about rewards. I have gone through things in my life, and arrived at a state of mind that boils down to very simple needs. Imma die old, and my wages from fixing things for folks will keep me going until then. More than that is distracting from my enjoyment of those things that actually fascinate me, in terms of finance.
Not many folks I know look at things that way, and it's impossible for me to say they're doing it wrong, even folks who obsess over money. Since their satisfaction with Louis Vuitton bags, or Mercedes, or McMansions, or whatever, is real and theirs, I'm just left unable to identify with their particular interests.
On Steemit, I don't blame folks for their interest in achieving rewards, I simply look at how too many folks with lazer focus on ROI is impacting the platform, and user retention, and other things, and want to find ways to tweak the algorithms so that the problems that arise from human behaviour are mitigated, and seek to create benefits to the platform and community from real world behavioural effects.
I have very simple needs, and a broad range of interests, so spend my time appropriately, unlike almost everyone else. At the opposite end of the spectrum are folks that spend almost every waking moment obsessed with increasing their wealth. There's no limit on their desire for financial increase, so some folks will not see the logic of our stance.
Some folks BELIEVE greed is good, and live accordingly. @diabolika published a poem that both brought me to tears, and illustrates the effect this has on people that don't believe in greed.
I reckon most folks have a 'tipping point' where they are satisfied enough with their financial return to focus on other matters when they hit it. When folks that have no limit interact with the rest of us in endeavors that potentiate financial returns, they therefore garner the largest stakes, and if there's no metrics that establish value other than stake, the speech of those that believe greed is the highest law of the universe then dominates our world.
I haven't solved this equation, and don't expect to. I hope to keep working to, with you, and @ned and the delegation folks, and the greedy folks too, in the hope that we can at least prevent the worst effects of such power imbalances, and maybe arrive closer to the best possible means of universal happiness.
LOL I am too verbose =p
Just have to keep reaching towards pithy, from my starting point of practically unlimited wordiness. Props to @everittdmickey, who has demonstrably achieved pithy in his comment here =D
Destroy all Bots
Delegating power to some experienced Fishes and Dolphins might help, but I think this was tried before and kinda failed, which does not mean it is a doomed idea. I think more good manual curation would help the platform a lot.
I would offer my service as a curator but I am quite tied up at work atm and I think you will do a great job ;).
Oh and I still love the concept of flagging people if you think their post is overvalued garbage, but that might just be the AngryGermanDude inside me ;).
If we're talking about @ned's delegations recently, they were 100 fold larger, and I believe that contributed to the perception of failure. @surpassinggoogle alone, IIRC, didn't sell votes or self vote to profit from the delegation.
I have addressed before the pressure on holders of substantial SP to manage their affairs with due diligence, and speculated that there is a 'breaking point' at which the loss of income from such holdings becomes an overwhelming incentive to seek returns.
If delegation can reward the delegate with $5/day by financial manipulation, the pressure is negligible for most. At $500/day, almost no one can justify not doing what is necessary to attain that income.
@surpassinggoogle is almost no one. Clearly his principles mean much more to him than mere money, and I cannot laud him enough for this.
Also, smaller delegations, in addition to providing far less incentive for abuse, multiply the solution vector. 100 times more delegates can be provided $5k delegations with a stake of $500k, which I believe was the size of individual delegations @ned provided. While the individuals upvotes are smaller, they are spread much more widely, and encourage a far greater subset of the users on Steemit, at least they can.
Several delegates have already been funded, and following them to see what comes of this second iteration of the experiment will be enlightening and instructive, and I applaud @ned that he didn't just give up, but looked carefully at the results of his first trial, and took a new stab at it.
Flag away! I'm not thinking it'll help the rewards pool much, but it might encourage such authors of 'garbage' to write better posts!
Thanks!
I don't have the balls to flag ^^*. Or rather flagging is not accepted by the Steemit community as an expression of opinion, but as an attack and since I dont want the unnecessary drama, I wont flag.
Spreading the delegation to 5K sounds promising, I hope it helps.
This post may be featured on today's Jane's CHAOS show on MSP-Waves Radio and PAL Discord.
Thanks for the heads up! I'll make sure either to hide if it does, or listen raptly, so I can learn from my betters. Depends on my neighbors, who are after me to fix broken stuff again =p
Edit: welp, I couldn't hide from the neighbors =p I did at least scroll the audience chat after I woke up, and saw you'd linked it, so thanks very much!
Really wish I could have been present for any discussion, cuz it's a topic I'm pretty avidly interested in. Was there any substantive thoughts you can recall?