Who determines what is acceptable?
Hello guys. It's been a minute, and that, according to my standards is being 4posts short. I have decided to slow things down a bit, so no one accuse me of doing too much (no one has accused me though). Well, that's not my actual reason but it is in line with what I want to discuss today.
How many posts/bought votes/upvotes per day would you describe as too much? What kind of content would you deem acceptable for this platform?
So a certain person today accused another for abusing a promotional tool. Well, I have seen this person's post appear several times on the trending section. I wasn't too intrigued about it, but it seemed like a few (I mean a lot of) persons could identify with the author's content, so I thought. I decided not to bother myself-- since there were motivational posts, I thought it had some value. Well, today I discovered otherwise. I'm (or was) totally indifferent to this whole gist by the way, mainly because it's about something I don't really like--bots. Yes, I am not a fan, but I will use them still, someday, but I think this platform will be a better place without them. Yes, they do have their merits, but they've cost this platform more than they have given. Authors are not really bother about engagement as long as their bots upvote their content and they keep earning, we uninteresting humans can go to hell for all they care! Well, I'm not ready yet.
So the question of the day:
Can someone abuse a promotional tool?
First of all, let's look at the word _abuse.
use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose
the improper use of something
I thing these are the two definition that relate to what I'm talking about today.
bad effect. So from what I know, and I stand to be correction, promotional tools are used to help increase visibility of a post and earnings of an author, so if an author wants to capitalise on this, is it such a bad thing? I'm not aware of the adverse effect this has on the blockchain, maybe you guys can enlighten me, but honestly, I do not see how this negatively affects anyone.
improper use. What would we consider as improper use? Who is defining this? We do not have so much as a laid down rule(s) on engagement here. We are constantly defining and redefining the rules on here. But who is the we? Yes we have witnesses who try to come up with policies and ideas in order to provide a sane environment for most steemians to thrive? But are they truly representing the people? Just questions.
So if I decide to post a hundred articles a day with a minimum of $500 payout value would I be described as someone who is misusing my right to post. Why? Am I not adding value to the blockchain?
What's right or wrong is usually subjective and depends sometimes on the situation. For example, someone ask in church one day: if killing is bad? Are soldiers going to hell then? The Bible did not make room for exceptions. Well that's a question for another day. The point I'm trying to make is, the concept of right and wrong is dicey and we should be careful before tagging things, especially when there is no general consensus. Even this point is flawed in the sense that unpopular opinions can also be right. That's why we have laws. Laws are not necessarily right, but a means by which a group of persons have decided to engage with each other and if anyone wants to be part of that group they have to comply.
Also, we need to learn to distinguish our preference from what's right or wrong. I do not like noodles, that doesn't mean they are bad; I like dark skinned women with thick thighs, that doesn't mean skinny white woman aren't beautiful. Not liking something doesn't necessarily make it bad per se.
So what are you thoughts on the issue. Kindly share with me. Thank you.
To get upvote from @wafrica, the post needs at least 300 characters! Please describe your work in detail ;-)
please this bot needs to be fixed.
I think you should stop wasting a tag on this bot. It always throws the same incorrect error message.
tiring. maybe you're right. Any suggestion?
Hmmm. Well if they have a website you could check there. Otherwise find out who runs it and maybe leave a comment on one of their posts.
I actually find it incredible that there is no direct messaging system on here.. Unless I am missing it somehow.
I left a comment in @wafrica's discord chat room about the issue. Someone may take a look.
So in my opinion, it is fine to publish as many posts per day as you can reasonably post with worthwhile content.
For me, that seems to be one or two at the moment. It may change as I develop my skill at it.
As for the bots, my thinking at least for myself, is to use them to help myself get a big enough following to not need them anymore.
I experiment with seeing how a post does for a while and then throw a few Steem at it to give it a boost. I get about 10 new followers with each post, so only time will tell if this strategy works.
this is not a bad idea at all. Hope in the end you achieve your goal. Personally, I have never thought about growing my followers. Maybe i should consider that as a means to spread my reach
Yeah, you have to grow your following. It is the only way to be seen by a larger audience; and be noticed by those with influence.
yeah, i will begin to factor this henceforth. thanks for the tip.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by minismallholding from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
I love your posts that get people thinking. Once again you've pulled up that question of how much the line blurs between right and wrong and so many thoughts occured while I was reading this.
Yes and no. If one were to theoretically post that much each day one would gain resentment because they would be taking a large share of the reward pool, meaning other content posters would gain less. This would be detrimental in the long run because it would put people off using the blockchain and investing in it. Ultimately ruining it for everyone.
At the moment the bid bot business takes quite a large chunk out of the steem blockchain in their earnings. All liquid payments are generally withdrawn by their owners. This is why bid bots get such a bad rap. Were they in smaller numbers, it probably wouldn't be an issue, but because it's being used so much it risks becoming detrimental.
Another complaint is that low quality content is often at the top of trending through bid bot use. This can be off putting to people looking at steemit from the outside, which is detrimental to the growth of the site.
So are bid bots being abused? Again, yes and no. It's like most things and depends on how it's being used. As you say, everyone's definition of proper use will vary.
@nuthman's explanation of how he uses them is quite reasonable. His posts are good quality and he doesn't go over the top with the bot votes. If I'm entirely honest, though, the bot issue has left me a bit biased and I have to try and stop myself from judging too much when I see bot voted posts. So I'm unlikely to add my vote on a post when it's already got bot votes on, unless really find it valuable and have something to say. Then it will be a minimal vote, because I'm not likely to get a return on curation once the post has a high value. I can guarantee that I won't be the only one who does that. Knowing this is another reason to avoid bot voting your post. You're potentially putting off followers with higher SP (not that mines even very high yet).
The stigma is probably the biggest reason I wouldn't use bid bots, even if I agreed with them. Whether their judgement is correct or not, it's there and this is social media, so you're better off not rocking the boat in the long run. I try to be as genuine as possible and to me that means allowing the community to be the judges of my post.
Self voting is another one with stigma and it took me a while to make my moral standing on it. I don't like to see someone self voting to the extent that they have nothing or little left for anyone else. However, a lot of Steemians who are generous and do a lot for others self vote. If self voting helps to strengthen their account, then all power to them, because that improves what they can do for others too. I have recently started self voting because growing my account means I can do more for others. I only do it after a few days, so that others are first inline for curation rewards, and I only do it if I have enough VP left after I've voted on everyone else. I haven't done it recently because my VP hasn't been as high as I'd like.
It does become a difficult thing. To use bots or not use bots. To post a lot or not post a lot. What is good and quality is going to vary from person to person like you said about beauty and women.
The reality of bots - - They are here. People are going to use them. People are going to be burned by them, people are going to be happy with them, and some people are going to hate them.
You are right there. and consensus does not make something right. Just because a consensus has been reached by a duly elected government to go to war does not make it right.
true, and I stated this in the sentence after this one. it is all a tricky situation, and some hard decisions are to be made. Let's see how everything plays out in the long run
I really do not like the term consensus nor what it means, a group of people supposedly on opposite sides of a matter, and they all agree "well this is the best we could come up with so live with it" type answers. And the answers they come up with are always shaded in grey and in the shadows and anyone can make and have an accurate and completely opposite truth to their consensus.Consensus never solves anything in reality it creates more problems. So I am pretty much in agreement with you on that. Hard decisions do not need the soft answer of consensus.