But it said Do Not Vote... so why did I vote on it?

A few hours ago I voted on a post by @williambanks that clearly said "Do Not Vote". Some of the comments on the post expressed frustration at the number of upvotes it received as it clearly wasn't a post that as intended to be voted on. I was going to post this response in the comments section, however on review I decided it probably warranted a post of its own.

---

Don't blame me, blame my bot and his friends!

It is well known that some users use bots and authors lists to upvote content. I, for example, am experimenting with a bot and I've explained in a previous post the rationale. In brief, the way they work is that rather than reading a post and then upvoting, I programme a bot to automatically votes for authors who I know produce content worth voting for. I then review whether to remove votes or delist authors.

I now have over 80 authors on my list. They are there, in the most part, because of the quality of the content. Some are there because they are simply profitable to vote on. I'm consistently refreshing my list, reviewing content and on the look out for new writers. For example, I added @williambanks relatively recently.

I also have a bit of a 'guild' (as @ned would put it) going on. There are three user (who I introduced to Steemit) and who trust my judgment are officially part of my curation 'guild'. I've also noticed that there are others that have trained their bots to automatically following my votes too. Which is super cool (and flattering) as that means more rewards for authors I like and helps me build my SP. So if you see my vote, you're likely to see half-a-dozen or so votes that automatically follow. This might explain some (not all) of the voting on the @williambanks post, that said "do not vote".

Bots cannot duck curveballs

I understand the frustration for new users. Particularly if a writer on an authors list throws in a curveball like @williambanks did. However the payout on any post is pending until the first 24 hours are up. The 24 hours weren't up, so I simply removed the votes from my guild from that post. (Also @dantheman had downvoted the post to death anyway)

The Authors 'merry-go-round'

I've been an author on this platform for four months. Trust me, I know the frustrations of being new and getting no love for your posts. I know the highs of getting mega-payouts. I know the disillusionment of putting out content week after week and being forgotten/ ignored/ overlooked.

Balancing rewards across worthy contributors

That's why I use a bot and try to reward consistency. Its a tricky balance as people on my list will put out the occasional dud post. Sometimes I can catch them before payout, sometimes not. Sometimes the authors themselves might not be who I thought they were. I'm experimenting, so don't always get it right. However I think most of us are working towards the same goal here, the success of the platform and rewards to those that merit it.

Voting on the merits of the post

Some believe that merit is on a post-by-post basis. I personally don't think, given the concentration of SP and the proliferation of users, this approach scales.

Voting on the merits of the author

Others believe the merits should be an author-by-author basis. I'm coming around to this view. This encourages people to be real. To build their reputation and protect it. It also means that curators can vote in a sustainable way for a number of different authors.

Openness about authors based voting

I think both methods have their pros and cons. However I don't see many people making the case for author based voting even though it's clear that there are lots of bots doing it.

I don't think most authors would mind authors list, provided they are not closed shops. The more silent the operators are about their bot voting, the more it leads to the impression that they are operating some sort of racket.

Frank and honest 'human-to-human' dialogue

Let's not shy away from a direct conversation on the matter. Ultimately, there are no 'robots' voting. It is people programming scripts to vote. If those people, engage with the community, 90% of the 'perception' problem goes away in my view.

I've nothing to hide, so I'd welcome anyone that notices anything strange about my voting patterns to contact me. If anyone thinks I'm voting on people that don't merit it (or not voting on people that do) then let me know, either here or on steemit.chat. Even if you think author based voting is ruining the platform and have no place, let me know. In my experience, problems arise when people do not converse and assume they know what others are doing and thinking.

Anyway, that's enough of me wittering on. Enjoy the rest of your day!