I'm quite tempted to downvote as simple complaining about the opinions of others (that's what flagging is) isn't really appropriate in the "steemit" or "quality" tags.
Does it matter if it is generated by AI (or even a random number generator) if it brings users and engagement? Analysis of markets is very popular, there are numerous successful web sites and media outlets catering to that interest, large subcommunities on other social sites devoted to it, and many people give a large amount of their time and attention to it. A large portion of that proven successful approach to content could equally be generated by AI (in fact there was literally an AI project that wrote competent stock market news reports in English).
Long-form philosophy blogging is a tiny niche at best. It is read by almost no one and written by even fewer.
If you want to grow this platform into something other than a (temporary) money fountain for a few of your favorites you really need to refocus on what drives, or has any realistic prospect to drive, mass engagement. This isn't it.
Step out of your myopia please, before there is nothing of any lasting value left here.
Some people "get it", and some people don't. I'll be talking about this quality issue more. The post yesterday on Reputation Guilds was a good starter to get people to see how things can work differently, and possibly better.
Think about how organizations work in reality, the real world, and then think about how to really make something valuable like that online... quality matters everywhere if you want someone to be interested in what you're offering in terms of monetary value people would actually be willing to pay for. FB and others don't matter for quality, it's only attention based, so anything goes as long as people like/enjoy it. The money investing there comes from ads that target people to buy things from their attention market. It's not investing in a product in Facebook or other sites. There is no product. Steemit has a product, it's the content. Quality matters. (General message, not at "you" Dan)
It's a free market, people can do as they please. It was just a single flag, but I can understand you're upset because it was a very influential stakeholder and cost you a not insignificant amount in rewards.
I feel negative opinion is just as healthy as positive - one of the reasons why Reddit has been so successful. Unfortunately, the flag is a poor metaphor; probably riles up anarchy folks here too due to the subconscious association with governments and authorities.
I am aware there was a Downvote icon before - would rather just have that back. People would still be upset, but it's healthy for the community - particularly once influence tokens are more justly redistributed.
I wrongly thought that reputation goes down when reducing rewards and the down voter has more reputation, but that is not correct (@smooth explained )... It happens only if rewards fall bellow zero... But still I think leaving 2 options with different % down votes will make the trick... It doesn't matter if someone has one or many accounts... Total SP matters
Maybe one option would be a form of downvote that reduces reward and reputation to zero (but not negative). That is, not expressing an opinion that the post or poster is harming the platform (and should there lose rep), but instead expressing one that the post or poster is not helping or not helping proportionately with what would otherwise be the reward payout (and should not gain or should gain less rep)
What about a system where downvotes/flags don't actually have an effect on anything until you get 5 of them, then you get the weight of all 5 plus any after that?
It is easy to create multiple accounts and vote multiple times. There are already people who have thousands of accounts and bots to control them. That is the nature of a decentralized system.
Nope, do it to the less significant, less quality, less original post on cannabis that got 2x the payout than my original HQ work. Not to this work which is timeless knowledge that simple minded people can't comprehend its value and flag it for getting too much rewards.
Go flag other people who get more rewards than me each day they post with one one single long post. Where are these "long-post-reward-watchers" with their flags on those people for posting once a day yet always going to the top of the trending page, while I don't? LMAO. Hypocrisy, lies, deception. I don't see them getting flagged. People like smooth need to stop being bullshitters.
Not to this work which is timeless knowledge that simple minded people can't comprehend its value and flag it for getting too much rewards.
The arrogance that seeps out of that statement almost makes me want to put my puny little flag on. That aside, your post is quality to you and to those who agree. To others, they may not agree. That is their right. Other people see quality in posts you, or I, consider to be garbage. That is the nature of the system.
Without making a statement on the quality, or lack of quality of the post, I disagree with smooth's action because I have always taken the stance that the flag should be an item of censure not simply disagreement or displeasure.
What @smooth has done here is no different than what your friend @beanz has advocated repeatedly that the flag aka downvote can and should be used for. Reflecting the value of the post. You've agreed with her argument until it applies to you? Is that not a hypocrisy?
What applies to the smallest on the system, applies to the largest. So, if you want to use the flag as a downvote, then the whales doing so is just as valid as a minnow like me. The action has greater impact coming from a whale than me but is just as valid.
Community of all types is both messy and fascinating.
arrogance: "to claim for oneself, assume,"
Did I falsely claim something about myself? No, I was talking about the content, whether this content that comes from me, or other content that comes from others, there is HQ timeless immensely valuable knowledge out there.
Did I falsely claim something about the work? No, but you seem to think I did.
Arrogance is to make a claim and assume something you don't have. If you have it, it's not arrogance, although it can be boastful, prideful, etc. And that's a bad thing, for stating things as they are and people not liking the frank, bold, telling of it like it is? Ha! There is timeless knowledge and some people can't comprehend it's value in their unconscious state of awareness.
If someone isn't able of objectively discerning the relevance and value of knowledge in life, that's not my shortcoming as a false claim in arrogance, that's their own problem to not recognize it. I don't claim "timeless knowledge" about the work falsely. When someone can't recognize the value of knowledge in life, then yes, they are simple-minded because they aren't at a position to be able to discern relevant valuable information in their lives.
Flag way, have fun. The issue is about flagging HQ posts, that I make. Other people, make long posts, that get rewarded each day, and they post once, and always get to the top, while I do it a few times and I'm the target for the HQ post, not the other lesser posts like on cannabis. Go flag that instead, not this HQ knowledge. I support flagging to reduce rewards, as long as there is a valid reason, like shit content or repetitive top 7 trending each time I would post... then OK there is an issue. But flagging for my first HQ post to make it to the top 7 and over $100... wow. Yes, that will surely help any platform by downgrading the top quality content that a organization produces. That will show everyone what is valued here. Awesome.
You don't understand the meaning of words you use, yet again. Before I was "arrogant", now I'm a "hypocrite" even though I have stated consistent criteria for flagging to remove rewards: crap posts and people who always get to the top of the trending, no matter what they post.
Actually, I used both in the original comment. Appears to me that you are the one who truly 'doesn't get it'. No matter how much YOU wish to be the definer of what is a 'crap post' and what is not, YOU ARE NOT the definer. YOU are not THE ONE who gets to decide value.
YOU can decide for yourself what is crap and what has value. OTHERS will make their own choices and this time SOMEONE decided that it should apply to YOU.
What you believe is just for others, must also be applicable to you. IF when it is applied to YOU, you see injustice, then MAYBE you need to rethink your argument.
LMAO, let's see, you focus in on the first sentence that YOU THINK you can dissect and dismantle and ignore that you were being called out on your hypocrisy in regards to flagging and post value. YES, such timeless posting will surely solve all the problems of the site.
Like I said, what applies to the smallest on the system applies to the largest as well. If it's okay to flag to redistribute rewards it applies to you as much as to others and whales have the same right to do that flagging as puny little me. I don't agree with using the flag for that purpose but when you think it is okay, be prepared to accept it when it happens to you.
LMAO back at you. Like I said elsewhere in other comments, flag the cannabis post, ok, I was actually expecting it. But it didn't happen. And instead, the real meaningful post gets flagged. Seems this issue is being missed and people think it's just about the "me" getting my post getting flagged. Nope. You just "don't get it".
You don't understand the meaning of words you use, yet again. Before I was "arrogant", now I'm a "hypocrite" even though I have stated consistent criteria for flagging to remove rewards: crap posts and people who always get to the top of the trending, no matter what they post. Yet, those who claim that to be the "long-post police" are not flagging posts that make more than me, each day, from the same people, and get to the top of the trending page. Why is that? That's called hypocrisy. Inconsistent behavior, selective application of methodology to favor others (well basically long-post trending is OK but me?). I don't pretend to be something I'm not.
Flag the cannabis post at nearly $200, not this one at $100. Redistribute the rewards on the posts that don't deserve it, i.e. cannabis post vs. this one. Use rational judgment.
posting once a day yet always going to the top of the trending page
Don't worry, the-alien's posts are on my short list as well. I'm not on a flagging rampage where I will downvote these things every single time, but I will do it selectively where I disagree about the rewards (and the value they bring or don't bring to stakeholders) and swarm voting.
Might I suggest that we consider stepping outside the constraints of a binary system and adopting a trinity of opinion. A third option. Upvote. Downvote. Censure/Shun/Ostracize/Constrain?
Upvote and downvote can be exclusively about reward allocation. The third option would be exclusively for reputation loss and post visibility, divorced from reward completely.
Perhaps we are too far down the development path for that, but it might be worth considering in future iterations.
Good suggestion and I doubt we are too far down any development path (the reputation system in particular is severely underdeveloped).
One thing to keep in mind is that despite the scary red flag a downvote that doesn't drive rewards all the way to zero is just a function of reducing net upvotes (and net increase to reputation). It does not reduce reputation.
This is what I've asked for repeatedly, but unless we get this I think the "flag" button should just be replaced by a "downvote" button. Since the change, this is how it actually works anyways.
If they see "no value in it" they can move on, no?
For what it's worth @krnel your content is always well presented and interesting. Whether I fully understand, agree with it all or not. I appreciate what contributers like you bring to steemit.
I will be flagging this later as disagreement over rewards if it continues to be highly rewarded when I check back before payout. I have no issue with being criticized but I do not believe that one of the biggest earners on the site whining about flagged once should be rewarded by even more rewards, especially when much of that is from autovotes.
EDIT: I didn't notice the positive change to flag rules, but I'm very glad it went through!
I no longer see much reason to complain about smooths flag. My only wish for now, is that we change the flag symbol to a downvote symbol.
Original comment:
I think it's good you make clear why you are downvoting, but by using the "flag" you are also in this case abusing it. The rules for flagging are made clear every time you vote.
I disagree in general with flagging for reducing rewards (not for this post)... it should be done more elegant as I explained ^^^ (actually I thing it's an elegant solution)
But I like what you do, knowing that your intentions are to make steemit a better place... It is better experimenting early on with the tools the platform gives us... That way we will fix many things that could harm us in future... @krnel don't take it personal it is obvious @smooth has good intentions and I am sure this debate will bring good results!
Lol good thing.
I cant stand the crybabies out there with "timeless" content.
Then he goes off with a speach about arrogance. Call it how you see it...
Pathetic.
Dude obviously likes the smell of his own crap
... and flagged because this post should not ask for rewards... just attention from the community (that's why decline rewards exist as an option before submitting the post)
Even if you did have higher reputation, downvoting something which has upvotes does not harm reputation (ignoring unimportant edge cases) as long as the remaining reward does not go below zero. It merely reduces the degree by which the post or comment will further increase reputation.
I am consistently blown away by your work @krnel. Please, do continue.
I visited smooth's profile, and all I could think, the whole time was "this is not the type of content that will help steemit attract, retain, or grow a user base". Having 2.6 million steem power and an opinion that smells like a butt, doesn't even remotely look like value to me.
I could not agree more. The post that's value was "redistributed" has, now, 453 upvotes and one "redistribution" vote from someone with too much power and not enough to do. Why do the opinions of 453 people not matter as much as one person who woke up on the wrong side of the bed?
453 "votes" are not "people". The vast majority of those are bots, trails, people with multiple accounts and other forms of autovoting.
In any case, this system is based on amount of stake voting, not number people voting (I have suggested, repeatedly, that the vote count be removed from the display as it is at best highly misleading as I explained in the previous paragraph). Anyone can buy, or earn, more votes if they like.
justify your actions any way you like to make yourself feel better. You are not fooling me.
can you prove "The vast majority of those are bots, trails, people with multiple accounts and other forms of autovoting."? if so, please do.
if you are so determined to redistribute rewards, then why don't you give away some of your steem power that you obviously didn't earn here. your blog is a shambles, with no valuable content in sight.
i've stood up for you before. i cannot countenance this abuse.
EDIT: I didn't notice the positive change to flag rules, but I'm very glad it went through! ^^
Original comment: Agree or disagree with Smooths decision, but this is what subjective valuation can look like on the platform. Someone is gonna get their preferential toes stepped on.
It's also why the flag should be removed from Steemit.com; Because hardly anyone uses it as a flag.
It's no real change in rules. what Rules? All it is, is justification for people with an attitude who add no valuable content to the platform to do whatever they want and still pretend to be good people.
To most users, there would clearly seem to have been a change in the rules on Steemit.com (not the Steem blockchain) that told users for what the "flag" (not labeled or displayed as an ordinary downvote) "should" be used.
When clicking on the flag, the confirmation page used to read;
"The flag should be used for the following:
Fraud or Plagiarism
Hate Speech or Internet Trolling
Intentional miscategorized content or Spam"
Now, you say that
"All it is, is justification for people with an attitude who add no valuable content to the platform to do whatever they want and still pretend to be good people."
I don't think we should have needed a change at all, but clearly in this case (with even dantheman downvoting to change payouts) we needed it.
From here on we should ofc still continue discussing what the downvote and maybe even a separate flag should and could be used for. But this is a start to clean up on Steemit.com, in order to be less confusing and more attractive to outsiders.
Fraud or Plagiarism
Hate Speech or Internet Trolling
Intentional miscategorized content or Spam"
is no change. It is the same as it has been. Where is the part about one person taking away the reward garnered from hundreds of votes because of their self important opinion?
Reiterating an opinion often, does not make it fact.
I, personally, haven't talked to "most" people on Steemit, and don't know what they think. Indeed, how many is "most" people on Steemit? A very few, influential people on Steemit have expressed opinions geared toward justifying their use of the flag at a whim, but no changes have "gone through". Gone through what? The flag is confusing because it is only one action that unduly penalizes people when abused by people with too much power and not enough sense. Adding more reasons to use the flag will not make it less confusing.
Whose job is it to "clean up Steemit"? Batman (the rich guy), the Sheriff (the moral guy, who gets paid to)? Making Steemit the best we can falls to all of us to do, otherwise it will be just another den of oppression, and no one will want to be here.
If this is true then I must intensify my search for a better platform to which to add my efforts. If people with millions of steem power want to redistribute rewards, let them give minnows some of their steem.
Taking it from others, who have garnered hundreds of votes from the aggregate of steemians, is not adding valuable content. It is presuming to speak for others.
To some extent I agree with you here. It is not optimal. Far from it.
That's why I've made several comments in the past about some (in my own opinion) clever ways to improve on the system.
In the beginning I got no attention, then all of a sudden everyone wanted to flag everyone against the old guidelines in the name of "fairer distribution" and now it seems I'm one of the first to adapt to this change. (sometimes I'm happy I never put in much money; it let's me be much calmer, colder and somewhat detatched when everyone else is running around screeming)
What we really need are some sharp changes to the platforms scaling of payouts, in my opinion. Accompanied by better onboarding, by rewarding the voters on the introduction posts of those particular users that later go on to become successfull bloggers. That way we would have both a referal system and more people actively looking for good new writers, rather than just good or just new writers to gamble on.
Curation (which includes voting in both directions), is considered a valuable contribution, arguably more valuable than the content itself (what good is content if there is nothing to sort the wheat from the chaff?) That's straight from the white paper.
After some reading I want to add, @smooth from the few interesting things I read in your blog, I wish you would actually take time to blog more... (no resteems, and with pictures this time please ... thank you! lol)
There is no built-in notification feature for tags on the platform. Sometimes I run a bot that notifies me of mentions, but you can't count on that working in general.
I guess this is what they keep talking about things will work itself out and the consensus is that your content was rated as something not worthy of someone to take in the information you give whether they choose to or not. This shit is getting confusing. I'm about to bot it up and go winfrey. Everyone gets a vote. Don't need to see the information just everyone setup a bot and lets automate Steemit :P It's all a numbers game.
Lmao.. meanwhile I'll hand out "you're a dick" comments like Oprah, when i see em.
@smooth i kinda see where your intention is but I still don't fully understand... especially now that your going to be, literally hovering over krnel just to watch his earnings on a post that he put some work into.
You flagged already and made an example of him... if you continue.. you are only giving an example of what is to be and that is not promising
I'm not and never have been hovering over anything or anyone. I never claimed to be a full time curator. That is not how I approach things. If something catches my eye as being rewarded too little or too much relative to my own subjective views of what is best, I may vote on it, either up or down. Whether it is @krnel or anyone else. Simple as that.
Some people "get it", and some people don't. Quality matters. Thank you for the feedback. Steemit will be worthless to those who actually care for things beyond money, popularity and quantity of users to make something successful.
I would have resteemed if we could resteem comments lol. I tried again to make sure, but yeah it still gives me the error.
I'm quite tempted to downvote as simple complaining about the opinions of others (that's what flagging is) isn't really appropriate in the "steemit" or "quality" tags.
And then we have whales upvoting ozcharts multiple times a day for content that could probably be generated by AI.
Keep up good work, you are bringing lasting value.
Does it matter if it is generated by AI (or even a random number generator) if it brings users and engagement? Analysis of markets is very popular, there are numerous successful web sites and media outlets catering to that interest, large subcommunities on other social sites devoted to it, and many people give a large amount of their time and attention to it. A large portion of that proven successful approach to content could equally be generated by AI (in fact there was literally an AI project that wrote competent stock market news reports in English).
Long-form philosophy blogging is a tiny niche at best. It is read by almost no one and written by even fewer.
If you want to grow this platform into something other than a (temporary) money fountain for a few of your favorites you really need to refocus on what drives, or has any realistic prospect to drive, mass engagement. This isn't it.
Step out of your myopia please, before there is nothing of any lasting value left here.
So which whales are right? (tragedy of the commons?)
Thanks you for your support once more.
Some people "get it", and some people don't. I'll be talking about this quality issue more. The post yesterday on Reputation Guilds was a good starter to get people to see how things can work differently, and possibly better.
Think about how organizations work in reality, the real world, and then think about how to really make something valuable like that online... quality matters everywhere if you want someone to be interested in what you're offering in terms of monetary value people would actually be willing to pay for. FB and others don't matter for quality, it's only attention based, so anything goes as long as people like/enjoy it. The money investing there comes from ads that target people to buy things from their attention market. It's not investing in a product in Facebook or other sites. There is no product. Steemit has a product, it's the content. Quality matters. (General message, not at "you" Dan)
It's a free market, people can do as they please. It was just a single flag, but I can understand you're upset because it was a very influential stakeholder and cost you a not insignificant amount in rewards.
I feel negative opinion is just as healthy as positive - one of the reasons why Reddit has been so successful. Unfortunately, the flag is a poor metaphor; probably riles up anarchy folks here too due to the subconscious association with governments and authorities.
I am aware there was a Downvote icon before - would rather just have that back. People would still be upset, but it's healthy for the community - particularly once influence tokens are more justly redistributed.
Agree. I always thought the icon change was harmful.
I thing all will be solved if we have both icons/options in existence ! .... BUT >>>>>>>
1.When pushing "flag" it should get a hardcoded -100% downvote
2.When pushing the down arrow it get a hardcoded -20% downvote!
PS When the downvote is -20% don't let the reputation algorithm apply (No impact) ;)
Actually it doesn’t need to get hard-coded! Each social media can have their own strategy on that matter!
I can agree with your thinking here to some degree, hence the upvote.
But it seems to me that users would still be able to create multiple accounts, likely bots, to downvote as much as they liked no matter what.
Until this can be stopped, if it can ever be stopped, the hardcoded votes won't be of much help I think.
PS I'm not sure I understand your comment now... especially since the PS. Can you expand on this idea?
I wrongly thought that reputation goes down when reducing rewards and the down voter has more reputation, but that is not correct (@smooth explained )... It happens only if rewards fall bellow zero... But still I think leaving 2 options with different % down votes will make the trick... It doesn't matter if someone has one or many accounts... Total SP matters
Maybe one option would be a form of downvote that reduces reward and reputation to zero (but not negative). That is, not expressing an opinion that the post or poster is harming the platform (and should there lose rep), but instead expressing one that the post or poster is not helping or not helping proportionately with what would otherwise be the reward payout (and should not gain or should gain less rep)
Oh right... I guess that's a good idea then. I'm very positive to it.
What about a system where downvotes/flags don't actually have an effect on anything until you get 5 of them, then you get the weight of all 5 plus any after that?
It is easy to create multiple accounts and vote multiple times. There are already people who have thousands of accounts and bots to control them. That is the nature of a decentralized system.
Nesting again... I also very much like the idea you put forward downstairs, under liondanis answer to me.
You sir, have raised a good point.
Nope, do it to the less significant, less quality, less original post on cannabis that got 2x the payout than my original HQ work. Not to this work which is timeless knowledge that simple minded people can't comprehend its value and flag it for getting too much rewards.
Go flag other people who get more rewards than me each day they post with one one single long post. Where are these "long-post-reward-watchers" with their flags on those people for posting once a day yet always going to the top of the trending page, while I don't? LMAO. Hypocrisy, lies, deception. I don't see them getting flagged. People like smooth need to stop being bullshitters.
Like I said, this is a free market. Free markets do not reward quality - they reward popularity.
It was popular too and HQ. Yes, downgrading HQ posts is going to help ANY organization thumbs up. A good message to send. Awesome.
In extension of many parameters, they actually end up rewarding both. But I see your point.
The arrogance that seeps out of that statement almost makes me want to put my puny little flag on. That aside, your post is quality to you and to those who agree. To others, they may not agree. That is their right. Other people see quality in posts you, or I, consider to be garbage. That is the nature of the system.
Without making a statement on the quality, or lack of quality of the post, I disagree with smooth's action because I have always taken the stance that the flag should be an item of censure not simply disagreement or displeasure.
What @smooth has done here is no different than what your friend @beanz has advocated repeatedly that the flag aka downvote can and should be used for. Reflecting the value of the post. You've agreed with her argument until it applies to you? Is that not a hypocrisy?
What applies to the smallest on the system, applies to the largest. So, if you want to use the flag as a downvote, then the whales doing so is just as valid as a minnow like me. The action has greater impact coming from a whale than me but is just as valid.
Community of all types is both messy and fascinating.
arrogance: "to claim for oneself, assume,"
Did I falsely claim something about myself? No, I was talking about the content, whether this content that comes from me, or other content that comes from others, there is HQ timeless immensely valuable knowledge out there.
Did I falsely claim something about the work? No, but you seem to think I did.
Arrogance is to make a claim and assume something you don't have. If you have it, it's not arrogance, although it can be boastful, prideful, etc. And that's a bad thing, for stating things as they are and people not liking the frank, bold, telling of it like it is? Ha! There is timeless knowledge and some people can't comprehend it's value in their unconscious state of awareness.
If someone isn't able of objectively discerning the relevance and value of knowledge in life, that's not my shortcoming as a false claim in arrogance, that's their own problem to not recognize it. I don't claim "timeless knowledge" about the work falsely. When someone can't recognize the value of knowledge in life, then yes, they are simple-minded because they aren't at a position to be able to discern relevant valuable information in their lives.
Flag way, have fun. The issue is about flagging HQ posts, that I make. Other people, make long posts, that get rewarded each day, and they post once, and always get to the top, while I do it a few times and I'm the target for the HQ post, not the other lesser posts like on cannabis. Go flag that instead, not this HQ knowledge. I support flagging to reduce rewards, as long as there is a valid reason, like shit content or repetitive top 7 trending each time I would post... then OK there is an issue. But flagging for my first HQ post to make it to the top 7 and over $100... wow. Yes, that will surely help any platform by downgrading the top quality content that a organization produces. That will show everyone what is valued here. Awesome.
Actually, I used both in the original comment. Appears to me that you are the one who truly 'doesn't get it'. No matter how much YOU wish to be the definer of what is a 'crap post' and what is not, YOU ARE NOT the definer. YOU are not THE ONE who gets to decide value.
YOU can decide for yourself what is crap and what has value. OTHERS will make their own choices and this time SOMEONE decided that it should apply to YOU.
What you believe is just for others, must also be applicable to you. IF when it is applied to YOU, you see injustice, then MAYBE you need to rethink your argument.
LMAO, let's see, you focus in on the first sentence that YOU THINK you can dissect and dismantle and ignore that you were being called out on your hypocrisy in regards to flagging and post value. YES, such timeless posting will surely solve all the problems of the site.
Like I said, what applies to the smallest on the system applies to the largest as well. If it's okay to flag to redistribute rewards it applies to you as much as to others and whales have the same right to do that flagging as puny little me. I don't agree with using the flag for that purpose but when you think it is okay, be prepared to accept it when it happens to you.
LMAO back at you. Like I said elsewhere in other comments, flag the cannabis post, ok, I was actually expecting it. But it didn't happen. And instead, the real meaningful post gets flagged. Seems this issue is being missed and people think it's just about the "me" getting my post getting flagged. Nope. You just "don't get it".
You don't understand the meaning of words you use, yet again. Before I was "arrogant", now I'm a "hypocrite" even though I have stated consistent criteria for flagging to remove rewards: crap posts and people who always get to the top of the trending, no matter what they post. Yet, those who claim that to be the "long-post police" are not flagging posts that make more than me, each day, from the same people, and get to the top of the trending page. Why is that? That's called hypocrisy. Inconsistent behavior, selective application of methodology to favor others (well basically long-post trending is OK but me?). I don't pretend to be something I'm not.
Flag the cannabis post at nearly $200, not this one at $100. Redistribute the rewards on the posts that don't deserve it, i.e. cannabis post vs. this one. Use rational judgment.
I can't agree more my friend!
Don't worry, the-alien's posts are on my short list as well. I'm not on a flagging rampage where I will downvote these things every single time, but I will do it selectively where I disagree about the rewards (and the value they bring or don't bring to stakeholders) and swarm voting.
Might I suggest that we consider stepping outside the constraints of a binary system and adopting a trinity of opinion. A third option. Upvote. Downvote. Censure/Shun/Ostracize/Constrain?
Upvote and downvote can be exclusively about reward allocation. The third option would be exclusively for reputation loss and post visibility, divorced from reward completely.
Perhaps we are too far down the development path for that, but it might be worth considering in future iterations.
Good suggestion and I doubt we are too far down any development path (the reputation system in particular is severely underdeveloped).
One thing to keep in mind is that despite the scary red flag a downvote that doesn't drive rewards all the way to zero is just a function of reducing net upvotes (and net increase to reputation). It does not reduce reputation.
This is what I've asked for repeatedly, but unless we get this I think the "flag" button should just be replaced by a "downvote" button. Since the change, this is how it actually works anyways.
If they see "no value in it" they can move on, no?
For what it's worth @krnel your content is always well presented and interesting. Whether I fully understand, agree with it all or not. I appreciate what contributers like you bring to steemit.
I will be flagging this later as disagreement over rewards if it continues to be highly rewarded when I check back before payout. I have no issue with being criticized but I do not believe that one of the biggest earners on the site whining about flagged once should be rewarded by even more rewards, especially when much of that is from autovotes.
EDIT: downvoted for the reasons stated
EDIT: I didn't notice the positive change to flag rules, but I'm very glad it went through!
I no longer see much reason to complain about smooths flag. My only wish for now, is that we change the flag symbol to a downvote symbol.
Original comment:
I think it's good you make clear why you are downvoting, but by using the "flag" you are also in this case abusing it. The rules for flagging are made clear every time you vote.
I think many agree with you but are afraid to stand with you because they think the voting trails dolphins will stop voting for them.
We all have an opinion but aren't able to share it sometimes.
So thanks for doing something.
I disagree in general with flagging for reducing rewards (not for this post)... it should be done more elegant as I explained ^^^ (actually I thing it's an elegant solution)
But I like what you do, knowing that your intentions are to make steemit a better place... It is better experimenting early on with the tools the platform gives us... That way we will fix many things that could harm us in future... @krnel don't take it personal it is obvious @smooth has good intentions and I am sure this debate will bring good results!
Lol good thing.
I cant stand the crybabies out there with "timeless" content.
Then he goes off with a speach about arrogance. Call it how you see it...
Pathetic.
Dude obviously likes the smell of his own crap
... and flagged because this post should not ask for rewards... just attention from the community (that's why decline rewards exist as an option before submitting the post)
I would feel bad if I had more reputation than @krnel and I would harm his reputation!
The current system must change for sure!
I insist on my previous idea!
https://steemit.com/knowledge/@krnel/is-this-quality-knowledge-i-put-out-not-helpful-to-steemit-flagged-for-quality-getting-rewarded#@liondani/re-smooth-re-liberosist-re-krnel-is-this-quality-knowledge-i-put-out-not-helpful-to-steemit-flagged-for-quality-getting-rewarded-20170115t124745501z
Both options should be available and when downvoting (not flagging) the reputation algorithm should not be used !
Even if you did have higher reputation, downvoting something which has upvotes does not harm reputation (ignoring unimportant edge cases) as long as the remaining reward does not go below zero. It merely reduces the degree by which the post or comment will further increase reputation.
That is good/fair! I thought other wise....
I am consistently blown away by your work @krnel. Please, do continue.
I visited smooth's profile, and all I could think, the whole time was "this is not the type of content that will help steemit attract, retain, or grow a user base". Having 2.6 million steem power and an opinion that smells like a butt, doesn't even remotely look like value to me.
VERY WELL SAID
The quote part was said by smooth. I try to be as eloquent as I can, but I can't take credit for that.
Thank you.
This was the part I had to commend. Those with most SP have the greatest responsibility to recognise the bias in their opinions.
I could not agree more. The post that's value was "redistributed" has, now, 453 upvotes and one "redistribution" vote from someone with too much power and not enough to do. Why do the opinions of 453 people not matter as much as one person who woke up on the wrong side of the bed?
Thank you for your support.
453 "votes" are not "people". The vast majority of those are bots, trails, people with multiple accounts and other forms of autovoting.
In any case, this system is based on amount of stake voting, not number people voting (I have suggested, repeatedly, that the vote count be removed from the display as it is at best highly misleading as I explained in the previous paragraph). Anyone can buy, or earn, more votes if they like.
justify your actions any way you like to make yourself feel better. You are not fooling me.
can you prove "The vast majority of those are bots, trails, people with multiple accounts and other forms of autovoting."? if so, please do.
if you are so determined to redistribute rewards, then why don't you give away some of your steem power that you obviously didn't earn here. your blog is a shambles, with no valuable content in sight.
i've stood up for you before. i cannot countenance this abuse.
EDIT: I didn't notice the positive change to flag rules, but I'm very glad it went through! ^^
Original comment: Agree or disagree with Smooths decision, but this is what subjective valuation can look like on the platform. Someone is gonna get their preferential toes stepped on.
It's also why the flag should be removed from Steemit.com; Because hardly anyone uses it as a flag.
It's no real change in rules. what Rules? All it is, is justification for people with an attitude who add no valuable content to the platform to do whatever they want and still pretend to be good people.
To most users, there would clearly seem to have been a change in the rules on Steemit.com (not the Steem blockchain) that told users for what the "flag" (not labeled or displayed as an ordinary downvote) "should" be used.
When clicking on the flag, the confirmation page used to read;
"The flag should be used for the following:
Fraud or Plagiarism
Hate Speech or Internet Trolling
Intentional miscategorized content or Spam"
Now, you say that
"All it is, is justification for people with an attitude who add no valuable content to the platform to do whatever they want and still pretend to be good people."
I don't think we should have needed a change at all, but clearly in this case (with even dantheman downvoting to change payouts) we needed it.
From here on we should ofc still continue discussing what the downvote and maybe even a separate flag should and could be used for. But this is a start to clean up on Steemit.com, in order to be less confusing and more attractive to outsiders.
This: "The flag should be used for the following:
Fraud or Plagiarism
Hate Speech or Internet Trolling
Intentional miscategorized content or Spam"
is no change. It is the same as it has been. Where is the part about one person taking away the reward garnered from hundreds of votes because of their self important opinion?
Reiterating an opinion often, does not make it fact.
I, personally, haven't talked to "most" people on Steemit, and don't know what they think. Indeed, how many is "most" people on Steemit? A very few, influential people on Steemit have expressed opinions geared toward justifying their use of the flag at a whim, but no changes have "gone through". Gone through what? The flag is confusing because it is only one action that unduly penalizes people when abused by people with too much power and not enough sense. Adding more reasons to use the flag will not make it less confusing.
Whose job is it to "clean up Steemit"? Batman (the rich guy), the Sheriff (the moral guy, who gets paid to)? Making Steemit the best we can falls to all of us to do, otherwise it will be just another den of oppression, and no one will want to be here.
The part I quoted and since you quoted, is what was before.
Now it instead reads;
"Flagging a post can remove rewards and make this material less visible. Some common reasons to flag:
Disagreement on rewards
Fraud or Plagiarism
Hate Speech or Internet Trolling
Intentional miscategorized content or Spam"
I agree that the flag is confusing. That's why I've opposed using it for simple disagreements at all up until now that the rules were changed.
Let's at least agree that the flag symbol should be removed.
If this is true then I must intensify my search for a better platform to which to add my efforts. If people with millions of steem power want to redistribute rewards, let them give minnows some of their steem.
Taking it from others, who have garnered hundreds of votes from the aggregate of steemians, is not adding valuable content. It is presuming to speak for others.
To some extent I agree with you here. It is not optimal. Far from it.
That's why I've made several comments in the past about some (in my own opinion) clever ways to improve on the system.
In the beginning I got no attention, then all of a sudden everyone wanted to flag everyone against the old guidelines in the name of "fairer distribution" and now it seems I'm one of the first to adapt to this change. (sometimes I'm happy I never put in much money; it let's me be much calmer, colder and somewhat detatched when everyone else is running around screeming)
What we really need are some sharp changes to the platforms scaling of payouts, in my opinion. Accompanied by better onboarding, by rewarding the voters on the introduction posts of those particular users that later go on to become successfull bloggers. That way we would have both a referal system and more people actively looking for good new writers, rather than just good or just new writers to gamble on.
Curation (which includes voting in both directions), is considered a valuable contribution, arguably more valuable than the content itself (what good is content if there is nothing to sort the wheat from the chaff?) That's straight from the white paper.
abuse
After some reading I want to add, @smooth from the few interesting things I read in your blog, I wish you would actually take time to blog more... (no resteems, and with pictures this time please ... thank you! lol)
smooth may not get a comment left under one of my comments. you left it's @ name, so maybe it will. just thought i'd let you know.
Ah, I sort thought he would considering I used the @. Thanks for letting me know.
There is no built-in notification feature for tags on the platform. Sometimes I run a bot that notifies me of mentions, but you can't count on that working in general.
I had missed that. That's really good to know about. Thanks.
I guess this is what they keep talking about things will work itself out and the consensus is that your content was rated as something not worthy of someone to take in the information you give whether they choose to or not. This shit is getting confusing. I'm about to bot it up and go winfrey. Everyone gets a vote. Don't need to see the information just everyone setup a bot and lets automate Steemit :P It's all a numbers game.
Lmao.. meanwhile I'll hand out "you're a dick" comments like Oprah, when i see em.
@smooth i kinda see where your intention is but I still don't fully understand... especially now that your going to be, literally hovering over krnel just to watch his earnings on a post that he put some work into.
You flagged already and made an example of him... if you continue.. you are only giving an example of what is to be and that is not promising
I'm not and never have been hovering over anything or anyone. I never claimed to be a full time curator. That is not how I approach things. If something catches my eye as being rewarded too little or too much relative to my own subjective views of what is best, I may vote on it, either up or down. Whether it is @krnel or anyone else. Simple as that.
I read your comment out of context.
There was a time when bringing subjects slightly beyond the comprehension of most was seen as a good thing; as improving.
Now it seems that anything difficult is chastised as 'elitist' or 'other' or not 'inclusive' enough.
If there's no place for intelligence or those aspiring to cultivate it on Steemit then the platform is worthless as anything other than a cash cow.
Some people "get it", and some people don't. Quality matters. Thank you for the feedback. Steemit will be worthless to those who actually care for things beyond money, popularity and quantity of users to make something successful.
I would have resteemed if we could resteem comments lol. I tried again to make sure, but yeah it still gives me the error.