You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Trinity of Consciousness Symbolism
flagged as "disagreement on rewards"
In my subjective opinion this is not the type of content that will help steemit attract, retain, or grow a user base, nor will incentivizing it with high rewards do so. Fine if people wan to post it but I see no value in highly rewarding it.
YOUR A DICK
Disclaimer: I don't think @smooth is a dick. Just helping the Grammar Police to better clarify the error 😀
Lol
How to upvote smooth's upvote?)
Call him a dick with a grammatical error so smooth.... it comes out as a literal dick.
Careful smooth... You're redistributing the rewards to all the posts you didn't vote for...
The context there was declining rewards on your own posts. Why would I downvote myself? All of my posts are great!
You are welcome to join the discussion and not just screenshot it by the way. Good exchange of ideas and people thinking about how to make Steem worth more, and whether directions being taken are the right ones (so far, generally not).
I wouldn't want to impose on your echo chamber / safe space. You're a character I used to have a lot of respect for as a member of the community smooth. I even worried about you and others who got a lot of stick back when the price was higher.
You claim "distribution is more important than quality" if quality is subjective then you go voting for the same content lazily because it's easier to predict that way. Let the people who actually care worry about user retention. You claim "redistribution" when you flag and then complain that the content here doesn't suit your interests and you have to support those who do even if they clearly (just check how few views and comments) clearly don't suit the interests of your userbase.
You're like a Facebook investor who buys shares in Facebook and then complains that everybody writes crap you don't wanna read... Then you complain when the user base drops after you went around using your flag as a weapon to force people to change what they wrote to suit you better.
You can claim subjectivity all you want but your actions cause reactions because of the power of your vote so if you can't open your eyes to the value of something that interests more than 200 readers then watch as this place gets quieter.
What do I know though. I don't know if you care about the interests of others. I can only assume based on how you vote that you don't.
We have all been watching how well your daily choices are building the platform.
My 'daily choices' are very few. I haven't been voting all the much recently but when I do it is always to try to build the platform.
I'm trying to understands your rationale here. Is it your opinion a single post on the trending page for a day or two containing content you don't find valuable (but others do) will actually impacts the future of steemit? One of the draws of steemit is a community rewarding content they value. Your actions communicate it's not what the community values that matters, but what the whales choose to not flag. Is my incentive to become a whale that I can dictate to the community how their post reward distribution opinion is wrong for the future of steemit based on my subjective perseption of value?
That's not very appealing to me. I've defended much of the great work you've done for the platform here, but I'm confused by this action. Maybe I'm missing some larger picture?
One more thing I'll add
Most of the rewards on these posts come from whale (or at least demi-whale) upvotes. Don't fool yourself that it is minnows driving these posts to Trending; it isn't. It works both ways. If someday the stake distribution is different, then that will be different too, but for now it makes no sense to assume whale upvotes are legitimate by default but condemn whale downvotes. It is all a formula that allocates rewards based on a consensus (even if not perfectly uniform agreement) of stakeholders.
Just look at the views on this post!! (They were over 200 before you flagged) It's crazy to assume people didn't really find value in it. It looks to me like you're eager to counter Dans vote maybe because he countered yours? Is this like a retaliation counter vote?
I think there is too much long form content that pays the writers but doesn't help attract users nor invite them to participate in a meaningful way. Yes they may come to read, and that has a degree of value (and I don't see a problem with the long-form posts being posted and attracting search traffic) but when most or all of the money is going out to a few professional or effectively professional writers who repeatedly post long essays nearly every day it becomes a problem of balance. "Content" isn't enough; that only brings search traffic and readers, potentially, if they are interested in the topic (another strike here, in terms of wide appeal). We need to reward the type of content and participation where a wider range users who don't have the time, talent, or interest to write hundreds or thousands of words on a regular basis can and will participate.
Of course as we all know, much is subjective but I think it is time to try to shift the approach a bit. So I am expressing my view here. The status quo is not a roaring success by any means.
A few thoughts and some questions for clarification. It was my understanding that the downvote was to be used for poor quality content. When I saw how much time and effort it appears was put into this post, I admit I was surprised and confused by your choice. Reading through your explanation am I correct in concluding your intention was to put some of the rewards back in the pool to make it possible for more authors to benefit? If so, how much would you say was fair for this post, as in what amount would you have allowed it to make before making the decision to downvote? I'm still new enough that there are many people I've yet to come across, this is the first post I've ever seen by krnl, but again if I understood correctly, you're saying he often writes long essay posts that earn a great deal? As in, if this was not reoccurring you would not have chosen to downvote it?
Also, what type of material would you consider beneficial for increasing the traffic to steemit? (I am working on my pitch for a number of talented/creative friends therefore it's important that I know whether or not they will be well-received)
I'm actually thinking of @nonameslefttouse when posing this next question: You mentioned subjective a couple of times, are you able to be objective about my previous question, i.e. can you recognize what types of material and entertainment would draw a broader audience here whether or not you personally like it?
that makes sense too. I do like and vote for many @krnel's posts. But they do take time to read. hehe
@dreemit
I can't reply to your comment since there is a limit on reply nesting, so I'll comment here
The downvote is to be used however the voter thinks is best. Everyone owns her or her own vote power and there are no "official rules" on such things here.
As you say, when a post is downvoted and the reward is reduced, that goes out to other posts and comments; the reward pool is a fixed amount per day so voting is just all about how to distribute it. Downvoting one post does not mean that post is worthless trash (necessarily; in some cases it could), it means a belief on the part of the voter that the allocation of rewards to that post is excessive.
All of this is subjective. You ask if it weren't a repeated pattern would that make a difference and the answer can only be "maybe". I see plenty of things on the site that I disagree with or look "off" to me, but as a one-time occurrence I often just let it go. When it becomes a pattern of what in my subjective opinion is misallocation of rewards then I am more likely to bother to express that. As others know, I'm certainly not singling out @krnel here, and I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with his posts, I just think at least some of the rewards better used elsewhere.
Nesting. Yes, we own our vote power, if you chose to vote on someone simply because you liked them you could do that, or downvote them because you didn't. But for the good of steemit means you would not make flippant choices, correct? I'm not giving you a hard time, I was curious as to your thought process is all. What does Sorry OT mean, haha, you saw some of my finer work right there LOL...I think I could have done better on New Year's eve after the nine percent beer. Poetry and I are at odds for the most part, especially when my brain is tired. Objective was to make a friend laugh, it should be just terrible enough to accomplish that :)
@dreemit
Off Topic, since I was posting on another thread about something unrelated; just so you would see it
I agree
What you're saying is we all need to forget about blogging and support steemsports. Cause it's your fave :p
"Is my incentive to become a whale that I can dictate to the community how their post reward distribution opinion is wrong for the future of steemit based on my subjective perseption of value?"
Yes, actually. (in a a large or small way) For good or bad, this is how Steem was set up. I'd like to see massive improvements to the process, but this is not going away.