You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Self-voting user list since HF19
Do you think that steemcleaners report is another example of a 'wall of shame'?
Steemcleaners focuses on actual abuse such as well-documented plagarism. It has clear guidelines as to what constitutes plagiarism, identity theft, etc. I know this because I helped write those guidelines.
This post is nothing like that. There is nothing in this post to indicate whether any of those authors have engaged in any form of abuse, or are actually contributing a lot of value to Steem/it (both are possible).
Yes, I understand now and can see the potential flaws, thank you.
"It doesn't even matter if someone only upvotes themself, if their content is good. Maybe some people are mostly content creators and don't spend a lot of time reviewing/reading/curating other content. There's nothing at all wrong with that."
If everybody acted in this manner, do you think it would damage the success, potential and reputation of steem/it?
I don't find that hypothetical to be plausible, though if it were to happen (lots of lots of high-value content being posted and no one other than the poster bothering to vote on it), I'm honestly not sure whether that would be good or bad. It's actually quite complex to work through how such a situation would arise or persist (considering incentives, investment flows, web traffic, etc.)
Good debate guys!
Cg
I don't think flagging is the solution.
Upvote+Flag=Zero is not a recipe for growth or harmony.
I have recently written Mining Steemit With A Teaspoon and the actual solutions in Proposal for New Rules Regarding Self-Votes and Voting-Rings.
Precisely. The @smackdown.kitty should not be considered the full solution. It is merely a tool in the toolbox on the way etc.
Exactly...Steemcleaners is on a different level of reporting. The report in this post, in my opinion, is raw data with no analysis.