Idea: Voting power decay should be tied to activity
With Hardfork 19, the target daily votes are set to be down from 40 to 10. Each vote will cost ~2% of your total VP, up from ~0.5%. Sure, your influence for each full strength vote is greater, but so is everyone else's. If you're a regular curator making more than 10 votes per day, you'll be crowded out from the reward pool by casual voters. The more active you are, the greater the loss is.
I have mentioned several times before that historically about 3% posts on Steemit are "good". (With the usual subjectivity disclaimer etc) Previously, this would mean roughly 50 good posts every day. Not to mention hundreds of comments. However, with a dramatic increase in activity following the price bump, we are seeing post and comment counts skyrocket to levels not seen in 7-8 months. There's a significant influx of new users, many of whom are bonafide bloggers and vloggers. I'd say there are over a 100 promising authors join in the last 24 hours alone. At the current voting target of 40 it's already challenging to reach out to even a fraction of them. At 10, all but a small handful of these users are going to go unnoticed. There are very few curators actively digging deep through the new feed, and penalizing them so heavily is a net loss for the community.
Hypothetically, if Steem were to go viral, there could be 100,000 posts and 500,000 comments per day. This is a conservative estimate, given Reddit sees 10 million+ posts and 100 million+ comments every single day!
Are we really going to force users to vote on only 10 posts out of millions? This is too restrictive and sucks all the fun out of curation. People should just be able to vote freely, not constantly think about managing their VP so strictly.
I'd also like to point out that since the daily post count went up to the 3,000 range, some bots have gone offline. Particularly, the Winfrey Guild can't keep up anymore. Evidently, the 40 target is already too much for bots to handle. It'd be fair to assume that if there are 100,000 posts in a day across a diverse range of sub-communities, bot crowding will automatically become unprofitable and a non-issue. Not to mention, there'll be far more manual users, further aided by the linear curve; effectively crowding out the few "good bots" left. Don't need to restrict manual curators to 10 votes per day as well.
I don't have a solution, but something to think about.
Get your point and agree ristriction to 10 votes doesn't sound logical. Regarding curation and channels. We badly need configurable personal channels and sub-community general channels. This will make curation on specific topics easier; We simply cannot rely on tags.
AND topic filters.
it would be nice to be able to follow topics and not people.
it would also be nice to be able to 'mute' topics as well...and not necessiarly the people who make them.
a broken clock correct twice a day and all that.
Yes, and not only on topic (simple method could be to allow configuring tags into your home channel or not; but better to have more extensive filtering). Also filtering on other parameters, like number of votes (helping curators for low voted posts), media included or not and so on. I would like to have fine grained filtering to optimise my own user experience of my own channels, and yes, I like to have more than just my own HOME channel :)
Keep it Simple Sally
start slow.
Hahahaha, agree agree, simplicity is key :) I was thinking on behalf of the deep curators and guilds in our community, they are now using none-Steemit tools to do some filtering. I would like to see these type of filtering and capabilities part of Steemit UI itself, available to anybody who likes to use it. I think this will help the smaller accounts to have their post more visible which will support a wider distribution of rewards, which in its turn will support keeping the smaller accounts at Steemit.
I agree completely.
Steem would benefit greatly for a whole BUNCH of minnows, barely computer literate.
rather than a few Geeks...like we have now.
Keep it simple sally..
Personally, i ignore the 'limits' If I see something that I like..
I vote for it.
As much as I bounce around I'd never remember to come back to it later.
right now my vote 'power' is at 42%...and falling.
This is also my practise, but sometimes I see too much. My work around: I send the post to myself on Telegram chat App. The beauty of Telegram is that you can delete the messages again, ie Telegram chat to myself became a bookmark channel for me :) Would be sooooooo good if we would have a build in 'save' bookmark channel in Steemit. My browsers bookmarking is something that is not user friendly enough and it get stuck in between all the other bookmarks I make that forms more or less a library.
Sub-communities are coming soon. According to Ned, the latest timeline is "Late Q2". So we should see it by July or so, being conservative. Tags were just placeholders while the real solution - sub-communities - were being developed. It's taken a while, but we're nearly there.
You can see more here - https://github.com/steemit/condenser/wiki/Community-Spec-%5BDRAFT%5D
Do we have any idea what the sub-community tools/features will look like? What they are?
Check out the link - it has complete draft of all its features.
Great, for some reason I thought this lik was for something else, will go through the descriptions, but at first glance it looks interesting with the public as well as private communities.
This is a really good point, I've been thinking along these lines too. Effective curation that ensures quality authors and posts are noticed and rewarded is absolutely critical. We do not want to artificially choke the amount of quality being produced. This is a tricky one I fear.
few "good bots" left
if you say so...I have a different opion.
You bring up a VERY good point.
I don't have a solution either.
As you mentioned the number of users growing rapidly, the VP should not be ristricited, insted it should be linked to user activitiy. The more user is spending time in more the VP.
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of May 10. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $12.36 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: May 10 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.