I'm not sure, I would consider this a fair system. Shouldn't the author be entitled to a larger portion of the reward than the curators, just in principle?
Is this the best and most reliable way of countering the undesirable trend we are seeing right now.
I'm honestly no sure of the correct answer on those questions.
Yep, I read it carefully as soon as you shared the link here, I'm just not convinced that the change of policy could and would double the amounts authors make.
It wouldn't. It would double or even triple the payout on posts that enthusiastic curators would consider likely to fly up the trending page.
Lots of other posts would see little to no improvement.
Don't know. Perhaps they assumed the author deserved more of the cut than the upvoters. It was just before I arrived.
I've previously suggested moving back to 50/50 as a solution to the self upvoting epidemic.
I think the fact that we are thinking about moving back to something that was previously abandoned is a big red flag and we should consider all the possible ways our suggestions could backfire. Hardfork 19 had some goals and was supposed to remedy some problems and now we are talking about fixing some of the unintended consequences of that.
Sure. But it's not only about being smart, it's about learning from your mistakes. If we are going to talk about reverting to something that was abandonded in the past, it's of paramount importance to learn why it was abandoned as the problems it was thought to be causing back then might very well reappear with it being introduced back into the system.
This is indeed an issue I'm developing a passion about and this type of thing is something we have seen in the past and I did write about it about two weeks ago - The Cobra Effect. In my opinion, we should not consider any changes before we have spent considerable time and effort on thinking about what could go wrong because of the change we are advocating.
I think that it would be a mistake to go back to 50/50 since now there is an incentive to create content. The problem is that people are just creating spammy type articles and have other people that are automatically upvoting their posts regardless of what is being said or the effort put into the post. The solution to this really has to be changing the culture on here. As long as there is money involved people will continue to upvote posts that they think will get them paid regardless of content. I know I am following a user who creates 3 posts a day that all seem to get upvoted to a $40 value which are just quick essentially news snipits which don't require a lot of thought.
One solution for the self-voting and trying to give minnows an advantage would be to set a limit to when a user can upvote their own post based on the amount of SP they have: minnows right at posting, dolphins 3 days after posting, sharks 5 days after posting, whales right before voting time runs out. (Or whatever aquatic animal that you identify with.)
This should help to incentivise whales to still create quality content while giving a small advantage to minnows while they are trying to grow their SP and clout.
why did they change it, i don't understand
See above.
reviewd the post, but unfortunatly too old to upvote it, consider the upvote of your comment as an upvote of the post.
All good. Thanks mate. I'd love to see it change back.
I'm not sure, I would consider this a fair system. Shouldn't the author be entitled to a larger portion of the reward than the curators, just in principle?
Is this the best and most reliable way of countering the undesirable trend we are seeing right now.
I'm honestly no sure of the correct answer on those questions.
I addressed that in the piece.
I think most authors would rather see 50% of $100 than 75% of $50.
Yep, I read it carefully as soon as you shared the link here, I'm just not convinced that the change of policy could and would double the amounts authors make.
It wouldn't. It would double or even triple the payout on posts that enthusiastic curators would consider likely to fly up the trending page.
Lots of other posts would see little to no improvement.
Why was it changed?
Don't know. Perhaps they assumed the author deserved more of the cut than the upvoters. It was just before I arrived.
I've previously suggested moving back to 50/50 as a solution to the self upvoting epidemic.
I think the fact that we are thinking about moving back to something that was previously abandoned is a big red flag and we should consider all the possible ways our suggestions could backfire. Hardfork 19 had some goals and was supposed to remedy some problems and now we are talking about fixing some of the unintended consequences of that.
We're still in beta; I'm confident that the guys smart enough to invent this place are also smart enough to keep it on track:)
Sure. But it's not only about being smart, it's about learning from your mistakes. If we are going to talk about reverting to something that was abandonded in the past, it's of paramount importance to learn why it was abandoned as the problems it was thought to be causing back then might very well reappear with it being introduced back into the system.
This is indeed an issue I'm developing a passion about and this type of thing is something we have seen in the past and I did write about it about two weeks ago - The Cobra Effect. In my opinion, we should not consider any changes before we have spent considerable time and effort on thinking about what could go wrong because of the change we are advocating.
Couldn't agree more.
I think that it would be a mistake to go back to 50/50 since now there is an incentive to create content. The problem is that people are just creating spammy type articles and have other people that are automatically upvoting their posts regardless of what is being said or the effort put into the post. The solution to this really has to be changing the culture on here. As long as there is money involved people will continue to upvote posts that they think will get them paid regardless of content. I know I am following a user who creates 3 posts a day that all seem to get upvoted to a $40 value which are just quick essentially news snipits which don't require a lot of thought.
One solution for the self-voting and trying to give minnows an advantage would be to set a limit to when a user can upvote their own post based on the amount of SP they have: minnows right at posting, dolphins 3 days after posting, sharks 5 days after posting, whales right before voting time runs out. (Or whatever aquatic animal that you identify with.)
This should help to incentivise whales to still create quality content while giving a small advantage to minnows while they are trying to grow their SP and clout.
@rocking-dave and @fechaugger you guys may find these ideas interesting.
That wouldn't help. Between sock puppet accounts, delegation, voting agreements... I went into detail in the article. There's really no other way.