Why our way of distributing Steem by voting sucks, why it does not scale and how we can improve this situation

in steem •  2 months ago

Have you heard anything like that in the past?

Reward distribution sucks, because of circlejerking and greedy whales!

When you see some crappy content which receives huge upvote, it is easy to notice that something is wrong. But I believe this is not a result of people being greedy... but rather this is a natural consequence of asking them to do something impossible:

Simply find the best undervalued content among thousands of posts in hundreds of languages about on topics which you know nothing about and vote for it :smile:

And if you are a whale...

...just make sure, that your vote is not too big for some posts. Simply divide it among hundreds of posts, to make sure that distribution is fair!

Simple, right? What can go wrong?

I do not consider myself as a whale right now. For sure around 50k SP is a lot, but still, it's almost nothing in comparison to stake of people which has over 1M SP. But there was a time when I felt like I was I whale...

Few months ago, when STEEM price spiked, my single upvote was worth almost $25.

And because back then a Steem Dollar was worth much more, my single vote was actually worth over $50. That was crazy! 10 votes per day, 30 days per month... I realized that now I am responsible for distribiution of over $15000 per month. This is 4-6 times more than a sallary of a senior progammer in Poland.

I realized, that I am overwhalmed by this amount.

It was then, when I realized... that being a whale is not only a priviligae, but also a huge responsibility.

$15000 per month could for example help me reward 1000 new users. Did I reward 1000 users? Not even close. I failed because of many reasons. But if I failed, do you think a whale which has over 500k SP have succeded in rewarding 10000 new users per month?

Why voting is so damn hard!

When my vote was worth up to $1, voting for me very easy. It was trivial for me, to find 10 posts a day, which deserved to be rewarded by $1 upvote. Things become more difficult while my vote become stronger and stronger.

When my vote was worth $10, I was able to find a few undervalued post good enought to be rewarded by $10 upvote, but rest of the posts I tried to reward with partial upvote (50% upvote, 25% upvote, etc). The problem with that approach was... that now I was forced to vote not for 10, but for 30-40 posts if I wanted to use all of my voting power. And because not every post which I read deserved to be rewarded, I was forced to read over 100 posts a day, if I would like to vote and support only good content.

Is this really possible? And how many posts would need to read a whale, if he or she would like to vote only for great and undervalued content?

Do you still think that whales are responsible for poor distribiution? Or maybe we have a more general problem - a problem with system, which simply do not scale when it comes to voting, as a fundamental mechanism of token distribiution?

We are jammed, more than a Bitcoin

When I first said that at loud to few of my friends on Steem, they ware really surprised. They was sure, that Steem has a capacity to handle 10 times more transactions without any problems. That is also a conclusion, when you are looking at blockactivity.info:

But exactly like number of megapixels in your camera is not only one thing which matters, similar big number of processed transaction also is not a recepy for an efficient blockchain. Blockchain is responsible not only for processing transaction, but also for distribiution of rewards.

Bitcoin use Proof of Work alghorithm to reward one miner at a time, which calculated a proper hash. It is important to notice, that while producing a content (a hash) for bitcoin is extremly difficult, evaluating this content is rather very very simple. That's why Bitcoin can reward objectivly "best hash" every block.

basically, whole situation we could illustrate like this:

Increasing an efficiency of content evaluation

Let's first ask silly question:

Could we implement an alghorithm for Steem to reward objectivly best content on the platform every single block?

Nope. Why? Because evaluating a real content is extremly hard, and it is even more difficult if you would like to be objective about that. If we would like to improve voting on Steem, and increase an efficiency of content evaluation, we have to understand why evaluation of content is hard in the first place:

Why evaluation of content hard?

  • lack of knowledge about a topic of a post
  • lack of interest about a topic of a post
  • plagiarism
  • different language
  • lack of time

As a community, we are very fortune that from early days, we have bots like cheatah (build by @anyx), which detects plagarism on Steem. Without cheatah situation would be much, much worse (thank you @anyx for being a hero of Steem!).

But still, we have a problem with 4 other causes. If only we could figure out, how to design a mechanism, to overcome those difficulties and to distribiute in a right way milions of dollars... if only we could learn how manage huge budgets efficiently and not spend it for crap...

Delegation of responsibilities.


Progress of humanity, would not be possible if people would not specilized. We need to understand one fact: sadly, you will never be an expert about everything.

If you have a problem with a law, you do not want to spend a hundreds of hours to learn all the law, you simply goes to a lawyer. If you want to know why your car isn't working, you are not studing mechanics, you simply goes to car mechanic.

So, when you are seeing a nice post about medicine but you are not an expert in that... why you suddenly want to evaluate it on your own seeing it has a few nice pictures and a lot of well formated text, which you don't even want to read?

If you want to achieve a lot, you should focus on things which you are good at, and you should delegate the rest of things to professionals which you trust.

This is how each and every empire was build. This is how Steem can be improved or maybe even fixed.

Allow others people to help you curate a great content

Did you had a situation like that, when your friend asked you to vote for some content, because it is awesome acording to this person? If your trusted friend would be a medicine-expert and he would say to you, that some post about medicine is world-class, I bet you would not use to much your brain power, to decide to support this content. After all, you got a recomendation from an expert in this field. Probably you will just vote for that, because you trust your friend and his expertise.

  • Suddenly, your lack of knowladge about a topic of a post was not a problem
  • Suddenly, your lack of interest about a topic of a post was not a problem
  • Suddenly, your lack of time to read this post was also not a problem

and even if that article about medicine would be written in language which you do not know, but an expert which recommended this to you would know this language, probably this would also not be a problem for you. You would just vote for that.

Don't trust, verifyTrust, but verify what you don't trust

People in blockchain space are saying, that you should not trust anyone. From a technical point of view I fully understand that. But we are building a social network here... which is about being social!

You cannot build a lasting-long relationships without trust, so you will not be able to build fully functionall social media network without leveraging a trust between individual members of this community.

Trust is subjective. Trust is also not a binary function. You trusts your friend, but this doesn't mean, that you would like to give him an access to your private keys. You can trust your friend that he is a good guy, but maybe you do not trust his ability to keep passwords safe.

You can trust your friend about everything related to medicine, but this doesn't mean, that you would like to give him an access to your SteemPower, so he could not only vote for posts about medicine... but also to vote for posts about politics which you dont like.

This is why SteemPower delegation do not solve a problem. SteemPower delegation is a binary thing while trust is not. With SP delegation you need to trust someone 100% or at all. Yes, you can delegate only a 50% of your SP, but you still need to trust this person 100%, to not use this SP against your will. And if this person will do something with your Steem Power what you don't like... you can do nothing about that. You can cancel a delegation (and wait a week, to get it back - LOL), but you cannot cancel upvotes which you don't like even despite the fact, that you funded them.

What a wise person like you, can do in this situation?

You can use a help of your wise friends.

What if you could use a some kind of system, which you could configure in such a way, so your friend could use your single votes on his own, but...

  • without compromising privacy of your password or private keys
  • only for post with tags specified by you, like #medicine
  • no more than 3 times a week
  • only if you have more than 90% of voting power
  • and with many other rules which you could customize...

What if you could stay in total control of your votes and always be able to cancel those votes which you don't like? What if you would not have to worry anymore, that your voting power is wasted, because you want to go for a 1-week vacations?

What if we could truly leverage a value of human connections, trust between people and their huge expertise?

And what if we would not have to ask what if, and we could simply check all of that? :)


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

@noisy Darn this is well thought out and written. I don't always read these types of posts. You have taken a really hard hit. The fact you didn't jump ship says something about you.

Also, you have given me a better understanding of the Whales voting situation. The ones that don't abuse their power.

I agree and feel you are right on when explaining why evaluation of content is hard. Some of your solutions I see whales already implementing.

The only point I disagree on is

What if you could stay in total control of your votes and always be able to cancel those votes which you don't like?

I am in observation mode at this time so you post could not have come at a better time for me.

·

What if you could stay in total control of your votes and always be able to cancel those votes which you don't like?

What I mean is a such possible situation: Imagine that with current system you delegated your SteemPower to your friend, hoping that he will vote only for good posts. But for any reason he decided to vote (with your SteemPower) for something what you don't like. Currently with SteemPower delegation, you can only ask your friend to revoke his vote, he he do not have to listen. Or maybe he will listen, but he is not available to cancel a vote.

New single-vote delegation system, which we've actually build on top of Steem, will allow you to stay in a control. Truth is... that this fact alone, that you can cancel a voted casted by a decision of your trusted person... makes this person even more reasonable.

You don not need to cancel any votes, but we believe that you should have a right to do so :)

The only point I disagree on is

Could you elaborate what drawbacks of such approach do you foresee?

·
·

Well, this, of course, is from a narrow perspective, mine. A little fish on Steemit. The hardest part about getting a whale vote is not getting one the next time. Especially in the beginning, later you learn if you write something good and the right person sees it it happens.

Then you know of other little guys who are in the Whales circle. They continue to get the vote even for some little post of really little value to many people. (again my limited view)

Your question:

Could you elaborate what drawbacks of such approach do you foresee?

Here goes:

It would piss me off and probably other people too. The thought would be why do you let someone curate that upvotes things you do not agree with?

·
·
·

Suffering withdrawal from not getting another whale vote is an actual vote is an actual thing but there are plenty of whales in the sea.

·
·
·

The hardest part about getting a whale vote is not getting one the next time.
Exactly! Because even if you encounter a good post of one author once, it is really difficult to come back to everyone and reads all those posts. Simply... there is too many of them!

But if a voting power will be spread among 20 trusted experts... there is much higher chance that one of them will come back next time.

Then you know of other little guys who are in the Whales circle. They continue to get the vote even for some little post of really little value to many people. (again my limited view)

From my perspective... this looks exactly the same. But I do not believe whales are doing that on purpose... in my opinion many of them are doing that mostly because finding new good authors is really hard.. so they prefer to avoid the pain of looking for... and they decide to reward an author which they know, which is above average.

But this is a problem, because this author have less and less reasons to produce better and better content... because he gets rewards anyway. That's why I do not like an idea of auto-upvotes.

It would piss me off and probably other people too. The thought would be why do you let someone curate that upvotes things you do not agree with?

I agree with that. But once again... this is an option, which nobody have to use knowing what a reaction of people can be. But in my opinion, this is nice to have feature.

·
·
·
·

I am sure you will do what is best. You have earned my respect by talking about solutions instead of leaving. :) Wishing you much more success.

I like your responses they are reasonable. I do think people make friends and there is nothing wrong with supporting your friends. :)

OMG,previously you can upvote for $25 now only $2...

·

Ups and downs....we're used to it. By the end of the next bear market that $25 will be standard

I suppose all of these things could/should be implemented to aprove the Steem blockchain!

Very good reflection, a truly important post ! Looking forward to meet and get to know you at #Steemfest3 in Krakow and take this discussion further. Steem belongs to us, those with SP, whether minnows or whales, we need to reflect - as you are doing here - and then get together to take it in the right direction.

Very well thought of ideas. I actually have 3 things in my mind how I can reverse it. One is making kind of a list, Second, is using a beneficiaries mechanism and third is to be hands-on and make sure you are not voting people and communities that are full of shit, if you know what I mean. I am far from being a whale but soon, I will do a run of these things and see how it goes... Great post @noisy.

·

One is making kind of a list, Second, is using a beneficiaries mechanism and third is to be hands-on and make sure you are not voting people and communities that are full of shit, if you know what I mean.

could you elaborate this little bit more? I think I didn't fully grasp your idea.

It is a really tough thing to solve and I have thought a lot about the game theory behind all of this and where other social networks have in a way succeeded and became what we were used to and why STEEM feels weird and unnatural to most people.

Pretty much anywhere else curation of content isn't being paid for. It is more naturally currated by how entertained or engaged a person is.

Also there is no other social media site that is this open to where so much can be accomplished openly with automation.

Since curration could be passively automated with upvote bots this encouraged the content creators to make "content mills". Producing cookie cutter content and cranking it out consistently so they could be a "safe bet" for those with the ninja mine stake.

We see content mills / content farms on YouTube that somewhat exploit what they perceive to be the current YouTube algorithm but for the most part most of the channels that have grown a big audience made sense and was entertaining to a large set of REAL viewers

The next nail in the coffin was the ability to earn a bigger profit selling votes instead of doing manual voting or even the automated voting.

Now we have these people who have been rewarded for having a cookie cutter "content mill" where none of the content they produce could go viral anywhere on the Internet able to then turn around and say

Thanks for the votes....... now you can buy my vote!!!!

Solutions

Not easy to solve at all. First of all the distribution was messed up on this platform from the start. That made the system feel way more unnatural and weird. This could be resolved on here but won't be. Strategic airdrops from the Steemit account would be my solution but that won't happen.

Trending and Hot pages have to be changed to reflect actual content that is viewed a lot. Doesn't have over a certain percentage of the vote weight from bots, takes into consideration voters reputation and at least 200 SP so that the algo can't be gamed by large bot trails...etc. Nothing will be perfect but if those pages were changed it would take the incentive for people to be playing king of the mountain with the vote bots.

There is no content produced for the STEEM blockchain that could go viral anywhere else on the Internet basically the way things are now.

Also I think that ads being implemented on the platform and then doing a revenue sharing with content creators could help make there be an incentive to actually create content that drives traffic. Instead of just having content mills.

It is a tough problem to solve but ultimately I don't feel that being able to take away a vote after delegating power will do too much.

·

Nice writeup. I just have a feeling that Steem.inc supports bidding bots nowadays, which won’t take Steem anywhere.

Posted using Partiko iOS

·
·

Yeah I haven't figured out completely what exactly the deal is but If you follow the rabbit hole deep enough the @steemit account will send funds to @steemit2 and then @steemit2 will send to @alpha and then that account is receiving payouts from @buildawhale and @appreciator .

Then those funds get sent to @bittrex like a big pile of them got sent 2 hours ago likely to sell on the market.

So yeah I don't know what exactly is going on but based on what I'm seeing it would seem that they Support bidbots if they are collecting earnings from them and then selling the STEEM on Bittrex.

·
·
·

Exactly. Not sure what their plan is. BTW: thanks for providing their transfer route, I haven’t digged that deep yet :)

Posted using Partiko iOS

Surely your answer can be found in a curation trail but this isn't going to save Steem.

Steem needs real-world adoption before it'll be taken seriously.

Imagine people using Steem to buy things in the real world posting a payment proof and you upvoting 10 of them a day so they can recoup some of their costs. Would this not be another way curate positive actions on Steemit?

Now imagine if we targeted a particular business like this for a number of months, then moved onto other companies as the movement grew. Wouldn't this real-world adoption be newsworthy?

Here in Australia Travelbit opened their platform to Steem and nobody used it, and now they are trying another shitcoin.

Another missed opportunity. IMHO

People seem to think the way you make money here, is to accumulate more Steem, but the real way to make money is to ensure the price of the Steem you already have goes up.

Real-world adoption is the tipping point we need.

And a little creative thinking could move that needle.

Bonus Points: Choose a 3-World Country and give the unbanked a reason to adopt Steem. It'll only take one merchant to get started and when a poor community realize they can get stuff for free by posting receipts, the idea will spread quickly.

"Steem feeding the hungry" - Now this is news-worthy.

Good Luck with your burden, but it's a probablem I'd like to have.

Great write up. For Steem succeed, the successful delegation of whales (and or orcas + dolphins too) to responsible curators is key.

It's not easy to find great individual curators who consistently vote on content however, esp in a bear market.

·

great individual curators who consistently vote on content

with such single-vote/voting-power delegation system, you do not need to care so much about consistent voting.

You can delegate you voting power to 30 people you trust, restrict, that they can use your voting power only if you have more than 95% VP... and those 30 people will utilize it according your rules. If 10 people among those 30 will not vote - this is not a problem, because other 20 still will be able to utilize your voting power :)

I think Steemit works pretty well considering the complexity and originality of what is being done here. But it sounds like your wise person system would be a help. Also it seems like it should be pretty easy to program something like that. I've actually thought of something very similar and it's on my list of things to do. Are you planning to create some sort of application that would implement this wise person's system?

Posted using Partiko Android

i see this post correcting a lot of mistakes done by several steemians...i feel it is very important to note that most original contest are also written in different languages but you cant vote it because you cant understand what the blogger is writing...
i dont mind serving a purpose of assisting any whales of searching for good content or assisting in upvoting original content if delegated to.
as a minnow i find it very difficult to attain a 1$ payout on any of my post so i prefer commenting on different post and expanding my knowledge for my own good.
good post @noisy, i can assist you spread the word.

Generally, you're right. Unfortunately, you have to sit down together to solve problems. Wise is a great solution, but it's just one step ahead of the better Steem.

In my opinion, there is not enough money to develop better systems. For example, you see a reward rape pool and you have no one to report to. You do not have anyone to report copyright violations.

An interesting idea (but I do not know if it works) is the distribution of money for network development typical of some cryptocurrencies. Part of the money could go to projects, part for advertising and so on.

·

you have no one to report to

Isn't that the essence of decentralization? ;)

·
·

It's hard to say, the structure of the community in Bitcoin is flat. Not here. However, there are cryptocurrencies which such funds have, e.g. Dash.

·
·

And also precisely why it would be advantageous for there to be more decentralized moderation on the Steem blockchain. @steemflagrewards is one such example but hardly has enough SP to address the problem on the scale in which it exists. Additionally, there is less of a force that is ready to seek out and downvote whale abuse. That is subject to change once I have an opportunity to build @flagawhale into what I had envisioned.

I would say greed is at least part of the problem as I see accounts every day that chose to only take. Still, I have opted to delegate over half my SP to others to vote as they wish. I have picked some I trust to distribute it well and I don't mind if they use some on themselves. I can always take it back once they have built up their accounts.

I have wondered if I could handle the responsibility of votes worth tens of dollars. I think mine was worth at least $2 at one point.

I do think that spreading the voting power across more accounts would improve matters as there would be less massive votes, but when the vote sellers pay for delegation then some will take that rather than having to do any voting themselves.

There's a lot of Steem that isn't doing any voting in exchanges and certain whales who don't use it.

There's no single answer, but it's good to have these discussions to see other options.

You could crowd source your wisdom of the crowd by leaving your power unused.
Anything you dont vote is distributed to all other voters.

My solution: the n2 and the whale experiment until a middle class grows.
We need some barrier islands between us and the whales/bidbots.

The distribution works, but you got to hold off on sucking the well dry until it supports that level of volume, imo.

I'd just vote for myself.

·

Showing yourself some love, huh?

Thanks for speaking up. If people here dont realize than i guess we have much bigger issues. I hope the Steem OG's, truly Great content creators and developers can get it together...leverage all that talent, get focused. And start pushing the Steemit platform foreward. Stop being greasy and start working hard building some trust. That would be a good start.

You're overthinking this way too much and putting too much responsibility on yourself.

·

From my perspective, this is the way how real world is working right now. You do not have to care about everything, this is far from being optimal.

And also, it looks like, this is the only way, how distributed network can actually scale. This is the way, how Linux is now built by thousands of developers from all around the world. I think we can learn something from that example :)


Watch from 27:36

putting too much responsibility on yourself.

This is the way how I want to move whole Steem forward while feeling responsible for this network, while also being a @noisy.witness. If witnesses should not feel responsible for the network, then who should? :)

I've long said that the biggest problem on here is nepotism.

People talk about bid bots, but in my opinion they are a small problem.

There are few who got in early.... and those few are only voting for each other and a couple more folks.

I see a lot of great undervalued minnow posts. I see a lot of terrible overvalued posts by people with high rep.. They know folks. They get autovoted.

The system needs to change but we can only change it a little bit at a time.

I've started trying to give out 10% upvotes to comments with my 11,200 SP which amounts to something like $0.05. It might not be much, but I see so many people with high SP that are only giving out $0.01 that it blows my mind. You need to have $0.03 in order to actually get paid out you know.

I don't like the concept of delegation either. When the whales pay themselves all their own money every day they just burn the reward pool and leave it where the votes are essentially worthless for anyone that doesn't have an enormous amount of SP.

Well, think of it this way. If someone puts a lot of effort into a post it can take a considerable amount of time to finish. One of first posts I created was about a trip to southern Italy to a town called Polignano a Mare. I took hundreds of photos and picked out the ones that I thought were the best.

I took the best RAW images and painstakingly cropped them and processed them in Lightroom in order to make them look the best that they could look. Then I exported them as jpegs. I wrote a nice story and description of my trip, and captioned the images nicely.

To make a long story somewhat short, I spent quite a few hours putting it all together. That post got 4 upvotes, and earned exactly $0. I'm not saying that to complain; but had someone like you seen it, you could have given it a 100% upvote, (if you liked it) which would have compensated me for hours of work. Even at $25, that's not a lot of money for the amount of work put in.

So I would argue that as a whale, you have the opportunity to go out there and find great content. You can look at it and see the amount of thought and effort that the author put into it, and decide whether or not they deserve an hour or two's wage for their effort.

Of course this comment is not meant as a complaint, I am perfectly fine with the organic growth that I've been experienced over time as a member of Steemit. I am a 'Dolphin' myself, and with my little influence this is how I approach up-voting. Just my 2 cents!

·

I've been wondering about the value too, my first couple posts were not much value and also not much time spent (I was just sharing links to articles I found valuable).

Then I tried sharing some art that I had created, a drawing and a poem. It's been about 4 days, 1 vote from someone who was very kind.

Yesterday I posted a much more detailed post about something I'm passionate about, that post has gotten 45 upvotes so far, but that equates to about .38.

As someone new to the platform, there's no real understanding of how this vote value actually works. Reading posts like this one are where I have to learn and I've read quite a few - each of them have differing views on how things should work and none of them actually give the whole picture.

Will I continue to invest lots of time creating posts if I don't have indications that there is a value? Probably not. How to get discovered by people who have voting power is a concern for me. How can groups be brought together beyond just using specific tags? How can you even know what tags make sense for your content?

·
·

Will I continue to invest lots of time creating posts if I don't have indications that there is a value?

First of all I need to ask, do you have any other experience with creating content which was appreciated by wide audience?

If Steem is for someone a first attempt to make good and popular content, then... everything can be really confusing. Truth is... that creating a good content is not easy in general and it is even more difficult in such difficult environment like Steem.

In my experience good content without proper marketing very rarely becoming popular. It happens but it requires tremendous amount of patience from author.

And a proper marketing of post... is a topic for whole series of posts (and for sure, I am not an expert about that)... but just for comparison... I can spend 8 hours writing post, and next 4-6 hours to promote it (very often I promote my post even before a publication, trying to find people, which would like to read what I am gonna to write).

How can groups be brought together beyond just using specific tags?

Easiest thing would be to ask is there any place where very specific group of people already gathers. This is decentralized social media. People have chats, groups, discords, telegrams and dozens of different places.

How can you even know what tags make sense for your content?

Observe other authors, which tags they use, and.... ask best authors, which tag is best for your post. You could even have a line at the end of every you post, which says:

Do you think my tags are ok? Or maybe I should use some other tags,which would be more appropriate for this article. Let me know!

·
·
·

To answer your question, no, not a lot of experience. That's an excellent point.

Related to marketing, I think that's my bigger challenge. The confusion about how to market on this platform is a difficult learning curve. How to get started is certainly not apparent without randomly finding good posts at this point, since I have not yet figured out a good strategy to find the gems that I struggle to find now. What I've read so far can sometimes contradict.

Decentralization is a strength of this platform but also makes it very difficult to get started on it. I'm sure I'll get it figured out eventually, especially since people seem willing to engage.

So far your recommendation about how to pick tags is exactly how I've been doing it, so that's helpful to know there isn't some other special place I don't know about to find out what tags are effective.

Great, I agree with a lot of your ideas, I also think that we, as a community, need to understand that this is a free system, with all the consequences that a free system has. We're all humans and we make mistakes, we're always going to find problems, and that will help us move forward and improve.

What you say about trust it's absolutely real, for example, @celfmagazine it's a community-driven project, focused on rewarding Art and Culture-related content on the steem blockchain, and we have been working hard since March, these past few weeks we finally get more external support, from @sndbox community and witness @cervantes.

We are moving forward little by little, and I suppose that is the price to pay for a project without any initial investment and with a lot of trust to gain within the community.

We can tell you that our curation team is very well trained, we vote for high-quality articles and we have been doing it during these months, we are very careful with plagiarism. So if you ever want to make better use of your SP because you may have little time for it, you can trust us entirely, either by being part of our trail or delegating.

Cheers.

I disagree and agree at the same time. Voting allows some actors to promote bad content some people find bad but if they love it anyway, promote the hell out of them. Giving people $25 with a simple click is awesome though. Keep it up!

Truly great thoughts you have here. I agree that finding great content is a challenge and I am only still a Minnow but I too have started looking how to adjust my voting percentages to better distribute. As I recently learned, there is a lot of good content if you have the tine to search and evaluate it but it truly comes down to if it is your interest and understanding. So despite trying to broaden views outside your comfort zone, there is truly never enough bandwidth for a person to truly distribute rewards. That is not even considering the language barrier you mention as I have been trying to engage more in Spanish but how do my followers think about that? I feel unsure on how to broaden my views given what I would expect my followers to want to see from me which makes the journey even more complicated. I have personally been trying to integrate with more communities here and Discord to find more active users as they may be trying to get good content but are still learning. The fact that they remain engage and are trying is worthy of rewards as well. I have also started to delegate to more projects that curate and support small and new users in the effort to help the platform and users I may not see otherwise because of the constraints you describe very well. However, I think this also improves our experience on this journey we have embarked on.

Hello noisy!

Congratulations! This post has been randomly Resteemed! For a chance to get more of your content resteemed join the Steem Engine Team

Hopefully the long awaited communities feature will go some way to fixing this problem. Creating groups that are able to evaluate certain topics and reward them.
I'd just like to say I am happy to hear that as a user with lots of SP you want to see the network succeed in the way it was intended.

Posted using Partiko Android

Why should you feel obligated to vote for more people just for the sake of voting for more people? Why does your vote size matter if your goal is to reward what you believe is the most deserving content?

This seems like a lot of stress just to try to look like a better person to the “community.” It’s almost like virtue-signaling.

Here in ‘Murica, we would call this a “first-world problem.” You’re stressing about making too much money and having too much power/influence...when clicking buttons on a social media site. It’s a tough life, bro. I’m sure everyone feels sorry for you.

I say - just upvote whatever you like. That’s how social media works.

Loading...

nice i like it great

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.


This post was shared in the Curation Collective Discord community for curators, and upvoted and resteemed by the @c-squared community account after manual review.

Your article is very interesting and I am happy that you support people with good publications. I am in the esteem community and from now on I follow you. Receive my affections

@noisy you really have a great thought process. At first I was thinking of skipping this blog because of its length but I am glad I didn't. It's really nice to see people like you here on steemit that actually care and are interested in distribution of wealth. If more and more people thought this way, this platform could be a really great one and a lot of people could benefit from it. I am a new blogger, hope to become a big one like you guys here😊

Very nice article.
(Poland rocks)

Wow, this is a well thought-out post, and you raise some good points and ideas.

I am just a small "redfish" who has been here a few months, but I am well aware of the nature of "user generated content with rewards" sites from almost 20 years of blogging.

I believe that in a situation like this where you have "stake based influence" we end up with an unusual hybrid situation: We have to stop thinking just about content and start thinking of this as a social site which includes a lot of networking.

As a larger stakeholder, you're quite right that it would be impossible for you to find and upvote 1000 pieces of content a day! That's ridiculous!

Instead, maybe, we end up with a situation where yes, you vote for the content you really like to some extent... and the rest of your — let's call them "$10 votes" — are given to people. Perhaps they are not the greatest content creators, but if THEY are out there reading and casting their smaller votes for 40-50 pieces of really good content every day (and I know quite a few who are) they add "value" to the Steemit ecosystem that merits one of those votes.

It is not merely a reward, it is also a form of encouragement: They will feel like they should continue to be "very active" because their efforts are rewarded... it's a little different approach from delegations, in that it is a direct reward, rather than an indirect one.

I say this as an active interactor/curator... I am fortunate to have two nice delegations from more more senior Steemians, but whereas that is wonderful, what also really helps is that occasional larger vote that allows me to power up my own SP on a regular basis (I have never taken rewards OUT of Steemit, except to pay for contests I had), so I can continue my work of curating, once those delegations go back to their donors.

Communities are built by PEOPLE, not by bots, code or systems. Those are just a *framework," in my opinion.

Anyway, thanks for a thoughtful post!

=^..^=

Now I better understand what is steemit all about. We dont live in perfect world. Therefore, we cannot expect thing to happen as we wish for. I hope a steemit development team did not design algorithmic codes in favor of themself?

Posted using Partiko Android

smieszne ,dajesz upvote i sam prosisz o upvote
Zastanow sie nad soba. A ten 50$ co co zarobiles? realnie ?
To ciezko wydac?
Jako informatyk,a zarazem bankier i chyba bizznesnam slabo idzie,siedzac na steemit.

·

chyba nie do końca zrozumiałem Twoją wypowiedź. Gdzie ja proszę o upvote?

AMEN
but is it du-able a Total Change on steemit ?
I think not.... so for me its work hard and hopefully become a whale so I can Change

I am with your thoughts! Some Whales abuse their power as well as bots do too...and I am seeing how greedy they have become. There are shitty post that have been upvoted and there is no control anymore on whether contents are superb, just the paid amount to bots matters. I wish steemit would do something to these abuses because how do we explain these discouragements to newbies.. they wouldn't have a chance ...

Posted using Partiko Android

Hey there, thank you for the article it gives a good inside into the "core" of the Steemit community.

I'm pretty new on Steemit and I really like the concept thus I want to contribute in a constructive way. For this, I'm writing articles about molecular biological issues but now I realized that you just can receive rewards within a week. For me, that means that issues which are written for a longer period (for instance for people on the University or at school) are in general less rewarded because there is no urgency. In contrast, poor but fancy content might get higher upvotes just because it's more intuitive. Don't get me wrong. I'm not at Steemit to become a millionaire. I just have the feeling that with the current system it could get messy one day. What do you think about this? Is there something I haven't understood or might this be true (at least a bit)?

Best regards

Chapper

hello! i had this post saved when i was in vacation in order to reply so here we go!

First of all i wanna say that this is a very well written post and i had never thought this perspective. As you say the more power you have and more money your vote worth, if you upvote someone it may be consider as a "why did he deserve a vote like this, i have more quality posts than him" and this is a continuous loop.

What i try to do with my upvote power is to firstly upvote the ones i follow. There is a reason as why i follow them and that is that i consider them as quality posters, they are active ones, they comment back, i like their posts and there is an interaction going on.

By quality poster (because there is no correct answer to that) i consider the ones that have the qualities i said above as well as the ones who don't upload only a single picture,meme or sentence.

Sadly i can't even provide all of them a decent upvote as my vp decreases fast. I mostly can give them by the prices now, around 2-3 cent of vote and sometimes i may cast some 100% votes that are about 10 cents. If i have vp after that then i try to find random people that i like their posts like i did with you and upvote their content and if possible add them in my following list.

If i were in your situation because i try to manually upvote everything too and had that amount of sp i would use some autovoting services to provide some people i like some constant support. That doesn't mean though that i would use 100% of my voting power to them cause later on i can't manually upvote anything so instead if you votes worth let's say 5$ i would give them 50 cents or 1$ if it wort 20$ then 5$ always depended on how much active i am in manually voting.

Then everyone will be happy. Note that the ones you consider as your friends, loyal followers etc etc that you would use on the autovoting services won't have any hardfeelings towards you if your vote is half or 1/3 on your 100% power. they will be instead happy that you support them constantly!

Excellent post to introduce a wise vote. :)

I missed this post but agree with everything in it. If most (or maybe even half of) large accounts just delegated steem power to responsible curators of quality content, there would be no need for so much fluffy fluff to fix this and that, nothing would be broken.