You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Self Voting... now a problem due to linear rewards
I have been earning the SP that make my votes larger. I have paid for or earned everything in my account. Why would I hold on to my Steem Power if it wasn't in part to benefit from it? I don't self-vote as often as I can, but I certainly will do it. (just providing another point of view)
Thanks for the conversation starter.
Indeed, I am not sure it is really a problem either, BUT, I would suggest that it also should mean the price of an account should be raised, because this ability enables directly earning interest, in effect, without any part being played by the crowd choosing where the rewards should go. It goes against the central principles, in my view. Though a minnow would have to necessarily pile in maybe 50-100 bux worth of Steem Power before they would assign rewards to themselves at all.
And this is where the problem I see coming in. No posting limits, only a voting limit - these self voting people will just vote up all their own stuff and contribute no information to the network about what is collectively regarded as quality content. They will just post and post and comment and comment and vote every post and every comment will be self voted. So there is a spam potential in this, because this is how you would exploit it, if you were this much of a knucklehead.
Oh, there was one thing though. I don't like it. And from now on, when I read comments that I see a vote on, I'm not voting in acknowledgement of their contribution, because they already did that for themselves.
Saves my voting power for better things.
Self votes use the same amount of voting power as voting for someone else. part of the benefit of investing into SP. If the post is crap, they won't earn anything more than their singular upvote. create quality, earn more upvotes.
Ok, you are missing the point, and in the OP I maybe am not so clear on this.
The purpose of Steem's voting system is to filter content by a crowd-determined metric. To select for what is regarded by the community as good quality.
The old rewards system was specifically designed, as stated in the WP, to stop self-voting.
Hmm.. I don't remember the part about preventing self-voting. I could see the potential for abuse if a number of whales started an upvoting circle of garbage posts, so its a question whether or not the rewards can outpace the rate of vote power.
As long as that doesn't happen, I'm not sure how you could prevent it other than simply removing the ability for posters to vote on their own content.
HOWEVER... there is a benefit to upvoting your posts or content in that it attracts more attention and/or moves it higher in the comment thread. Pay for your visibility...
ok, i'll get it for you:
from page 16
I don't think the purely mechanical work of posting something, anything, just so you can vote it, is going be the kind of work we want people doing. It's too much like paying people to dig holes and fill them back in.
page 20:
"ONE OF THE PRIMARY GOALS" "PRODUCE THE BEST DISCUSSIONS ON THE INTERNET"...
I believe you can find somewhere in @dantheman's posts at least one that discusses the issue of self-voting, also.
I don't think the ability to 'curate' your own comment feeds ... well... I don't think this really has a value to everyone else, and really, it should not be you 'shaping' it, because you make the original, and you respond to comments. What value is there in you commenting on the original, for example? Shouldn't that be a post-script?
Here's what I'm reading in this --
I see nothing in there arguing against someone using their upvote strength to vote for themselves. I consider it advocating for the value of your own voice. If I'm going to take the time to write something, I want it to be at least worth one of my upvotes.
Do you have to impress anyone else to get a vote from yourself?
Does it really matter beyond an individuals own ethics ?
That is all very well and good, but your opinion about your own work means nothing in the context of 'quality' because quality requires other people, lots of other people, to make the same judgement. That's how Steem works, except in this respect.
free market dynamics > personal opinion
voting for yourself will never overcome that and I'm not claiming it will.
I dont care if people vote for their own work, simply put.
so we should have a limit on self-voting?
I think an outright ban. The primary target is the hordes of new users who will see this as a get rich quick opportunity, and flood the chain with spam. I don't even care about the rewards, that's not the point.