@ned likes to negate my profits on publishing announcements. I upvote my own posts to discourage people from piling on for curation rewards. It is our method of declining payment for certain posts until the GUI team can give me a checkbox prior to submitting the post.
@dantheman, I couldn't hope for a better example to illustrate how broken the flagging concept is: @ned needing to resort to the abuse flag to achieve his goal. The founder of a platform misusing (or abusing) his own platform. This is ridiculous.
We really need to sort it out and the only option I see is reintroduce the downvote button and make a clear distinction between flagging (affects reputation) and downvoting (no impact on reputation). As it is now, it's just terrible UX - we really can't afford this to continue.
If one of the founders and creators of the system is doing that, it should tell you that your idea of what the feature means is incorrect. Indeed I would argue that calling it strictly and exclusively an "abuse flag" is too rigid. It is a flag, certainly, but whether it should only be used for abuse is simply opinion. Clearly @ned does not see it that way.
It can even be primarily an abuse flag and still be used for other purposes. That said, I agree with you that there should be a downvote option distinct from flag.
If one of the founders and creators of the system is doing that, it should tell you that your idea of what the feature means is incorrect.
It also means that there is a total confusion and lack of consensus among the users about what this flag is supposed to be doing and when to use it. That's why I call it a UX disaster.
Some reputable authors clearly unhappy with their posts being flagged without a reason, while one of the founders indicates that it's OK to use the flag indiscriminately. Utter mess.
It can even be primarily an abuse flag and still be used for other purposes.
If the flag is used for other purposes, it loses its main functionality: a warning sign for the reader and a way to give feedback to the author. It essentially becomes a payment reduction tool with the unexpected side-effect of (sometimes) degrading someone's reputation.
OK, I'm not gonna raise this issue again - I don't want to abuse your or @dan's patience. I am glad you are one of the few people who understand the urgency of the problem. My mission to convey it ends here.
I upvote my own posts to discourage people from piling on for curation rewards.
Obviously the users are not educated enough to stop voting because of minimal curation rewards...
So my suggestion is when a post is already voted enough and someones wants to upvote it that a message window pops up that sais something like this:
Have in mind that this post is already discovered from many curators and the curation rewards from now own will be minimal for this post! Are you sure you want to spend your Voting Power without efficiency?
A check box to disable the voting adding monetary value to a post would be awesome, especially if it was enabled for everyone. I have a post up right now that I told people in the title not to vote on as it isn't intended to get any revenue, just a response. Would love to have this feature.
The issue is that some other way of giving visibility is needed. Perhaps it is as simple as calculating the payout in the normal manner (and using that for visibility) but with a flag indicting that it won't actually be paid out.
That is somewhat close to the idea of using something akin to the karma system of slashdot. Both for post and upvote/downvote. It comes with various reasons (tags) for upvote downvote, and gives feedback, as well as affecting the mechanics. Perhaps ways to upvote without giving money, or affecting the SP/SD ratio that this particular vote gives (or how the author prefers their reward). Will have to think about mathematical implications for such a change, of course, but I consider something like that worthwhile. Maybe even being able to specify the recepients of the reward, so that agregated posts could automate the payout for the authors they feature.
What about 2 flags? First one is a warning flag. Those who use the warning flag give the indication that the hammer is cocked and the downvote is ready to be fired. If the warning isn't heeded...full flag. Perhaps even add a 5 minute minimum for a warning flag before a full flag can be used.
That would indeed be handy. For the time being, you'll have to use the cli_wallet to manually set a post's properties such as allow_replies, allow_votes, allow_curation_rewards, etc..
Ah I see, was afraid it might have been a civil war! It still looks as though the vote bots that monitor you for posts aren't discouraged, voting earlier and earlier before 30 minutes in an attempt to beat one another, for example, @weenis, @bue, @mini, @healthcare, @boy, @bunny, @moon, @helen.tan, @yarly*... They used to follow me too but looks like I'm off their list haha..
@ned likes to negate my profits on publishing announcements. I upvote my own posts to discourage people from piling on for curation rewards. It is our method of declining payment for certain posts until the GUI team can give me a checkbox prior to submitting the post.
@dantheman, I couldn't hope for a better example to illustrate how broken the flagging concept is: @ned needing to resort to the abuse flag to achieve his goal. The founder of a platform misusing (or abusing) his own platform. This is ridiculous.
We really need to sort it out and the only option I see is reintroduce the downvote button and make a clear distinction between flagging (affects reputation) and downvoting (no impact on reputation). As it is now, it's just terrible UX - we really can't afford this to continue.
I made a post today arguing for this.
If one of the founders and creators of the system is doing that, it should tell you that your idea of what the feature means is incorrect. Indeed I would argue that calling it strictly and exclusively an "abuse flag" is too rigid. It is a flag, certainly, but whether it should only be used for abuse is simply opinion. Clearly @ned does not see it that way.
It can even be primarily an abuse flag and still be used for other purposes. That said, I agree with you that there should be a downvote option distinct from flag.
See where people walk -- and then put the walkway there. It's a flag. If we are supposed to think of it as a reward reduction make it look like one.
It also means that there is a total confusion and lack of consensus among the users about what this flag is supposed to be doing and when to use it. That's why I call it a UX disaster.
Some reputable authors clearly unhappy with their posts being flagged without a reason, while one of the founders indicates that it's OK to use the flag indiscriminately. Utter mess.
If the flag is used for other purposes, it loses its main functionality: a warning sign for the reader and a way to give feedback to the author. It essentially becomes a payment reduction tool with the unexpected side-effect of (sometimes) degrading someone's reputation.
OK, I'm not gonna raise this issue again - I don't want to abuse your or @dan's patience. I am glad you are one of the few people who understand the urgency of the problem. My mission to convey it ends here.
Obviously the users are not educated enough to stop voting because of minimal curation rewards...
So my suggestion is when a post is already voted enough and someones wants to upvote it that a message window pops up that sais something like this:
A check box to disable the voting adding monetary value to a post would be awesome, especially if it was enabled for everyone. I have a post up right now that I told people in the title not to vote on as it isn't intended to get any revenue, just a response. Would love to have this feature.
The issue is that some other way of giving visibility is needed. Perhaps it is as simple as calculating the payout in the normal manner (and using that for visibility) but with a flag indicting that it won't actually be paid out.
That is somewhat close to the idea of using something akin to the karma system of slashdot. Both for post and upvote/downvote. It comes with various reasons (tags) for upvote downvote, and gives feedback, as well as affecting the mechanics. Perhaps ways to upvote without giving money, or affecting the SP/SD ratio that this particular vote gives (or how the author prefers their reward). Will have to think about mathematical implications for such a change, of course, but I consider something like that worthwhile. Maybe even being able to specify the recepients of the reward, so that agregated posts could automate the payout for the authors they feature.
What about 2 flags? First one is a warning flag. Those who use the warning flag give the indication that the hammer is cocked and the downvote is ready to be fired. If the warning isn't heeded...full flag. Perhaps even add a 5 minute minimum for a warning flag before a full flag can be used.
That would indeed be handy. For the time being, you'll have to use the cli_wallet to manually set a post's properties such as allow_replies, allow_votes, allow_curation_rewards, etc..
awesome...heh clever (good point about there being limits to all types of dollars)
Ah I see, was afraid it might have been a civil war! It still looks as though the vote bots that monitor you for posts aren't discouraged, voting earlier and earlier before 30 minutes in an attempt to beat one another, for example, @weenis, @bue, @mini, @healthcare, @boy, @bunny, @moon, @helen.tan, @yarly*... They used to follow me too but looks like I'm off their list haha..
amazing man, SURREAL