A Modest Proposal For Improving Steemit Curation
Here I offer a proposal to improve curation, increase variety on the trending stories, and promote easier discovery and rewarding of new authors.
img source
Steemit curation mechanisms provide very hard incentives in form of curation rewards to vote for things that are bound to become popular with certainty. That fact drives user behavior through follow lists of popular authors, voting often without reading the content, mutual group voting and automated curation through bots and other tools.
Some projects like @curie look to shift the scale a bit towards the discovery of new authors, but a lot of effort is spent against stacked odds when established authors get a huge amount of rewards in a few minutes no matter what they post.
I understand this proposal may be met with resistance from these established authors, but I firmly believe that a more varied platform with a lower barrier of entry is good in the long run for everyone.
Repeat votes from the same person to the same author should weight less
My proposal is simple: repeatedly voting for the same authors should have the effect of each subsequent vote weighting less.
The numbers should be analyzed for balancing, but the best way I can think to accomplish this is the following:
When voting, count the number of votes given from this voter to this author in the last seven days. Each vote halves the effective voting power used in the vote.
So for example, if you voted once for this person in the last week, the next vote will be cast with 50% voting power. The third one with 25%, the fourth with 12.5%, and so on.
Multiple Benefits
Not only this helps promote the curation of new authors increase the variety, it has a few, very beneficial side effects:
- Bots are negatively affected: automatically voting for "sure things" is not a good strategy anymore.
- Voting rings are negatively affected: anyone controlling a large number of accounts attempting to grow them by automatically voting on each other's content will have a much more difficult time.
- Serial flagging is negatively affected: there have been a few cases of revenge and automated flagging recently. Flagging multiple posts from the same author in a row will have less effect.
- There's no negative effect for the voter or author: the vote simply uses less power, which stays available to be spent in the next vote. Voters don't really need to think and keep track when they last voted for someone unless they are trying to game the system.
Having looked at the voting code, this seems to me very viable to implement, could have an immediate effect on cutting down bots, increasing variety of the trending content, create new niches and lowering the barrier of entry to the platform.
What do you think?
I do have a complimentary view on the topic. I see no issue with having the top group of authors repeatedly featured/supported, as long as the best authors do eventually bubble up, and the under performers eventually drop off.
Agree with you. Further, I don't see how consistently good authors could even be rewarded at all under this system. Only with a revolving door of different voters? That seems entirely implausible.
It essentially guarantees that rewards shift around to new authors and eventually to some sort of flat distribution (which rewards Sybil attacking the author namespace) almost if not entirely regardless of merit.
People need to step back and recognize that "new authors" is not always a good thing. A lot of the stuff that comes from "new authors", and a lot of what gets upvoted by some of the well known curators who vote for a lot of "new authors" is pure junk, or extended to its logical conclusion deliberate Sybil attacks.
"Discovery" and some visibility of new authors is good thing, but once that is achieved, rewards should flow where voters think they are most deserved, whether that happens to be new authors or existing authors.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Would you hold the same view if this proposal decreased the power of same-author votes in the same week by 25% or 10% rather than 50%?
Your suggestion is thoughtful and I've upvoted to thank you for the idea and discussion. I am one of the authors who made some rewards in the past and now spend time trying to get rewards distributed more fairly to others.
I could live with your suggested change and I see its benefits, but there are others on Steemit who like to reward the same authors as a means of income for their work. I don't think this support should be blind, and personally I'd rather vote on content than on people, but I can see how this works well for others. If someone is producing consistently high quality material that others seem to enjoy, and has committed to the platform, then one could argue that it makes sense to provide them with some steady income, at least until they get noticed well enough for the community to take over that role.
Of course, assuming the Steem Power is spread out broadly enough, someone posting good content should be rewarded well and this shouldn't depend on a small handful of whales getting it right. But that's still a work in progress, though every day brings us closer...
perhaps if this was more like the 30 minute rule it would work better. The author would get a higher percent if you voted for the same author but you would get curation rewards. This would do most of the things above but still allow whales to altruistically support there stable of authors. They just would get much curation for it.
You mean keeping the reward in the post, but removing the curation return?
I see your point, but it wouldn't help much with discovery and variety, which I think are key to the growth of steemit. It does remove some of the bad incentives of curation.
Fixing incentives might fix curation.
Fixing curation might not fix new authors discovery. Maybe.
I understand it, and definitely support authors making a living out of steemit. But I think it's better for the long term of the platform, if, as you said, if the community has this role and it's not in the hands of one or few individuals, and this change would move this towards that scenario.
I think this is an excellent idea. I don't know if I fully agree with this bulletpoint though:
I agree that bots are adversely affected, but disagree that "sure thing voting" is no longer a good strategy.
While it's true users wouldn't be able to place repeated full-power votes for the same person; I think they would continue to upvote these sure thing posts (just at a forced lower percentage) because they aren't punished for voting for the same users repeatedly.
Bots and humans alike would be forced to use this "extra" voting power on other posts. Thus achieving the desired effect of having more authors getting discovered and a wider variety of posts getting attention.
I am not advocating punishing people for voting for the same authors repeatedly. I like your idea the way it is.
You are right, but while it may not kill the bots, I think it will harm their effectiveness.
About the FAQ, sure thing. Look me up in Steemit chat and I'll help you out.
The answer is not to use programmed procedures to force people through authoritarian measures. People should be more responsible and act accordingly to recognize new content and value it as they see fit.
And if they choose to value actual good content from existing authors, then so be it. That is freedom. What you propose is anti-freedom.
If we want a community to create a community of success, then it's up to each member of the community to behave and act according to the more responsible shared vision of the platform, not by forcing them through restrictions and penalties if they do vote for the same person because that person actually produces valuable content. That is not rational, despite the noble attempts to bring more fairness to the platform. It prevents valuable content from being recognized simply because one person constantly produces valuable content. Not logical.
The responsibility lies in the community itself. I go through 24hours of content each day in the "new" section, and so be it if sometimes there is not much for me to vote on, and sometimes there are the same authors who produce quality content I value. I should not be restricted from upvoting them, and they should not be restricted from receiving my upvotes through a restriction of potential payouts they can receive for their work.
Take care. Peace.
I don't think they are restrictions or authoritarian measures. The current rules provide incentives that are contrary to the growth and success of the platform, and this suggestion is an adjustment to provide fairer chances for everyone.
If someone consistently provide valuable content, there should be enough people voting to keep their rewards large. What is not fair is having content that is not valuable upvoted unread on name recognition alone.
Still, I think it's fair enough to be contrary to this proposal.
I do agree something should be done to give others a chance, Its always the same people up there.
STEEM distribution is broken. I applaud you for noticing that. But I don't think this is a good control mechanism.
Fair enough, I guess.
I was thinking about the lowered voting weight for repeat authors this whole time. I never said anything. So anyway, I agree that this is something that should be looked into.
See this response (I replied to @donkeypong)
https://steemit.com/steemit/@burnin/a-modest-proposal-for-improving-steemit-curation#@dennygalindo/re-donkeypong-re-burnin-a-modest-proposal-for-improving-steemit-curation-20160912t203411218z