RE: Possible solution to content flooding the blockchain with junk. "The 24 hour new article probationary period"
A minimum of 3 comments is received on the post in that 24 hour period
This will merely create an additional layer of work for them. Queue automated comment bots. No sophisticated review AI quality required like the neural network AI bots which (my soon) operate on Yelp and Amazon.
Three comments is also very steep an entry bareer for new Steemians.
I think we need a higher level of sophistication than the probationary period.
Instead I suggest that a karma alike system, or some algo like Digg at some point applied gradually making it more difficult to earn the same. That also based on how often one posts in each period.
In other words, as you churn out content, hopefully quality content, you will always need more votes to earn the same. Which shouldn't be too big an issue for those who generate high quality content since with each new article they will gain new followers.
Not wanting to dismiss the issue, it does happen and that not solely by sploggers from not First World btw. I've seen quite some First Worlders making $3-6/post, crap post after crap post, heck... I have even seen it from a witness.
Well it depends on what the article is about.
I think people are more apt to leave comments if they really don't know who wrote the article and want to comment on the article itself
Agreed. The issue is alive and needs to be addressed. We can pretend it can just continue. But if we times the current traffic here by 1000x the same problem will be 1000x worse as we grow.
Interesting, I don't know much about Digg or a "karma alike" system. Sounds appealing.
Digg was pretty much a discovery platform, like Reddit at heart. Users submitted links, followers upvoted. The more upvotes you got, the more chance you had to land on the frontpage and thus crash a server in those days.
The Internet being a platform made for, and by, humans, of course, financial opportunities were quickly spotted and the top submitters were often approached with financial incentives. As the issue became more known, and widespread, the requirement to rank became always more complex. Pretty much like Google algo updates.
Often, Digg did annoy its top users because platform updates were created to level the playing field and diminish the weight the top submitters carried with them.
Now I'm pretty sure that a more sophisticated automated, neural even, approach can solve issues like this much better than additional layers of requirements which only make the entry level steeper and can become counter-productive.
Concrete example: I'm rep 54, very often do dedicate lots of time creating decent content, or at least what I think counts as decent quality. But I suck at self-promo. Would this or this have made it through the 24hrs of approval gate, passed Heimdal?
Nope.
I'm not saying those aticles are your cup of tea or that they are good. But who's to judge?
Why wouldn't I then go and publish elsewhere? Yet, while I see potential and love the Steem blockchain, I am working on two projects, one for Steemians and another one to promote all awesome (tech) happening on the Steem blockchain.
Don't make the bareer to entry too high. Many people like spam. TV channels and tabloid rags are the perfect example of this. IMHO an algo that grows the difficulty to earn, as we send more 0s and 1s to the blockchain, is a smarter approach.
Unless elitist is what we want to be, of course.
The curators. That's how this system was designed.
Well we could always preserve the non-winners, simply don't pay them, and allow them to be posted on spam websites for those failed starts. We could call it steemit-rejects.com
Of course not. We just need to find a healthy point. I don't think we're there yet.
Right now the healthy part is being hidden by the constant spam. We need a tweak.