You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: If you buy votes, f**k you.

in #steemit7 years ago

Buying votes is one kind of promoting, I don't think it is bad. However, I do think selling votes is bad, because it makes everyone selfish and votes only for profit. I would suggest that the official team sell the votes and burn all income.

Sort:  

I don't agree at all that buying votes is a kind of promoting. I believe vote buying to be no different than buying answers to a test rather than actually studying for it. It puts unqualified people at the top.

@winstonwolfe And people on here that upvote their own comments? What about them? ... And no I'm not talking about you , but my point being maybe there are a lot more issues out there than just buying votes. Would paying yourself for your own comments not be in the same boat? Multiple accounts all upvoting each other? same boat?

Also I get your frustration , but honestly, what do you expect these people to do? Some people probably spend a lot of time making a post and in the end it's just like posting to the wind. They are frustrated that no one sees or cares what they post , and they've been given a method of changing that (sort of anyway) So ... really ...what do you expect them to do?

Maybe they need other ways to progress on steemit instead of someone telling them 'f you' ... I personally think the contests and challenges are a good way to progress on here ... especially when you are just starting out. Provide a method that's easy to use and anyone can do ... and people will use it ... no matter what the method is.

Now don't get me wrong ... I'm not defending 'shit' posts and I have used bid bots two or three times since I've been here (so I'm sure I will get an 'F You' from you) , but honestly I don't like to use them and I don't for the most part ... Also I don't even think they work in all honesty ... I think a poster would be pretty damn lucky to make their money back when using bid bots. And it would seem the ones benefiting the most from them are the people that run them.

And as I read your post the first time (soon after you posted) I wasn't sure how to reply or even if I should ... but one of the first things that came to mind is that it's definitely not about quality all the time ... and leave the bid bots out of it ... I'm talking about people on here that can pretty much post anything and it'll make money and get upvotes. Hypothetically let's say that the most popular bloggers on Steemit post an image of a steeming pile of dog shite ... Do you really think that it wouldn't get any votes because it's not a quality post?

And besides that ...first of all ... Why? ... I think you have to ask why do people upvote in the first place? Do people upvote because they actually like that posts? (look at upvotes vs views) ... or Do people upvote because they want to support the poster? ... or ... Do people upvote popular posts from popular bloggers that they think will do really well?

I don't know the answer ... but I think it's certainly something to think about... And maybe they are other ways to encourage people to use other methods to progress on Steemit.

Even in an election, the official who is running for office is allowed to vote for him/her self. That's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. Sure, it stings a bit to see when someone who has REAL voting power upvote themselves, but it's a fact of the system.
Yes, buying votes is ALSO a fact of this system, and that's incredibly unfortunate.

HOWEVER, I don't consider those things to be nearly the same thing at all.
Voting for yourself DOES NOT = buying votes. So although you're trying to deflect my argument about vote buying, it's not very effective here because you're saying,
"Apples? But what about those ORANGES!?"

Well wait a sec now ... It wasn't my intention to deflect anything .

And I meant upvoting ones own comments not posts. I've seen people on here trying to get others to reply just so they can reply back and upvote their own comment (and I'm talking a few dollars per own self upvote here not cents) ... and multiple accounts owned by the same person all upvoting each other? Personally I think that fits in the category of 'rewardpoolrape' ... but we may have to agree to disagree there.

Just to be clear though , I don't actually disagree with you about the bid bots ... and do agree that they are not good for steemit ... but in the end i was just trying to say in the previous comment that there must be a way to help the minnows / plankton from getting lost in the ether. Steemit changed quite a bit when they had that massive influx of new users last year sometime. It was a lot easier to be noticed , ... now not so much imho. I'm not sure if Steemit would retain new users if hardly any of their posts get noticed.

I'm not trying to change your mind on the matter ... and I'm not trying to argue with you ... I'm just trying to provide another point of view. That might be somewhat helpful .. maybe ... I dunno ...

Anyways I do appreciate you reading my comment and replying so ... thank you for that.

Sorry for that. Had someone else pull up a graphic of my main supporters and it was mostly me voting myself. It's hard to say that's a good case for reward pool rape when my vote is worth about 6 cents. I'm a bit fuzzy on how I feel about self-voting. There should be a cap, perhaps.

Even in an election, the official who is running for office is allowed to vote for him/her self. That's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. Sure, it stings a bit to see when someone who has REAL voting power upvote themselves, but it's a fact of the system.

Well, lets look at where that voting power comes from. It comes from holding a certain amount of currency. That currency was bought either with some other currency or with sweat. So you are in effect buying votes. I'm not mad at you though. The whole community has the ability to review your work and determine if your self vote is justified or not. The same holds true for people who buy votes. They have to have money in order to buy votes. That money must come from one of two sources; sweat or outside currency. If they earned SBD by making 20 posts in order to upvote their content, that's sweat. If they converted BTC, LTC or Fiat to Steem in order to be able to purchase votes, they did it with money. Just like you, a self-voter, they have paid for their privilege.

The solution to the problem is a revamping of the algorithm that determines trends. It really sucks because it depends on whales to curate steemit...and honestly, I don't think they do a great job of it. Some definitely do, but most don't. And I don't necessarily blame them. Does a milllionaire really have time to go through 50-100 posts a day to find something to upvote? I doubt it.

Disclaimer: I self-vote too, but I never feel right when I do it.

It is ultimately not the responsibility of Steemit Inc to dictate morality, that's what the community's job is. In the actual world of social animals, communities will take part in ostracizing members of that community who step out of line or cause harm to the community. In other words, good luck getting Steemit Inc to change anything. There are certain functions we need to be grown up enough to take care of ourselves - as a community. We can bury our heads in the sand - which I'm guilty of until recently - or we can take part in cleaning up our own community.

Or we can be lazy and say, "If you can't beat em, join em!"

True, but don't underestimate what we can do on our level without steemit. The blockchain is just a database and we can present the data any way we see fit. We just have to convince some website designer that there is a demand for it.

To clear this up a bit, what I mean is that other websites such as busy.org do not have to display the same data the way steemit does. They can come up with their own trending algorithms. It won't change post payout, but it will change the focus of new users. They can do the same thing with rep. On steemit, rep is based entirely on the amount of upvotes earned. On a different site, there could be a rating system based on opinions of those with whom you interact.

Those are just two examples which would require no change to the blockchain. No hardfork necessary, just innovation and a lot of advertising.

PS
Morality can never be legislated successfully, but there's no harm in giving citizens more information upon which they can base their morals.

Whats the difference between buying upvotes and doing ads? Arent terrible content creators or badly run businesses allowed to run ads? This platform needs money in. How will it survive if people arent investing in it?

I really don't know what you mean. I don't consider any of what is happening here "advertising". I post because it's a blog. And those posts make me money. And that money is everyone's who wants to take it. So here we are, all of us, on our hands and knees coming to get it. This wild-west "but the system is setup with the ability to game it" excuse is bullshit.
This place is upside down. The original intention behind it was to get the best content bubbling to the top. It's the complete opposite. I mean, is that what you want? When you come here, do you want to see shit posts like that trending?
It's like,

And what's more is I know I'm probably fighting a losing battle. And I'm not sure what irks me more:

  • the fact that by nature people really can't be decent
  • or that people excuse and defend it

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.21
TRX 0.20
JST 0.035
BTC 91288.71
ETH 3149.19
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.08