How to "Delete" Steemit Posts + Idea Proposal for Returning "Lost Votes" to Curators/Bots Who Have Already Voted
Hey Steem-O's.
I recently made a mistake when I posted some content. I edited the post so folks wouldn't vote on it (deleted the content and posted a deletion notice), but the bot votes kept on rolling in.
My apologies to those that already voted on the content.
As I want to honor those who are following my account either personally or via bots, I am wondering about the possibility the platform implementing a deletion/payback system in this case. Is it worth it? Is it feasible?
Though the voters will still reap the appropriate curation rewards, the aspect of post quality/value for the platform as a whole and for the voter is neglected/compromised when bots vote on deleted posts and these empty posts ascend the category ladders.
Your ideas are greatly appreciated.
Cheers.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!
Great article, the title underlining that we could erase a post we don't want in our own profile attracted me to your article. Thanks a bunch and namaste :)
Namaste :)
Great question...
The problem is, in order to "become a force" on Steemit, bots are almost essential... and yet, in the case where errors are made and bot-votes are wasted, there that's a sad thing.
Personally, what I really long for is readers -- i.e., actual people whose eyeballs see what I've written, who actually read and think about it, and who authentically interact with me based on the content of what I've written...
So, I guess my tendency would be this: to simply exercise the maximum care when posting in order to avoid unnecessary deletions; and then to simply accept any that may occur, under the heading of "s**t happens." ;)
Thanks for a thought-provoking article! :) 😄😇😄
Thanks for the insightful comment. I also want a large personal readership as well. Though, the reason I was able to earn bot votes was an effect of having a personal readership.
I agree. Shit happens. Be careful and respectful of your "customers," and dont f*%# up! Heh. Reliable and time-tested guidelines for any business endeavor.
I agree and understand; I'm sure that a significant portion of my success here on Steemit has to do with my personal interactions with people who control bot votes and who have seen something of value in my work; for this I am quite grateful!
Even so, I really want "eyeballs;" people who actually benefit from what I have to say... ;)
Best wishes for the New Year, my friend! Steem on!
Well said. I agree. Ultimately it is the ideas that make this big Steem ship worthwhile!
Happy New Year to you, as well!
And yes! Steem on!
I hate to say this, but the closer to functionality you get on facebook, the more you will attract.
You know, I think you are right on the money here, actually. Once this thing is a little more familiar/accessible to the "average Joe," as long as nothing critical is compromised or changed, people are going to jump on board in greater and greater numbers.
Ultimately the value of this platform for me has been that the incentives have challenged me to create, think, and comment from a deeper, more real place, resulting--and it is no joke--in a better quality of life all around as my self-awareness increases.
I hope that others find this to be true for themselves as well. If they do, this platform will continue to be phenomenal, and will grow by leaps and bounds I think.
What do you think about a proposal of removing rewards from voting... and move those funds to those who comments. Would you prefer more auto-upvotes or good and honest feedback about your work?
I prefer votes. I think that incentivization of only commentary would result in a lot of phony comments, to be honest. Though the vote system encouraged bot voting, I don't think this is destructive or counterproductive at the end of the day. Curators must first find blogs they trust and enjoy, and then check periodically so as to remain competitive in the Steem market in case said blogs begin putting out what the bot owner deems to be sub-par, non-lucrative content.
the problem is... that you can very easy automate for voting, but you cannot automate creation of meaningful and valuable responses.
Autoupvoting bots have nothing in common with actual good curation and I think your post is yet another proof for that.
I disagree. Steemit is essentially a free market, and if bots did not serve a meaningful purpose, no one would use them. Meaningless content and sub-par posts will eventually out themselves due to self-interested curators, who don't want to see the platform fail die to garbage rising to the top of the lists. If the platform fails, so do they, in essence.
Every automation has to be constantly monitored.
Without that, you will end up with posts like this, which did not have any value, but still end up with 120 votes, which some was given by wintesses.
If witnesses are not able to check whether their bot perform correctly, do you think others do it?
Other thing... that bots can be use for abuse. Greedy people just may want to use them in efficient for them but in harmful for community way , because they care only about personal profit, and they are no care about steemit in the long term.
Value is subjective and those participating in curation retain the right to use whatever methods they please.
There are many reasons people use bots to help them vote. Check out two great pieces on the topic here and here.
Steemit is an open-source, free market platform. You may want to regulate what people can and/or cannot do with their private resources, but that is not how a free market works.
Again, self-interested curators simply cannot succeed in the long run by placing bot votes on crap accounts.
Humans long for quality, and to reward quality. Individual actors are selfish. Bot-voting bullshit to the top of Steemit will eventually be detrimental to the bot voters themselves in the long run.
As I said, value is subjective. I have upvoted, personally, posts such as the one you referenced just for the value to the platform they bring in the form of information, coversation, and dialogue.
No value? Did you notice the dialogue the post generated in the comments? It cannot be said that the commentors do not hold it to have subjective value.
I agree 100% that this platform is about quality, and then actual readers and commentary are essential to its success.
answer to this comment, because of nesting level limit:
The problem is.. that in fact, self-interest curators cannot lose. Right now the only why to lose is not vote at all, so it is better to setup bot which will vote for crap.
And because right now with services like steemvoter this is so easy to setup a bot, right now a lot of people are just voting for anything what was lately popular.
Many of those people do not care about quality.
Did I said anything about regulating what other people can do? No! They can vote as they like. What I suggested is change of rules (which would have to be accepted by majority of witnesses). I just have an assumption, that people basically vote for good content even if they are not paid for that. Why is that? Because good content very often is a reward, because its perceive value can be much greater than few cents from voting reward.
But if voting rewards will be removed, a lot of people which are voting only because of the rewards, will stop vote for stuff which in their opinion is profitable, but do not have to have anything in common with good quality.
Basically, I am not a Make Up expert, so if I would see a makeup tutorial I would no vote for it, because I do not have a knowledge to judge, whether all things are correctly explain in such tutorial.
But if I would be paid for voting for something what looks like it has great value, then I would vote for that stuff, even without checking whether this value is actually there.
If you will remove incentives, then mostly people with passion and experts in particular areas will first vote for particular content, because this is what people with passion do. They are reading everything about topic of their interest and they can very easily judge the quality of particular topic, because they see tons of other similar materials.
Most of votes were already there before any comment appear. Comment are there because that became "popular" because of autoupvotes. It is like fulfilling prophecy.
Are you maintaining that these commenters did not find value in the dialogue generated by the post? If so, by what rationale?
I respect that your position on voting is different from mine. It is my view that readers will look for quality regardless. The incentivization here on Steem helped me as an already passionate writer, who wrote and created content incessantly, without being paid, to step up my game even more and dig deeper to create real, honest, and more in-depth posts, because I now not only had my passion, but people recognizing me for it with units of cryptocurrency we both valued.
What is cool about this is not the money, but that I knew that my stuff had connected with people because they lended their own value to it willingly. Connection is all I am after all the time.
Plus, who doesn't have bills to pay?