You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proposal To Remove Up-Vote Option From Feeds
Whether or not this is a good idea (I'm honestly undecided), it's not actually possible. Bots vote directly on the steem blockchain, not through an interface like steemit.
If you took away the option to upvote without opening, you'd incentivise more bot voting, not less.
Glad you're thinking about this stuff though. It's beta, and we need all the clever, creative thinkers we can get.
Ok, so maybe bots can't be stopped. Can we at least incentivize good human curation? What percent of curation rewards are given out to bots? I don't want to be part of a project that is rigged by robots. If there isn't any room for human intelligence on this platform, then I'm out. I thought this was supposed to be a Proof of BRAINS algorithm.
We can't know, the blockchain doesn't see a difference.
Bots are just an extension of their human programmer, and can't be as smart in the moment as he is, he can only program them for so many potential scenarios.
I don't think it's as big a problem as people think.
If we ever get AI right, it might be a different story, but it's no worse than somebody having a buying/selling bot on the stockmarket.
We use computer programs to automate things for us all the time, this is just a continuation of that. (We're not having this conversation face to face for example)
Ok, sure. So it's safe to assume that the best curation being done right now is by humans. I think it's also safe to assume that plenty of unhealthy curation being done by humans. All on the website's interface. So why not structure the interface so that human curators are more likely to be using their skills for good instead of just mimicking what the bots do?
Curation is subjective. What you think is quality I might hate, which makes it difficult to judge what failure and success look like, and also makes it dynamic.
What the current SP holders love right now might be repugnant to those who hold the SP a year from now.
I've previously suggested that we move back to a 50/50 author curation reward split, which has just been also suggested by blocktrades today, and met with lots of enthusiasm, particularly from Ned.
This would make quality curation more lucrative than self upvoting, and go a long way toward rewarding quality.
I agree that there is some subjectivity to writing, but quality is easy to recognize. In school there is a big difference between an A paper and a D paper. If you had ten people read both of these hypothetical papers, the majority would be able to tell you which one was better. It doesn't just come down to the subjective bias of the reader.
I agree with you that it might be good to go to a 50/50 split with authors and curation. If we do do that, we need to structure the site so that people are chasing quality, not just being at the bottom of a dog pile. The only way people can discern what is good content and what isn't is for them to actually read the content. It's better to have educated voting.