You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Why I think self voting is okay.

in #steemit7 years ago

I am under the impression that the automatic self upvote from when you post only effects curation of that self upvote, and not for anyone else that votes on your post afterwords.

The upvote is made at the time of post, and so that vote is elligible for zero curation. Then other people that vote will still get their normal curation cut. I haven't gone digging through any code to verify this, but it seems to be the general consensus.

Sort:  

If authors vote for themselves right away, they get their author rewards, 100% of the curation rewards from their vote, plus a portion of the curation rewards coming from everyone who votes for the post after them. Any other curator voting at the same time as the author would get 0% of the curation rewards. This gives the author an unfair advantage over other curators because the author can earn additional curation rewards through self-voting.
[ https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/hardfork-20-velocity-development-update ]

I think the majority of the uproar isn't about curation rewards though, so much as people not voting for others.

Someone who posts once per day and upvotes it has 10% self voting. That's a little high. They post more, it's even higher. But they might still be regularly taking time out to curate.

The worst offenders are the ones that upvote their own comments. That is definitely taking away from curation. Hopefully it's only a small percentage. Some actually rent delegation just for this. I guess to each their own.

Thanks for that quote, though it's still a little ambiguous.

I think the majority of the uproar isn't about curation rewards though, so much as people not voting for others.

Seems like this would be a self solving problem, these solely-self voters would never grow their network and increase their non-self incoming votes. If they're already a high rep, maybe they feel they've earned it?

But they might still be regularly taking time out to curate.

I don't have regular time to curate, if I'm lucky, I have time to read some of the stuff in my feed and upvote that before I have to run off and do some other task.

The worst offenders are the ones that upvote their own comments. That is definitely taking away from curation. Hopefully it's only a small percentage. Some actually rent delegation just for this. I guess to each their own.

There's an attitude that the platform allows it, so it must be okay. Well, physics allows me to punch my neighbor in the face, but I don't think it's a good idea. And, if these individuals truly feel their comment was worth a certain basic value, I guess that's actually in-line with the platform.

Personally, I'd self upvote more, but I keep forgetting to go back and do it. Plus, I generally run my VP too low to be able to waste the points on myself.

I think the real problem is based on a series of false premises in the system.
Some examples:

  1. That having more SP means you've put more into the community.

  2. That if you have a ton of SP, that you'd even want to curate.

  3. That just because you have SP, you should be the one to determine what is and isn't good content.

As many always point out, yourself included, many just don't have the time.

Bots and similar projects have also proven to be highly effective generators of SP and SDB.

Also, some people heavily into crypt seem to like some really shitty crypto posts.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.23
TRX 0.22
JST 0.037
BTC 98660.69
ETH 3408.24
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.18