Suggestions - Enhancing Flag Functionality on Steemit
It should come as no surprise that my reflections on bullying also had me looking at potential solutions not only on the part of user behavior but also in terms of functionality of the Steemit platform.
This is in part because I believe that the nature of an environment can and will influence the kinds of behavior that one will witness within it.
While there are several ways in which the Steemit platform may be abused (self-voting/ circular voting, spamming content-sparse posts, spreading misinformation, etc.) the following suggestions are going to focus upon the flags.
What of Flagging?
Flags are an important tool of curation. They help other users identify if there is something wrong with the content of a post that they might otherwise have clicked.
A flagged post with insufficient support to back it up may find itself 'hidden' and requiring a direct click to be revealed, And why should a user bother about a few hidden links in a sea of other non-hidden and easier available content?
One problem is that a fair bit of content does not get flagged on account of the content being of low quality. Rather they are flagged because they are controversial - but one or more persons who personally and subjectively disagree with the views stated within those posts. They differ in view.
Source
In other words they get flagged as an easy yet underhanded alternative to actually debating the matter in-post.
Another problem is that a further portion of content does not get flagged on account of the content at all, but rather such content is flagged on account of who is posting it.
Both of these constitute forms of bullying (the later one more clearly so).
How flags can be fixed
As mentioned, flags are an important tool for curation. As such it would be impractical and negatively-impactful upon content quality throughout the platform.
As such the next point of focus is to improve the way that flags function, and here are a few ideas - most of which could be implemented in stand-alone fashion - or could be implemented along with others in complimentary fashion.
Panel Approval of Flags
This was actually based on a suggestion by @ajdohmen that I quite liked. The concept is that when a user flags a post, the post is not automatically flagged but requires approval by a panel of other users.
One potential problem that come to mind include the potential delay in flagging of truly flag-worthy content.
Another is the determining who should be upon this panel, and whether this would constitute too great a shift away from Steemit's decentralized format.
All Flags Must Carry an Explanation
When a user clicks to flag a post or a comment, a comment reply is automatically started with the tag '#flag' within it.
Furthermore a flag comment cannot be shorter than 50 characters.
A flag is only posted once a comment carrying '#flag' and a sufficiently long comment explanation is posted.
Weighted Ratification of Flags
When any user flags a given post (or comment), the default weight of that user's flag is zero.
Should another user also flag the same post (or comment) then the overall weight of all flags increases by 25%
Placing One's Reputation Where One's Flag Is
At the moment there are no formal consequences for flag abuse.
This suggestion produces a simple responsibility to the right to exercise flagging privileges.
A flag Incurs the equivalent of a down-vote against the self at the beginning.
There are a number of ways that this could mechanically work. Here are a couple:
Inverse Weighted Ratification Where the person flagging a post gets whatever % of the weight 'not' attributed to the flagged post. 100% when solo, 75% with a single supporting flag, and so on (this follows the previous suggestion's numbers).
Blow-Back on Flag Veto Where the person's flag applies fully upon a post in question 'but' can be removed from the target and applied to the self if vetoed.
In these ways a user would think twice before posting a frivolous claim.
On the other hand.this also opens up the possibility of discouraging and punishing even legitimate flags.
Blunting the Flag
This involves a process where a user feels that a flag is unjustly applied.
Through 'flagging the flag', 60% of the flag is redistributed away from the target.
Source
30% is applied to the original flagging user while the other 30% is applied to the counter-flag.
Subsequent counter-flags distribute that 30% among themselves.
Flag Balance
When a user counter-flags a flag, the reputation of the highest user from both sides is measured.
The difference determines the final weighting of the flag.
Furthermore, subsequent flags and counter-flags increase the numerical weight behind the cause (besides possibly modifying the max level). This weight is equal to the number of additional users flagging or counter flagging, beyond first.
Example:
A reputation 60 gets flagged by a reputation 30 who is counter-flagged by a reputation 50
The user who flags gets 5 additional supporters with a maximum reputation of 65.
The user who counter-flags gets 15 additional supporters.On the attack: Max Rep 65 + 5 Additional Support = 70
On the defense: Max Rep 60 (poster) + 15 Additional Support = 75
Final Flag weight = -5
These are a number of possibilities whereby flags may be modified or improved. The purpose is to make flag users more accountable for their actions. This about covers another Steemit suggestion (or set of suggestions).
Source
It would be beneficial for more thought to be vested in their improvement as such could positively or negatively impact the community as a whole.
I'd still appreciate any feedback and critique that you Steemians have to offer.
Did you like this suggestion?
If so then there are two ways that you can help:
Your feedback really helps me to identify flaws and improve upon the suggestion as a whole!
Your resteem could give this suggestion some of the exposure that it deserves.
And if you didn't like it then you could really help out by letting me know with a reason why (how else am I to improve?). :c)
Well thats all for now.
Sincerely,
These are really great ideas, and I think Steemit needs a better way to combat spam and inappropriate content. I do like the idea that when someone flags a comment or a post, the flagger gets a portion of reputation or points, but then this will become an easy trick to gain quick payouts.
And giving reasons for flagging will work to some extent but then who is going to read the reasons? Will there be a team whose job would be to reach these reasons?
I have never flagged a post or comment here, and I have not idea how it works.
Thank you for the feedback @imransoudagar. :c)
I am curious - which of the above suggestions did you interpret as being beneficial to the flag-giver's reputation or points? Although, now that you mention it - a 'legitimate' flag 'should' generate some small benefit for the flag-giver.
Especially a flag that is acted upon and retracted. One way of doing this is to have a flag be approved by the poster - an acknowledgement of validity. The flag reason would still remain there but would have some indication of having been sorted.
As for how to moderate - Steemit is a decentralized platform - I think that its everybody's job to upvote or flag content, including flag reasons, to add or reduce weight to them.
I am not a flag-user either and I agree that you should refrain from such until you are properly aware of how they work (and the potentia repercussions of such - retaliation).
Thank you again. ^_^
Nice ideas. Had to zip through, so maybe I missed it, but what about punishing people who flag without solid reason? Maybe the flagee could appeal to a panel, or community forum, and if the flag found to be abusive, then the flagger loses reputation, and/or has to fork over steempower as compensation to the injured party in order to make up for losses incurred while the post was hidden?
Thank you kindly for the comment and upvote @ajdohmen. :c)
I decided to revisit the topic with an eye on the potential for the platform itself to contribute to a better situation.
There are a couple of suggestions that involve punishing a person who submits a flag that others disagree with - such does have its limitations but its a start. Ideally the flagged party would not sustain injury in the first place and I feel that this is a worthy first point of focus. But yes, some kind of reasonable punishing disincentive is also desirable so as to prevent repeat performances. One further option here is to have a user with a dfeated flag having weaker future flagging powers.
All good ideas. I hope someone is listening ;)
At the moment there is far too little flagging, i.e. so much content that is deliberately misleading / spam / hoax or just trash quality and will go through the 7 day period without being sufficiently downvoted. I haven't read your post thoughroughly, but after a brief read the only suggestion that seem practical is "Weighted Ratification of Flags", but that would require more downvoting.
Thank you kindly for the upvote and feedback @guttormf. :c)
I'll need to push back a little here, as while I am not against the concept of flagging deliberately misleading or harmful information, the "hoax" category enters a grey zone where it is simply unfair to label such as simply trash. In such circumstances it is more productive to demonstrate that elements or the entirety of a post is fallacy - than to simply flag it.
I am happy to hear that you found the 'Ratification of Flags' section to be interesting (although I now realize that I never got around to explaining that the 3rd flagging person adds around +18.75% (and a 4th about+ 14%)to all votes concerned, etc.
Some of the above suggestions are designed to work better together. More downvoting isn't bad if its easily accessible.
Thanks again fo the feedback!