RE: [Dear Steemit] An Open Letter to Steemit Inc.
That may just be treating the symptom more than the problem.
I have expressed in past posts (my opinion hasn't changed) that downvotes and reputation should be inversely calculated. The reason for this is that IMHO, every single downvote reduces your credibility as a content curator and that should be reflected as such. Each downvote is a negative reaction to content; therefore, (even in good intentions) it the downvoter should be affected negatively. To be clear, I don't think downvotes are bad, it's just that they reduce credibility. It should be reflected as such in your reputation. I'll bullet for clarity
- Curator at (70) reputation finds bad content
- Curator downvotes bad content
- Reputation is now (69-ish)
That's a simplified explanation for brevity. The advantage here is that you need reputation to downvote. For more affective downvotes, you need more reputation. As you downvote, your reputation drops because your credibility drops. This forces curators to not just downvote, but to engage in the community for support and produce content in order to gain more influence for downvotes. This also begs the question whether content upvotes should be the only path to reputation increments.
It's a set of checks and balances to prevent bullying. Also, it allows communities to vet curators. Better curators will have higher reputation and will be more affective at downvoting because they have community support through upvotes. Bad curators won't have that support and their reputation will stay low reducing their ability to downvote. This allows curation communities like steemcleaners and qurator to have more control.
I also think that reputation shouldn't be calculated linearly. It should be a matrix calculation based-on community standing and tagging. Perhaps even a single reputation value may not be enough. That is another discussion though. I'm just saying I think the solution here is a pretty involved one.
Your technical ability far exceeds mine! Some really good ideas there though, and I think a more complex system is definitely needed personally. You're definitely onto something when you say it would keep Curators in check. I can see why people might take issue with this idea, but at this late stage in the game I think we need to try a few different methods out. Right now, reputation doesn't mean anything since it can basically be bought.
Exactly. Many people complain about downvoting and call it censorship, but I think what they really have a problem with is the whole reputation system.
I noticed on busy.org they just have likes and dislikes, which I think clears the whole thing up a bit. I realised the other day that if you compare Steemit to YouTube, another platform that's monetised, the whole dislike thing isn't that big of a problem here.
I agree that it's the reputation system that needs more focus, or just heck, Steemit Inc do something! The whole "censorship" argument just comes across as childish to me
Steemit recently released hivemind api that would allow communities to build with better integration to the social media system having to be coupled to the blockchain. I mention this because I think steemit really favors community involvement and crowdsourced curation initiatives.
Therein, may exist the solution. To let community standing become the new reputation system. I like this concept because it's like the Wonka elevator of reputation systems. It doesn't have to follow a simple linear calculation or even be a number. Each community can handle standing differently.
I haven't read about that, off to go do some research now. Definitely sounds like an interesting idea.
It takes Steemit so long to get anything done, I just wonder whether it's got the long-term potential I want it to have. I've been looking into existing and upcoming alternative platforms, and there are a couple that could absolutely blow Steem and Steemit out of the water.
I think STEEM is too big to fail, but steemit not so much. It seems like they're going in a lot of directions all at once, but they're also spread way too thin. IMHO, they should dump the condenser. There are a number of interfaces out there that do it better (busy, zappl, pretty much anything...). It takes focus away from them being able to build a platform, tools for the blockchain, and witnesses. It's time to throw in the towel on that one. They've proven decentralized condenser works.